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
Matti
January 11th, 2013
3:09 pm
Thulsa,
Oh, did you think I was talking about that snoozer of a mismatch the other night? Nope. My statement was all-encompassing and I stand by it. And that’s all I have to say about that.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 11th, 2013
3:10 pm
R. W. Extreme — “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.”
Yes. Just like you claimed that I was “ignorant” on this topic. Maybe you should restrict yourself to what you *know* rather than what you *think.*
Besides, if you wanted a *polite* conversation, you wouldn’t have come on like the Richard you did.
“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”
Directly refuted by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, wherein the purpose of the “militia” is clearly stated.
“and to protect themselves as you can tell from the quotes provided.”
Some of the quotes you provided actually speak to *state* laws, not Federal, and if you look back at my earlier post, you’ll see that I referred to them. Several states expressly included a *personal* right to keep and bear arms *exclusive* of membership in a militia, but most did not. Given that, it’s a legally specious argument to claim that the same right exists in the Constitution when the Founders explicitly chose not to put it in there. The Founders were aware that some states extended such a right and some did not — so the fact that it isn’t explicitly in the *Federal* Constitution is clear evidence that it wasn’t intended to be in there in the first place.
“This has obviously been a debate for a long time in our country’s history. You don’t agree with that.”
No, I agree that it’s been a debate for a long time.
“We do have the advantage of only having two wars fought on our soil….1812 and the Civil War.”
Don’t forget the Revolutionary War. And if you count US Territories, WWII as well.
“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.”
Piffle. I’m not advocating *confiscation* of weapons in any way, shape or form. I’m a gun owner myself.
“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.”
There’s no *Constitutional* right of revolution. The Founders spoke of it being a duty of the people to do so when government became oppressive, but there’s no right to it in the Constitution. In any event, that wasn’t then and isn’t today the purpose of the militia. The notion that a government would constitute an armed and trained body of troops for the *express purpose* of overthrowing the government on a whim is one of the most ridiculous legal arguments I’ve ever heard expressed.
“And all of this is provided under the Right as enumerated by the Second Amendment.”
Sorry, it’s not. Perhaps you should struggle with reconciling the “militia” of Article 1, Section 8 with the concept of “militia” you have from the Second Amendment. It’s the same word in a single document, so it’s going to have the same meaning in both places. And with the authority *over* the militia granted to Congress in Article 1, you’re going to have a hard time explaining how *revolution* was the primary purpose of the “militia.”
“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.”
Once again, I’m a firearm owner and a disabled Army veteran. I have no fear of or hatred of guns. Perhaps you should consider that maybe I’m not a ‘gun-grabber’ and maybe you really don’t understand where I’m coming from.
Don Abernethy
January 11th, 2013
3:10 pm
Seems like we have a lot of liberal “desk jockeys” who know very little about guns, have never owned one, have never been in the military,never hunted, trying to make laws about guns. If Obama can bypass congress and the 2nd amendment and take everyone’s guns a way he is one step closer to becoming a dictator.
Adam
January 11th, 2013
3:10 pm
Clyde: 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
I can’t help but notice that throughout your posts you specifically avoid “well-regulated.” Why is that? Hmmm….
Peace
January 11th, 2013
3:11 pm
After we get through tightening up that Second Amendment, lets move on to the First one. Maybe we could muzzle Limbaugh, Beck, Bookman, Allen Colmes … you get the picture.
dbm
January 11th, 2013
3:12 pm
Erwin’s cat
January 11th, 2013
3:00 pm
Most of the people who die in ladder-related falls are using the ladder themselves, no getting it used on them.
The purpose of shooting a bullet is to kill.
Steve
January 11th, 2013
3:12 pm
When is anyone ever going to be TAKING EVERYONE’S GUNS AWAY???? This is not even close to the discussion we are trying to have.
Common Sense isn't very Common
January 11th, 2013
3:12 pm
Matti
After he was informed that Lillian Lewis had passed he doubled down and said he should have flown to DC and voted anyway
Still refuses to apologize also
Jefferson
January 11th, 2013
3:13 pm
Sooner or later guns will banned and remember the easiest ones to take are from a cold dead hand.
Peace
January 11th, 2013
3:13 pm
Don @ 3:10 p.m.
“If Obama can bypass congress and the 2nd amendment and take everyone’s guns a way he is one step closer to becoming a dictator.”
If we lose our Second Amendment rights, the First Amendment will be next.
Towncrier
January 11th, 2013
3:14 pm
“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.”
JHM:
Here is a summary from the Wiki of the majority decision in Heller (which I think most of the conservatives with whom you want to debate the meaning of the 2nd Amendment would agree):
(1) 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. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
I find the reasoning for this interpretation very compelling. The thing I think you are overlooking here is (as I have pointed out earlier) that perhaps as many as four of the original amendments are poorly constructed or phrased. I am not sure anyone who has studied the Constitution would say otherwise – they are not, in other words, marvels of clarity. Given that, you can go as far as judge Bork in concluding one or more of them is effectively meaningless or, on the other hand, you can pretend (as some have) that they are crystal clear. Or, better yet, you can look at supporting historical documentation to determine what is probably the intended meaning – to me the most rational and defensible approach.
Granny Godzilla
January 11th, 2013
3:15 pm
Grasshopper
January 11th, 2013
3:07 pm
The shooters mother in Newtown WAS a sane responsible gun owner!
Ninny.
.
.
.
.
I understand the mother knew the son was trouble.
She may have been sane but did not behave responsibly.
Having that arsenal in a home with a mentally unstable young man in the house was dangerous,
and should have been prevented.
Matti
January 11th, 2013
3:16 pm
Don Abernethy: “If Obama can bypass congress and the 2nd amendment and take everyone’s guns a way he is one step closer to becoming a dictator.”
Hahaha! And if I can bypass the entry requirements and take every’s evening gowns and swimsuits away, I am one step closer to becoming Miss America. Who needs logistics? HAHAHA!
ClydeFr0g
January 11th, 2013
3:16 pm
JHM, because the Congress gives itself the right to call upon the Militia in your mind means that any and every militia is state-sponsored? Should a foreign power choose to invade our soil I fully expect Congress would indeed call upon any and every armed citizen to aid in the defense! Does that make me state-sponsored, Punkin?
Does that mean that, should the government turn tyrannical, those same armed individuals could not act against a Congress that could call upon it in other circumstances, should the need arise?
How about this…can you show me where it says that all militia must be state-sponsored and state-controlled?
JamVet
January 11th, 2013
3:16 pm
Sorry, But driving is a privilege, not a right.
Your proclamations are useless.
Prove your case. I’m certainly prepared to prove mine….
Joe Hussein Mama
January 11th, 2013
3:16 pm
Clyde Frog — “You make a GREAT argument…for the establishment and maintenance of a standing army.”
Another power granted to the Congress in Article 1.
“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.”
Double Fail on your part.
1) I didn’t CLAIM that the people have no such right; simply that the “militia” spoken of in the Second Amendment is clearly not *that* militia.
2) I didn’t MAKE that argument. In fact, I clearly have been arguing *against* that position in my citation of Article 1, Section 8, where Congress is given explicit power *over* the militia.
So perhaps you should pay closer attention.
“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.”
Another insult from someone with no counter-argument. I notice that you haven’t even *tried* to take up my challenge. Please, Clyde Frog, explain to us how your concept of “militia” is at all compatible with the *explicit language* of the US Constitition I have pointed to.
“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.”
If they’re part of the militia. How much time have you spent reading the Federalist Papers? The correspondence of George Washington?
“And I think it’s pretty funny that you imagine insults from others”
Oh, like when you asserted above that I couldn’t read? You have a lot to learn about politeness, young man.
Granny Godzilla
January 11th, 2013
3:16 pm
Don Abernethy
January 11th, 2013
3:10 pm
Seems like we have a lot of liberal “desk jockeys” who know very little about guns, have never owned one, have never been in the military,never hunted, trying to make laws about guns. If Obama can bypass congress and the 2nd amendment and take everyone’s guns a way he is one step closer to becoming a dictator.
.
.
.
If you think the President would make moves on this that were not completely legal you are one step closer to a mental health exemption of your own.
Jm
January 11th, 2013
3:17 pm
Matti
Methinks Lewis should just quit voting altogether
I understand his grief
He should resign.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 11th, 2013
3:18 pm
D. Abernethy — “Seems like we have a lot of liberal “desk jockeys” who know very little about guns”
Wrong.
“have never owned one”
Wrong.
“have never been in the military”
Wrong.
“never hunted”
Wrong.
“trying to make laws about guns.”
Wrong.
Insert quarter, try again.
catlady
January 11th, 2013
3:18 pm
The rest of the state would be mad that only one fourth of the current gun owners would be allowed to have guns if you restricted to the sane and responsible.
Matti
January 11th, 2013
3:19 pm
Common Sense,
I will never let him forget it, either.
Erwin's cat
January 11th, 2013
3:19 pm
The purpose of shooting a bullet is to kill.
then I’ve killed a lot of paper targets….since we are in silly argument land
People get killed everyday w/o the use of a gun…or a bullet…and so what if a guns purpose is to kill…so is a mouse trap
Thomas
January 11th, 2013
3:19 pm
I am sure someone already posted the issue with “sane” gun owners. Is the gov’t going to force MDs to report a potential gun owners “state of mind” or, in normal gov’t fashion, the form would ask “in the past 5 years have you had any emotional issues that would cause you to act in a violent and unlawful way the firearm you are about to purchase”.
jays Brain
January 11th, 2013
3:22 pm
She needed more bullets. The mission was not accomplished.
Happy ending? Heck no, the happy ending would have been with
this woman having a semi automatic and about seven more pieces of
lead in the animal that broke in her house.
Damn jay will you ever get it straight?
happy ending, lets put the guy on house arrest when we are finished paying for his hospital stay……oh and jay, that is YOUR HOUSE he should be staying at.
Now that is a happy ending lol
Joe Hussein Mama
January 11th, 2013
3:22 pm
Towncrier — “Here is a summary from the Wiki of the majority decision in Heller (which I think most of the conservatives with whom you want to debate the meaning of the 2nd Amendment would agree)”
I’m *aware* of Heller, and thanks for giving away the bonus question, jerk.
You have to get the students to reason through the arguments first, before you can drop that on them. Otherwise, all they do is go to the law library and memorize the abstracts from SCOTUS decisions and don’t actually *study.*
I do have a major problem with Heller, though.
As I said earlier, some states provided for an explicit personal right to keep and bear arms (VA and PA immediately come to mind) around the time of the Revolution, but most did not. Given that, it’s clear that the Founders *could* have explicitly included that right — but didn’t.
Given that, and despite my repeated readings of Heller, I still don’t see where the majority found such a right — unless perhaps there was some judicial activism in play?
ClydeFr0g
January 11th, 2013
3:23 pm
Adam;
“I can’t help but notice that throughout your posts you specifically avoid “well-regulated.” Why is that? Hmmm….”
Then you are blind, I’ve already addressed that very clearly. Page 4 or 5, look it up yourself. Is that all you got?
Adam
January 11th, 2013
3:23 pm
jays Brain: Heck no, the happy ending would have been with
this woman having a semi automatic and about seven more pieces of
lead in the animal that broke in her house.
See, this is part of what I mean by mentally ill. The only acceptable “happy” ending is to KILL THAT MOTHERF****R!
Common Sense isn't very Common
January 11th, 2013
3:24 pm
Matti
Nor I, he lacks empathy, but I hope he never has to suffer through losing a spouse.
Steve
January 11th, 2013
3:25 pm
a hyper-smart retired Navy commander who calls occasionally with suggestions. His latest: Require gun owners to carry liability insurance for the firearms they own.
Here’s how it would work. Before anyone could buy a gun or ammunition, he or she would have to acquire an insurance policy for it and present proof of that policy to the gun shop, gun-show dealer, or private seller. Current gun owners would also have to carry such insurance.
Such a requirement would quite literally put a premium — a market premium — on sanity and safety.
Now consider how an insurance requirement could change gun ownership. The more potentially lethal the weapon, the more a liability policy would cost. A hunter who wanted a pump-action shotgun or a lever- or bolt-action rifle — that is, firearms that don’t reload automatically after the trigger is pulled — would pay only a nominal fee. A traditional semi-automatic big-game rifle — a .308 or a .30-06 or a .30-30, say — with a limited magazine might cost just a little more to insure.
But if you want or own a military-style semi-automatic with features like a pistol grip, which lets you spray fire from waist-level; a collapsible stock, which makes a weapon easier to conceal; or a high-capacity detachable magazine, well, insuring one of those would be far more expensive. That expense would not only discourage ownership of those types of weapons; it would also be a disincentive to accumulating an arsenal of guns.
hmmmm
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 11th, 2013
3:25 pm
Erwin, do paper targets bleed white out?
Luny421
January 11th, 2013
3:25 pm
Jay – it is factually incorrect that there was an armed officer in Columbine High School when that shooting took place. Read the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office’s report. It states that Deputy Gardner was UNARMED and was eating lunch in his patrol car when the shooting started. Don’t let facts get in the way of your propaganda though.
Adam
January 11th, 2013
3:27 pm
Clyde: You referred to “regulated” as it applies to WEAPONS, not MILITIAS:
“Regulated”, in the context of the Second Amendment, refers to the primary meaning of the word: “Control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly.”
In order to regulate a MILITIA in that way, you seem to contend that “self-regulation” is just fine. Let me ask you how well that works out in other situations like, oh, say, the housing bubble or the Deepwater Horizon?
It’s nonsense. Don’t act all dumb that “well-regulated militia” means you get to decide to regulate it yourself and label it “well-regulated.” That’s horse manure.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 11th, 2013
3:27 pm
Clyde Frog — “JHM, because the Congress gives itself the right to call upon the Militia in your mind means that any and every militia is state-sponsored?”
Didn’t say that. Didn’t think it, either.
“Should a foreign power choose to invade our soil I fully expect Congress would indeed call upon any and every armed citizen to aid in the defense! Does that make me state-sponsored, Punkin?”
You need to read Article 1. In *detail.*
Are you ever going to get around to answering the questions I put to you, or are you just going to keep questioning me?
“Does that mean that, should the government turn tyrannical, those same armed individuals could not act against a Congress that could call upon it in other circumstances, should the need arise?”
Not as part of the *Constitutional” militia, no.
There’s nothing preventing *other* militias from forming, however. But the point here is that *those* militias would not enjoy the same Constitutional right to bear arms as the Constitutional militia would.
“How about this…can you show me where it says that all militia must be state-sponsored and state-controlled?”
Why would I? I didn’t make any claim that they had to be.
the cat
January 11th, 2013
3:27 pm
Keep-good one!
Get Real
January 11th, 2013
3:27 pm
Jay, given the finite scope of your argument I find myself in complete agreement. Trying to find a quantifiable measurement of “sane and reasonable” will be the challenge…
Adam
January 11th, 2013
3:28 pm
Clyde: We have already been subjected to unconstitutional laws infringing on our rights to keep and bear arms
Uh, excuse me, but are you contending that the SCOTUS does not determine what is and is not constitutional?
dbm
January 11th, 2013
3:29 pm
Oops! In my 3:12, “no” is a typo for “not”. Sorry.
Adam
January 11th, 2013
3:29 pm
Luny421: it is factually incorrect that there was an armed officer in Columbine High School when that shooting took place
Actually, what you must mean is he wasn’t there when it STARTED. But he WAS there to exchange fire with them BEFORE they completed all their killings.
Erwin's cat
January 11th, 2013
3:30 pm
Erwin, do paper targets bleed white out?
Keep – I lol’d
Devil's Advocate
January 11th, 2013
3:32 pm
I’ll give Regnad Kcin credit. This person is more interested in mitigating damage than outright resolving problems. He’s perfect happy with collateral damage as long as the damage isn’t that bad. At least he’s honest in his opinion.
That Black Guy
January 11th, 2013
3:33 pm
You know Republicans would oppose this because
“sane and responsible” eliminates so many of them.”
This is one of the reasons there can be no RATIONAL and CIVIL debate on gun control, health care, or various other issues.
When you start a debate with an insult, where do you expect it to go?
Jason
January 11th, 2013
3:33 pm
Saw this today, “Smart Guns” idea… obviously the nearly impossible obstacle to overcome are all of the existing weapons already out there in the world today. But some cool ideas here:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/09/opinion/shane-smarter-guns/index.html
UNCLE SAMANTHA
January 11th, 2013
3:33 pm
LETS LIMIT CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO SANE AND RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS!!!!!!!
TIME FOR NEW ELECTIONS FOR ALL OF THEM
getalife
January 11th, 2013
3:34 pm
“The shooters mother in Newtown WAS a sane responsible gun owner!”
Having guns in their house with a son with severe mental problems is not responsible.
ClydeFr0g
January 11th, 2013
3:34 pm
JHM;
“As I said earlier, some states provided for an explicit personal right to keep and bear arms (VA and PA immediately come to mind) around the time of the Revolution, but most did not. Given that, it’s clear that the Founders *could* have explicitly included that right — but didn’t.”
Likewise they *could* have explicitly DENIED that right – but didn’t.
Hell, even if they at the least made no mention of it at all in the Bill of Rights it would have clearly become an issue for the States to decide – but they did mention it. Right after the right to free speech, not exactly a footnote….
You can have all the problems with Heller you like but until you are sitting on the Supreme Court it doesn’t mean jack, and it’s doesn’t make it wrong.
getalife
January 11th, 2013
3:35 pm
sam lost it.
UNCLE SAMANTHA
January 11th, 2013
3:35 pm
WE HAD ALMOST NO MASS SHOOTINGS WHEN WE LOCKED UP THE MENTALLY ILL
LETS START WITH THE FEDERAL GOVT AND START LOCKING THEM UP AGAIN
Pizza
January 11th, 2013
3:35 pm
Portland Press Herald – 1/5/2013
Maine is among 35 states in which it is legal to carry a gun openly without a permit or license, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. A permit is needed to legally carry a concealed gun in Maine.
Several chiefs, including Portland’s, are scheduled to meet Jan. 22 to discuss changing the law in response to an incident in which a man carried an assault rifle through several Portland neighborhoods on the day before Christmas.
The sight of the man and his gun, just 10 days after a man with a similar gun killed 26 people in an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., prompted dozens of calls to Portland police.
Police responded to the calls and talked to the man, later identified as 24-year-old Justin Dean, who eventually went home without incident.
The officers lacked any legal authority to determine whether the gun was loaded, whether it complied with the federal ban on automatic weapons, or even whether Dean possessed the rifle legally, said Police Chief Michael Sauschuck.
“We can ask anything, but it’s purely voluntary. The individual doesn’t have to say anything to us. They could literally just keep walking,” Sauschuck said.
dbm
January 11th, 2013
3:36 pm
Erwin’s cat
January 11th, 2013
3:19 pm
Target practice is an additional way of using guns but not their primary purpose.
Mice are in an entirely different category from people.
If someone starts making traps that operate on the same principle as a mouse trap, but are big enough to kill human children, we should at least think about whether physical aggression is involved.
Pizza
January 11th, 2013
3:36 pm
So at what point am I justified in self protection if I feel my life is in danger . . . . not until he aims the weapon at me ?
Matti
January 11th, 2013
3:37 pm
Of course, a major part of the “Crazy People Shooting Up America” problem is the crazy people.
Sorry to be the pessimist here, but anyone who thinks our profit-driven, pharmaceutical-pumping, insurance-controlled US Mental “Health” system is going to adequately address this issue of crazy people who walk among us is not even marginally acquainted with how mental illness is currently addressed in this country.
Tell the people you love that you love them. Don’t wait.
Paul
January 11th, 2013
3:37 pm
Luny421
“it is factually incorrect that there was an armed officer in Columbine High School ”
Yes, it is. But the only one who said that was you.
See, people like you are so eager to make your point and win the day that you don’t bother to read for comprehension. If you do, you misrepresent and use that as a springboard for your dubious points.
What Jay wrote was ” at Columbine High School, an armed police officer was on duty at the school ”
See? Jay never said he was IN the school. He was ON DUTY AT the school. Had been assigned there for two years.
UNCLE SAMANTHA
January 11th, 2013
3:38 pm
NEVER HAD IT
Pizzaman
January 11th, 2013
3:38 pm
The young Mother involved this has been described by her Husband as a “well trained, responsible gun owner”. Well trained is a very wide statement.
She shot at him 6 times and hit him 5. And he was able to flee. Is that well trained? The gun lobby “assumes” a “well trained good person with a gun” will defeat a “bad” person because of good vs bad. Not so and this proves it.
If she was that “Well trained” the perp would be dead. BUT it’s hard for a “good” person to kill. If you don’t think so, if you think YOU”LL be able to do it your wrong!
That’s why I exercise my Constitutional right not to own a gun,
Doggone/GA
January 11th, 2013
3:38 pm
“Target practice is an additional way of using guns but not their primary purpose.”
The primary “purpose” of a gun is to send a bullet down the barrel when it is struck. Anything else is determined by the person who fires it.
JamVet
January 11th, 2013
3:39 pm
LETS START WITH THE FEDERAL GOVT AND START LOCKING THEM UP AGAIN
The last time you traitors got too big for your britches it cost you over 250,000 lives.
UNCLE SAMANTHA
January 11th, 2013
3:40 pm
the great philosopher Chris Rock said it best:
“The gun lobby . . . says people need to be able to protect their property, but every mass shooting is done by guys who live with their mother. “So I believe you should need to have a mortgage to buy a gun. A mortgage is a real background check.”
Towncrier
January 11th, 2013
3:40 pm
“As I said earlier, some states provided for an explicit personal right to keep and bear arms (VA and PA immediately come to mind) around the time of the Revolution, but most did not. Given that, it’s clear that the Founders *could* have explicitly included that right — but didn’t.”
Well, I think here you are touching on a different subject – and that is the authorship of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights mostly by a single person – James Madison. I haven’t researched this extensively, but I find it a curiosity that in most cases his original text is merely edited (often pared down) and not substantially revised. I don’t think it’s because he, above all of the other notable and very capable prose writers of the time, perfectly expressed the thoughts and sentiments of everyone else. I feel as though there must be some other reason. I don’t know if anyone has ever raised or answered this question.
Pizzaman
January 11th, 2013
3:41 pm
Don’t confuse me with the imposter posting at 3:36. But the “legal” answer “Pizza” (the imposter) is anytime the perp is IN your house. Universal in all stated, I think!
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 11th, 2013
3:43 pm
We do seem to have a lot of wannabe terrorists in our freedom not-tyranny fighting crowd. But few of them tell us how they are all going to agree on when “tyranny” is here so they can go all Red Dawn.
Erwin's cat
January 11th, 2013
3:43 pm
dBm – If someone starts making traps that operate on the same principle as a mouse trap, but are big enough to kill human children
you mean like this?
http://chlxodnjs44.edublogs.org/2010/12/28/ids-zoology-glogster-2nd-day/wolf-trap/
Skip
January 11th, 2013
3:44 pm
Put another nickle in the record machine, please.
dbm
January 11th, 2013
3:44 pm
Doggone/GA
January 11th, 2013
3:38 pm
The primary purpose of sending a bullet down the barrel is to kill.
Small nuclear weapons could conceivably be used for peaceful, non-aggressive excavation. Does this mean we shouldn’t worry about who owns them?
Adam
January 11th, 2013
3:44 pm
Doggone: The primary purpose of a ladder is to extend a triangle shape up into the air, or for some of them, sit at an angle against a high object.
Everything else is determined by the user.
I mean really? Who would object to the idea of a ladder’s primary purpose being so people can reach greater physical heights?
rightwingextreme
January 11th, 2013
3:45 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
January 11th, 2013
3:10 pm
Once again, I’m a firearm owner and a disabled Army veteran. I have no fear of or hatred of guns. Perhaps you should consider that maybe I’m not a ‘gun-grabber’ and maybe you really don’t understand where I’m coming from.
I thank you for your service to our country. I always have tremendous respect for those who have worn the uniform and defended our right to discuss in forums such as these.
I would be interested in where you are coming from on this issue.
Adam
January 11th, 2013
3:45 pm
dbm: Small nuclear weapons could conceivably be used for peaceful, non-aggressive excavation.
Nevermind about radiation. It’s best not to worry about such minutiae
JamVet
January 11th, 2013
3:46 pm
Put another nickle in the record machine, please.
Hear, hear!
Erwin's cat
January 11th, 2013
3:47 pm
Adam – Who would object to the idea of a ladder’s primary purpose being so people can
reachfall from greater physical heights?fixed your typo
Paul
January 11th, 2013
3:47 pm
Pizza
“The officers lacked any legal authority to determine whether the gun was loaded, whether it complied with the federal ban on automatic weapons, or even whether Dean possessed the rifle legally, said Police Chief Michael Sauschuck.
“We can ask anything, but it’s purely voluntary.”
Did the larger article say if the guy showed police his Bushmaster-issued “I’m a masculine man” card?
Doggone/GA
January 11th, 2013
3:47 pm
“Small nuclear weapons could conceivably be used for peaceful, non-aggressive excavation”
Poor example, since nuclear weapons leave a dangerous residue behind. Try again.
“Does this mean we shouldn’t worry about who owns them?”
Where did I say we shouldn’t worry about who owns guns?
Adam
January 11th, 2013
3:48 pm
Erwin: Who would object to the idea of a ladder’s primary purpose being so people can fall from greater physical heights?
Yeah no….
Funny though.
Devil's Advocate
January 11th, 2013
3:48 pm
The “smart gun” thing is hilarious. I can see it now “hold on while I reboot my gun”. I can see Apple filing a patent for all firearm software no matter how many different entities participate in developing and advancing the technology.
In all seriousness, this technology would likely exist in all futuristic weapons but the problem is that there’s not going to be some time leap where all of a sudden every gun has the technology. “Dumb guns” will be around until they are all rounded up and destroyed.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 11th, 2013
3:48 pm
Bullets with small nuclear warheads? Blowing Bambi to Basic Atoms!
moreorless
January 11th, 2013
3:48 pm
As a gun owner and affectionado, I would not object to some of the “reasonable” restrictions you have mentioned. I own 5 semi-automatic pistols and one revolver. I use them mostly at the gun range for competition. I like them for aesthetic reasons and for their value as perhaps a rare collectible someday. I do not own an AR-15 assault rifle, nor do I desire to own one. Like you, I am not sure what the need is for one. I have a conceal carry permit but rarely carry my gun with me. Several of my semi-automatic pistols have 15 round magazines. If suddenly, I were only permitted to purchase 10 round magazines for them, I would not lose a great deal of sleep over it.
The problem with the restrictions you mentioned is that it won’t stop there and all gun owners know that. Once the bureaucracy loving, government control loving liberals get some restrictions in place it will just be a matter of time before there are more restrictions and then some more and so on. All you have to do is look at the gun laws in some of the blue states and you can see what I mean. In some blue states you can’t even take a gun out of a gun case in a gun store and handle it without threat of going to jail. This is what it will come to if we let it and people that enjoy guns know it. We all know that “reasonable” guns laws are just an excuse to get your foot in the door to take all guns, that we know all good liberals hate, away.
Thomas
January 11th, 2013
3:49 pm
Is it just me or is there a tremendous amount of conversation about a Constitution that has been around for 200+ years. As a country we seem to be making the rather static and dormant a sudden dynamic interpretive issue.
getalife
January 11th, 2013
3:49 pm
“NEVER HAD IT”
Finally, the truth.
So, you should not be armed.
dbm
January 11th, 2013
3:50 pm
That’s somewhat different from a mouse trap. But if someone left it lying around, set, where children were likely to go, I would support the government doing something about it. And it might be a good idea to require that people buying or using such things be subject to some sort of government oversight.
Adam
January 11th, 2013
3:50 pm
If we’re going with futuristic options, our best option against people being murdered or attacked at all are personal defense force fields.
And if we’re going to continue to believe we shouldn’t do sh*t else about our violent problems, they should be provided for free.
John Ellison
January 11th, 2013
3:51 pm
The war on guns will be about as successful as the war on drugs.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 11th, 2013
3:51 pm
Adam, or Wonder Woman bracelets.
Erwin's cat
January 11th, 2013
3:52 pm
Devils Advocate The “smart gun” thing is hilarious. I can see it now “hold on while I reboot my gun”
I can see the pop up message now…”Are you sure you want to fire this gun?”
Skip
January 11th, 2013
3:52 pm
Spent a year in Vietnam, never got hit. Fell off a ladder once and it almost killed me. Not that it means anything.
Doggone/GA
January 11th, 2013
3:53 pm
“Bullets with small nuclear warheads”
Believe it or not, the Army actually had a weapon like that. Turned out to be too dangerous for the soldiers to use. This little thing called “nuclear radiation”! Must be true, I saw it on the National Geographics channel. If I remember correctly, it was in a show about weapons and other things designed for the Army that turned out to be duds, for one reason or another.
dbm
January 11th, 2013
3:54 pm
My 3:50 refers to
Erwin’s cat
January 11th, 2013
3:43 pm.
Sorry for the omission.
Steve
January 11th, 2013
3:54 pm
All I gotta say is I’d love to see a rifle of any sort take out a ballistic missile. This whole “tyranny” concept is wrapped in hysteria and has nothing to do with what would happen if the government decided to go postal on its citizens. (not real likely)
TaxPayer
January 11th, 2013
3:55 pm
Y’all quit using mouse traps. Erwin must be feeling that his food supply is threatened.
Erwin's cat
January 11th, 2013
3:55 pm
Doggone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_bullet
Joe Hussein Mama
January 11th, 2013
3:55 pm
Clyde Frog — “JHM;“As I said earlier, some states provided for an explicit personal right to keep and bear arms (VA and PA immediately come to mind) around the time of the Revolution, but most did not. Given that, it’s clear that the Founders *could* have explicitly included that right — but didn’t.”
“Likewise they *could* have explicitly DENIED that right – but didn’t.”
Specious and jejune. My first-year students would know better than to try that.
The right existed in those states that explicitly granted it. Conversely, in those states that did *not* grant it, the right did not exist. Ergo, the lack of *explicit* language granting that right at the Federal level clearly indicates that it wasn’t *intended* to be a Federal right.
You’d get more traction with me arguing that it’s an unenumerated right or that the states have the authority to grant it. IMO, those are the only logical legal arguments to be made at this point.
“Hell, even if they at the least made no mention of it at all in the Bill of Rights it would have clearly become an issue for the States to decide – but they did mention it. Right after the right to free speech, not exactly a footnote….”
Not as an individual right, no.
Based on my readings, I sincerely think that what the Founders intended was something akin to today’s Swiss Army, in which adult men (they probably wouldn’t have considered women to be candidates for the militia, which would add a COMPLETELY new dimension to the discussion) joined up and participated in occasional drills and exercises — not entirely unlike service in the Guard or Reserve components of today’s US military.
Surely the Founders couldn’t conceive of a standing Army doing all the things ours does, so in situations where it was needed, the Congress could constitute an Army (possibly calling up most or even all of the militia) and Federalizing them for national service (this is still sometimes done with Guard units). When the emergency was over, the Army would be drawn down and disbanded, with militia members returning to their home units. You’ll see in Article 1 that Congress could raise money for an Army, but not for a period greater than two years. Clearly, the Founders didn’t think we would have a great need for a standing Army.
Members of the militia would clearly need to be well-trained and well-equipped, and here’s where the Second Amendment comes in. Members of that militia need weapons and training in those weapons, so *despite* the fact that they’re not professional soldiers, they’d have the right to keep and bear their weapons *provided* they were in that “well-regulated militia.”
I’m not ignoring political and societal changes that have occurred since then — I’m simply pointing out that given the practices, needs and language of the day, I don’t think a cogent case can be made that the Founders meant that right to extend to pretty much *everyone.* I think that in a “well-regulated militia,” local commanders and small unit leaders would *notice* if someone in their unit was behaving strangely or if they expressed an intent to hurt others. The unit could then act — booting the miscreant from the militia and confiscating his weapons — as he would no longer enjoy the right to have them.
Again, nothing in this *precludes* other militias from forming — they simply wouldn’t enjoy the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
“You can have all the problems with Heller you like but until you are sitting on the Supreme Court it doesn’t mean jack, and it’s doesn’t make it wrong.”
And unless and until *you’re* teaching a Con Law class, you just might be more “ignorant” than you think.
UNCLE SAMANTHA
January 11th, 2013
3:56 pm
cgetalife
January 11th, 2013
3:49 pm
“NEVER HAD IT”
Finally, the truth.
So, you should not be armed.
======================================
come and get them!
i am waiting
Doggone/GA
January 11th, 2013
3:56 pm
“Must be true, I saw it on the National Geographics channel”
or might have been the History Channel, come to think of it
dbm
January 11th, 2013
3:57 pm
I’ve slready spent more time here than I should. I’ll quit now.
Paul
January 11th, 2013
3:57 pm
moreorless
“As a gun owner and affectionado, I would not object to some of the “reasonable” restrictions you have mentioned”
you socialist Obama-lover who hates the constitution….
TaxPayer
January 11th, 2013
3:58 pm
Ok. Cons can have 100-round magazines for musket balls, claw hammers, cars and ladders. But only aluminum ladders.
JamVet
January 11th, 2013
3:58 pm
Deep Venal Thrombosis almost did this liberal in.
So Skip, to your point, when blood clots are outlawed, only outlaws will get blood clots.
I think.
LOL at me…
Paul
January 11th, 2013
3:58 pm
“The war on guns”
And John Ellison wins the Hyperbole of the Day award!!!!
Erwin's cat
January 11th, 2013
4:00 pm
Jam – Deep Venal Thrombosis almost did this liberal in.
Glad it didn’t…that’s serious stuff
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
January 11th, 2013
4:00 pm
Adam @ 2:39
“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 according to the Supreme Court in Heller v. D.C. you would be wrong.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
Following are important excerpts regarding the ruling including some very “thought provoking” points from the opinion.
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.”
Grasshopper
January 11th, 2013
4:00 pm
“I understand the mother knew the son was trouble.
She may have been sane but did not behave responsibly.
Having that arsenal in a home with a mentally unstable young man in the house was dangerous,
and should have been prevented.”
Exactly Granny. Even a sane person can commit an irresponsible act at some point. Taking that point into consideration, that means no one should have a gun…ever. Because they MAY behave irresponsibly at some point with it. Is that what you believe?
JamVet
January 11th, 2013
4:02 pm
Thanks, cat.
I was too ornery to go down for the count.
Besides, there are too many cons I have to annoy before I check out!
Man, have I got some great stuff in mind for tonight’s FNM…
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 11th, 2013
4:03 pm
Ahh, there goes Senior Arabic Digits citing selective dictum in Heller again. That was not the holding of the decision.