The Right to Bear Arms

jimt 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Part 1.

Von Salzen: "But the court held that a ban on an entire class of firearms that was overwhelmingly chosen by American society for a lawful purpose was unconstitutional and invalid. That case involved hand guns. But semiautomatic rifles are also widely held and used by Americans for lawful purposes. “Assault weapons” are simply semiautomatic rifles that look like some military weapons.

The Second Amendment certainly applies to semiautomatic rifles and pistols"

Maybe. But maybe not:

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a constitutional challenge to a 1990 New Jersey law that banned assault weapons.

Those challenging the law included a group called the Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen, two firearms manufacturers, a licensed dealer and individual firearm owners.

They argued the ban was unconstitutionally vague and violated their constitutional rights to free speech, free association and equal protection.

A federal judge and then a U.S. appeals court upheld the law. Violators of the ban face between three and five years in prison.

In appealing to the Supreme Court, the opponents said the law covered 66 named models and "substantially identical" firearms. They questioned whether it provided sufficient notice to firearms owners and adequate standards for the police.

New Jersey defended the law, saying it was not intended to cover firearms used for legitimate hunting or target shooting. It said the federal government had banned the imports of 58 types of assault weapons and had outlawed such weapons.

The state said no compelling reason existed for the Supreme Court to hear the case and added that the law did not violate any constitutional right. The justices denied the appeal without any comment or dissent."

"D.C.’s ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines doesn’t violate the constitutional rights of residents in the U.S. capital, a federal appeals court ruled."

"The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington today also upheld registration requirements for handguns put in place after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2008 ended the city’s almost total ban on firearms. The three-judge panel ordered a lower court to further review other aspects of Washington’s gun control law, such as its limits on multiple purchases.

“The District has carried its burden of showing a substantial relationship between the prohibition of both semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than 10 rounds, and the objectives of protecting police officers and controlling crime,” Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote in the 2-1 ruling. The challenge to the restrictions was brought by Dick Heller, the plaintiff in the 2008 Supreme Court case, who argued that the District of Columbia’s gun laws are so burdensome as to violate the Constitution’s right to bear arms. The rules are inconsistent with high court rulings, including Heller’s earlier case, he said in court papers. "

jimt 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Part 2:

"What kind of Supreme Court precedents are relevant [with respect to an assault weapons ban]here? Well, only two: Miller and Heller. But more relevant are precedents under state "right to bear arms" constitutional provisions. 45 states have various "right to bear arms" provisions, yet many of the same restrict assault weapons in different ways. In Heller the court looked at state practice, and I imagine they would also do so if an assault rifle ban came before them.

How would the court likely vote? My opinion is that if an assault weapon ban similar to the 1994 ban were passed again and challenged, it would be held Constitutional.

Five of the current justices (Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts and Alito) voted for an individual right in Heller. Ginsburg and Breyer voted against it. Assuming that Sotomayor and Kagan are reliable votes for such a ban, the question is whether at least one of the original five would "switch sides" on an assault weapon ban.

But that's the rub: it's not exactly "switching sides." The Heller decision was carefully watered-down and explicit on the point that the 2nd Amendment was not a robust prohibition on government action restricting firearms in any way whatsoever. That means at least one (and probably all) of the five supports some form of government regulation of firearms. A ban on assault weapons seems like one of the most reasonable and least-restrictive government regulations on the topic of guns, so it is likely that at least one of those five (and quite possibly more than one) would vote to uphold such a ban."

I take it as a given that any new Federal Law regulating the ownership of a semi-automatic weapon, whether in the configuration of an "assault weapon" or just a plain old pistol, and any Federal Law regulating the number of bullets an ammunition clip may hold, will be challenged in Courts. Time will tell how the Courts will rule. I don't think the decision(s) will likely be as cut and dried as Mr. Von Selzen suggests.

dustyrhoades 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Mr. Van Salzen's letter partially tracks Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Heller, but conveniently leaves out several important parts. Here's the whole passage:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Heller also specifically stated that certain types of weapons could be banned: "short barreled shotguns," for example, as addressed in the earlier Miller case, as well as machine guns. You also can't legally fit a weapon with a "silencer or muffler" under North Carolina law.

The Second Amendment does not, on its face, forbid the regulation or banning of certain weapons. Heller is very clear on this. To use that to argue the opposite--that Heller says the Second Amendment forbids a ban on assault weapons--indicates that you haven't read the case.

The difficulty, of course, comes in defining what exactly is an "assault rifle." That's what led to the failure of the previous ban. I think the ban on large magazines is a lot more do-able, but I'll reserve judgment till I see a proposed bill.

Courseaire 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Fact: Do you know that Iconography is one of the largest magazines ever print. Large in thickness as well as it's plus size women.

JimRussell44 3 months, 2 weeks ago

For those playing at home, Iconography is defined by Merriam-Webster as: 1) pictorial material relating to or illustrating a subject. 2) the traditional or conventional images or symbols associated with a subject and especially a religious or legendary subject. 3) the imagery or symbolism of a work of art,an artist, or a body of art. The meaning of Courseaire's post remains unknown.

Courseaire 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Weren't you guys talking about banning large magazines? Did you know that Merriam-Webster was the 1st woman on record to legally hyphenate her last name when she got married?

jimt 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I didn't know that, thanks.

But did you hear about the dyslexic senior NRA officer who was recently mauled to death while out in the woods? He was exercising his right to arm bears (cymbals clash).

skylinefirepest 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Jimt....oh man, I could have gone all week without that!!!

jimt 3 months, 2 weeks ago

pest, Anything I can do to wreck your week makes me soooo veeerry happppy.

dustyrhoades 3 months, 2 weeks ago

by dustyrhoades

teufelhunden 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Time to break out my tank tops!!!

MichaelFlorence 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Ok if everyone hates the Second Amendment so much lets just get rid of it. BUT since the Bill of Rights was passed as one when it was put through for approval then why not get rid of them all? If the founding fathers never realized that there might one day be a gun/rifle that could fire more than one bullet at at time, then they never thought of the Internet. Who needs Freedom of the Press or Speech when someone can be slandered at the speed of light. Who needs the 5th? They never could have imagined that it might take 1 to 5 years for someone to have a trial. Heck lets just get rid of them all.
Read your history the Bill of Rights was passed as one - if one goes or is dragged down then they all can be watered down.

dustyrhoades 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Ok if everyone hates the Second Amendment so much lets just get rid of it.

by dustyrhoades

jimt 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Dusty's right, the wingnuts don't understand the Constitution, as MF(Michael Florence) just illustrated.

Why'd the Founder's put in that pesky bit about amending the Constitution? Did they just have some extra ink they needed to use up before they could adjourn for the day?

Why is there such a broad-based consensus that the 2nd's terse, but explicit, language, i.e. "...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed..." doesn't really mean what it says. There are thousands of laws on the books at Federal, State, County, and City levels that infringe on the right to bear certain kinds/types of arms and that don't generate any 2nd Amendment-based scrutiny. The Court's certainly would not allow me to own a man-portable nuclear weapon (yes they existed, I've even seen one), that's an "arm," no matter how hard I screamed my 2nd Amendment rights.

The First Amendment quarantees freedom of speech...try yelling "fire," when there is none in a crowded theatre and see what happens to you. Freedom of the press, try withholding the name of a source in lieu of a Court order to divilge him/her. Ask Judith Miller of the NYT.

Further, the entire premise is wrongheaded. MF has probably never heard of the legal principle of SEPARABILITY , i.e. "...a clause often included in a legal document (as a contract) stating that invalidation of some sections or clauses in the document will not affect the validity of the remainder."

MF, the Constitution IS A CONTRACT!

JimHeim 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I'm surprised you folks haven't headed to Alabama to help that armed prepper after he rescued that six-year-old from the evil school bus driver and holed up in his patriotic bunker to fend off the jack-booted thugs sent to arrest him.

He's clearly waging a war against tyranny. Isn't that what this is about?

Yukonjohn 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Those pesky Amendments!! If it were not such a sensitive and important subject, I would just sit and laugh at the left and their disdain for our Constitution!

samosamo 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Hmmmmm.

right to bear arms by samosamo

jimt 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Yukon: "I would just sit and laugh at the left and their disdain for our Constitution!"

This from a guy who has acknowledged, proudly, that he belongs to the Alaska Independence Party, which by definition, is a treasonous political party.

Hey, I just realized, I am sitting here laughing at our friend with the frozen brain.

Yukonjohn 3 months, 2 weeks ago

jimt, The AIP is based solely on the Constitution. When Joe Vogler first founded it, he advocated another vote for statehood. As an attorney, he felt that the original vote was flawed. He never preached anything but the US and Alaskan Constitution. I would never expect you to understand our situation up here, but there appears that Constitutionally, there are quite a few things that the left seems to not understand. Or at best, interprets much differently than the rest of us. To me, it is written pretty plainly.

MichaelFlorence 3 months, 2 weeks ago

To Jimt - I would ask for an apology, but since you like to blindly use terms to try and discredit them shows that you have no morals. GROW UP AND HAVE INTELLIGENT DISCUSSIONS INSTEAD OF TRYING TO MAKE FUN OF PEOPLE. THE ONLY PERSON THAT LOOKS STUPID WHEN YOU TRY AND DO IT IS YOU. I perfectly understand what a contract is, and that sometimes a contract is still valid even no some items may later on be considered not legal or enforceable. And I perfectly understand the amendment process and how it works. It was easy then we would have hunderds of amendments to our Constitution instead of the few that we have. My point was and still is that some of the original creators of our Constitution were fearful of having a future government grow too powerful and thats where the Bill of Rights came in.

jimt 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Yukon, traitors rarely admit that they are traitors. It's usually the other side that is perceived to have "betrayed" them, so they have no other choice but to submit, or to engage in treasonous actions; right? I think the question regarding the legality of a state's right to secede from the Union was settled sometime between 1861 and 1865. Or does that not apply to Alaska? But as I said on another occasion, I personally have no problem with any number of State's decision to secede, providing that trade, defense, environmental law, and other matters, are covered by Treaty and conform to, at a minimum, current U.S. law and standards. Convince Idaho, Utah, Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky to join with you and you got a deal by me!

MF, I can only react to what you write. Your final sentence is quite reasonable, and largely correct. But that is not what you wrote initially, is it? You stated that since the Bill of Rights was voted on as a whole, any change to one of them means the others, presumably as a matter of precedent, can also be "watered down." I merely pointed out that the Amendment process already allows any and all of the Constitution to be changed, including all of the Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. So your point, it seems to me, is pointless.

MF "....since you like to blindly use terms to try and discredit them shows that you have no morals." I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here. The sentence doesn't even make sense. I like to "use terms to try to discredit them." Meaning that I use terms to try to discredit terms? Say wha?

MichaelFlorence 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I am guilty of what I dislike most about these comment threads. I am sorry for calling out Jimt for alluding to me a wingnut. I really need to understand that these comment threads are useless, and I really need to just stay away from them. Instead I think I will focus my attention elsewhere. Good night everyone

jimt 3 months, 2 weeks ago

MF, I guess you won't see this, but I apologize for calling you a wingnut.

Courseaire 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Not to worry MF, being called a wingnut is really a term you can take pride in.

LSM 3 months, 2 weeks ago

"Advice From The Department Of Homeland Security: "If Attacked By A Shooter, Grab Some Scissors"

I have so much confidence in my government.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-02-01/advice-department-homeland-security-if-attacked-shooter-grab-some-scissors?page=1

Thatcher 3 months, 2 weeks ago

LSM-- With the "grab some scissors" idea, I sometimes share your confidence in our government, which is why I say no need to stop with scissors...hire the Team Kobra Security force to keep us all safe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8eu9q.... No guns, just total safety: guaranteed. Cheers!

dentman65 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I can't speak for others but as a grown man I don't need anyone or a piece of paper to tell me if I can or cannot own a gun. In a nation where we are supposed to be free it should come with the package. Those of you who choose not to own a gun are welcome to defend your home and family with a golf club or a stick and see how well that works for you. If your life and your family's safety means that little to you that is your choice. You have been given the right under the 2nd amendment to own a gun, if you choose not to than you may be known as a victim one day in this very newspaper. My wife and I both are deadly shots and anyone coming into our home in the middle of the night with a weapon intending on doing us harm will regret it. People will kill you now for a stick of chewing gum or just for the fun of it. My life and the life of my loved ones is worth much more to me than being stubborn about owning a gun. I am quite sure the graveyards of America are full of people who would not be there if they had had a way to protect themselves. I am also aware that the graveyards are full of innocent people who were victims of guns. That I cannot defend or deny. It always seems that the few always ruin it for the many. I am not fool enough to ever think I could change a grown man's mind on guns. It is their right to own or not to own. I respect it either way. No one is ever going to change my mind, that is for sure. The criminals will always have guns - I doubt we will ever change that. I wish I had all of the answers but for now all I can do is let my neighbor grow his garden his way, and I'll grow my garden my way. As long as we stay in our own field we should be fine. I do hope with all of my heart that the ones who refuse to own a firearm never hear that dreaded bump in the night or a window smashing as a group of drugged crazies make their way into your own home. I'll save the board the trouble and go ahead and call myself a wingnut and a looney. But this wingnut has no intention of ever being a victim if I can help it!

truthmatterstome2 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Where can I buy a used Abrams, cheap?!

Thatcher 3 months, 2 weeks ago

"Where can I buy a used Abrams, cheap?!" From the Obama administration, but you must be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood first: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/6/muslim-brotherhood-inherits-us-war-gear/?page=all. Cheers!

geoffcutler 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Very well put, Dentman.

dustyrhoades 3 months, 2 weeks ago

More straw men.

The debate is not about taking away all firearms. It's about the regulation of a certain class of firearm. Exactly the way machine guns and sawed off shotguns and the like are prohibited.

But you know you can't win THAT debate, because it's well settled that the Second Amendment doesn't forbid regulating those.

So you scream and shout and pretend it's about total disarmament.

Yukonjohn 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Thatcher, Good One!! I guess if you were in Egypt, or Somalia or some other God forbidden country in the middle east or northern Africa, buying a tank, or even an F-16 is not a problem!! Hope you are having a nice winter day there in the Sandhills, it is beautiful here and for us, warm. God, please bless the United States, we need it worse than ever!!

Zoey 3 months, 2 weeks ago

"So you scream and shout and pretend it's about total disarmament."

Dusty, let's use New York for the example : 10 round capacity yesterday, 6 round capacity today, 4 rounds tomorrow...See the pattern, Dusty? ...and I thought you were blind only with your glasses off.

Pappy 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Mr Rhoades....more straw men....we all know where this headed and I believe you do too.

Thatcher 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Yukon! Man, it's sunny here, but still pretty cold. It is rather sad that many here try to be smug when they ask whether law-abiding Americans should be able to own tanks and jets, but they grow silent when you point out that Obama has no problem putting such weapons into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. And it is particularly amusing to hear folks here say things like "So you scream and shout and pretend it's about total disarmament." Zoey is 100% correct. As I've said before, there are a few honest liberals (like JimRussell44) who want to discuss only reasonable regulations, but if you ask most liberals over a couple of beers (or listen to them when they talk only with one another), they do really want to ban all guns...one step at a time. Then these folks show up here, and claim they really do not want to ever ban all guns. At least the Muslim Brotherhood is honest about wanting our tanks and jets...for peaceful purposes only, right? Ha! Stay warm my friend! Cheers!

packwilleat 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Today, I just exercised my right to reload. Tomorrow, I will exercise my right to shoot.

Thatcher 3 months, 2 weeks ago

And for the record, I don't advocate that American citizens be given tanks and jets. Same for the Muslim Brotherhood. Cheers!

packwilleat 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Doing the math, I got 9mm down to .14 cents a round....... Abrams $287.65 a round to reload!! I'll stick to the cheaper rounds. Haha!!

dustyrhoades 3 months, 2 weeks ago

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—The White House’s attempt to portray President Obama as a gun user may have had unintended consequences today, as a newly released photo of Mr. Obama firing a rifle at Camp David set off a panic of gun buying across the US. Right-wing opponents of Mr. Obama were behind the frenzied gun sales, saying that they were terrified by the image of an armed and shooting President. “I don’t want to sound paranoid or anything, but now everything Obama has been doing makes sense,” said Harland Dorrinson, who was waiting on a blocks-long line outside a West Virginia Wal-Mart. “He wants to take away all our guns and then he’s going to come shoot us.” Learning that Mr. Obama only uses his rifle for skeet-shooting did little to calm Mr. Dorrinson: “Somebody owning a gun just for sporting purposes? Yeah, right.” In an effort to stem the panic, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters today that skeet-shooting took up relatively little of the President’s time at Camp David, and that his favorite leisure activities were “actually badminton and frisbee.” The White House later released a photo of Mr. Obama putting away his gun and never using it again.

buddysmith 3 months, 2 weeks ago

oh my god, i just saw a picture of obomber shooting skeet with an assault weapon, say it aint so dusty!!!

packwilleat 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Obama shooting skeet with a rifle?? He is god!!

packwilleat 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Once again Dusty and the brain dead liberal media show how firearms illiterate they are. You shoot skeet with a shotgun Dusty, and the pic of Obama is of him shooting a 12ga over/under. But you're smarter than everyone, right Dusty?

Thatcher 3 months, 2 weeks ago

pack-- Liberals congratulate themselves on being smarter than everyone else. Hence the "Obama firing a rifle at Camp David" while shooting skeet (not even Annie Oakley used a rifle). http://annieoakleycenterfoundation.org/faq4.html. It would do us all here well to remember that the "wizards of smart" on constitutional law, who constantly complain that conservatives here have no knowledge of the Constitution, were the first to tell us (and disparage us for daring to disagree with them) that we had no idea what the Commerce Clause meant, and that of course Obamacare was permissible under that clause. When the Supreme Court said it was not constitutional under the Commerce Clause, but only under the feds' taxing authority (after Obama had repeatedly said it was not a tax), the liberals here still crowed and said, essentially, "so what?" With that, it seems to me that a person who does not understand the difference between a rifle and a shotgun should not comment on the Second Amendment, or regulations on "guns" in general. Like the Commerce Clause, they know not of which they speak. Cheers!

dentman65 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I think it's great our president loves guns and knows how to load, handle, and fire one. Of course the "save the skeet" foundation has not chimed in yet. Obama with a gun? He might not be so bad after all........I'd be embarrased if all he had to fend off an attacker on Air Force One was his badmitten racquet or a basketball! I can't wait for the political cartoons..I'll bet artist's pencils are flying all across the U.S.A! Geoff, thanks for the comment, hope you are well. I realize you don't know who I am but my mother taught you French and English at Pinecrest years ago. Make it a great day!

Thatcher 3 months, 2 weeks ago

dentman65-- You are fast becoming one of my favorite posters here. Great job! I actually met Geoff a couple of years ago in the parking lot of the Villager Deli...I'm sure he doesn't remember it. What a nice guy, and very smart. I wish he'd post more here. Best of luck to you dentman65, and welcome aboard! Cheers!

dentman65 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Thatcher-Thank you my good man......and the same back...I have always thought Geoff needed to run for county commissioner......maybe he could find out why we have a Hilton-type new jail?

JimRussell44 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Thatcher, I've got to disagree with your statement that if you don't know the difference between a shotgun and a rifle, you have no business talking about the 2nd amendment. The 2nd, amendment deals with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not a tutorial on all the different types of "arms". Those of us who want to reduce the amount of carnage taking place in this country could care less what a firearm is "called". We are only concerned what those firearms are capable of "doing". 26 dead people don't really care if they were killed by an "assault weapon", a semi-automatic" or a rifle or a shotgun or a pistol. Those of us who were not killed are concerned that the "tool" used to kill them contributed to their deaths and had that "tool" not been available, chances are some, if not most of them might still be alive. We have got to take steps that will do the most good in preventing these massacres from happening in the future, both in the short term and in the long term. My opinion is that a good short term solution (something we can do right now) is to take away the tool. Another short term solution is to standardize the gun laws in this country so that there are no loopholes from state to state. We should also standardize the punishments for using weapons in the commission of a crime ...and enforce them to the hilt. Long term, we should institute registration of every weapon in this country along with a stringent background check on all buyers, institute foolproof identification markings on all firearms and improve our ability to identify and provide treatment for the mentally unstable.

Yukonjohn 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Jim, that is alot about what we are saying. I can go into a place and kill many many people very quickly with my hunting shotgun!! Probably as many, maybe even more than was done at Sandy Hook. A gun is a gun is a gun. And to the argument about the 2nd Amendment applying to muskets, think about it, muskets were WMD's of their time. They could kill quickly, reload and kill again very quickly. Granted it took them a while to reload, but with every shot, a possible death.

JimRussell44 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Thatcher, some will counter that taking the "tools" out of circulation will not solve anything. "The "good" semi-automatic owners will be forced to give up their weapons while the criminals get to keep theirs" will be their cry. It should be noted that it was the "good" owners committing these mass murders. The criminals tend to kill each other with their weapons, although innocent people do get caught in the crossfire at times. But it was not a drug lord from the south side of Chicago who killed the kids in CT, it was a member in good standing of their community who did it.

fugitiveguy 3 months, 2 weeks ago

43 murders in the city of Chicago thus far this year. A little higher than normal but overall business as usual. I hear they have the toughest anti gun laws in the land. I can't say for sure but I doubt many of the killers were NRA members. Enlighten us as to how more gun laws are going to alter this siutation.

Thatcher 3 months, 2 weeks ago

JimRussell44-- I'll say it again...at least JimRussell44 is honest, unlike some others here. My point about folks who do not know the difference between a rifle and a shotgun is this: you want to put these folks in charge of regulating what they call "magazines" and "clips" when they have no idea what they are talking about? I suspect the answer is "no." And there were no "good" gun owners committing mass murder. These murderers were insane (Colorado, CT, Arizona). Every one of them. This you know. And look, you and I may never agree about the 2nd Amendment, yet I look forward to many more discussions with you. And there will never be a time where either one of us calls the other a "wingnut." That term is reserved for use by those who don't know the difference between a shotgun and a rifle. Be well. Cheers!

packwilleat 3 months, 2 weeks ago

The last time I checked, murder is still illegal. How about we try enforcing the current laws on the books. Sending a man to jail for 20 years for cold blooded murder only to be released is not only a joke but a burden to all tax payers. What is even sadder is the fact we have pos lawers that will defend these people against their own morality. Where is the Arizona shooter now, or the Ft. Hood shooter ?? Yup, still on trial for cold blooded murder. Our lack of a solid judicial system has only allowed more of these incidents to occur. Do I need to bring up OJ or Ray Louis?? We are telling soon to be murders that "the system" will protect them, no matter how heinous the crime.

jimt 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Yukon, "And to the argument about the 2nd Amendment applying to muskets, think about it, muskets were WMD's of their time. They could kill quickly, reload and kill again very quickly. Granted it took them a while to reload, but with every shot, a possible death."

You simply could NOT be more wrong. First off, you contradict yourself; "they could kill quickly, reload and kill again very quickly." Then you state, "Granted it took them a while to reload." Well, which is it? Could they reload and kill again quickly, or did they take "a while to reload." I don't see how both could be true.

And trite, "with every shot, a possible death." No kidding. And so what? That hardly makes them WMDs now does it. With every sling-shot sling there is a possible death...just ask Goliath. Was the sling-shot the WMD of ancient Israel?

I think cannon were the WMD of their day, circa mid-late 18th century. A single "level" shot on the battlefield, aimed at infantry in rank could kill/maim several men with one shot. I don't know what their "reload" time was compared to a musket, but I'd imagine that a team of well-trained artillerymen could reload their cannon more or less as quickly as an infantryman could reload his musket.

Interestingly, in terms of the 2nd Amendment, to the best of my knowledge, only the small U.S. Army and Navy, and State Militia's owned and operated cannon, which were stored in armories until needed. Private citizens, did not own cannon, nor did they take them home with them after a hard day's training with their militia. Cannon were soley weapons of war. Musket's were multipurpose; used for hunting and in battle (I'm assuming that even in Alaska cannon are not used for hunting) .

Yukonjohn 3 months, 2 weeks ago

jimt, Weapons are weapons. They will all kill and mame. I can take my shotgun, used solely for home defense and hunting and kill very rapidly with it. Will l ever go into a crowded place and use it...hell no. Would l use it continuously on a burglar or burglars, absolutely. And l will empty it into them if they continue to move. If l run out of ammo, l will grab another weapon and God willing, l will keep shooting until the threat subsides. With the AR, l might not be able to spray shot everywhere, but l can get a number of shots off.

jimt 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Now you're just changing the parameters of the give and take. You made a specific assertion, muskets were the WMD of their day. The implication being that they are/were not substantively different from a semi-automatic with a 20, 30 bullet magazine. I called you on that. I think I made my point. They were not the WMD of their day, and the weapon that WAS the WMD of its day WAS kept out of the hands of individuals.

dustyrhoades 3 months, 2 weeks ago

The article I posted was clearly labeled as being from The Borowitz report...a well known parody site.

It really takes some world-class dimwits to argue with the "accuracy" of a comedian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPa5oVG-nII

I swear to God, I really don't know how some of you morons manage to dress yourselves in the morning.

geoffcutler 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I had an idea who you were, T, but wasn't sure. Glad you're still w/ us. Need MikeNC back, and thanks, Dentman.

Yukonjohn 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I stand by my assertion that the founding fathers wanted the citizenry to be armed and prepared to overthrow the govt of our country or any other country if it was oppressing them. I will go to my grave with that belief. Nothing you will say will change my mind jimt, and l am sure nothing l say will change yours. We will just disagree forever.

Yukonjohn 3 months, 2 weeks ago

And, l still stand by what l have said about if you think the Bill of Rights is wrong, get it changed.

dustyrhoades 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Need MikeNC back,

Yes, please. I have a large file of "Romney's Going To Win" posts to beat him over the head with.

packwilleat 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Well known parody site. Oh, like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report....... Gotcha.

JimHeim 3 months, 2 weeks ago

dentman - I'm with you. I don't need a piece of paper to tell me whether I can smoke pot or snort cocaine. What kind of wuss goes along with that? And those speed limit signs on the roads? Nazis don't tell me how fast I can go.

It's time to practice liberty, I say.

fugitiveguy 3 months, 2 weeks ago

"The article I posted was clearly labeled as being from The Borowitz report...a well known parody site."

Never heard of the site, how do you support your claim that it is "well known" which in turn supports your additional claim that those who didn't recognize it as parody are "dimwits". It seems if it weren't for the insults you wouldn't have much at all to say. I guess you can't help it.

packwilleat 3 months, 2 weeks ago

“Everything is changing. People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke.”

~ Will Rogers

JimHeim 3 months, 2 weeks ago

fugitiveguy - I'm guessing you don't get out much.

Actually, it's been shown that conservatives have problems dealing with satire and parody. I'm not surprised that Borowitz is a stranger to you.

geoffcutler 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Conservatives have problems with satire and parody? Jim Heim

Nonsense!

"So making guns illegal will get them off the streets?"

"Guess they should make heroin and meth illegal too!" Unknown

We love parody and satire!

Thatcher 3 months, 2 weeks ago

You want parody? Here's a little parody: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7ht0a.... Cheers!

Yukonjohn 3 months, 2 weeks ago

JimHeim 6 hours, 19 minutes ago

dentman - I'm with you. I don't need a piece of paper to tell me whether I can smoke pot or snort cocaine. What kind of wuss goes along with that? And those speed limit signs on the roads? Nazis don't tell me how fast I can go.

It's time to practice liberty, I say.

Jim, l see you are finally coming around!!!

Yukonjohn 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Good day Thatcher, Smart bird, he should run for office, he couldnt do any worse than the idiots we have in our state and national capitols!!

Yukonjohn 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Hey Thatcher, Yesterday we were sitting here watching basketball and all of a sudden KABOOM!! We were wondering what it was, come to find out it was an explosion about 20 miles from here on the other side of town. Here is the newspaper article about how it was a "recreational explosion" at a private shooting range. This goes to show people how we consider our freedom here, but how sometimes it gets carried a bit far, even for here!!

http://www.newsminer.com/news/local_news/article_612d89be-6db9-11e2-90ec-001a4bcf6878.html

fugitiveguy 3 months, 2 weeks ago

"Actually, it's been shown that conservatives have problems dealing with satire and parody. I'm not surprised that Borowitz is a stranger to you."

I don't know how you can say that. We have been dealing with a joke of a president for a number of years now. It just goes to show, some jokes are just not funny.

Yukonjohn 3 months, 2 weeks ago

LOL@fugitiveguy!! :)

The Right to Bear Arms

More like this story

Comments

May events