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
getalife
January 11th, 2013
4:04 pm
“come and get them!
i am waiting”
Watch out, here they come.
Regnad Kcin
January 11th, 2013
4:04 pm
” 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.”
Coo-coo…
DownInAlbany
January 11th, 2013
4:05 pm
(Associated Press) Since the elementary school massacre in her hometown, Sarah Findley has found herself driving by her children’s schools in Newtown, checking to make sure police are still stationed outside.
The mother of three is among many people calling on school officials to keep up the police presence at schools in Newtown, which has had two officers at each of its schools since a gunman killed 20 children and six women inside the Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14.
“I think we’re all just shaken to the core,” said Findley, whose children all attend schools other than Sandy Hook. “I think it made it possible for the people who were maybe wavering about sending their kids to school to actually be able to do it.”
She mus be a card-carrying NRA member, huh, libs? Gotta be, she’s just gotta be!
Church's Little Red Pill
January 11th, 2013
4:05 pm
“I can’t help but notice that throughout your posts you specifically avoid “well-regulated.” Why is that? Hmmm….”
To put in good order or of troops, properly disciplined.
TaxPayer
January 11th, 2013
4:07 pm
Ahh, there goes Senior Arabic Digits citing selective dictum in Heller again. That was not the holding of the decision.
If you think that is something you should see how he butchers the Bible.
Thomas
January 11th, 2013
4:09 pm
To fully protect my house I have stationed 4 circa 1820’s cannons. I also rotate my kids on an hourly basis at night to man the drums of hot burning oil on the roof ready to pour on any potential miscreants including the neighbor’s cat.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 11th, 2013
4:10 pm
So again, I ask… and Senior Arabic Digits you can answer too…
When do you wannabe terrorists decide and on what basis that its okay to start killing government officials and other US citizens because of “tyranny’? Come on, let’s not be coy. We’ve already seen one poster claim that an Executive Order means one step closer to dictatorship. When is it okay to go Red Dawn or is there some sort of individual 10th amendment decision tree?
Granny Godzilla
January 11th, 2013
4:12 pm
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?
.
.
.
.Don’t be ridiculous grasshopper.
If she were alive I would hope she could be prosecuted.
If my S & W 45 long barrel was used for a crime and the facts were that I had not secured it properly
I would be reponsible.
Paul
January 11th, 2013
4:13 pm
0311 4:00
Interesting you said Adam was ‘wrong.’
I saw nothing in what you cited that in any way refuted the point he was making.
And before you come back with one of your usual rejoinders, perhaps you could explicitly lay out how anything you wrote showed the Founding Fathers wanted the citizens to be able to protect themselves against the government they had established.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
January 11th, 2013
4:13 pm
“Not as an individual right, no.”
And …………. you would be wrong.
Heller v. D.C.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
Page 6
a. RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE
“Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.”
Page 8
b. KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
“Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications ……………. and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search ……………. the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existance at the time of the founding.”
Page 19
c. MEANING OF THE OPERATIVE CLAUSE
“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to posses and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existance of the right and declares only that it shall not be infringed. As we said in United States vs. Cruikshank this is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existance. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed …….. “
Laughing Onlooker
January 11th, 2013
4:13 pm
“If you think that is something you should see how he butchers the Bible.”
ROFL. Says the critic who has little demonstrated knowledge of that book.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 11th, 2013
4:15 pm
R. W. Extreme — “I would be interested in where you are coming from on this issue.”
Fair enough. Thank you for asking.
I think that some people — and I’m not naming names or pointing at anyone here — overreact to perceived danger or threats. I think that any military veteran, firefighter or law enforcement officer will tell you how important it is to keep your head on straight during an emergency.
BUT
When you’re talking about someone who doesn’t come from that background, I think there’s always potential for overreaction — and that can lead to tragedy. Maybe a homeowner overestimates what kind of weapons he needs for home defense. Maybe he actually leaves a loaded handgun in his nightstand — where a child could find it. Maybe he doesn’t educate his family regarding safe handling procedures or take them to the range so they can become familiar with and learn respect for those weapons. But worst of all, maybe he figures that the weapons themselves are all he needs — and he doesn’t develop some sort of plan in case of burglary or robbery. In that case, the whole family might freak out during an emergency — and what good does that do?
My wife and I get by with a single .410 pump shotgun and a .45 automatic. She knows how to use the shotgun, and we’ve rehearsed what to do in case of a break-in. We both dial 911 on our cell phones and chuck them under the bed — then we take up positions behind heavy dressers to create a crossfire. The first THUMP we hear against the bedroom door (or the first round fired through it) gets a volley from both of us.
But that’s all we need. I have to question people who feel that they need *multiple* handguns or several shotguns or rifles for home protection — do they really think there’s going to be an ongoing firefight in their hall? IMO, either it’s going to be a standoff or there’s going to be a brief exchange of fire and any uninjured burglars are then going to unazz my AO, as we said in the Army.
I think that some folks get into overkill with weapons for no good reason. Hunting’s a good reason, competitive shooting’s a good reason and home defense is a good reason, but seriously, how many weapons do you need in each case?
Frankly, I think the liability insurance idea is a good one, and I don’t think it will hurt people like me who have *just enough* weapons. But I really do wish folks would calm down about the YER TRYIN TA TAKE MAH GUNZ hoo-ha. Just like there are limits on free speech rights, there should be limits on firearm ownership — and I don’t think the country’s diminished by it. My world won’t come to an end because I can’t say F**K on Jay’s website, and it won’t come to an end because I can’t have a 100-round mag.
TaxPayer
January 11th, 2013
4:15 pm
To defend my house (aka, castle), my fellow patriots and I stand at the window and shout insults at our would be attackers.
Paul
January 11th, 2013
4:16 pm
” If Obama can bypass congress and the 2nd amendment and take everyone’s guns a way ”
Joe Scarborough this morning: Anyone who says the administration is going to take your guns away is lying.
Common Sense isn't very Common
January 11th, 2013
4:17 pm
Keep
When is it okay to go Red Dawn or is there some sort of individual 10th amendment decision tree?
——————————————————————
When Rush tells them to, wasn’t that obvious
Joe Hussein Mama
January 11th, 2013
4:17 pm
dbm — “Small nuclear weapons could conceivably be used for peaceful, non-aggressive excavation.”
The Soviets tried that in the 50s. Uh, no. Didn’t work so well.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
January 11th, 2013
4:19 pm
“That was not the holding of the decision.”
And ……………. you would be wrong.
I’m sorry you libs. don’t like the Heller v. D.C. ruling as I am sure you are sorry I don’t like other Supreme Court rulings.
The problem is …………. Heller is the law of the land as are the ones I didn’t/don’t like.
As long as we all realize and respect that …………… everything is fine.
If or when that ever breaks down (i.e., one group – private or political – decides to totally ignore the Constitution/Supreme Court rulings) then the 2nd Amendment truly comes into play.
Got to run ………….. everyone be nice !
Adam Is Mentally ILL
January 11th, 2013
4:19 pm
Yes poor adam shows us sick mentality of the bleeding hearts. I bet adam isn’t rushing down to pay for the animals hospital bill. No lets spread that around. I bet adam loves the revolving door of our prison system. Am sure he dances with joy with each new release but I bet he wouldn’t employ, house or care for any of them himself.
So see sicko, dead animals are the answer. Get your head out of the sand. And please hurry up and start a fundraiser for your favorite criminals hospital bill. I’m sure jay will chip in a couple of hundred.
John Wayne(DUKE)
January 11th, 2013
4:19 pm
Some thoughtful comment and not so thoughtful harangues (Granny-your beach vacation with the Jam-man awaits). To those of you who consider themselves constitutional scholars on an AJC opinion website, please reconsider your credentials…..
Right now I’m more worried about this Godzilla chick with a “S&W long barrel”…(what the HELL is that)…..sounds kinda sexy to me, partner!
Joe Hussein Mama
January 11th, 2013
4:21 pm
0311 — “Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.”
BZZT!
Right of THE PEOPLE to peaceably assemble (can’t assemble if you’re only one guy)
Right of THE PEOPLE to petition the government for a redress of grievances (a petition with one signature on it? That’s a LETTER)
Roekest
January 11th, 2013
4:21 pm
Good argument, Jay, but you’re forgetting one very vital angle in this debate: mental health.
Many of the mass shootings in our country were perpetrated by people with mental health issues. Solving this problem of mass shootings and unadulterated violence is a two-pronged approach.
jays Brain
January 11th, 2013
4:22 pm
Hey jay boy, please tell us, how much money soes it cost us to pay for the medical bills of all these animals? Be it from their drive by shootings, drug deals gone bad, or dissed and pissed shootings?
Take that out of the medical system and we wouldn’t need odumba care.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 11th, 2013
4:23 pm
Common Sense, it is rather weak that none of our Red Dawn heros will answer the question.
Hypothetically, given all we have heard from our cons regarding impeaching Obama, etc., would it be okay that someone try to shoot the President because they claimed they had a 2nd amendment right to stop tyranny?
Trump tweeted that the “election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!”. Are those actionable words to the Red Dawn fighters?
Joe Hussein Mama
January 11th, 2013
4:23 pm
0311 — “And …………. you would be wrong.”
Except that I’m not.
Adam
January 11th, 2013
4:23 pm
Scout Third, when the able bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.
You miss the point. “Tyranny” does not describe our government, nor would it describe a governmental body that you are agreeing to as a citizen, therefore you do not care about what is in it’s Constitution and apparently neither does the tyrant. Tyranny would be a “foreign” government or a coup. Not the U.S. Government.
getalife
January 11th, 2013
4:23 pm
The slaughter of twenty children at school brought change.
The slaughter of children in other countries brought gun bans.
Our country will not ban guns but the majority wants AR’s banned again.
Our President will act.
This is called reality.
Grasshopper
January 11th, 2013
4:23 pm
“If my S & W 45 long barrel was used for a crime and the facts were that I had not secured it properly
I would be reponsible.”
Prosecution is not the point and you know it.
The point is — who decides WHO is responsible enough to own a gun? WHO will never be irresponsible with a gun. That question can never be answered with accuracy. The 2nd Amendment errs on the side of our rights, not on the side of possible future misdeeds.
Alex
January 11th, 2013
4:24 pm
@JHM, sounds like you may have to move out of your neighborhood..:”crossfire…” WOW!
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 11th, 2013
4:25 pm
Senior Arabic Digits is wrong again. The Heller decision is simply that an absolute prohibition against having a handgun is a violation of the 2d amendment.
Adam
January 11th, 2013
4:25 pm
Adam Is Mentally ILL
Your post makes no sense. Perhaps you are projecting mental illness.
Pete
January 11th, 2013
4:27 pm
The case in Walton County turned out well – the victims were safe, and the intruder was severely chastened, but not killed. However, this mother was exceptionally cool under pressure, or lucky. See a related comment, posted on my blog, http://www.all4reason.com, January 10, 2013:
Arming teachers and students: a bad idea
I have one word for those who think that arming the average teacher or college student – or other law-abiding citizen – would lead to a safer society: Zimmerman.
As a volunteer neighborhood security patrol, George Zimmerman did not have professional law enforcement training. He may have been knowledgeable about the mechanics and safety aspects of gun usage. He may have been a good marksman. But what about the emotion and stress of encountering a stranger at night, one who appears or acts in a threatening manner? George Zimmerman was scared. Trayvon Martin, in Zimmerman’s view, acted as a threat. Martin is now dead. I have no doubt that Zimmerman strongly regrets his actions.
Background checks and instruction in safe gun handling should be required elements of a rational gun licensing program. But law-enforcement-level training in unexpected situational behavior is not practical on a wide scale, but is just as critical if increased gun ownership is expected to increase the safety of the public. Without that training, the opposite will be true, with many more “accidental” shootings of people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, facing a scared citizen with a legal weapon and acting in some “official” capacity.
Adam
January 11th, 2013
4:27 pm
Catch you all later.
getalife
January 11th, 2013
4:28 pm
If you want to fight tyranny, fight bloomberg in New York City.
Back up your bs.
That little dictator is out of control.
Jefferson
January 11th, 2013
4:28 pm
When all the legal guns ( you know the ones involved in the last 2 mass shootings ) are gone, only illegal guns will be used and they will cost more and be harder to obtain.
JamVet
January 11th, 2013
4:28 pm
Twink got out of his work release program early today…
Doggone/GA
January 11th, 2013
4:28 pm
“Many of the mass shootings in our country were perpetrated by people with mental health issues”
I think we can narrow it down further than that. Most of the mass killings in our country were prepetrated by MEN with mental health issues. When was the last time you heard of such an event caused by a woman?
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 11th, 2013
4:28 pm
If or when that ever breaks down (i.e., one group – private or political – decides to totally ignore the Constitution/Supreme Court rulings) then the 2nd Amendment truly comes into play.
You mean like by enacting DOMA and demanding that it be enforced? Is that tyranny?
Or is it by trying to pass state laws that make enforcing Obamacare a crime? is that tyranny?
Granny Godzilla
January 11th, 2013
4:29 pm
Duke
The long barrel WAS kinda sexy, the custom hot loads were over the top…..and hurt my hands.
Lord, it’s been over twenty years….
A dad
January 11th, 2013
4:32 pm
Here’s a little diversion to the topic. Gun ownership is protected under the 2d Amendment. The dispute over who constitutes a modern militia aside, I think all who blog here can agree that’s what the 2d Amendment provides – the right to bear (i.e., own) arms. There is also the right to vote, unless you’ve lost that right by some criminal act. So now there is a big push to make law-abiding citizens who wish to own firearms to submit to increase background checks, etc., as part of exercising their right to bear arms. So, if it’s ok to increase the burden necessary to exercise the right to own guns, why is requiring people to get some form of gov’t issued id before being able to vote such a no-no. Good for one, good for all, neh?
Granny Godzilla
January 11th, 2013
4:34 pm
a dad
it ain’t brain surgery, a ballot has never been a weapon
Common Sense isn't very Common
January 11th, 2013
4:34 pm
FNM is here yeah
Dave
January 11th, 2013
4:35 pm
Jay, a reasonable proposal of course; but, just who do you think you are dealing with? Wander back on any left/right issue since the millennium and you will see intransigence and appeasement. I’ll let you guess which party I’m describing with word. And you think your eminently reasonable approach will be met by the NRA by……….?
Tundra Dude
January 11th, 2013
4:35 pm
Albany wrote:
Yeah, I’ve watched documentaries on Kobe. I think they feed them beer and take extraordinary measures in making sure they cows remain calm.
The waiter brought out the entire loin. It was almost totall white. Amazing stuff!
As a ca$h-laden merchant mariner, I tried it once, in Tokyo. The restaurant brochure claims they’re massaged by hand, plus the beer diet.
Iirc, it was delish….but the real Prime Stock was the waitresses….yum.
Grasshopper
January 11th, 2013
4:36 pm
“a ballot has never been a weapon”
You are wronger than you have ever been on that one Granny.
Bob
January 11th, 2013
4:38 pm
Jay, many would agree with you but Obama would not. Obama voted to not allow people to use a weapon for self defense in their own homes. In DC they outlawed people buying guns and taking them to their homes, something overturned by the supremes. Americans should have access to the same weapons used to guard politicians. And if abortion should be paid for because it is a right, so should firearms.
Granny Godzilla
January 11th, 2013
4:39 pm
Grasshopper
January 11th, 2013
4:36 pm
“a ballot has never been a weapon”
You are wronger than you have ever been on that one Granny.
.
.
.
.
Don’t be be ridiculous, paper cuts don’t count.
Doggone/GA
January 11th, 2013
4:39 pm
“why is requiring people to get some form of gov’t issued id before being able to vote such a no-no”
The act of voting is not life threatening to someone else
Uh Huh.....Gunnig For Change
January 11th, 2013
4:41 pm
@Jm
January 11th, 2013
3:17 pm
Matti
Methinks Lewis should just quit voting altogether
I understand his grief
He should resign.
####################################
To ALL OF “YOU PEOPLE” who think John Lewis should resign
I say…THINK AGAIN. That WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
Not as long as “WE PEOPLE” (his people) have something to say about it.
If you DON’T APPRECIATE HIM…WHO CARES.
“WE” care.
And “WE” don’t give a rats behind what “YOU PEOPLE”
THINK.
Tundra Dude
January 11th, 2013
4:41 pm
OT (It’s Friday)
Any cooks/chefs around?
I was gifted 2 boneless chops, over an inch thick.
Probably too thick to cook on my Geo Foreman grill….?
Doggone/GA
January 11th, 2013
4:41 pm
“You are wronger than you have ever been on that one Granny”
How about some proof of someone killed with a ballot
The other half of your brain.
January 11th, 2013
4:42 pm
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
The Georgia drivers laws state ” when you are 16 and passed the other requirements then you have the ” PPRIVILEGE ” of a full drivers license. Alittle reading goes a long way, most states in not all adopt the same law.
I proved mine, now prove yours. You can’t and it just kills you that you can’t.
Duke
January 11th, 2013
4:43 pm
Hey Granny, if it’s been “over 20 years”, I could meet you TONIGHT……pilgrim..!
Dave
January 11th, 2013
4:49 pm
Tundra, heat your oven to the max. Put a cast iron pan in it for 20 minutes. Salt and pepper the chops and add a little olive oil. Heat a burner to max and brown the chops. Put them in the oven until they are about 140 degrees internally, 150 for medium well. (About a minute or so a side and then check the temperature.)
Erwin's cat
January 11th, 2013
4:50 pm
Tundra dude…think broasting
Real Scootter
January 11th, 2013
4:51 pm
Tundra Dude,
Pan fry those chops! Cook on medium high.
barking frog
January 11th, 2013
4:52 pm
The word is MENtal not WOMENtal.
Grasshopper
January 11th, 2013
4:55 pm
“The act of voting is not life threatening to someone else”
Except for maybe…that Hitler dude that got 15 million or so votes
Krystal'sBalls
January 11th, 2013
4:57 pm
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/masked-men-tie-up-and-rob-homeowners-in-fayette-co/nTstr/
Well whaddya know?? Just TODAY. Let’s just add Fayetteville to that list.
Yes you have morons out here who hate/fear the governnent. You also have people who maintain a realistic and pragmatic view of the world and its inhabitants.
Doggone/GA
January 11th, 2013
4:59 pm
“The word is MENtal not WOMENtal”
Amen to that!
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 11th, 2013
4:59 pm
The Montpelier Exempted Village Schools Board of Education in Montelier, Ohio voted unanimously on Wednesday night to allow handgun training for four custodians, who will then tote firearms on the school’s campus
When taking out the trash goes literal?
Coming soon the semi-automatic mop?
Shoot first, then mop up the mess?
Willydoit?
January 11th, 2013
5:01 pm
“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.”
This is why no amount of gun control will ever make a difference. There are already so many guns in America, the crazies will always be able to get the one(s) they need to carry out their killings.
But I will agree with most of you, retards should not be allowed to owns guns!
rightwingextreme
January 11th, 2013
5:02 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
January 11th, 2013
4:15 pm
OK…now we’re having a good discussion.
I agree with a lot of what you said. I do think there is an incumbent responsibility to educate yourself and loved ones on the proper use of firearms…that they are not toys and their use has consequences. I’m working with my family on these issues as well. You’ve got to have a plan for various contingencies!
I think you’re seeing a lot of the reaction from folks such as myself on the issue of confiscation is that there are members of our government that do want to take away all guns. Feinstein, Cuomo, Bloomberg are on record as wanting to do this.
My question is does Obama or Holder want to confiscate? I believe they do and would if they could. After katrina the NOPD was confiscating weapons.
I know a lot of folks think….come on rightwing….you’re crazy. That kind of stuff only happens in other countries. And so far they would be right. I again go back to the comments of the FFs that they believed it was inherent right to be able to defend yourself from an enemy government, foreign or domestic, or some nut kicking in your door.
I think that is what has kept us a free country for all of these years. I hope we continue in that avenue.
Towncrier
January 11th, 2013
5:08 pm
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-signs-law-giving-himself-bush-lifetime-secret-184305122–politics.html
Towncrier
January 11th, 2013
5:09 pm
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others:
http://www.deadline.com/2013/01/quentin-tarantino-has-heated-exchange-with-uk-journalist-on-movie-violence-says-im-not-your-slave-video/
Towncrier
January 11th, 2013
5:10 pm
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/no-gun-magazine-charges-for-david-gregory-86079.html
barking frog
January 11th, 2013
5:11 pm
Towncrier 5:08
So Clinton is on his own….
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 11th, 2013
5:12 pm
Rightwingextreme, so I challenge you to answer my prior question, when is it okay to start killing government officials? Who decides tyranny exists?
The State Government of Michigan removed elected officials in several cities and appointed someone with dictatorial powers who could unilaterally sell city assets and close schools and disband city council? Can someone shoot that person constitutionally as a 2d amendment remedy?
Towncrier
January 11th, 2013
5:16 pm
“So Clinton is on his own…”
Looks like it. Guess Obama isn’t interested in showing him any “luv”, despite his fork-tongued “support” for Obama these two past election cycles.
barking frog
January 11th, 2013
5:19 pm
Towncrier
I think Clinton needs protection more than Bush or Obama
and that’s just from Hillary….
Tundra Dude
January 11th, 2013
5:21 pm
Gosh, all the Master Chefs are out!
Thanx, guys.
My success rate at pan frying is dismal….
Broasting sounds too technical…
I’ll try just one first, browning, then oven.
rightwingextreme
January 11th, 2013
5:23 pm
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 11th, 2013
5:12 pm
Rightwingextreme, so I challenge you to answer my prior question, when is it okay to start killing government officials? Who decides tyranny exists?
The State Government of Michigan removed elected officials in several cities and appointed someone with dictatorial powers who could unilaterally sell city assets and close schools and disband city council? Can someone shoot that person constitutionally as a 2d amendment remedy?
Don’t know the answer to that one.
Towncrier
January 11th, 2013
5:23 pm
“Rightwingextreme, so I challenge you to answer my prior question, when is it okay to start killing government officials? Who decides tyranny exists?”
Perhaps when they start interring people (as in WWII) or impose martial law for an unjust reason (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012). Those might be “signs” that “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark”.
keith
January 11th, 2013
5:24 pm
And let leftwing hacks like Bookman decide who is sane or not.
Towncrier
January 11th, 2013
5:26 pm
“I think Clinton needs protection more than Bush or Obama and that’s just from Hillary….”
You may have a point. But I suspect if she was going to kill him, she’d have done it already – say back in 1995-6.
Towncrier
January 11th, 2013
5:29 pm
“And let leftwing hacks like Bookman decide who is sane or not.”
Yes. That would be the politically correct thing to do. If only we conservatives knew what was best for us. But, alas, we do not – we are stupid, ignorant, foolish, incapable of reasoning…wait…isn’t that what the Democrats years back used to say about blacks?
Jay
January 11th, 2013
5:31 pm
“And let leftwing hacks like Bookman decide who is sane or not.”
No, guys. Taking and passing a gun-safety course — along with a background check of course — would be good enough evidence for me. Think of all those people that even you don’t believe should have guns — do you believe most of ‘em would take and pass such a course?
I don’t.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 11th, 2013
5:32 pm
Well Towncrier, who decides? You and others keep talking about tyranny but you are not very clear about it or how it is decided. So you are suggesting that Japanese Americans in WWII and others could have lawfully overthrown the US government? What is the difference between what Michigan did and “martial law”? What should be the constitutional test to determine when terrorism and insurrection is permissible since you, rightwingextreme, Senior Arabic Digits and others claim a “Red Dawn” constitutional right?
TM
January 11th, 2013
5:37 pm
It seems that the right to be able to vote should come with the same requirements as the right to bear arms. What is the difference under the Constitution, Substantial harm can be caused by letting unqualified people exercise either right.
Adam
January 11th, 2013
5:38 pm
By the way, the Hitler controlling guns thing? It’s a lie:
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/
Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.
University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.
The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.
Doggone/GA
January 11th, 2013
5:39 pm
“Except for maybe…that Hitler dude that got 15 million or so votes”
But it wasn’t the VOTES that killed anyone. It was the PEOPLE who followed him that killed others.
keith
January 11th, 2013
5:41 pm
Yes. That would be the politically correct thing to do. If only we conservatives knew what was best for us. But, alas, we do not – we are stupid, ignorant, foolish, incapable of reasoning…wait…isn’t that what the Democrats years back used to say about blacks?
Gun control was used to keep blacks from gaining their freedom, now they want to use gun control to enslave us all. They want that power and anything they perceive as a threat to their absolute power must be eliminated.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 11th, 2013
5:42 pm
RWE — “I think you’re seeing a lot of the reaction from folks such as myself on the issue of confiscation is that there are members of our government that do want to take away all guns. Feinstein, Cuomo, Bloomberg are on record as wanting to do this.”
FWIW, I don’t think any of them are going to meet with much success. Even Cuomo will have to concede that some folks in upstate NY might actually hunt for subsistence — and that depriving them of their weapons would mean that they’d starve.
I *do* think that we’re going to come out of the Obama administration with some sort of new restrictions on firearms, and I think that now is the time for the NRA to get involved with that discussion in good faith. If the NRA fights it and is seen as obstructing a solution, I think it might find itself facing *worse* restrictions than if they’d just tried to negotiate something they could live with.
“My question is does Obama or Holder want to confiscate? I believe they do and would if they could. After katrina the NOPD was confiscating weapons.”
Katrina’s a completely different situation, and not one you could hang on Obama. FWIW, I don’t think they want to confiscate, but I think they want fewer weapons on the streets and closer tabs on those that are in the public’s possession. And I don’t have a problem with that.
keith
January 11th, 2013
5:43 pm
Does anyone really believe criminals will go out and pay for a gun safety course before murdering people? How incredibly stupid can you be???
TM
January 11th, 2013
5:43 pm
I don’t mind Jay’s gun safety class having completed one but every 5 years?
That is more than a drivers license which is a privilege not a right.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 11th, 2013
5:43 pm
Gun control was used to keep blacks from gaining their freedom, now they want to use gun control to enslave us all.
Huh?
Adam
January 11th, 2013
5:44 pm
Meanwhile, much of the Hitler myth is based on an infamous quote falsely attributed to the Fuhrer, which extols the virtue of gun control:
This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!
The quote has been widely reproduced in blog posts and opinion columns about gun control, but it’s “probably a fraud and was likely never uttered,” according to Harcourt. “This quotation, often seen without any date or citation at all, suffers from several credibility problems, the most significant of which is that the date often given [1935] has no correlation with any legislative effort by the Nazis for gun registration, nor would there have been any need for the Nazis to pass such a law, since gun registration laws passed by the Weimar government were already in effect,” researchers at the useful website GunCite note.
So much for THAT theory…
Dave
January 11th, 2013
5:45 pm
Tundra, if you are still around, you’ll get a better brown with some olive or canola oil.
Towncrier
January 11th, 2013
5:46 pm
“Well Towncrier, who decides? You and others keep talking about tyranny but you are not very clear about it or how it is decided.”
Maybe it’s like what Justice Stewart said in regard to pornography: you know it when you see it. For me, severe restrictions on the 2nd amendment – to the point of confiscating or requiring the relinquishment of owned weapons (especially if it involved simple handguns and the like) would be a step this government probably would be ill-advised to take. I don’t think that would lead to an immediate revolt, but it would likely set a future revolt in motion. And the revolt would not be a head on confrontation but, I expect, more like what the IRA did in Ireland.
Bear in mind that I don’t own a handgun and haven’t since college (when I had a .22 target pistol). I am not a member of the NRA, nor do I buy or read gun magazines. I say what I say strictly on principle and reason.
Adam
January 11th, 2013
5:47 pm
“As for STALIN,” Bartov continued, “the very idea of either gun control or the freedom to bear arms would have been absurd to him. His regime used violence on a vast scale, provided arms to thugs of all descriptions, and stripped not guns but any human image from those it declared to be its enemies. And then, when it needed them, as in WWII, it took millions of men out of the Gulags, trained and armed them and sent them to fight Hitler, only to send back the few survivors into the camps if they uttered any criticism of the regime.”
Towncrier
January 11th, 2013
5:49 pm
“No, guys. Taking and passing a gun-safety course — along with a background check of course — would be good enough evidence for me.”
That’s good to hear. But you will have to admit there is more than a few on the left who don’t view gun ownership as a constitutionally protected right and would be in favor of an outright ban on guns. And you must realize that some of us on the right find that pretty scary.
Grasshopper
January 11th, 2013
5:49 pm
“Taking and passing a gun-safety course — along with a background check of course — would be good enough evidence for me.”
Jay, I bet the mother of the Newtown shooter went through all of this; she got her weapons in Connecticut, right?
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 11th, 2013
5:53 pm
Towncrier, you can do better than that. So you are saying that if I determine that today this government is tyrannical, I may exercise 2d amendment remedies and kill government officials and, let’s say, you were standing nearby with your family, I could lawfully kill you and your family as a constitutional right if you tried to stop me or interfere (or you could just be collateral damage) because I believe this is tyranny. And I would not have committed a crime.
Grasshopper
January 11th, 2013
5:54 pm
“But it wasn’t the VOTES that killed anyone. It was the PEOPLE who followed him that killed others.”
Same difference; no votes = no power.
keith
January 11th, 2013
5:56 pm
With Bookmans iduitic proposals all the govt has to say is you are not sane therefore you cannot own a gun, and thats only if you disagree politically with them.
Doggone/GA
January 11th, 2013
5:59 pm
“Same difference; no votes = no power”
Nope, it’s not the “same difference” If you think so, let’s see your examples of the act of voting being DIRECTLY responsible for the death of someone. Not the result of voting, that plain ACT of doing so.
keith
January 11th, 2013
6:02 pm
make that idiotic.
Towncrier
January 11th, 2013
6:05 pm
“Towncrier, you can do better than that. So you are saying that if I determine that today this government is tyrannical, I may exercise 2d amendment remedies and kill government officials and, let’s say, you were standing nearby with your family, I could lawfully kill you and your family as a constitutional right if you tried to stop me or interfere (or you could just be collateral damage) because I believe this is tyranny. And I would not have committed a crime.”
I don’t believe I said that an isolated act of defense against perceived tyranny would be legally justified. I believe the right to bear arms is stipulated for defense against threats to life and liberty, both foreign and domestic. It is the very right the colonists exercised against Great Britain (which, I’ve read, attempted to disarm them) in the Revolutionary War. I don’t think the enactment of some small policy change here or there is going to cause a revolt. But try taking away everyone’s arms and see what happens.
Tundra Dude
January 11th, 2013
6:07 pm
Dave, thanx.
Got some olive in stock….all systems go!
Pizza
January 11th, 2013
6:08 pm
If Trayvon Martin had a gun George Zimmerman would be dead . . . . and what would that prove ? Simply that where violence is escalated ( or the threat of violence ); he who shots first lives.
I expect tourism to decline where more guns are brandished. The local economy looses.
Grasshopper
January 11th, 2013
6:10 pm
“Nope, it’s not the “same difference” If you think so, let’s see your examples of the act of voting being DIRECTLY responsible for the death of someone. Not the result of voting, that plain ACT of doing so.”
Oh, an actual voting machine falling on someone’s head? Or a someone being strangled by a curtain? No…can’t help.
The physical act of banning a gun does not physically stop a bullet. Just as the physical act of voting for Hitler did not physically project a bullet.