Let’s limit guns to sane, responsible gun owners
Terrified by an intruder who had broken into her Walton County home earlier this month, Melinda Herman grabbed a .38-caliber pistol to protect herself and her two children. As the intruder drew closer to their attic hiding spot, Herman called upon her handgun training, practice and motherly protective instinct and fired six shots, five of which struck her target. The barrage drove the wounded intruder out of her home, where he was later arrested and hospitalized.
I do love a happy ending.
You can debate the statistics about how often guns kept in the home are used for good or evil. You can point out the many instances in which such weapons end up in the hands of children or criminals, or in which people mistake a loved one for an intruder, with tragic consequences. Those are facts that every would-be gun owner ought to know and weigh in their personal decision-making. But in this case, for Herman and her family, access to a firearm and the training to use it wisely worked out well.
Since the incident, opponents of gun-safety laws have seized upon Herman’s story as some sort of counterweight to the tragic mass murder of young children in Connecticut that is now driving a reassessment of our national gun laws. But the connection is tenuous at best. No serious gun law proposal in the wake of the Connecticut tragedy — and certainly no gun law that I would ever support — would attempt to disarm Herman or deny her the right to protect herself and her loved ones. That is simply not at issue.
Herman is a law-abiding, rational, trained adult, not a criminal or a person with mental-health problems. Likewise, a .38 pistol kept for home defense is not a semi-automatic high-velocity assault weapon with a large-capacity magazine being marketed as a cure for those insecure in their masculinity. Those distinctions are critical and easily drawn, both in law and in logic, and it’s important that they be recognized.
In other words, let’s keep this reasonable and rational, on all sides of the issue.
Here in Georgia, for example, state Rep. Paul Battles of Cartersville has announced legislation that would allow an administrator in each school — at the discretion of school district leadership — to undergo annual state peace-officer firearm training and be certified to carry a weapon at school. I don’t have a serious problem with that approach, in large part because it is voluntary for districts and because it meets the basic common-sense test of limiting guns to responsible, trained people.
The biggest danger of such an approach is the false sense of security it might create. In the infamous 1999 shooting at Columbine High School, an armed police officer was on duty at the school but found himself outgunned by the two student perpetrators. Of the 13 innocent people killed that day, 11 died after the killers’ initial engagement with armed law enforcement.
The tragic case of Keith Ratliff, a self-described “gun nut” who was found murdered in his Carnesville office earlier this month, surrounded by high-powered weaponry, further demonstrates that guns, like laws, are at best an imperfect defense. There is no solution to such violence; no single answer.
However, limiting gun possession and ammunition purchase to responsible citizens who are trained in their proper use — people such as Melinda Herman — would go a long way in reducing the carnage and heartbreak. In fact, if I could pass just one gun law, it would be a law barring the sale of ammunition to anyone who cannot demonstrate that had taken and passed a gun-safety course within the last five years.
I don’t know why that’s so hard.
– 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
902 comments Add your comment
Regnad Kcin
January 11th, 2013
2:13 pm
“These people already commit murder with any tool available. Firearms are only one issue”
True. But if they have to shoot slowly, and reload more often, lives could be saved, with only minimum inconvenience to sportsmen.
JamVet
January 11th, 2013
2:14 pm
stupid, yore Inglish be not good.
Erwin's cat
January 11th, 2013
2:15 pm
To me, there’s only 2 real categories to slot death by firearm.
I read yesterday that @ half of all gun deaths are suicides…so you need a third category
skipper
January 11th, 2013
2:16 pm
The savages in Chicago would still find a way to kill…..they have basically become de-sensitized. Hard words, but it will take more than strictly gun control to handle that deal up there. The mentality is so far-gone that they would be hittin’ folks over the head with something. As an independant, I hate to give up my guns because these brutes don’t know how to function. And yes, I know about the mass killings….these guys are just psychos. What about the every day killings? Deduct all the mass killings lately (and it is sad, for sure) and you can’t touch Chicago. Guns are getting some of the blame when the culture (or lack thereof)) is gonna have to tote some of the load.
stands for decibels
January 11th, 2013
2:16 pm
I figured sooner or later the fake Hitler quote would make an appearance. Thanks, “rightwingextreme.”
Recon 0311 2533
January 11th, 2013
2:17 pm
AR 15’s are modified .22 rifles
Actually no….the .223 or military 5.56×45 round was a variation of the .222 magnum. Eugene Stoner designed it for the military back in the late 50’s early 60’s for the military. I think the AR-10 is superior with its 7.62 firing capability. Far better round for combat than the 5.56 or civilian cal. .223.
Mick
January 11th, 2013
2:18 pm
Guns and abortion, two issues that tend to knot up the thinking of our beloved conned right wingers! Ain’t that america???
getalife
January 11th, 2013
2:19 pm
HK416 is a real gun del.
rightwingextreme
January 11th, 2013
2:19 pm
stands for decibels
January 11th, 2013
2:16 pm
I figured sooner or later the fake Hitler quote would make an appearance. Thanks, “rightwingextreme.”
ok…take out the quote from hitler……any problems with the rest??
ClydeFr0g
January 11th, 2013
2:21 pm
Stands,
“Given that a semi-automatic high-velocity assault weapon with a large-capacity magazine WAS, IN FACT, being marketed as a cure for those insecure in their masculinity, it is not “insulting anyone’s masculinity” to point out this inconvenient truth.”
NO. The marketing campaign was humor. Sorry you missed that, but I’m not surprised. Regardless, please answer the same question I keep asking that you and Jay seem to want to dodge;
You believe that injecting petty insults is the path to a sane, reasonable discussion on ANY topic with anyone?
If you do believe this just admit it, that you believe that insulting people is the way to bring everyone together in agreement.
If you see how foolish of a notion it is to expect that when one side of any argument can’t leave insults out of the “discussion”, there will be no rational sane discussion then I wonder what Jay is truly trying to accomplish, which is why I asked the question.
Here’s a hint: insulting people is not the way to have a sane rational discussion. I’d like to see Jay tell his wife that she’s getting fat and ugly as a way to have a sane rational discussion about what’s for dinner.
Paul
January 11th, 2013
2:23 pm
Recon
” A well structured and maintained national data base is the best approach. The NRA has advocated for such a database for years.”
That would be a good step.
When I did a google search, all I found was a reference that said the NRA chief advocated a national database – of the mentally ill.
I kid you not.
barking frog
January 11th, 2013
2:23 pm
Every man is entitled to free beer. -Samuel Adams
Citizen
January 11th, 2013
2:23 pm
“if I could pass just one gun law, it would be a law barring the sale of ammunition to anyone who cannot demonstrate that had taken and passed a gun-safety course within the last five years.” And how would that have stopped any of the recent shootings?
Steve
January 11th, 2013
2:25 pm
The gun lobby, led by the NRA, has convinced large numbers of people that any restriction on the ability to purchase any type of gun is somehow an infringement upon the right to bear arms. This is inaccurate, and it ignores the fact that the right to bear arms does not trump all other rights. It is not an absolute right, nor should it be. Unfortunately, many of the members of Congress will not yield for any restrictions on gun ownership because they are beholden to gun manufacturers. In many ways, Congress is a mouthpiece for gun manufacturers, and this is frightening.
http://www.politicususa.com/amenment-unfettered.html
Adam
January 11th, 2013
2:25 pm
TBG: For example, people who get SOOOO angry when debating climate change that they lose control and call names and insult those they are debating.
I agree. People like that should not own a gun and should be listed on a national mental health database.
Except for “being listed” I agree with you. The general public should not have access to such a database.
stands for decibels
January 11th, 2013
2:26 pm
ok…take out the quote from hitler……any problems with the rest??
“We did the nose. And the hat. But she’s a witch!”
Mick
January 11th, 2013
2:26 pm
“And I feel my finger on your trigger (oh, yeah)
I know nobody can do me no harm (oh, yeah)
Because, (happiness) is a warm gun, mama (bang bang shoot shoot)
Happiness is a warm gun, yes it is (bang bang shoot shoot)
Happiness is a warm, yes it is, gun
Happiness (bang bang shoot shoot)
Well don’t you know that happiness (happiness) is a warm gun, (is a warm gun, yeah).”
lennon/mccartney
Regnad Kcin
January 11th, 2013
2:26 pm
“ok…take out the quote from hitler……any problems with the rest??”
I respect the patience it took to cut-and-paste all that, I guess…
Adam
January 11th, 2013
2:27 pm
TBG: Yes, anyone who acts as I just did and loses their cool should be treated for a mental illness classification of hotheadedness. I never said I wasn’t one on certain subjects. But I bet I would be much better about it if there were therapy or drugs to help me deal with it, provided as a part of preventative care that all citizens get.
If it leads to a more civil discourse from ALL parties I am all for it, even if just for that reason.
Erwin's cat
January 11th, 2013
2:27 pm
If the right could figure out how to promote an AR15 for use in an abortion….then the left might accept them as necessary (sarc)
Adam
January 11th, 2013
2:28 pm
TBG: But again, the general public should not be able to know what is in a “national mental health database.”
JamVet
January 11th, 2013
2:28 pm
…unlike the ‘privelege’ (sic) of having a driver’s license.
This is simply incorrect. Driving is not a privilege.
It is a right.
Frankie
January 11th, 2013
2:28 pm
I am so sick of these people who classify those that commit these crimes like shooting up movie theaters and schools as social misfits or loaners…..NO THEY ARE CRAZY, MENTALLY ILL…the kids mother who got killed and her 20 year old CRAZY son went out and killed 20 children was CRAZY TOO..she left guns out, hide knives..
THE media id crazy too, they had the nerve to suggest that the boy wore ear plugs so he would not HEAR the SCREAMS of th e children….NO MORON he wore ear plugs because his mother took him to the gun range and yuo wear ear plugs at the gun range to deafen the sound of the gun….SO he knew exactly what he was doing….aside from being crazy…
BTB
January 11th, 2013
2:28 pm
Bookman, you are correct. The Columbine school security offices did find himself “outgunned”, as would a homeowner with a six shot revolver if several crackheads invaded his/her house. Ergo, the reason for high capacity MAGAZINES (not “clips” all you gun experts). Also, I agree with people getting firearms instruction but don’t advocate using law enforcement people; reference NYPD shooting at a perp and wounding multiple bystanders. The NRA you libs despise has excellent firearm safety/instuction courses available for adults and youth.
Devil's Advocate
January 11th, 2013
2:29 pm
The reload speed of the weapon doesn’t matter. Now you’re justifying deaths by quantity. Would it have been okay if only 1 student died at Sandy Hook? Heck no! One death by murder is one unnecessary death too many. When an individual commits a crime, it shouldn’t matter how many people are victims of the crime before we consider it a “bad” thing. Justifying and/or accepting bad behavior is a dangerous thing.
As for suicides, that’s not accidental and technically is a crime so there is no 3rd category. It still falls into the 2nd category of someone inflicting harm (intentionally self-inflicted). Just because we cannot punish the dead does not make it any less a violent criminal act.
Further, guns do not cause suicides anymore than they cause homicide and assault with a deadly weapon. Ban guns and suicidal people will just fall back on pills, blades, and hanging as their method of choice. With all the crazy medicines on the market these days it seems that would be the easiest way to kill yourself via OD when you add things on top like liquor!
Regnad Kcin
January 11th, 2013
2:30 pm
“If the right could figure out how to promote an AR15 for use in an abortion….then the left might accept them as necessary ”
Or, cons might accept abortion…
Scooter
January 11th, 2013
2:30 pm
My resistance to gun laws is they self perpetuate themselves. Politically and emotional restrictions are placed to prevent tragedies of the day, but such isolated tragedies cannot be prevented in a society our size. So the next tragedy perpetuates similar response for stricter regulations. Where would it end?
barking frog
January 11th, 2013
2:30 pm
Erwin’s cat
If the right could figure out how to promote an AR15 for use in an abortion….then the left might accept them as necessary (sarc)
…………………………………………………………….
that would create a new meaning to ‘being taken out and shot’
Erwin's cat
January 11th, 2013
2:31 pm
Driving is not a privilege.
It is a right.
I hope you are being sarcastic ’cause the Dept of Trans may disagree with you on that one
Recon 0311 2533
January 11th, 2013
2:31 pm
Paul,
The NRA has been an advocate for a national database of convicted felons, those with a history of domestic and public violence and those deemed mentally unfit. The Federal government has failed to act on this recommendation not just from the NRA but also from law enforcement.
Adam
January 11th, 2013
2:31 pm
BTB: Also, I agree with people getting firearms instruction but don’t advocate using law enforcement people; reference NYPD shooting at a perp and wounding multiple bystanders
What you are really advocating for is that training should be greater than that provided to a police officer. To which I say highlights that even the training a police officer receives should be better.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 11th, 2013
2:31 pm
R. W. Extreme — “Seeing how you lack an understanding of the Founding Fathers views on the Second Amendment, I’ve included a few below for you. At the very bottom there is a section of quotes from people who are in favor of gun control.”
“I only ask that you read this with an open mind.”
Seeing as how you opened your entreaty with an insult, I can only ask that *you* read *this* with an open mind.
Go get stuffed.
If you want an intellectual conversation on the topic, then come prepared. And that means acting like an adult.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
January 11th, 2013
2:32 pm
Before you read this news release from the Southern States PBA, please keep in mind that rank and file law enforcement officers generally do NOT support emotional “eye wash” legislation that accomplishes nothing.
Politically appointed chiefs and other administrators do.
The reason should be obvious.
“As president of Southern States PBA, a professional law enforcement association with over 30,000 members from federal, state, county and municipal agencies, I would like to express our support for the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and for law abiding citizens to purchase and own firearms. From hunting to shooting sports, firearms are a part of the American culture that are passed from generation to generation. Rank and file law enforcement officers realize that gun ownership from law abiding citizens poses no threat to the law enforcement community or to the public. New legislation aimed at reducing or restricting law abiding citizens from purchasing or owning firearms will do nothing to reduce violent crime nor will it stop criminals or those who want to commit evil acts from obtaining weapons. We, as law enforcement officers, take an oath of office to enforce the laws in our communities and support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We will continue to do so. It is our hope that our leaders in Washington will look at reasonable measures to help keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and punish those more severely who are violating those laws.”
Southern States PBA President,
Chris Skinner
Frankie
January 11th, 2013
2:32 pm
I say the rules should be when you go to buy a gun ;
you get a mental back ground check, the mental background check includes family members access to health insurance records going back to child hood, including sealed juvenile records.
a criminal back ground check
ANd the purchaser pays for all of that , everytime they buy a gun and if they buy several guns at the same time, the price is attached to each gun…..
Regnad Kcin
January 11th, 2013
2:32 pm
“Would it have been okay if only 1 student died at Sandy Hook? Heck no! One death by murder is one unnecessary death too many”
Would it have been better than 20 deaths? Duh. Lower rate of fire and more frequent reloads can save lives.
Adam
January 11th, 2013
2:33 pm
Scooter: Politically and emotional restrictions are placed to prevent tragedies of the day, but such isolated tragedies cannot be prevented in a society our size
That one fails the test of comparison to countries with a much larger or similar size to ours. I assume you meant some other qualification about our society besides size. Perhaps the words “a society as violent as ours” is what you were looking for…
stands for decibels
January 11th, 2013
2:33 pm
NO. The marketing campaign was humor.
There are any number of other grotesque, misogynist ad campaigns out there are “just humor.” It makes their misogyny no less obnoxious; if anything, it makes it even more so.
(You might want to google the word “mansplaining” since this appears to be an utterly foreign concept to you.)
You believe that injecting petty insults is the path to a sane, reasonable discussion on ANY topic with anyone?
I wasn’t aware that I was avoiding this question, since it seems pretty self evident that injecting truly petty insults are not necessarily helpful to a sane, reasonable discussion. I simply reject your notion that Jay had injected any petty insults.
He was stating a fact, about a specific brand of weapon that was used to slaughter a score of children.
JamVet
January 11th, 2013
2:33 pm
cat, make your case that it is a privilege and not a right.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 11th, 2013
2:34 pm
Clyde Frog — “If you see how foolish of a notion it is to expect that when one side of any argument can’t leave insults out of the “discussion”, there will be no rational sane discussion”
Then perhaps you should leave the insults and absolute pronouncements out of your posts as well, sir.
getalife
January 11th, 2013
2:35 pm
The truth about our debt:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3885
We are almost there so the cons that want to cut entitlements are full of bs.
barking frog
January 11th, 2013
2:35 pm
JamVet
This is simply incorrect. Driving is not a privilege.
It is a right.
……………………………………………
for Nascar it’s a left…
ClydeFr0g
January 11th, 2013
2:35 pm
Joe Hussein Mama;
“You’re wrong in a number of places and you pretty clearly need to familiarize yourself with the writings and opinions of the Founders on this topic.”
Well I think you’ve been properly schooled by rightwingextreme. Don’t take his word for it though, go do some research on your own and see the actual truth to the meaning and intention of the Second Amendment. I doubt you will, I am fairly sure you will choose to remain ignorant in the face of information that proves that it is in fact YOU that has no idea what he’s talking about.
But please, show me some of these writings of the Founding Fathers you seem to suggest contradict what I have stated and what rightwingextreme has demonstrated.
Adam
January 11th, 2013
2:36 pm
Scout: New legislation aimed at reducing or restricting law abiding citizens from purchasing or owning firearms will do nothing to reduce violent crime
Testbeds known as just about every other country that has done exactly that would disagree with you.
Facts show that violent crimes have indeed fallen after gun bans in other countries. Especially those where guns are used. The violent crimes that were committed with guns were not replaced point for point with new ways of killing, contrary to gun nuts assertions.
Regnad Kcin
January 11th, 2013
2:36 pm
“The NRA has been an advocate for a national database of convicted felons, those with a history of domestic and public violence and those deemed mentally unfit.
Recon – you’re really okay with the government deciding to whon the second amendment applies? Or does the NRA get to decide who’s “deemed mentally unfit. “
Joe Hussein Mama
January 11th, 2013
2:38 pm
R. W. Extreme, here are some quotes for *you* to chew on.
And please, fill me in on your legal teaching experience. I taught Constitutional Law for two semesters.
Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist #29: “The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
Hamilton doesn’t like the notion of training the citizenry to the standard of a “well-regulated militia,” but he clearly admits that it includes lots and lots of training and military drills.
Records of the Continental Congress agree: “Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.”
George Washington spoke approvingly of the proper regulation of troops and the value thereof: “I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.”
It’s worth observing that several individual States ( VA and PA among them), in their Constitutions and founding document, *specifically* spoke to and addressed an *individual right* to keep firearms, but the Federal Constitution does not. Despite that, the SCOTUS in Heller decided that the Founders meant it anyway (despite the fact that they could have put it in but didn’t).
If the Founders *wanted* a personal right to keep firearms *distinct* and separate from the militia, they could easily have put in into the Constitution. But they didn’t — they linked it to being part of the militia, since they didn’t envision a standing army.
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 states that Congress has the authority to: “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”
Uh, isn’t all that the job of the Army?
Nope. Not as the Founders saw it. They provided for a standing Navy to protect commerce and shipping from piracy on the high seas, but they didn’t like the notion of a standing Army. In fact, the Constitution expressly FORBIDS Congress for appropriating any money for an Army for a period longer than two years. They *clearly* intended for an Army to be raised only when needed — because the militia wasn’t enough to do the job. And they *clearly* intended for the Army to be *disbanded* following the completion of its task.
It always amazes me how conservatives go on and on about “original intent” while not really being all that conversant with the Constitution, its history and the opinions and writings of the Founders.
Adam
January 11th, 2013
2:39 pm
The intent of the second amendment was never to protect against the U.S. government. It was to protect against foreign governments and invasions and people taking their power too far in localized areas. If you’re planning to overthrow your government, then you are already making yourself NOT BOUND by its Constitution or laws. By plotting to overthrow the government. you are already ignoring any Constitutional amendment and you are treasonous, which btw is addressed in said document.
ClydeFr0g
January 11th, 2013
2:40 pm
Joe Hussein Mama;
“R. W. Extreme — “Seeing how you lack an understanding of the Founding Fathers views on the Second Amendment, I’ve included a few below for you. At the very bottom there is a section of quotes from people who are in favor of gun control.”
“I only ask that you read this with an open mind.”
Seeing as how you opened your entreaty with an insult, I can only ask that *you* read *this* with an open mind.
Go get stuffed.”
He insulted you? Sorry, I don’t see it. He did expose your ignorance, and you supported his argument with your refusal to acknowledge truth and facts based on an imagined insult. You truly do wish to be ignorant, it’s amazing.
Though I don’t see any insult whatsoever, I challenge you to be the bigger man and respond to the evidence he presented to you. You seem to think you have a clear grasp on what the Founders intended so why don’t you present some verifiable quotes for us to support your position just as righwingextreme did? Can you?
Mick
January 11th, 2013
2:40 pm
Southern States PBA President,
Chris Skinner
I wonder what he thinks about hollow point bullets???
Fred ™
January 11th, 2013
2:40 pm
Job Creator
January 11th, 2013
1:58 pm
Fred ™
January 11th, 2013
1:14 pm
Fred, check with your local Farmers COOP, I am sure they can recommend local farmers that raise beef for sale.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
lol I live in Atlanta. I doubt we HAVE a local Coop. There however a tree hugger garden store in Tucker that is close to me, they would know. I also have a neighbor that does the CCP (I think that’s what it’s called) thing where she gets a box of in season tree hugger veggies and some tree hugger meat every week.
I have a normal sized deep freezer, would that be enough to hold a cow or should I get another? They are dirt cheap, (the freezers, not the cows). Well not as cheap as they used to be (I just looked) but not bad……….
getalife
January 11th, 2013
2:40 pm
You cons should start writing sane thoughts or they will label you mentally ill.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 11th, 2013
2:41 pm
Clyde Frog — “Well I think you’ve been properly schooled by rightwingextreme.”
Not to worry. I haven’t.
“Don’t take his word for it though, go do some research on your own and see the actual truth to the meaning and intention of the Second Amendment.”
Gosh, you mean those two semesters I spent *teaching* Constitutional law won’t be enough?
How much Con Law did you and Rightwingextreme teach?
“I doubt you will, I am fairly sure you will choose to remain ignorant in the face of information that proves that it is in fact YOU that has no idea what he’s talking about.”
I’m fairly sure that I’m better educated than you and RWE put together, but if it makes you feel better to call others “ignorant” instead of opening your own mind and dispensing with the insults — as you’ve been asking others to do — then go ahead and invalidate your own position, Punkin.
“But please, show me some of these writings of the Founding Fathers you seem to suggest contradict what I have stated and what rightwingextreme has demonstrated.”
Done.
Thulsa Doom
January 11th, 2013
2:41 pm
“Might makes right”- Nick Saban
Respect Saban.
Matti
January 11th, 2013
2:42 pm
Bottom line: Tell the people you love that you love them. Make each day count. None of us knows how long we have.
The problem is US. Americans have a love-hate relationship with ourselves. We can’t live with us; we can’t live without us. Domestic violence is the result, and we are our own worst enemy — complicit enablers each and every one of us.
When everything we hold dear is gone, we’ll have only ourselves to blame.
Oh, and Happy Friday!
Recon 0311 2533
January 11th, 2013
2:42 pm
Reg,
Nope neither. Mental health professionals make that determination and file reports accordingly.
Erwin's cat
January 11th, 2013
2:42 pm
Jam – It’s what I’ve always heard….If it were a “right” then every DUI case and revoked licenses could use this as an out, the court wouldn’t be able to limit drivers rights … That said, I can find as many articles that support your POV as well
http://driversed.com/teen-drivers-education/driving-is-a-privilege-not-a-right.aspx
Paul
January 11th, 2013
2:43 pm
Recon
“The NRA has been an advocate for a national database of convicted felons, those with a history of domestic and public violence and those deemed mentally unfit. The Federal government has failed to act on this recommendation not just from the NRA but also from law enforcement.”
So the NRA does not advocate for a national database of all gun owners?
Just people like ex felons, who can’t legally own firearms?
It was asked earlier, several times, about who and by what criteria people would be deemed mentally ill or unfit. Did the NRA have an answer to that?
0311
“As president of Southern States PBA, a professional law enforcement association with over 30,000 members from federal, state, county and municipal agencies, I would like to express our support for the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and for law abiding citizens to purchase and own firearms.”
Good to hear the PBA supports the Constitution and the Obama Administration.
“New legislation aimed at reducing or restricting law abiding citizens from purchasing or owning firearms will do nothing to reduce violent crime nor will it stop criminals or those who want to commit evil acts from obtaining weapons.”
Opinion. No facts given to support the contention. Heck, they don’t even cite what the ‘new’ legislation. That’s a pretty basic, amateurish statement.
“We will continue to do so. It is our hope that our leaders in Washington will look at reasonable measures to help keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and punish those more severely who are violating those laws.””
Geez. They didn’t even have the courage to list what they would be. Just banal generalities.
Joe Scarborough this morning – ‘anyone who portrays the administration as saying the administration is going to come and take your guns is lying.”
dbm
January 11th, 2013
2:43 pm
Erwin’s cat
January 11th, 2013
10:56 am
It’s very hard to use a ladder to kill someone, and that’s certainly not what it’s designed for.
Matti
January 11th, 2013
2:44 pm
Thulsa Doom,
“Saban can suck it.” — Matti
The other half of your brain.
January 11th, 2013
2:46 pm
Jay, There are many different kinds of guns for many different uses, Shotguns have a particular use, Rifles have a certain kind of use and pistols have another kind of use.
I don’t think anyone nees 20 guns but 4 or 5 don’t bother me, that being said, it only takes one to kill someone.
I think if you look at all the killers out there, you will find that 99% of them don’t belong to the NRA and they don’t care about gun safety rules.
Regnad Kcin
January 11th, 2013
2:47 pm
“Nope neither. Mental health professionals make that determination and file reports accordingly.”
So, no laws defining what it takes to be incompetent to be covered by the second amendment? Your constitutional rights can be taken away by a council of doctors, without recourse?
I wonder if the NRA has really thought this through…
Joe Hussein Mama
January 11th, 2013
2:47 pm
Clyde Frog — “He insulted you? Sorry, I don’t see it.”
You don’t start off a polite conversation by calling someone “ignorant,” especially when you yourself don’t have any idea of the other person’s education or experience. It takes quite a bit of ignorance, however, to call someone “ignorant” simply because you don’t agree with them.
“He did expose your ignorance”
He did no such thing, for I don’t have any ignorance on the topic to be exposed. He and I *disagree,* but that doesn’t make either one of us *stupid.* That said, if he wants to toss around terms like “ignorance,” it’s more applicable to him than to me. Unless, of course, he’d like to regale us with his legal teaching experience?
“and you supported his argument with your refusal to acknowledge truth and facts based on an imagined insult.”
Anyone can cherry-pick quotes, and they don’t prove a thing. Lacking context, he might as well be quoting episodes of Dragnet to prove his point.
“You truly do wish to be ignorant, it’s amazing.”
(laughing)
I really do wish one of my students had tried that on me after getting a poor grade.
“Though I don’t see any insult whatsoever, I challenge you to be the bigger man and respond to the evidence he presented to you.”
I challenge *you* to adhere to your own standard. And I’ve *already* responded to it.
“You seem to think you have a clear grasp on what the Founders intended so why don’t you present some verifiable quotes for us to support your position just as righwingextreme did? Can you?”
Once again, done.
The other half of your brain.
January 11th, 2013
2:47 pm
Matti
January 11th, 2013
2:44 pm
Thulsa Doom,
“Saban can suck it.” — Matti
Matti, Why do people hate winners? Just askin.
Jm
January 11th, 2013
2:48 pm
“Why does Jay want Ted Turner to have to give up his guns?”
Seriously, Jm?
———–
Yep. Seriously. I myself rather like Ted and don’t think he should have to turn in his guns merely because he’s bipolar.
So who gets to decide who’s sane and who isn’t.
JamVet
January 11th, 2013
2:48 pm
If it were a “right” then every DUI case and revoked licenses could use this as an out…
Not so.
Rights are not indefinite. They are contingent upon obeying the law.
To wit, go to prison and try to exercise your right to franchise…
getalife
January 11th, 2013
2:49 pm
saban should go pro again.
Cash in again.
Adam
January 11th, 2013
2:50 pm
Erwin: If it were a “right” then every DUI case and revoked licenses could use this as an out, the court wouldn’t be able to limit drivers rights
That’s not exactly true. We still have limits on free speech, You can be fired for something you say. You can be jailed for yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. You can be fined if you say something you aren’t allowed to say on the air according to FCC rules. If you have a “right” to free speech, according to your logic, none of this could be allowed to exist.
Your right to free speech is not unlimited, nor is your right to a gun.
Mick
January 11th, 2013
2:50 pm
matti
Nice thoughts in the middle of the dreck of negativity, have a great weekend yourself…
getalife
January 11th, 2013
2:50 pm
“So who gets to decide who’s sane and who isn’t.”"
You should worry about that after all that crap you typed con.
Joesnopy
January 11th, 2013
2:51 pm
It is all about making money for the Gun makers. Why are we selling so many guns. The type is not a big problem. Most semi-automatic weapons are used to have fun. Yes most people do not need to have a semi-automatic because they cannot handle the weapon. The more guns the more problem we are going to have with violence and gun shootings. People obeying the law are not buying all those guns. The gun makers know about how many of the guns they make will end up stolen or end up being sold by a gun seller to criminals. Yes we know people buy guns in the South and sell then in the Northeast to criminals. Look at history. We need to get real. The 2nd amendment will never change even if it is out dated because we have a monster federal military. Now if you want to make sure we can defend against the Government the we need to take about the size of our federal military vs. the States National Guard. Having all those gun is a joke when we talk about going up against the US Military.
stands for decibels
January 11th, 2013
2:51 pm
Back to Georgia’s own Phil Gingrey, for just a minute:
“There’s gotta be more than a few women in Cobb Country today who feel just a little queasy about who they trusted to deliver their babies and take care of their oh-so confusing lady parts.”
Adam
January 11th, 2013
2:51 pm
JHM: Can you link back to the writings you posted? I am… admittedly, a bit too lazy to go back and look for them haha.
Fred ™
January 11th, 2013
2:52 pm
Recon – you’re really okay with the government deciding to whon the second amendment applies? Or does the NRA get to decide who’s “deemed mentally unfit. “
Despite our disagreements on other issues, I find Recon very responsive and supportive of SAFETY BASED gun control laws. I could be mistaken but I think he also supports mandatory training AND gun safes. There’s something else he supports, I forget what that even I thought was too much.
Thinking, responsible people support common sense measures. We just don’t support taking all the guns away, or really any. I don’t HAVE an AR 15, but I like the fact that I COULD if I wanted one. As Recon pointed out, they are really fun weapons to shoot.
Regnad Kcin
January 11th, 2013
2:53 pm
“So who gets to decide who’s sane and who isn’t.””
Yes, who decides that you are not entitled to have constitutional rights? In criminal cases, it’s a jury of peers, with a variety of safeguards put in place over the centuries.
Who do you trust to determine a person’s “mental state?” Who here can define what should disqualify a person from being protected by the second amendment?
Matti
January 11th, 2013
2:54 pm
Oh, is Jm still here?
Here’s another photo for you, Jm. Laugh it up, hater: http://www.ajc.com/photo/news/local/funeral-lillian-lewis/pm5Gd/
Adam
January 11th, 2013
2:54 pm
I could get banned from here for posting my idea on what I think would happen if we instituted a ban and confiscate law on guns, so I won’t. But I would say it would be a short lived law because of the outcome of instituting it and I would reference Darwin.
The other half of your brain.
January 11th, 2013
2:54 pm
JamVet
January 11th, 2013
2:28 pm
…unlike the ‘privelege’ (sic) of having a driver’s license.
This is simply incorrect. Driving is not a privilege.
It is a right.
Sorry, But driving is a privilege, not a right. I’m surprised that someone on the left won’t correct their own, when wrong. Well actually, I’m not.
rightwingextreme
January 11th, 2013
2:56 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
January 11th, 2013
2:38 pm
I’m glad you taught for two semesters…Obama taught Constitutional Law as well and we see how he views the Constutition. I’ve seen a lot of Supreme’s read into the Constitution stuff that isn’t in the document.
As far as you know I’m a Constitutional scholar with a PHD in astrophysics. Anyone can post or claim anything on a blog.
That being said.
I’ll continue to stand by the quotes I posted. The intent of the Founding Fathers was to provide the People with a means to fight a tyrannical government and to protect themselves as you can tell from the quotes provided. This has obviously been a debate for a long time in our country’s history. You don’t agree with that. Fine. That’s the beauty of this country.
We do have the advantage of only having two wars fought on our soil….1812 and the Civil War. Perhaps if our experience had been different we might have a different view on this topic. I’m sure the Jews in Nazi Germany would have wanted a gun or two when their deportations began. I’m sure anyone living in a dictatorship would love to have a means to stop that government.
It is that ever present fear by a government that the people may rise up and overthrow that government if the people judge the actions to be wrong that has kept things pretty quiet in our country.
And all of this is provided under the Right as enumerated by the Second Amendment.
I hope that you are never in a situation where you need a firearm more powerful than a six shot revolver. I really mean that in all seriousness. I hope none of us on this blog are ever in that postion.
the cat
January 11th, 2013
2:56 pm
How could I have forgotten Gingrey’s role in poor Terry Schiavo’s case? OHMGEE
Joe Hussein Mama
January 11th, 2013
2:56 pm
Clyde Frog — “You seem to think you have a clear grasp on what the Founders intended so why don’t you present some verifiable quotes for us to support your position just as righwingextreme did? Can you?”
Let’s try that out on you. You earlier asserted that Congress has no authority over the militia. Here’s what you said: “A militia is not a state-sponsored military force, it is a collection of armed citizens.”
Well, the Constitution itself says you’re wrong. Article 1, Section 8 clearly states that the Congress has the authority “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”
Now, if you’re going to argue that the “militia” in Article 1, Section 8 are somehow *different* from the “militia” in the Second Amendment, then I eagerly await your exposition on the topic.
Please proceed.
dbm
January 11th, 2013
2:56 pm
It would also reduce gun carnage if we stopped criminalizing drug abuse. Drug abuse is stupid and horribly self-destructive, but it is not a direct or indirect physical aggression and therefore should not be criminalized. (If someone commits a physical aggression under the influence or to get money for drugs, they should of course be held responsible, as with any physical aggression committed for any reason.) Selling consenting adults abusable drugs is sleazy, but it is not a direct or indirect physical aggression and therefore should not be criminalized.
By criminalizing the recreational drug business, we force it outside the law. Then gangsters can use force to establish coercive monopolies in particular geographical areas, and their victims have no recourse. A market operating in this way has much more violence than a free market. Also, since the sellers can charge monopoly prices, the buyers need more money and are thus more likely to commit aggressions to get it.
getalife
January 11th, 2013
2:57 pm
“fun weapons to shoot.”
As fun as shooting a .22 rifle.
Lame.
Regnad Kcin
January 11th, 2013
2:57 pm
“Sorry, But driving is a privilege, not a right. I’m surprised that someone on the left won’t correct their own, when wrong. Well actually, I’m not.”
half-brain – please link to where you corrected one of your co-travelers. Thanks in advance.
Jm
January 11th, 2013
2:57 pm
Matti
So Lewis couldn’t attend the most crucial vote of the year, a week before the funeral?
ok whatev
Clearly he could’ve made it to the vote and elected not to go
get
“You should worry about that after all that crap you typed con.”
Fred ™
January 11th, 2013
2:58 pm
The other half of your brain.
January 11th, 2013
2:54 pm
JamVet
January 11th, 2013
2:28 pm
…unlike the ‘privelege’ (sic) of having a driver’s license.
This is simply incorrect. Driving is not a privilege.
It is a right.
Sorry, But driving is a privilege, not a right. I’m surprised that someone on the left won’t correct their own, when wrong. Well actually, I’m not.
+++++++++++++++++++
Yeah right, just like we see you talk radio/FOXBOTS correcting THOSE lies all the time.
Yawn. Your ignorant spam grows wearisome. And so many of you spout the same nonsense hourly.
I wish just ONE of you had a brain, some creativity and an original thought.
Adam
January 11th, 2013
2:58 pm
The other half: Sorry, But driving is a privilege, not a right.
My bad, I forgot to correct him. You are correct on this, driving is a privilege.
However, your “right” to a gun is not unlimited either.
Krystal'sBalls
January 11th, 2013
2:59 pm
Some things I find hilarious…That people so readily use this issue like so many to pigeonhole people into an ideology. Suffice to say by the evidence of my posts over time that I’m a “lib” in the eyes of many of the rightwingnuts who frequent this blog. I however come down on the side of gunowner’s rights, even though I vote OVERWHELMINGLY Democrat. See…I abhor extreme ideology regardless of which side it comes fro, and can stomach a “flaming liberal” no more than I can a rabid conservative. I sit and watch people like Ed Schultz and it makes me sick to my stomach that he tries to frame the arguments the way that he does. I cannot and WILL NOT be given an agenda. The same goes for the NRA, who likely used info from my B.A.T.F. filing to find my address to send me a membership packet along with the “Black Helicopters” memo to appeal to me. Wrong dude! The nuts ON BOTH SIDES are what is killing the country.
barking frog
January 11th, 2013
2:59 pm
Adam
I could get banned from here for posting my idea on what I think would happen if we instituted a ban and confiscate law on guns, so I won’t. But I would say it would be a short lived law because of the outcome of instituting it and I would reference Darwin.
……………………………………………………………………………….
Just about the same as when the seat belt law was passed.
Granny Godzilla
January 11th, 2013
3:00 pm
“Let’s limit guns to sane, responsible owners”
.
.
.
I am not being snarky in the least when I say some of our right wing posters will not qualify
under those requirements.
If they behave in their communities and in their homes they way they behave here……no way.
Thulsa Doom
January 11th, 2013
3:00 pm
Matti,
You shouldn’t have brought a leprechaun to an elephant fight.
The other half of your brain.
January 11th, 2013
3:00 pm
Regnad Kcin
January 11th, 2013
2:57 pm
“Sorry, But driving is a privilege, not a right. I’m surprised that someone on the left won’t correct their own, when wrong. Well actually, I’m not.”
half-brain – please link to where you corrected one of your co-travelers. Thanks in advance.
Reggie, They’re never wrong, damn, that was easy.
Erwin's cat
January 11th, 2013
3:00 pm
It’s very hard to use a ladder to kill someone, and that’s certainly not what it’s designed for.
dbm of should i call you “absolute power”
about 7k a year die from falls…dose it really matter what is designed for compared to how it is used? A gun was designed to shoot a bullet…what the end user does with it on the other hand is entirely different
Fred ™
January 11th, 2013
3:00 pm
Jm
January 11th, 2013
2:57 pm
Matti
So Lewis couldn’t attend the most crucial vote of the year, a week before the funeral?
ok whatev
Clearly he could’ve made it to the vote and elected not to go
++++++++++++++++++++++
You chastise John Lewis on how he handles the grief he has over his wifes death? You really ARE over the top. I would say a revolving ass hole but in accurately describing your lacking social skills, heart, and basic human decency I would be accused of name calling. Go figure…………..
Uh Huh.....Gunnig For Change
January 11th, 2013
3:00 pm
@Matti
January 11th, 2013
2:54 pm
Oh, is Jm still here?
Here’s another photo for you, Jm. Laugh it up, hater: http://www.ajc.com/photo/news/local/funeral-lillian-lewis/pm5Gd/
#####################
Laugh it up ????????????????????????
Please explain.
I don’t get it.
The other half of your brain.
January 11th, 2013
3:01 pm
Granny Godzilla
January 11th, 2013
3:00 pm
“Let’s limit guns to sane, responsible owners”
.
.
.
I am not being snarky in the least when I say some of our right wing posters will not qualify
under those requirements.
If they behave in their communities and in their homes they way they behave here……no way.
Granny, I totally agree, it also applies to some on the left, it’s never one sided.
Paul
January 11th, 2013
3:01 pm
Granny Godzilla
Hence their objections to any restrictions -
Adam
January 11th, 2013
3:02 pm
barking frog: Just about the same as when the seat belt law was passed.
Not really…
Matti
January 11th, 2013
3:04 pm
Jm,
Actually, the vote occurred within hours of his wife’s passing. As such, sane, reasonable people would not see it as “a week before the funeral,” but rather, a day he was experiencing profound shock and grief and an urgent need to get back to his family. But as you say, “whatev.” Nobody expects a hate-spewing sociopath like you to grow a conscience or sense of empathy overnight (or ever), let alone put forth a reasonable discourse. Thanks for reaffirming what you are.
ClydeFr0g
January 11th, 2013
3:05 pm
Joe Hussein Mama;
You make a GREAT argument…for the establishment and maintenance of a standing army. You fail, however, to disprove that the people do in fact have the right to form a people’s militia, or that the Founders thought a people’s militia was NOT necessary to support a free state. But nice try.
As for your claim that the Second Amendment does not provide for the rights of citizens to own and bear arms…I cannot understand how you cannot read with all of that college teacher experience.
“the right of THE PEOPLE (not the Federal government, not the state government, not the city government, not the county government…but the PEOPLE. You know, citizens like me and even you) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
And I think it’s pretty funny that you imagine insults from others, then you insult them, then you call for discussion without insults. To that I say “Go get stuffed.” Punkin.
How much clearer can that be?
Grasshopper
January 11th, 2013
3:07 pm
The shooters mother in Newtown WAS a sane responsible gun owner!
Ninny.
Adam
January 11th, 2013
3:09 pm
Erwin: A gun was designed to shoot a bullet…what the end user does with it on the other hand is entirely different
Oh please.
Gun use that kills, not usually an accident
Ladder us that kills, usually an accident. And we have WORK SAFETY LAWS to help reduce them.