Guns Making America Safer

[MrBenchley]

A sampling....

"A bodyguard for R&B singer R. Kelly accidentally shot himself in the leg at a Marietta nightclub after being asked to remove the gun before entering the club. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=529&ncid=529&e=8&u=/ap/20030904/ap_en_mu/rkelly_bodyguard

"An Orangeville man had his gun loaded and ready to kill a pesky groundhog, but the gun accidentally fired into his left side Thursday night, police said.
Hess rested the rifle against the house, and placed the loaded handgun on top of the tractor. Then he went under the tractor to work on it. When Hess pulled himself out from underneath the tractor, he bumped the gun, and it fell to the ground.
The gun went off, and shot a round near Hess' left hip, in an area above his left thigh and below his navel."

http://www.pressenterpriseonline.com/281793161443618.bsp

"A 17-year-old teenager was accidentally shot and killed at his home Saturday night in Marion County, Fla, according to Local 6 News.
Police said Chris Fannin and his 13-year-old neighbor were playing with a loaded gun at Fannin's home Saturday when the accident happened. The younger teen reportedly pulled the trigger of the 32-caliber Baretta and the bullet struck Fannin in the chest. "

http://www.local6.com/news/2445921/detail.html

"A judge on Wednesday ordered a psychological exam for a man accused of fatally shooting three of his children and seriously wounding another.
Police say Anthony Bailey shot the children in their home on Aug. 19 and then set the house on fire to cover up the crime. Eleven-year-old Sharnice Bailey, 3-year-old Ayana Bailey, and 1-year-old Lamar Bailey died at the scene.
Antonia Bailey, 9, was shot in the stomach. She remained at Children's Hospital of Michigan, where she was in fair condition Wednesday. "

http://www.detnews.com/2003/metro/0309/03/metro-261641.htm

"
 

HORNBROOK - A 9-year-old boy was accidentally shot in Hornbrook Monday morning after spending the night at a friend's house.
According to the Siskiyou County Sheriff's Department, the 11-year-old boy who lives at the house told deputies that he had been surprised when a gun he was handling discharged, hitting the 9-year-old.
The 11-year-old explained to deputies that he and his friend had taken a .22 caliber revolver out of an unlocked gun cabinet in his uncle's bedroom at the residence. He reported that they thought the gun was not loaded, and he had pulled the trigger so that the hammer would not be cocked."

http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/articles/2003/09/03/news/news1.txt

[Wcross]

1. Daily shooting reports?

Too bad. Trading off one of my rights in order to protect stupid people doesn't seem like a fair trade.

Benchley, you going to the big Machine gun shoot next month? You ought to get down there and rent you some full auto fun! Hell, go for the flame thrower rental! Fun, fun, fun I tell ya!

http://www.machinegunshoot.com/shootinfo.htm

[iverglas]

2. "stupid people"

"Trading off one of my rights in order to protect stupid people doesn't seem like a fair trade."

i.e. nine-year-olds.

Agreeing to transparent public oversight, in accordance with rules that apply equally to everyone, of whether I possess firearms and the manner in which I possess firearms, in order to prevent the deaths of nine-year-olds, doesn't seem like a fair trade.



Says it all, just about.


Agreeing to transparent public oversight, in accordance with rules that apply equally to everyone, of whether I possess anthrax spores and the manner in which I possess anthrax spores, in order to prevent the deaths of nine-year-olds, doesn't seem like a fair trade ...

.

[DoNotRefill]

3. Or tylenol...

Agreeing to transparent public oversight, in accordance with rules that apply equally to everyone, of whether I possess tylenol and the manner in which I possess tylenol, in order to prevent the deaths of nine-year-olds, doesn't seem like a fair trade ...

Some kids do stupid things. Does that mean we need to ban anything they might misuse? Should I not be able to have tylenol because some idiot ate 50 of them at once and died? That doesn't sound reasonable to me.

[iverglas]

4. I dunno

"Some kids do stupid things. Does that mean we need to ban anything they might misuse?"

Did someone suggest that it did?

[DoNotRefill]

6. that seems to be where you're going with this...

with your anthrax spore example.

[iverglas]

7. does it?

"that seems to be where you're going with this...
with your anthrax spore example."

Funny how *I* can see all kinds of distinctions. Distinctions that would take me somewhere completely different from there.

They might turn out to be relevant distinctions (in my, or your, opinion, based on whatever we might want to offer as justification for our distinctions). Or they might not. Who knows?

Me, I just wouldn't ever think, let alone SERIOUSLY say, that something seems "like" something else when right off the top of my head I could imagine thirty things that make them "unlike", where the "unlikenesses" in question seem to be quite relevant.

My point, OF COURSE, wasn't at all that firearms are "like" anthrax spores. My bald assertion was OBVIOUSLY facetious. I OBVIOUSLY see distinctions between, say, Tylenol and anthrax. I OBVIOUSLY have the onus of stating what those distinctions are, if I am going to propose that Tylenol possession not be subject to public oversight in the way that anthrax is.

The thing is, I'm not the person who made the initial bald assertion ... and yet for some reason I'm the person being called on to justify mine.

Perhaps you really
- do see the kind of relevant "likenesses" between Tylenol and firearms that I do *not* see, and
- do *not* see the kinds of "unlikenesses" between Tylenol and firearms that I see
and that, to my mind, would make one justifiably subject to more public oversight than the other. Who knows?

Perhaps you really
- do *not* see the kind of relevant "likenesses" between anthrax and firearms that I see, and
- do see the kind of relevant "unlikenesses" between anthrax and firearms that I do *not* see.
Again, who knows?

All I saw was the bald assertion that such oversight, for the purpose of preventing the deaths of children, was unacceptable -- to which I responded by making an equally bald (and obviously facetious) assertion.

Do I need to justify mine and the person who made the initial assertion does not? Or would I need to justify my potential rejection of oversight of Tylenol possession on the same level as oversight of firearms possession, when the person who rejected firearms possession has offered no justification at all for rejecting that oversight but accepting (as I assume that person does) oversight of anthrax spores?

Perhaps if the person who made the initial statement would offer up some proposed justifications for rejecting the oversight, well, again, who knows? Perhaps a discussion could be had.

.

[DoNotRefill]

8. hmmm...

"Perhaps you really
- do *not* see the kind of relevant "likenesses" between anthrax and firearms that I see, and
- do see the kind of relevant "unlikenesses" between anthrax and firearms that I do *not* see.
Again, who knows?"

Let's see....how many positive used do anthrax spores have? I can think of two: Medical research, and making Anthrax Clusters (Monty Python reference, not seriously)

How many positive uses do firearms have? Non-inclusively, target practice, hunting, collecting, oh, yeah...and SELF DEFENSE.

One thing is not like the other. Very few people (medical researchers) can actually make some kind of positive use of Anthrax spores, while millions (to the tune of 80 million in the US alone) have legitimate uses for firearms.

Firearms have many more similarities to tylenol than they have to anthrax spores. There are widespread legitimate uses for both tylenol and firearms. There are no such widespread uses for anthrax spores.

edit: typo.. I was wondering what a "firarm" was. :-)

[iverglas]

36. funny

"Let's see....how many positive used do anthrax spores have?
... How many positive uses do firearms have?"

Wouldn't yr normal, reasonable, thoughtful, sincere person, examining the question in good faith, conclude that s/he ALSO has to ask things like:

How many NEGATIVE uses do anthrax spores have?
How many NEGATIVE uses do firearms have?

Oh look. They both have "negative uses". (*I*, of course, am not going to say, then, "they are the same".)

"There are widespread legitimate uses for both tylenol and firearms."

Hmm. That normal, reasonable, thoughtful, sincere person, examining the question in good faith, might also conclude that s/he ALSO has to ask things like:

Are there widespread ILLEGITIMATE uses for Tylenol?
Are there widespread ILLEGITIMATE uses for firearms?

Oh look. They're "different".

How about ...

What is the mortality rate when a person accidentally ingests Tylenol?
What is the mortality rate when a person accidentally gets shot by a firearm?

Oh look. They're "different".

"One thing is not like the other."

And how very, very easy it is to conclude that -- when we choose to look only at the characteristics of each that support that conclusion. Kind of a pointless exercise, isn't that?

It was six men of Indostan

To learning much inclined,

Who went to see the Elephant

Though all of them were blind),

That each by observation

Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant,

And happening to fall

Against his broad and sturdy side,

At once began to bawl:

"God bless me! but the Elephant

Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,

Cried, "Ho! what have we here

So very round and smooth and sharp?

To me 'tis mighty clear

This wonder of an Elephant

Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal,

And happening to take

The squirming trunk within his hands,

Thus boldly up and spake:

"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant

Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,

And felt about the knee.

"What most this wondrous beast is like

Is mighty plain," quoth he;

" 'Tis clear enough the Elephant

Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,

Said: "E'en the blindest man

Can tell what this resembles most;

Deny the fact who can

This marvel of an Elephant

Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun

About the beast to grope,

Than, seizing on the swinging tail

That fell within his scope,

"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant

Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan

Disputed loud and long,

Each in his own opinion

Exceeding stiff and strong,

Though each was partly in the right,

And all were in the wrong!

Is an elephant "like" a snake?
Are firearms "like" Tylenol?

Is that really the question? And will any of us who persist in pretending to have the answer to it not always be in the wrong?

.

[DoNotRefill]

41. OK....

"How about ...
What is the mortality rate when a person accidentally ingests Tylenol?
What is the mortality rate when a person accidentally gets shot by a firearm?"

Depends on how it's done, doesn't it? If you take tylenol safely, it's good for you. If you use firearms responsibly, they're good for you.

If you "accidentally" ingest too many tylenol capsules at once, you're dead. Liver failure will kill you, period (renal failure is also possible). There's nothing they can do to stop it. There are 70,000 cases of Acetomenaphen toxicity annually in the US. 7 grams of acetomenaphen taken at once will produce a toxic reaction. Sounds like a lot, right? Not when you consider that the maximum normal dosage is 4 grams a day. Tylenol toxicity results in 20 to 30% of ALL cases of acute liver failure in the US. Not all cases of acetomenphen poisoning cause death, but once it damages your liver, you're in severe trouble.

If you point a loaded gun at your head and pull the trigger, odds are excellent that you'll die. Accidentally shoot yourself in the hand, and your odds of dying are much less.

[Wcross]

5. Not convinced yet

Guns equate to biological weapons? Not even close.
9 y/o was shot by a stupid persons behavior. Last time I checked, no law is gonna stop a stupid person from doing stupid things.

Education would prevent more tragedies than any law could. Law is rarely enforced until after the tragedy. Education can prevent them from ever happening in the first place.

[MrBenchley]

11. Why not?

It's not like there isn't a catalog of these tragedies every damn day thanks to the corrupt gun industry...

Gee, sounds like you know stupid people can be found at the Machine Gun Shoot...

[Wcross]

18. Yawn!!!!

You must have a busy life looking out for everybody else Mr. Benchley. A law effects everybody, education about gun saftey would be the SMART approach that would be more EFFECTIVE in ending the stupid behavior of the people whose stories you posted above.
Why don't you anti's preach gun saftey education rather than ineffective laws?

As you have probably never fired a machine gun, why would you ASSume that stupidity is abundant at the shoot? Seems to me that your fear of guns is coloring your judgement.

[MrBenchley]

19. Gee, Cross....

Still trying to pimp for the NRA's idiotic Eddie Eagle crap?

"why would you ASSume that stupidity is abundant at the shoot?"
A quick jaunt through the website you linked to was all I needed....

[Wcross]

22. Eddie eagle?

So gun saftey education in any form is bad? Where is the million mom march saftey program? The violence policy center program? I never mentioned eddie eagle, I guess it is the only program out there. Why is that benchley? Why don't the anti-gun people try education? HMMMM?

You are one closed minded son of a gun (pun intended), believe me, you would have fun if you went down to Kentucky and did some shooting. You might even start to understand it is the person pulling the trigger that makes a gun fire. I went last year and there were doctors,lawyers,business owners and average joes out there.

I am not a homosexual, I have attended a gay pride parade in Nashville to see what was up. You couldn't force yourself to pick up a gun could you?

What happened in your past that made you anti-gun? It must have been a real traumatic experience for you.

[MrBenchley]

37. Peddle it to someone dumb enough to buy it

"Why don't the anti-gun people try education?"
We do.....that's why we stick to facts instead of hysteria and horseshit.

"you would have fun if you went down to Kentucky and did some shooting."
Yeah, and a lot of people would still be alive if we could keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldnn't have them.

[Wcross]

42. So education is bad?

Hysteria and horseshit is what the anti's are best at. Remember that Horseshit about .50 cal rifles one of your groups was spewing? That was a fact? BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Too bad you people don't try to prevent gun accidents, you just bitch about them.

"if we could keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them."

You don't want to discriminate while you do it either! You want to keep guns away from everybody.

Have you ever been shooting? You ought to come on down and shoot at least once in your life!

[MrBenchley]

50. Education is great!

Educated people can recognize the lies being spread by the RKBA crowd.

"Remember that Horseshit about .50 cal rifles one of your groups was spewing? That was a fact?"
Yeah, that was a fact. There's no reason to let those on the civilian market.

[Wcross]

51. So where is the education?

So education is good, yet the anti's don't attempt to educate kids about the dangers of guns. Good job anti's! Really trying to save lives, chasing after .50 cal rifles!

Benchley, what was that "shooting down" airliners crap you people tried to claim? I bet nobody from the anti side has even seen a .50 rifle in person, let alone fired one. It would be a real eye opener and maybe they would understand why people are laughing at them.
By the way, there is no reason to ban .50 rifles either, just your delusions about what somebody "might" do some day isn't good enough for me, or anybody else who doesn't have your fear of guns.

How come I always chuckle when I read those VPC press releases? People that are educated about guns can see the lies, too bad you can't.

[MrBenchley]

54. The education is where it belongs...

"the anti's don't attempt to educate kids about the dangers of guns."

http://www.aacap.org/publications/factsfam/firearms.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/fafacts.htm

http://www.safekids.org/tier3_cd.cfm?folder_id=540&content_item_id=1131

"Really trying to save lives, chasing after .50 cal rifles! "
Yeah, we really are. There's no reason to let those things on the civilian market.

[Wcross]

58. Hidden on the internet?

How effective is your education "program"? Not at all.

Now don't have a stroke, but the NRA's Eddie eagle program has proven to be effective, it even won some awards.

The National Sheriffs' Association formally endorsed the Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program. (March 2002)

The American Legion presented its National Education Award to The Eddie Eagle Program. (September 1995)

The American Legion passed a resolution encouraging its Posts and Departments to introduce Eddie Eagle to elementary schools and law enforcement agencies in their communities. (May 1995)

The American Legion Child Welfare Foundation awarded a $25,000 grant to The Eddie Eagle Program. (October 1995)

The Youth Activities Division of the National Safety Council awarded its silver Award of Merit to The Eddie Eagle Program for its efforts to "promote safety and health, save lives, lessen injury and reduce economic loss." (October 1996)

National Safety Council presented its Citation for Outstanding Community Service Award to program creator and NRA President Marion P. Hammer. (October 1993)

The National School Public Relations Association presented its Golden Achievement Award to the program. (April 1994)


Where is the recognition of your anti-gun groups education programs?

Oh, and there is no reason people should be barred from owning .50 rifles. Again, you are letting your emotions get the better of your judgement.

[MrBenchley]

63. Who are you trying to kid?

"The American Legion presented its National Education Award"
Whoop-dee-frigging-doo.

"the National Safety Council awarded its silver Award of Merit to The Eddie Eagle Program for its efforts to "promote safety and health, save lives, lessen injury and reduce economic loss." (October 1996)"
"The award is granted to any organization that meets the application form's set criteria. It is not a competitive process. In the same year that the NRA received its award, 105 other programs also received it. When the public relations department at NSC was notified that the NRA was touting the award on its web site as yet another alleged endorsement, the NSC quickly responded with a letter. Dick Tippie, executive director of member services at the NSC, sent a letter to the director of the Eddie Eagle program, Kathleen Cassidy, in which he stressed:
"Because we do not go out into the field and evaluate the programs, the National Safety Council does not take a stance on the effectiveness of those programs receiving awards. Therefore, use of the awards as an official endorsement in promotional materials and to garner state resolutions is inappropriate." "

http://www.vpc.org/studies/eddieap2.htm

"National Safety Council presented its Citation for Outstanding Community Service Award to program creator and NRA President Marion P. Hammer. "
Ahem...."Yet contrary to the impression left by the NRA's material, according to the National Safety Council, the NSC has never evaluated the Eddie Eagle program, nor has it ever officially endorsed the NRA or its Eddie Eagle program. Also left unstated in the NRA's promotional materials is that its members were instrumental in nominating Hammer for the 1993 NSC award and that one of the judges for the award actually listed his organizational affiliation as the NRA itself. Hammer was nominated for the award by Gerard J. Kennedy, an NSC board member and NRA member. One of the three judges who granted the award was James M. Vinopal, who, in the brochure for the awards program, listed his affiliated organization as the National Rifle Association."

"there is no reason people should be barred from owning .50 rifles."
Yeah, ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ight....

[RoeBear]

60. Technically speaking, Eddie Eagle isn't a...

...a gun safety program. It's a gun avoidance program.

[Wcross]

61. True, better than nothing! n/t

[MrBenchley]

64. Funny....

Kids who get Eddie Eagle training are MORE LIKELY to play with a gun than without it...

http://www.vpc.org/eddie.htm

http://www.sendem.com/cs/99/cs99-18.html

[Mass_Liberal]

24. come on!

whether they were being stupid or not, life is a hell of a lot more important than your right to a well-regulated militia you aren't even in!

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Paladin]

27. If You'll Grant Me Permission To Speak.......

....your notion that the 2nd Amendment somehow gives people an unfettered right to gun ownership, without any reference to service in, or the equipping of, a citizens's militia which hasn't existed in fact since some time in the 19th century in this country, is nothing more than RKBA wishful thinking. Such a viewpoint is unsupported by dispositive judicial rulings, and is contrary to the obvious meaning of the amendment itself.

Thank you so much for allowing me the opportunity to express my feelings on this subject.

[Wcross]

28. Wishful thinking

In my bill of rights, it still acknowledges the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms. A RIGHT can not be taken away for it isn't a privilage, it isn't granted by the government.
I guess when Ashcroft uses the same arguements to take away your other rights, you will understand.

Talk about which side has this "wishful thinking" syndrom!

It's amazing what one has to believe to believe in gun control. Here's a short list of the basic "factual" premises of gun control advocates:

* That the more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.

* That one should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a programmer for computer problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

* That the Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, allows the states to have a National Guard, created by act of Congress in 1916.

* That free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

* That the ready availability of guns today, with only a few government forms, waiting periods, checks, infringements, ID, and fingerprinting, is responsible for all the school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 1950s and 1960s, which was caused by the awkward availability of guns at any hardware store, gas station, and by mail order.

* That guns cause crime, which is why there has never been a mass slaying at a gun show.

* That guns cause crime, just like matches cause arson.

* That guns cause crime, just like women cause prostitution.

* That guns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army only has 3 million of them.

* That banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns against armed criminals.

* That most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by, because they can be trusted.

* That guns are the gravest threat to society, because 83,000,000 gun owners didn't commit a crime yesterday.

* That a bank guard can protect money with a gun, but you cannot protect your children with one.

* That people are too stupid to handle guns, but are intelligent enough to vote.

* That any cheap gun is a "Saturday night special," and any expensive gun is an "assault weapon."

* That 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.

* That it is reasonable for California to have a minimum 2 year sentence for possessing but not using an assault rifle, and reasonable for California to have a 6 month minimum sentence for raping a female police officer.

* That a 90-pound woman attacked by a 300-pound rapist and his 300-pound buddy, has the "right" to kill them in self defense, provided she uses her bare hands.

* That with nationwide gun control, the entire nation can be as safe as New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

* That Massachusetts is safer with bans on guns, which is why Teddy Kennedy has gun-toting guards.

* That the crime rate in America is decreasing because of gun control, and the increase in crime requires more gun control.

* That the country is safer with less guns, which is why lunatics shoot up schools instead of gun shows or police stations.

* That stupidity can be cured by legislation.

(C)1999, 2000 by Michael Z. Williamson

[DoNotRefill]

30. not quite...

"Such a viewpoint is unsupported by dispositive judicial rulings, and is contrary to the obvious meaning of the amendment itself."

"dispositive judicial rulings"? The Circuits are badly split, and the Supreme Court still hasn't heard it and settled it. The ONLY "dispositive" judicial ruling is Miller, and as we both know, that can be interpreted half a dozen different ways, and often is by lower courts. As for the obvious meaning of the amendment itself, would you care to explain how "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" really means the right of the State to have State militias shall not be infringed? It seems obvious that there's quite a difference between those two statements.

[Paladin]

32. My Point Exactly

Until the Supreme Court weighs in with a current interpretation of the 2nd, no one (including myself) can claim what the amendment really means with any degree of certainty. I just can't believe that the Supremes will ignore the "well regulated militia" portion of the 2nd, like you RKBA'ers are so prone to do......

[DoNotRefill]

33. Well, in that case...

I think we agree. I disagree with your belief that the "well regulated militia" part would have that much of an effect, especially considering that the amendment specifically states that it's a right of the people, not of the states.

[BullDozer]

35. And

I just can't believe that the Supremes will ignore the "well regulated militia" portion of the 2nd, like you RKBA'ers are so prone to do......

And the Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed not the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[Paladin]

43. No Sale

The right of the people to bear arms is clearly and specifically limited to their participation in, and their equipping of, a militia. It is the maintaining of a militia (as a substitute for a standing army) which is the primary purpose of the 2nd, not the peoples' right to be armed.

[BullDozer]

44. If you want to try that arguement

Not that I in anyway agree with your basic assertion.

This will cover your participation requirement.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311

(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.

[DoNotRefill]

48. Where does it say that?

Read the 6th Amendment. If it only applies to people actively engaging in militia duty, why isn't the wording similar to what's in the 6th regarding the Militia? Here's the text:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

It seems to me that given this language, if it was ONLY applying to people in the Militia, they'd have said so explicitly. Why wouldn't it have said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed as long as they are actively participating in militia duties"? Or even better: "the right of the people engaged in militia activity to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

[Paladin]

53. Or Better Yet, From Your Standpoint........

....why didn't the Founding Fathers just leave out that opening clause about a well regulated militia, writing it just like you guys now pretend it was written?

I mean, since you're obviously into major-league wishful thinking, why not go all the way?

[BullDozer]

34. Not quite right

without any reference to service in, or the equipping of, a citizens's militia which hasn't existed in fact since some time in the 19th century in this country

The codes covering the militia are still in effect:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311

(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.

[Paladin]

45. I Stand By My Statement About The Militia

I've seen those federal provisions before, and they don't make the "unorganized militia" a reality in this day and time. If you RKBA'ers weren't living in the past, you'd have no lives at all.....

[Wcross]

46. Little slip- you gave it all away!

"If you RKBA'ers weren't living in the past, you'd have no lives at all....."

So if we didn't keep and bear arms (living in the past), we would be dead(no lives at all)?


Damn, I knew you anti's had a plan, I didn't know it was that bad though! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

I think your post is more than enough for me to hang on to my firearms.

[Paladin]

52. Pretty Weak Response......

....even by the dismal standards you RKBA guys have set here in the Gun Dungeon......

[Wcross]

59. I couldn't resist!

I thought it was funny!

[BullDozer]

47. Just the facts

The fact is that those federal provisions are current and many states have similar provisions.


http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch/ViewRoot.asp?Action=Html&Item=1&X=906185917&p=1

RCW 38.04.030
Composition of the militia.
The militia of the state of Washington shall consist of all able bodied citizens of the United States and all other able bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing within this state, who shall be more than eighteen years of age, and shall include all persons who are members of the national guard and the state guard, and said militia shall be divided into two classes, the organized militia and the unorganized militia.

[iverglas]

73. can I try asking again?

Does anyone ever consider looking within the US Constitution for assistance in interpreting the 2nd amendment?

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/const.html

Article I

Section 8. The Congress shall have power ...

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

...

Article II.

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, ... .

Doesn't this settle quite a few of the squabbles about what the militia is, who runs it, etc. etc.? Obviously, the federal powers over the militia are not exclusive, but they certainly seem to give an indication of what is meant by the term.


But apart from all that: what does any of this 2nd amendment/militia business have to do with the possession of firearms in the exercise of:

- an individual "right" of "self-defence"?

- a collective "right" to use force against the government of one's own own state?

(By "state", I of course refer to the federal state, not just the federated entities "states" in the United States.)


The 2nd amendment is plainly talking about the collective defence of the state, not to either of those things.

If someone wants to argue that the plain meaning of "the right of the people to bear arms" makes the right in question an individual right, fine and dandy.

But while that argument can perhaps be coherently made based on the text, and based on some of the extrinsic evidence (historical documents, if it were necessary and proper to refer to them), that argument simply has NOTHING to do with individual self-defence, or with collective resistance to one's own government. (How could the President of the United States be the commander in chief of anything organized for the purpose of ousting him/her??)

If the right is individual, and if there is to be any limitation on the exercise of the right -- and quite obviously, there are multiple limitations on the exercise of the right and very few would claim that there should/may be no restrictions -- I fail to see how any argument based on the "rights" of individual self-defence or collective resistance to one's own government can be derived from the 2nd amendment, or have anything to do with the individual right allegedly set out in the 2nd amendment.

Perhaps such arguments can be derived from something else; perhaps there are such "rights". But surely there then has to be rational discussion about justifiable limits on the manner in which people choose to exercise those "rights", just as there are on any other rights. And that discussion simply cannot reference the 2nd amendment.

If anyone who argues the "individual right" case could explain why s/he thinks that the 2nd amendment has anything to do with anything other than the individual "right" to bear arms for the purpose of collective self-defence against outside threat to the state, or against internal threat to the government, I'd love to hear it.

If any such people will agree that the two "rights" in question canNOT be derived from the 2nd amendment, I'd also like to know where they do find them, and whether/why/how they think that the exercise of those "rights" should/can be treated differently from the exercise of any other constitutional/fundamental rights.

.

[DoNotRefill]

49. You're sadly mistaken...

if you think you can't be called up during times of crisis. Hell, isn't that STILL the basis for the draft?

[Hillary 4 President]

9. Oi Vey!

Let's see now, we have hundreds of millions of people.
many die in accidents of sorts. That is life, live with it.

Trying to deprive people of every single liberty in the name of "its for your own good" of for the "good of the people" is simply a communist template.

The French and the Germans are one or two steps from being completely communist and their economy is faling and their people are taxed to death and most Democrats want to follow in their footsteps in this country. How pathetic.

I might just switch parties and go to the Libertarian party if ours keeps becoming more and more scialist. It is on a slipery slope to communism

When a nation seeks to disarm its citizens the end result is ultimate government power which is followed by dictatorship steps.

[Maddy McCall]

10. Why are you on DU???

Quit pretending to be a Democrat. You obviously are a Republican and a Bush admirer and if you switch parties, it will be from the Repub to whatever.

Can't blame you for dropping the Repubs, though.

[MrBenchley]

12. If you poke around down here in the gun dungeon

You will find "Democrats" here attacking every Democrat you've ever heard while cheering for Orrin Hatch and Linda Chavez. You'll find "Democrats" posting articles from the Washington Times, WorldNutDaily, Newsmax and the like. You'll find "Democrats" pretending the Confederate swastika and Ted Nugent aren't bigoted.

And last month I showed a link to a right wing nut site where RKBA enthusiasts were boasting about sneaking on here with nicknames like "leftofstalin," getting kicked off, and sneaking back.

Draw your own conclusions...

[DocSavage]

14. dem vs. dem?

It is not Dem vs. Dem. It is the people that feel that guns should be banned vs. the people that do not. It is as simple as that. As far as posting articles and references from repub sites, well, yes it is true that the right tends to defend the 2nd ammendment as a personal right, therefore, that is a lot of writting done about it there.

Are there people from the right that view this board, (JPSO specifically) sure, so what. If they are respectful and add to the discourse, GOOD. I support the RKBA and will continue to do so. If I find what I feel is relevent and pertinant views on worldnet, or townhall or mother jones I will link to them. Just because an article is from one of those sites does not automatically make it null and void.

[MrBenchley]

15. Yeah, surrrrrrrrrrre....

"As far as posting articles and references from repub sites, well, yes it is true that the right tends to defend the 2nd ammendment as a personal right"
And it's as dishonest as the WMDs in Iraq or "trees cause pollution" or "affirmative action is really bigotry" or "voters want vouchers" or any of their other bullshit claims.

"Just because an article is from one of those sites does not automatically make it null and void. "
Yeah, surrrrre....and perhaps not all the dog turds on the street are made of shit....

[DocSavage]

16. yeah, surrrrrrrre........

And we are to automatically accept every link that you post as gospel. Yhea, surrrrrrrrrrre.....

[MrBenchley]

17. Gee, doc, I'm not the one

posting right wing propaganda...

"we are to automatically accept every link that you post"
If you can challenge them with FACTS, open the ball....but so far all I see frrom the RKBA crowd is hysteria and horseshit...

[Wcross]

20. Gun rights

Believe it or not Benchley, I didn't get the memo about having to be anti-gun in order to be a democrat. I don't think that memo has made it out of California and the northeast.

Oh, I found another "right wing extremist" group for you to check out;

http://www.pinkpistols.com/index.html

[MrBenchley]

21. Believe it or not, cross.....

I couldn't begin to count the memos it seems you didn't get.

"I found another "right wing extremist" group"
Hey....are you trying to pretend there aren't any right wing extremist gay people?

[Wcross]

23. So

So gun owners should start voting for other parties? So if a person understands that gun ownership is a right, just as freedom of speach is, he/she can't vote democratic?

You have the nerve to label someone an extremist??? BWAAAAAAAAAA!

You are an anti-gun extremist son. I don't know where your politics are on other issues, but you seem to think that all democrats should feel like you do about the gun issue. Well, we don't.

Can't count the memo's I didn't get? Ok its easy One, then comes two, then you have three, on to four, next is five, counting is easy benchley! Just cause you can't count and don't understand the right to keep and bear arms doesn't make you a bad person, just misinformed,

[MrBenchley]

39. So

"I don't know where your politics are on other issues, but you seem to think that all democrats should feel like you do about the gun issue. "
And you don't? And if not, what are you bitching about?

"if a person understands that gun ownership is a right, just as freedom of speach is"
Then they're either full of crap or they've been misinformed by NRA propaganda.

[Wcross]

40. Huh?

"I don't know where your politics are on other issues, but you seem to think that all democrats should feel like you do about the gun issue. "
And you don't? And if not, what are you bitching about?

Scuse me? what do you mean by this?

[MrBenchley]

55. Clear enough

You not only want Democrats to take YOUR position, but to take the identical position to the GOP. Bring your lunch.

[Wcross]

57. Seems like

Seems like it would help get the independent votes back from the GOP. Of course I am open minded enough to see that it was not shrubs apperance at Bob Jones university (snicker) that swung so many votes away from Gore. Believe what you will, even if it is laughable.

[MrBenchley]

65. What a pantload

"get the independent votes back from the GOP"
Dream on. Let's pick up all the GOP positions then too! (NOT!!)

[DocSavage]

31. Challenges

What I see often is you dismissing information presented because of it political leanings according to Benchly. Does a poll conducted by the NRA have any less validity to it then a poll conducted by the Brady orgainization? I have read your opinion of the NRA so I know the answer.

It is easy to win arguments (in your head) if you dismiss all opinion presented that opposes yours. The hardest thing that I had to do in college was prepare and debate gun control from your side, I learned a lot but the funny thing was that the pro RKBA that were on your side did not change thier minds, but some of the anti RKBA that had to be pro did change thier views after this.

I am sure that this means nothing to you, but to me it means that people saw things from the other side and it opend thier eyes.

[MrBenchley]

56. Hahahahahahahaha!

"What I see often is you dismissing information presented because of it political leanings"
Gee, doc, what's the NAME of this website?

"Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas."
And you want to bitch because right wing reacctionary dishonest propaganda isn't honored at face value?

"I am sure that this means nothing to you"
Yup.

[Wcross]

62. So you hijacked it?

Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas."

Whats liberal about gun control? Firearms make everyone equal from the 90 pound woman to the toughest of tough guy. Firearms can protect lives as well as take lives. Freedom is a value I think everybody that visits D.U. treasures, yet you have hijacked this forum to keep harping on a subject that clearly cost us an election!!!

Oh, I forgot, it was shrubs visit to that silly assed university that lost it, BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

[MrBenchley]

66. The hijacking is from those pimping GOP propaganda

"Whats liberal about gun control?"
Hand us anothger BIG laugh....why don't you tell us what's liberal about pimping for onne of the most corrupt industries in America?

"Freedom is a value I think everybody that visits D.U. treasures"
Except the gun nuts, who clearly think what most Americans want is of no consequence whatsoever.

[Wcross]

68. It's hopeless

I give up. I tried to point out that the last election might have been lost, by among other things, the parties embrace of the hardliners for gun "control". I have been put down and called stupid because I don't agree with gun control. I put down others and inferred stupidity so I am at fault as well.

I will no longer visit this part of D.U. (to many peoples relief!)Please keep the idea in mind, tone down the gun control platform and we might just win back the white house.

Good day

[MrBenchley]

70. Hand us a big laugh

"I have been put down and called stupid because I don't agree with gun control."
Really? Where?

[Paladin]

67. I've Been In J/PS Since The Very Early Days........

....and I can assure you that the only "hijacking" that has taken place here is the influx of Second Amendment Absolutists, such as yourself, hellbent on getting the Democratic Party to alter its traditional stance on gun control. As in the beginning, I continue to believe that there is nothing accidental about you people showing up in this forum; I've been in business and politics for over three decades, and I can recognize an organized incursion when I see one. It's not as if you guys do much in the way of disguising your motives.....

[MrBenchley]

69. Hell, on another website

they were boasting about sneaking on here pretending to be Democrats....

[Paladin]

71. Imagine My Utter Lack Of Surprise.......

Like I said, it's not as if they do much in the way of disguising their true motives.....

[MrBenchley]

72. Check it out...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=170057

[Liberal Classic]

26. So the gospel according to Benchley is:

No Democrat supports the private ownership of arms. If you do, you're a damnfool traitor to the left wing.

Yay for you.

The funny thing is that I have known plenty of Democrats who were against abortion or were not so hot on gun control. They believed in the New Deal, but they took all kinds of hell because they didn't walk the straight and narrow. There are even some few Democrats here who are pro-life or pro-gun. Mr. Benchley, be proud that you subscribe to "You are with me or you are with the terrorists" school of orthodoxy. You're keeping the Democratic Party idologically pure. Keep it up.

[MrBenchley]

38. The Gospel Acccording to Benchley Is....

Democrats are as Democrats do.....

"No Democrat supports the private ownership of arms."
Funny...that's just the kind of crap I hear spouted by right wing lunatics on public forums pretty much every day....

You will find "Democrats" here attacking every Democrat you've ever heard while cheering for Orrin Hatch and Linda Chavez. You'll find "Democrats" posting articles from the Washington Times, WorldNutDaily, Newsmax and the like. You'll find "Democrats" pretending the Confederate swastika and Ted Nugent aren't bigoted.

And last month I showed a link to a right wing nut site where RKBA enthusiasts were boasting about sneaking on here with nicknames like "leftofstalin," getting kicked off, and sneaking back.

Draw your own conclusions...

[Liberal Classic]

74. That's what I love about you, man!

You're a united, not a divider. There is no one on this forum who better represents the qualities of inclusion and tolerance better than you do. It warms my heart to hear you calling for liberals to put aside their differences for the greater good. Ordinary people tend to get mired in the details and personal squabbles, but not you. You're an expert on every topic and a friend to all. I'm proud to consider you my friend. It's so refreshing that you can look past petty differences. Thanks!

[demsrule4life]

13. More guns making America safer

http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0309/04/m01.html
http://www.heraldandnews.com/articles/2003/09/03/news/top_stories/jury.txt
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/7322555p-8266822c.html

[Shanty Oilish]

29. Bears and moose in rural America

Here in PA, for example, there are plenty of areas like the state forests and the Poconos, where there are thousands of homes with backyards accessible to bears; where it's not unknown to have a buck crash through your patio doors, thinking he sees another buck (or better); where you can't walk to town without passing the edge of a forest full of dangerous critters.
You can carry a frankfurter, but you're safer with a gun.

[Liberal Classic]

75. Last week an 11' gator ate a dog in my hometown

That's on the Gulf Coast.