Newtown massacre reawakens question of gun control
The United States suffers more gun deaths and mass shootings than any other major industrialized country. It’s not even close. And of the dozen most deadly mass killings in U.S. history, half have occurred within the past five years. In other words, if you believe that these things are happening more and more often, the numbers validate that belief.
The question is why.
The NRA and its supporters say the problem is not easy access to guns. To the contrary, they often argue that the problem is a shortage of guns. If only we had more guns in circulation, fewer would die. The day before the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the Michigan Legislature embraced that theory in passing a law allowing those with concealed carry permits to possess weapons in schools, churches and other formerly gun-free areas. Michigan’s governor has yet to say whether he intends to sign such a bill.
However, there is no evidence to support the NRA’s contention. Those countries with much lower death rates do not achieve those rates by allowing free and easy access to guns by almost everybody, regardless of training. Quite the contrary. Those few countries in which guns are even more ubiquitous than the United States — countries such as Iraq — have much higher death rates.
In addition, gun laws are more lax here in the South and guns themselves are more numerous. Under the NRA theory, that ought to produce a more civil, less violent society. The data say otherwise:
On the other hand, those who turn reflexively to gun control as an answer must acknowledge the inadequacies of that approach as well. Yesterday’s school shooting took place in Connecticut, a state with strong gun-control laws. The pistols that were used — a Sig Sauer and a Glock of undetermined model — had been legally obtained and were registered to Nancy Lanza, the late mother of the 20-year-old shooter. It has been widely reported that a Bushmaster .223 assault weapon — a version of the AR-15 — was found in the trunk of the vehicle driven by Adam Lanza to the school. However, Lt. Paul Vance of the Connecticut state patrol said at a press conference this morning that all recovered weapons were found in close proximity to Lanza’s body.
The high kill rate in the shootings — only one person was wounded and survived — suggests Lanza was experienced with firearms. But based on what we know now, it is hard to explain in concrete, direct fashion how any reasonable set of changes to our gun laws would have prevented Friday’s tragedy.
For example, I have not been able to find any more specific information about the types of pistols used in the attack, or whether those pistols or the Bushmaster were equipped with high-capacity magazines. As a practical matter, outlawing pistols would not be feasible given how many are already in circulation. It would also be impossible politically. Outlawing high-capacity magazines might be another matter, but again, as of yet we have no indication they played a role in this attack.
Guns are inanimate objects. Guns don’t kill people; people kill people. I accept all of that as fact. However, I would have no problem whatsoever with again outlawing military-style assault weapons. Neither would the U.S. Supreme Court, even based on its most recent pro-gun rulings.
As gun supporters point out, and accurately so, other semi-automatic weapons are capable of delivering the same high fire rate as those described as assault weapons. It is striking, however, that these “other” weapons do not typically show up in the hands of mass murderers such as Adam Lanza. The military-style design of assault weapons may be superficial, but it gives them a powerful mystique to weak-minded souls pursuing visions of vengeance and power.
Speaking in general, rather than in reaction to the Newtown strategy, it is reasonable to propose that the legal ability to purchase and possess deadly firearms be linked to training and testing on the responsible use of such weapons. That would be a regulation of people, not of guns. Such proposals would nonetheless be fought bitterly by the NRA because they would reduce gun sales, and the NRA is in many ways nothing more than a front for its gun-industry sponsors.
Such laws would in no way infringe on constitutional rights as outlined in the Second Amendment and Supreme Court opinions. The millions of law-abiding, responsible gun owners in this country would have nothing to fear from such a system. In fact, as the NRA often points out correctly, those gun owners who have gone through the steps required to obtain a concealed carry permit rarely use those guns in crime. That record suggests a possible path forward for those who recognize both the constitutional right to possess firearms and the necessity of mitigating the damage done when those guns fall into the wrong hands.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
1,704 comments Add your comment
TaxPayer
December 15th, 2012
2:25 pm
Perhaps scout CAN produce scientific studies supporting his claim at 2:17?
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
2:26 pm
“Gun owners not only have the right to bear arms, they have the responsibility to protect the innocent from misuse of their weapons..”
I agree with this, but not with your first sentence. Some of it constitutes unreasonable searchs, guilty until proven innocent, and invasion of privacy.
Brosephus™
December 15th, 2012
2:28 pm
josef
getalife
December 15th, 2012
2:28 pm
Harry can say outrageous things like the cons to get publicity.
Tit for tat politics.
DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman
December 15th, 2012
2:28 pm
It can’t totally …………. but it CAN minimize it by allowing teachers, staff and maintenance workers to carry “if” that school district wants that option.
Oh yeah, THAT’ll work!!
And if that teacher, janitor, et al, have a bad day and decides to commit workplace violence, then they don’t even have to worry about being stopped at the door with their guns — they’re ALLOWED to bring them inside!
Let’s go all out!! Let’s allow guns at:
**Sporting events — so that if your team looses and the guy next to you whose a fan of the opposite team crows too much about winning, you can shoot him and declare that you felt threatened by his joy.
**Church – so that if the preacher says something you don’t like during service, then BANG! Shut yer mouth you SOB!!
**Hospitals — so if your wife has a baby with skin thats a bit TOO brown; and you’re whiter than Larry Bird………..BANG!! You cheated on me!!
Yeah everyone carrying is such a goood idea!!
I wonder why they did away with that option after the West was won?
barking frog
December 15th, 2012
2:30 pm
Children have the right to be protected from harm when they are
required under penalty of law to be in a government building just
like judges and administrators.
TaxPayer
December 15th, 2012
2:30 pm
cons are scared of de banana, man.
barking frog
December 15th, 2012
2:32 pm
debbie do
tennessee now allows concealed carry in bars unless the
proprietor posts ‘no guns allowed’ signs.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
2:33 pm
“when they are required under penalty of law to be in a government building ”
Actually…they aren’t. You have heard of home schooling, haven’t you?
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
December 15th, 2012
2:33 pm
Well, we don’t need gun control, we need a law that makes everybody own at least one gun. I bet if those little 1st and 2nd graders was packing that crazy loon would of run when he seen them coming toward him, blasting away. And the punks in the schools that act up would thing twice if they knew the teacher had a Glock in her purse.
Besides, like my NRA always says, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. The only way to get rid of these mass killings is to get rid of people. And we know we don’t want to do that.
So all the librul weenies on here that want to outlaw guns done picked out the wrong target. Like my Hero always said before he up and died on us, “They can take my guns when they pry my cold, dead fingers off of them.”
Have a good Saturday everybody. Since it’s kinda overcast, it might be time for everybody to go to a local gun show and buy a piece or two. Good for the economy and you’ll feel alot safer on the way home. All you got to do is hold your gun up and kinda look at it while people to your left and right look at you.
barking frog
December 15th, 2012
2:35 pm
Doggone/GA
Children are not allowed to choose home schooling.
deegee
December 15th, 2012
2:35 pm
This past year we have had at least two heart wrenching, soul searching discussions about innocent people who were slaughtered by a crazed gunman. Next year we will have at least two more. Get used to it. We aren’t ready to change anything about the way we live.
TaxPayer
December 15th, 2012
2:35 pm
Doggone,
When people ask for the privilege of toting guns around others they IMHO have to be willing to give up something of themselves as proof of their ability to be entrusted with this privilege. There are simply too many risks to other’s lives not to do so.
TM
December 15th, 2012
2:36 pm
taxpayer==
“CAR owners should be required to take annual drug tests and periodic psychiatric evaluations at their own expense and they should be required to keep their CAR adequately secured or rendered inoperable by others without their permission. CAR owners not only have the right to DRIVE, they have the responsibility to protect the innocent from misuse of their CAR..
DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman
December 15th, 2012
2:36 pm
frog — that’s why tennessee has the worst tasting water in all of the states.
All those drunks pizzing in the open after going into the bar………..trying to show off their “guns”
oh wait, what were saying about the gun law again?
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
2:37 pm
“Children are not allowed to choose home schooling”
Are you really that dumb?
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
2:38 pm
“There are simply too many risks to other’s lives not to do so.”
Law abiding citizens are no risk to other’s lives.
GT
December 15th, 2012
2:38 pm
There is this inferiority complex among American men that goes unmentioned like the elephant in your living room. These guns bring some false security, some heathen pleasure, forced respect, that must be reinforced somewhere in our society, like the old Marlboro man making smoking look manly. Nope I seriously think these men believe there will be a revolution some day and they need to be armed. The Waffle House gang of old white men that are ready to take on this nation, or some 20 year old nut killing children. I truly hope that side doesn’t win we have enough nuts running this country already.
getalife
December 15th, 2012
2:38 pm
cons are scared of everything.
How to protect the children at school so this will not happen again?
I think it is a security issue not a gun law issue.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
2:39 pm
TM – beat me to it!
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
2:39 pm
Debbie:
Good ! We’re in agreement on those !
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
2:41 pm
Doggone:
Are you a “Democrat” or a “Democratic”.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
2:41 pm
“How to protect the children at school so this will not happen again?”
There are some things we can do to help protect children better…but we cannot guarantee something like this will not happen again. To think so is to fool yourself into a sense of false security.
barking frog
December 15th, 2012
2:41 pm
Doggone/GA
“Children are not allowed to choose home schooling”
Are you really that dumb?
…………………………………….
I speak as well as I type…research when….
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
2:42 pm
“Are you a “Democrat” or a “Democratic”.”
Are you a “Republic” or a “Republicic”
Thulsa Doom
December 15th, 2012
2:43 pm
More armed teachers is a possible real world solution. It IS possible, constitutional and rational. The only problem is that it doesn’t politically satisfy liberals.”
“That’s just pure crazy talk. You want to put a fully loaded firearm within easy reach of a classroom teacher — otherwise it wouldn’t be of much use — yet somehow keep it out of reach of the 20-something kids in that same classroom?”- Jay Bookman
You sure about that Jay??? I’m not sure that arming teachers is s solution but I wouldn’t call it a crazy idea. It might be reasonable to at least allow a teacher who wants and gets licensed to carry a firearm to have one- perhaps one that has a trigger lock if possible or that can be safely stored and only pulled in emergencies.
And before you call that poster’s idea crazy you might want to open your mind and enlighten yourself. Can’t remember who said it a while back but apparently in some parts of Israel the teachers stand guard and carry UZIs while the students load the buses. Is that crazy? Or is it needed? In any event it sure seems to work. Its called deterrence. And in the article below it sure seemed to work for these Israeli schoolchildren. I wonder why stuff like this never makes the news?
Armed Teachers stop Terrorist Attack in Israel
A dramatic story can be found here:
Two Palestinian terrorists disguised in Israel Defense Forces (IDF) uniforms entered the study hall at Makor Haim High School in Kibbutz Kfar Etzion southeast of Jerusalem.
Al-Aksa Brigades: Assassinate Fayyad Armed with guns and knives, the terrorists managed to stab several students before armed school counselors arrived and shot them dead.
“The terrorists came inside and began stabbing the students,” a defense official said.
“This could have ended much worse,” said another in Central Command. . . .
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
2:44 pm
Does the media not realize that by totally over-saturating the airwaves with this tragedy that they could be facilitating a “copycat” scenario ?
JKL2
December 15th, 2012
2:44 pm
Debbie- And if that teacher, janitor, et al, have a bad day and decides to commit workplace violence, then they don’t even have to worry about being stopped at the door with their guns — they’re ALLOWED to bring them inside!
Reminds me of the time I was in Iraq. They wouldn’t let me in the bank because I wasn’t carrying a loaded weapon.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
2:45 pm
Doggone:
I am a Republican.
Are you a “Democrat” ?
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
December 15th, 2012
2:45 pm
. . .like the old Marlboro man making smoking look manly.
Well, not to be picky or nothing like that, but there is no old Marlboro man. They die kinda young. Just like my cousin that smoked 3 packs a day for 30 years and now has lung and brain cancer. Now he walks around spouting stuff like, “Why me?” And the answer is always, “Because you’re the one that smoked 3 packs a day for 30 years.”
Thought I’d get that one off of my chest. Carry on.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
2:47 pm
“Debbie- And if that teacher, janitor, et al, have a bad day and decides to commit workplace violence, then they don’t even have to worry about being stopped at the door with their guns — they’re ALLOWED to bring them inside!”
Or just sneak them in.
Geez !
barking frog
December 15th, 2012
2:47 pm
JKL2
Reminds me of the time I was in Iraq. They wouldn’t let me in the bank because I wasn’t carrying a loaded weapon.
………………..
i’m assuming this was a sperm bank….
getalife
December 15th, 2012
2:47 pm
“Reminds me of the time I was in Iraq. They wouldn’t let me in the bank because I wasn’t carrying a loaded weapon.”
Why in the world did you not have a weapon in Iraq?
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
2:47 pm
“Does the media not realize that by totally over-saturating the airwaves with this tragedy that they could be facilitating a “copycat” scenario ?”
It’s within the bounds of possiblity that THIS WAS a copycat crime. See the reports about the children attacked in China just the day before. And yes, it MIGHT trigger a copycat crime…but it also puts people all over the country on their guard too.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
2:48 pm
“Are you a “Democrat” ?”
Are you a “Republic”
TM
December 15th, 2012
2:48 pm
Armed security guards don’t stop bank robberies and armed teacher would not prevent Newtown. You have to figure out how to diagnose and segregate from society these mentally ill citizens,
TaxPayer
December 15th, 2012
2:49 pm
Tm, even though cars are not designed for the sole purpose of killing, we are required to submit ourselves to periodic evaluation in order to prove ourselves as capable of properly operating said vehicle as well as purchase an annual tag and insurance and be subjected to random checks at road blocks and all sorts of other regulations such as safe operating speeds, etc. do the equivalent with guns.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
2:49 pm
“XXXXX (I refuse to post his name), 20, went to a Dick’s Sporting Goods store in Danbury, Conn., on Tuesday to buy the weapon, but was turned down because he didn’t want to undergo a background check or abide by the state’s waiting period for gun sales, the officials said.”
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/15/15926718-newtown-gunman-tried-to-buy-rifle-days-before-shooting?lite
Newtown massacre reawakens question of gun control « thegonzowire
December 15th, 2012
2:49 pm
[...] http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/12/15/newtown-massacre-reawakens-question-of-gun-contro… Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. Published: December 15, 2012 Filed Under: Uncategorized [...]
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
2:50 pm
TaxPayer:
“The right to transportation shall not be infringed”.
Ah ………… don’t think that is in there.
JKL2
December 15th, 2012
2:50 pm
barking frog- i’m assuming this was a sperm bank….
Yes, fertility clinics are popular in combat zones…
Thulsa Doom
December 15th, 2012
2:50 pm
Arming teachers is just plain crazy huh Jay? The Thais and Israelis are just plain crazy. BTW the last time I heard of a group of Jewish being attacked by terrorist gunman was only last year. It was in france though. Not Israel.
In Israel, teachers and parents who serve as school aids are armed with semi-automatic firearms whenever they are on school grounds. Since the country adopted this policy in the 1970s, attacks by gunmen at Israeli schools have become non-existent.
In 2004 Thailand adopted a similar approach to ensure the safety of its schoolchildren.
On April 27, 2004, Associated Press reported, “Interior Minister Bhokin Bhalakula ordered provincial governors to give teachers licences to buy guns if they wanted to, even though it would mean bringing firearms into the classrooms when the region’s 925 schools re-opened on May 17, after two months of summer holiday.”
The report stated that though Thailand’s government was extremely hostile to gun ownership in general, it recognized that teachers ought to be in a position to safeguard themselves and their students.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/91528/#BP8FlPcf5r1ocGBu.99
indigo
December 15th, 2012
2:51 pm
Intellecual – 2:01
You must think I don’t know what evasivness is.
A gun ban, if enforced, would certainly stop a great many senseless GUN murders and massacers.
Discussing banning guns and issues that create people with evil intentions are two SEPERATE things and require seperate talks.
Trying to cover up the real issue here with disingenuous and non sequitur thinking won’t fool those here who can see thru your smoke and mirrors.
JamVet
December 15th, 2012
2:51 pm
Look at the violence Hollywood promotes…
Any bets that this fraud hasn’t watched hundred if not thousands of hour of it?
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
2:51 pm
TaxPayer:
P.S.
I assume you want people who might handle firearms to be properly trained on their use so as to become more proficient and efficient ?
That might have made this killer even more deadly. So how would that help ?
DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman
December 15th, 2012
2:52 pm
Scout — Why do you think that after the “West Was Won” that open carry was NOT allowed in our society anymore?
Why do you think that afterwards they also wanted people to be registered?
Why do you think that when after a hundred of years or so of allowing people to walk around openly with their guns, that all of a sudden it was outlawed and stopped?
Just asking…………..
Thomas Heyward Jr
December 15th, 2012
2:52 pm
If guns are outlawed only outlaws…………and government thugs……………….will have guns.
.
Ain’t gonna happen.
.
Forward Freedom!
getalife
December 15th, 2012
2:52 pm
jk,
Why in the world did you not have a weapon in a combat zone?
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
2:52 pm
“we are required to submit ourselves to periodic evaluation in order to prove ourselves as capable of properly operating said vehicle as well as ”
I have renewed my drivers license online for the last 10 years. That hardly constitutes a “periodic evaluation”
JKL2
December 15th, 2012
2:52 pm
getlife- Why in the world did you not have a weapon in Iraq?
I was in PT’s and didn’t have it on me and the security guard wouldn’t let me in without it.
DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman
December 15th, 2012
2:52 pm
should’ve said GUN owners to be registered.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
2:53 pm
indigo:
“A gun ban, if enforced, would certainly stop a great many senseless GUN murders and massacers.”
One problem:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
barking frog
December 15th, 2012
2:53 pm
JKL2
Yes, fertility clinics are popular in combat zones…
……………….
leave a little something for posterity….
indigo
December 15th, 2012
2:54 pm
degree – 2:35 “we aren’t ready to change anything”
As to strong gun regulations, the above statement is absolute true for the NRA, gun manufacturers and the Republican Party.
Profits MUST be protected and the campaign cash MUST be kept flowing.
As for lives, well, heck, people come and go, like leaves on a tree.
TaxPayer
December 15th, 2012
2:55 pm
“There are simply too many risks to other’s lives not to do so.”
Law abiding citizens are no risk to other’s lives.
Especially if they abide by laws that would further reduce the probability of innocent people being shot.
TM
December 15th, 2012
2:55 pm
Taxpayer== I have been driving over 40 years and have never been “required to submit ourselves to periodic evaluation in order to prove ourselves as capable of properly operating said vehicle” What State do you live in??
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 15th, 2012
2:56 pm
The right of the people to keep and bear arms may be regulated.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
2:56 pm
Debbie:
Many states still allow “open carry” and some don’t even require a license.
For example, in Vermont you may carry a handgun openly or concealed without any type of permit.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
2:57 pm
“Especially if they abide by laws that would further reduce the probability of innocent people being shot”
And they already do.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
2:58 pm
Good Fight:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms may be regulated.”
Just like the 1st Amendment you are correct. There can be reasonable restrictions but it cannot be total.
Thus we have “Heller” and the D.C. Government was requred to provide a mechanism for law abiding citizens to have/carry handguns.
TaxPayer
December 15th, 2012
2:58 pm
That online renewal is all that is deemed as necessary at this time doggone but that does not lessen it as being the mandated periodic evaluation nor does your comment address all the others mandates I mentioned.
barking frog
December 15th, 2012
2:58 pm
municipalities have always regulated guns.
indigo
December 15th, 2012
2:59 pm
scout – 2:53
You left out the part about the Militia. Since nowadays, the “people” whose “right” our founders were protecting are our Military, the people are keeping and bearing arms.
If you are a full-time civilian, you are NOT part of the Militia and you do NOT have the right to “keep and bear arms” because of the 2nd Ammendment.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
3:00 pm
“doggone but that does not lessen it as being the mandated periodic evaluation”
Never mind that it’s NO evaluation at all. They are simply taking my word for it that I am still a good and safe driver. Where is the “evaluation” in THAT?
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
3:00 pm
Here are state by state firearms regulations if anyone is interested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)
DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman
December 15th, 2012
3:01 pm
Scout – you didn’t answer my question……….
Moon Mullins
December 15th, 2012
3:01 pm
The NRA would argue that this whole tragedy could have been averted if the Principal had a weapon or if one the the second graders had been carrying concealed.
“The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.” ~Albert Einstein
TaxPayer
December 15th, 2012
3:01 pm
And I am promoting stricter laws doggone given the obvious shortcomings with the current ones regarding loss of innocent lives from guns. You obviously take issue with that. Good for you. We shall remain in disagreement.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
December 15th, 2012
3:02 pm
I have been driving over 40 years and have never been “required to submit ourselves to periodic evaluation in order to prove ourselves as capable of properly operating said vehicle”
Well, if you live in GA and are 65 or over, you’ll submit yourself. None of this online stuff. I guess the reason is because most people think a 65 year old dribbles all over his shoes when he goes to the bathroom and slobbers and all that stuff. You’ll have to take a eye test every time and get the vision checked from the sides of your eyes, etc. And you won’t get more than 4 years worth of liscence before you have to submit yourself again. None of this 10 year and 6 year stuff.
getalife
December 15th, 2012
3:02 pm
I propose an armed guard with training at all elementary schools.
Jobs and security.
stands for decibels
December 15th, 2012
3:02 pm
It’s probably time to start having a serious talk about repealing the Second Amendment. Because as written (very, very poorly, and for the most cowardly of reasons, if you actually know anything about its history), you can have a SCOTUS that could potentially interpret to mean that citizens have an unfettered right to any weapon. They haven’t quite got there yet but they’re moving in that direction.
I personally think it is moronic for any government to assert that its citizens have a right to arm themselves. i think it makes far more sense to have sensible regulations on gun ownership and to treat it as a privilege rather than a right. I realize I’m in the minority on this, but I suspect my view will become a lot more reasonable sounding in the years ahead.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
3:03 pm
“If you are a full-time civilian, you are NOT part of the Militia and you do NOT have the right to “keep and bear arms” because of the 2nd Ammendment”
Yes, you do. There’s nothing in that amendment that REQUIRES participation in a militia. But it is the right to keep and bear arms that makes it possible to HAVE such a militia if and when it’s needed.
DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman
December 15th, 2012
3:03 pm
I know that in Florida — especially for those over a certain age, (where there are a lot of elderly drivers), every few years there are mandatory testings.
Don’t know about other states.
Look before I leap...
December 15th, 2012
3:03 pm
“Law abiding citizens are no risk to other’s lives.”
Tell that to anyone who goes hunting with Dick Cheney.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
3:04 pm
indigo:
And the Supreme Court in “Heller” said you are wrong. I suggest you read the entire ruling but here are some major excerpts:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
Page 6
a. RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE
“Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.”
Page 24
b. SECURITY OF A FREE STATE
“The phrase “security of a free state” meant “security of a free polity” not security of each of the several states.”
“There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary for the security of a free state” ……….. Third, when the
able bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.”
Page 25
3. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PREFATORY CLAUSE AND OPERATIVE CLAUSE
“That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able bodied men was not by
banning the militia but simply taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress
political opponents.”
Page 26
“It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might
be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.”
stands for decibels
December 15th, 2012
3:04 pm
…should add–obviously, if we could get some kind of national consensus and regulation for sensible gun ownership regulations without doing what I’ve proposed @ 3.02, I’d be fine with that outcome.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
3:05 pm
“And I am promoting stricter laws doggone given the obvious shortcomings with the current ones regarding loss of innocent lives from guns. You obviously take issue with that”
I am in agreement with the principle you espouse, but not the specifics
TaxPayer
December 15th, 2012
3:05 pm
Doggone,
You had to take a driver,s test initially and as I said that is currently deemed to be adequate when taken in conjunction with other motor vehicle laws. You obviously are looking to pick a fight without first selecting weapons that we both agree on using.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
3:06 pm
stands for decibles:
“It’s probably time to start having a serious talk about repealing the Second Amendment.”
And that would be the process. Have at it.
Until then ……….. the Constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS stands.
TM
December 15th, 2012
3:06 pm
I doubt any remembers 1996 but then again it happened in Scotland
The Dunblane school massacre occurred at Dunblane Primary School in the Scottish town of Dunblane on 13 March 1996. The gunman, 43-year-old Thomas Hamilton (b. 10 May 1952), entered the school armed with four handguns, shooting and killing sixteen children and one adult before committing suicide. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre and the 2010 Cumbria shootings, it remains one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in the history of the United Kingdom.
Public debate subsequent to these events centred on gun-control laws, including media-driven public petitions calling for a ban on private ownership of handguns and an official enquiry, the Cullen Report. In response to this debate, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 were enacted, which effectively made private ownership of handguns illegal in the United Kingdom.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
3:06 pm
“It’s probably time to start having a serious talk about repealing the Second Amendment”
Ok, now lets have a discussion about something that is POSSIBLE, not the impossible
indigo
December 15th, 2012
3:07 pm
Doggone/GA – 3:03
No, you don’t. UNLESS you’re part of that “well regulated Militia”.
That was the whole idea of the 2nd ammendment.
Do you really think Jefferson and Franklin would approve of all the gun murders commited today under the excuse of “right to keep and bear arms”?
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
3:08 pm
“Tell that to anyone who goes hunting with Dick Cheney”
What makes you think Cheney was abiding by the law that day? One of the “unwritten” laws of hunting is to NOT SHOOT until you are SURE of your target.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
3:08 pm
indigo:
Further homework/reading assignments for your edification:
“The role of militia, also known as military service and duty, in the United States is complex and has transformed over time.[1] The term militia can be used to describe any number of groups within the United States. Primarily, these fall into:
The organized militia created by the Militia Act of 1903, which split from the 1792 Uniform Militia forces, and consist of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.[2] The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
The reserve militia[3] or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia.(that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft). Former members of the armed forces up to age 65 are also considered part of the “unorganized militia” per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.[2]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
3:09 pm
indigo @ 3:07
Have you read that Supreme Court ruling in “Heller” yet?
It will save you a lot of typing and misinformation.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
3:09 pm
“You obviously are looking to pick a fight without first selecting weapons that we both agree on using”
Picking a fight? Now it’s picking a fight to point out that you are WRONG? Well, if that’s your take on it…it’s your problem, not mine.
DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman
December 15th, 2012
3:10 pm
indigo — scout is cherry picking various passages, that aren’t being summarily connected, from that case at random. I’m guessing he probably got it off of an NRA site or a pro-guns site.
My advice is to read the whole opinion for yourself.
I’ve noticed on this blog that some people, (not scout!!!
), only like to pick out the things that validate their argument, but does not paint the entire picture, so to speak.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
3:11 pm
“That was the whole idea of the 2nd ammendment”
Then why isn’t it enshrined in the WORDS of the 2nd amendment? it isn’t. There is no requirement to belong to a militia in those words.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
3:12 pm
“Gun-control laws failed Connecticut children
Facts of crime reveal shooter violated at least 3 statutes already in place”
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 15th, 2012
3:13 pm
Until then ……….. the Constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS stands
Or until the Supreme Court addresses the issue again in another case and modifies or overturns it.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
3:15 pm
Debbie Do:
How about “Lawnix”. Maybe that will make you happy.
“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 15th, 2012
3:16 pm
laws do not fail children. Violation of laws were responsible. The ones regarding murder.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
3:18 pm
“laws do not fail children. Violation of laws were responsible. The ones regarding murder.”
And with all the best will in the world, NO law can be guaranteed to prevent a behavior…they can only codify the punisment for violating that law.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
3:19 pm
Good Fight:
Which is the way the system works …………. and yes there are other cases to come such as can one state refuse to recognize another state’s license.
Note: Each state must recognize another state’s driver’s license even if their state requires dirivers to be 19 but the other state only 16.
Good over Evil
December 15th, 2012
3:19 pm
Jay,
I’d like to respond to your comments about limiting handgun magazine capacities. For law abiding citizens who own and conceal carry handguns for home defense and defense outside the home, the fact is that the more bullets you can have in your magazine, the more likely it is that you will be able to protect your loved ones and yourself should the need arise. Responsible gun owners train on how to draw and use their weapon when tenths of seconds count. Fact is, even the most highly trained law enforcement officers miss their target with many rounds due to adrenaline, moving target and other obstacles. There can also be more than one perpetrator that may need to be stopped and it is well known by ballistics experts that often multiple hits are required to stop a threat. If you don’t perfectly hit the perpetrator, you will need several hits before stopping the threat. Include the fact that you will likely miss several times as well and there may be a second or third perpetrator, you can see how a 15 round capacity handgun can easily be needed to save ones life or one’s family. 5 or 10 rounds can easily come up short for a law aiding citizen with all required licenses. Why limit bullet capacity for law abiding citizens who want to exercise their right to protect themselves and their families. I don’t think that would be fair or solve the problem we all face with crazy people trying to kill the innocent.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
3:20 pm
Good Fight:
And you would be correct and that’s why signs at schools saying “Gun Free Zones” are ridiculous.
barking frog
December 15th, 2012
3:21 pm
0311
Note: Each state must recognize another state’s driver’s license even if their state requires dirivers to be 19 but the other state only 16.
……………………………………………………….
also gun license and marriage license but they do not…
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
3:22 pm
Doggone:
“indigo” appears to be getalife in disguise.
No rational debate can be had.
pete
December 15th, 2012
3:23 pm
Whole lots of folks still getting DUI’s. In the liberal world, they would want to get rid of cars.
It is not the gun that is killing, it is the person. Stop pandering and trying to analyze the crime, make the criminal pay for their actions.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 15th, 2012
3:24 pm
Doggone, agreed. If laws prevented behaviors we would have no need for courts or prisons.
As someone posted (I believe it was Senior Digits), CT laws regarding gun control did stop the killer from buying a rifle. The laws worked to some degree.