Most gun owners far more reasonable than the NRA
Judging from the results of a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, a wide spectrum of Americans of both parties has reached consensus on the need for specific, common-sense actions to reduce the death toll taken by guns without intruding on Second Amendment rights granted under the Constitution.
The question is, how much power does an angry, paranoid and politically aggressive minority still wield over gun policy in this country? I suspect that we’re going to find that it’s an awful lot. The NRA’s grip on Washington is so strong that we can’t even get a director confirmed to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the agency tasked with enforcing federal gun laws. The ATF has gone leaderless since 2006, because under President Bush and now President Obama, Senate Republicans have refused to even allow a vote on the nomination.
You want another example? The ATF is forbidden by federal law to create a computer database allowing its agents to trace ownership of guns used in a crime. The search has to be done manually, in a time-eating process of phone call after phone call, and sifting through boxes of paper records. That’s because in its infinite paranoia, the NRA insists that a computerized system would violate the Second Amendment by making it easier for the government to go door to door, confiscating the 180 million weapons estimated to be in private hands.
Seriously, they think that’s going to happen.
According to the ABC/WaPo poll, most Americans don’t put much credence in that fantasy. It found that 71 percent of Americans support creation of a national gun database. That includes 61 percent of Republicans.
In addition, 65 percent of Americans — including 59 percent of Republicans — say they support a ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Seventy-six percent would require a background check before a person is allowed to purchase ammunition, a figure that includes 69 percent of Republicans.
That strong bipartisan consensus breaks down only on the issue of a ban on assault weapons. Overall, 58 percent of Americans and 54 percent of independents would support such a ban, but only 45 percent of Republicans would do so.
But the most telling data in the poll involves the 44 percent of those surveyed who live in a home where guns are kept. Of that subset, 86 percent would support closing the “gun-show” loophole on background checks. Seventy-six percent of gun owners endorse a background check for ammo sales; 62 percent would back a national firearms database, and 55 percent support a ban on large-capacity magazines.
Such numbers confirm that gun owners, as a rule, are far more reasonable about common-sense approaches to gun safety than is the extremist organization that purports to represent their interests. But in the end, I’m not confident that will matter much.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
1,281 comments Add your comment
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
7:28 pm
K’CHAK
That one qualifies, at least, for line of the day, eh?
9 out of 10 MAJOR historians agree.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
7:30 pm
Towncrier
“Why is Obama suddenly RUSHING to pass gun legislation? Because of an “back breaking” event”
Saw a poster on a friend’s Facebook page (he’s an active duty Air Force senior NCO).
It was a pic of Richard Reid with the caption “one guy tries to bomb on plane by hiding explosives in his shoe and immediately we all have to remove our shoes at the airport” followed by a chart with the caption ” 61 mass murders over the last 30 years and we still can’t pass reasonable gun control”
Again, given Jay’s comments in the lead, the question could be “why do most of the American people support this rush to pass gun legislation”?
Mama Says
January 15th, 2013
7:32 pm
Paul,
The colonies did not have a standing military prior to the revolution. Therefore the constitution had to written to secure the right to oppose the army doesn’t it ?
I mean if there were no governmental power abuse would the forefathers had needed to secure a way to oppose it ?
Here’s you something to ponder. If there were no government could a group of citizens legitimately ban guns under the Bull of Rights ?
Wow that was a good questioning must say. I have discovered a new conservative argument. Smaller government means more gun control and therefore more safety.
indigo
January 15th, 2013
7:32 pm
Paul – 7:05
That is a logically correct statement.
I guess logic doesn’t count in your “real world”.
Recon 0311 2533
January 15th, 2013
7:33 pm
This president must either have complete stupidity behind intrinsic incompetence or he’s determined to bring down this Republic to third world status. I tend to now believe it’s the latter.
F. Sinkwich
January 15th, 2013
7:33 pm
“Also remember, existing laws PREVENTED him from buying his own weapon. That’s why he took his mom’s…”
Logic is a fool’s errand on this blog.
Lib ilks just have to “do something” every time some calamity befalls us. It doesn’t matter whether the “something” has any impact addressing the problem at hand, but as long as it’s done, they sleep better at night.
josef
January 15th, 2013
7:34 pm
K’CHAK
Paul
January 15th, 2013
7:34 pm
Towncrier
(reference subverting the Constitution and our laws)
““Of course. Are you implying Pres Obama doesn’t?”
People have.”
Yes, people here have said that.
Then again, tens of thousands of Americans signed a petition urging the government to build a Death Star like the one in Star Wars.
Mama Says
January 15th, 2013
7:35 pm
Kam,
Are you kidding ?
In your response you said the government has to approve it, so therefore it’s illegal without government approval correct ?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
7:35 pm
Lib ilks just have to “do something” every time some calamity befalls us.
Robert and Mary Schindler say, “What?”
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
7:36 pm
“For some reason, it doesn’t seem like conservatives or gun lovers give a damn about those kids in Chicago either.”
So you thereby stipulate my claim that Obama (who is from Chicago) doesn’t care.
“I don’t see any one of y’all up there helping that community out, but you whip that sh*t out like a 12 inch gold plated dildo every chance you get to try to deflect conversation away from something you don’t want to talk about.”
That’s pretty offensive language there, buddy. And you are praying for God’s mercy upon us? I dare say Jesus would never have used language like that. I am pointing out Obama’s hypocrisy and what so you do? You point to other people’s hypocrisy in a very angry manner. That looks and sounds like defensiveness. Why in the world are you defending Obama? I voted for GWB twice, but please show where I have defended HIM (as opposed to maybe a few of his policies) on this blog.
“Maybe it’s the flu, maybe it’s the meds… but I’m sick and damned tired of hearing about Chicago kids from a bunch of people who don’t give a rat’s ass about Chicago kids. If you’re personally doing something, Towncrier, then don’t take this to be directed personally at you. If you fall into that same category as the others then maybe y’all will get offended enough to either do something about Chicago or quit using that as a talking point. Kids and young people are dying everywhere and y’all treat them like the period at the end of a sentence or something.”
I don’t live in Chicago, buddy. But I have personally tried to help inner city kids in areas in which I have lived. And I have been the recipient of a fair amount of racist statements and threats there for my efforts. I take what you said personally because you responded to MY post, part of the point of which is that it is WRONG to act suddenly because WHITE kids have been killed. It, upon analysis, appears racist and ideological. I am all for doing something about gang violence in our cities. No politician really tackles that. I have often thought if I were elected president, that would be one of the first things I would address – because I view it as a cancer.
“I pray God has mercy on all y’all…”
On all of us, I hope you mean. Otherwise you sound like the Pharisee in the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector.
godless heathen
January 15th, 2013
7:39 pm
There is a reason the South is the butt of ever
Every country has a city that they make fun of.
In America, it’s Cleveland.
In Russia, it’s Cleveland.
-Yakov Smirnoff
Paul
January 15th, 2013
7:40 pm
Mama says
“The colonies did not have a standing military prior to the revolution. Therefore the constitution had to written to secure the right to oppose the army doesn’t it ?”
The British army -
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
7:42 pm
In your response you said the government has to approve it, so therefore it’s illegal without government approval correct ?
Capt. Picard goalposts with warp drive.
You clearly stated they were illegal which they aren’t.
At both gun ranges that I frequent, fully automatic weapons are for rent so they are clearly not illegal.
josef
January 15th, 2013
7:45 pm
Heathen…
Give the folks from Cleveland their just due, though. They have fun with it, too.
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
7:45 pm
“It was a pic of Richard Reid with the caption “one guy tries to bomb on plane by hiding explosives in his shoe and immediately we all have to remove our shoes at the airport” followed by a chart with the caption ” 61 mass murders over the last 30 years and we still can’t pass reasonable gun control”
You forgot to highlight the word “reasonable”. And to recognize that Reid’s actions had nothing to do with enumerated Constitutional rights (which is the rub in all of this).
“Again, given Jay’s comments in the lead, the question could be “why do most of the American people support this rush to pass gun legislation”?
Again, what does that matter? You almost seem to be saying since a majority of people want to do X then we should rush to do it (even if that might be imprudent or dangerous or illogical). If so, then welcome to the herd.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
7:45 pm
indigo
“That is a logically correct statement.
I guess logic doesn’t count in your “real world”.
?????????????????????????
You wrote “Either this whole sentence is false or guns should not be privately owned.”
I was asking if the ‘this’ in the sentence means that specific sentence, or a sentence from a previous post, or a sentence in the two paragraphs you wrote after that sentence.
Mama Says
January 15th, 2013
7:45 pm
Paul are you arguing just to argue ?
The British Army was the means by which the King imposed on the citizens. The resistance to that abuse was impossible without the ability to fight the force used by the King. In other words no citizens with guns equals no revolution, Mate. Wait that may have been my Australian accent. Either way no guns and you are still a subject in the kings control.
saywhat?
January 15th, 2013
7:47 pm
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/
Something to read for over-reacting Godwinites.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
7:48 pm
You almost seem to be saying since a majority of people want to do X then we should rush to do it (even if that might be imprudent or dangerous or illogical). If so, then welcome to the herd.
“We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
Condoleezza Rice says, “What?”
Brosephus™
January 15th, 2013
7:49 pm
And you are praying for God’s mercy upon us? I dare say Jesus would never have used language like that.
Yep. Praying for those who need mercy more than I do is the least selfish thing I could do. Praying for self mercy while others are in dire need seems quite selfish.
Also, I’m not Jesus nor did I ever claim that he would use language like that, so until I make such a claim of such, don’t address me as such. As to anger, you’re right it’s anger. I’m sick and tired of “conservatives” talking about Chicago and not doing a thing about Chicago. I know you do stuff in other communities, but until you’re helping in Chicago, you’re just as much of the problem as Obama and every single gangbanger breathing there. So, talk about your community instead.
I take what you said personally because you responded to MY post, part of the point of which is that it is WRONG to act suddenly because WHITE kids have been killed. It, upon analysis, appears racist and ideological.
I responded to your post because of the Chicago Statement, not because of you. As I stated within, if you’re doing something, then don’t pay it any attention which either you didn’t see, didn’t ignore, or really aren’t doing something. I’ll leave that to you. I don’t really care about your personal doings.
Dude, this is America. Nothing happens until it happens to WHITE kids. I don’t know where you grew up or was exposed to, but that’s how America has been for as long as history has been recorded. If/When any single politician seriously gives a crap about inner city America, that will be a first.
As to my prayer of mercy on y’all, I had it right despite your hope. I have people praying for me already, so I’m just making sure y’all are covered too.
Mama Says
January 15th, 2013
7:49 pm
Kam,
Make a deal with you. Take the gun from the gun range and see how many cops descend upon you before you leave the driveway.
Or better yet go ahead and convert your semi auto and then call the police on yourself, want to see how long you will be jail ?
The guns you refer to at the range are owned by the range, not you. The range had to apply to the government in order to possess them and they charge you a fee to shoot them.
You are being very tic tacky with your argument
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
7:50 pm
Not according to the last O of O meeting.
The next two things are:
1) Make everyone get gay married.
2) Force ‘em all to get abortions.
LOL Kam!!!!! They caint make me have no abortion cause god said it aint right!
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
7:53 pm
“Yes, people here have said that. Then again, tens of thousands of Americans signed a petition urging the government to build a Death Star like the one in Star Wars.”
Then again, intelligent people are willing and able to evaluate the validity of claims on their own merits and not dismiss them in a fallacious deflection. Children, on the other hand, are “pre-logical” and….
Mr_B
January 15th, 2013
7:53 pm
“Using children as props?
Shame.”
Using children as targets? : not so much.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
7:53 pm
Make a deal with you.
No deal.
You clearly stated that fully automatic weapons are illegal, I pointed out that they aren’t and now you are weakly trying to walk it back.
Get a hoveround if you’re that lame.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
7:55 pm
Towncrier
I didn’t forget to highlight the word ‘reasonable.’ It wasn’t highlighted in the poster the sergeant posted.
If you read Jay’s lead and then thru the day’s posts, I don’t think you’ll find any of the posters who oppose VP Biden’s/ Pres Obama’s proposals who have stated support for ANY new proposal.
” And to recognize that Reid’s actions had nothing to do with enumerated Constitutional rights (which is the rub in all of this).”
What’s been proposed that violates Constitutional rights? That the Supreme Court would likely overturn?
““Again, given Jay’s comments in the lead, the question could be “why do most of the American people support this rush to pass gun legislation”?
Again, what does that matter?”
It was meant to show, as was laid out in the lead, that most Americans (71% 65% 58%) support control proposals. NOT the NRA position on those proposals.
Mick
January 15th, 2013
7:55 pm
recon@7:33
I see your projecting yourself again, your numbers don’t add up…
Mama Says
January 15th, 2013
7:55 pm
Another problem with this issue.
I am sitting here watching the world news on which they have doctors saying that a mandated reporting of mental treatment is a violation of personal information against people who have not been convicted of a crime and the standing medical disclosure law known as HIPA, The Health Information and Privacy Act.
See every way you turn there is the constitution
Mama Says
January 15th, 2013
7:56 pm
Ok Kam,
I know the gun laws, think what you like I don’t care. Get one and go to jail. Argue with yourself
Mr_B
January 15th, 2013
7:57 pm
“The colonies did not have a standing military prior to the revolution. Therefore the constitution had to written to secure the right to oppose the army doesn’t it ?”
All of the colonies had citizen militias well before the Revolution.
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
7:59 pm
“I am sitting here watching the world news on which they have doctors saying that a mandated reporting of mental treatment is a violation of personal information against people who have not been convicted of a crime and the standing medical disclosure law known as HIPA, The Health Information and Privacy Act.”
Doh!
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
8:01 pm
I know the gun laws…
All available evidence suggests otherwise.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
8:01 pm
Mama says
“Paul are you arguing just to argue ?”
I do try to not do that.
You wrote
” If indeed the constitution gives individuals the right to possess guns then it does so with the predetermined purpose of preventing exactly what you argue is ridiculous . When the kings men sought to enforce the kings will British troops did indeed occupy and confiscate guns. This fact is not only the basis of the 2nd amendment”
I asked for clarification. “Are you saying the basis was to prevent confiscation of firearms (I now add, by the government), which was the action of the army? Or was the basis protection against a standing army? ”
But I think I see your point from your 7:45. Which leads me to ask (I’ve been asking questions of you to understand your point – haven’t been arguing): is your point we must have automatic and other weapons to protect ourselves against the government? Because if that’s your point, I think that’s getting into nutty territory.
indigo
January 15th, 2013
8:02 pm
Paul – 7:45
Either this whole sentence is false or guns should not be privately owned.
The above sentence is logically correct.
Refute it if you can.
Take your best shot.
keith
January 15th, 2013
8:03 pm
And according to the numbers, Texas ranks in the top ten of states with per capita gun ownership so by your logic should there would be very little crime in Texas?
You really want to compare the city of Chicago with the entire state of Texas? Go ahead. Chicago loses.
Recon 0311 2533
January 15th, 2013
8:05 pm
“I see your projecting yourself again, your numbers don’t add up…”
Okay Mikhail what numbers are you referring to, which don’t add up.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
8:06 pm
Towncrier
“Then again, intelligent people are willing and able to evaluate the validity of claims on their own merits and not dismiss them in a fallacious deflection.”
I was referring to the claim that Pres Obama is trying to subvert the Constitution.
I didn’t think the reference to the Death Star petition was any kind of a deflection. It was meant as another illustration of nuttiness. Especially as no one’s saying what those subverting acts are.
What ‘claims’ and ‘deflections’ are you referring to?
Thomas
January 15th, 2013
8:09 pm
I am a rigid Republican and fully disagree and disrespect any thoughts and ideas that a Democrat has.
I am a rigid Democrat and hate the Republicans and every thought and idea that they have.
Everyone must fit in a bucket or I get a headache.
I cannot begin to understand that people may differ in their beliefs of it confuses and frustrates me.
I am a modern day American and I am a product of todays simple minded and shallow media.
Everyone should drive a Prius, belong to a uniion, and carry multiple semi automatic weapons as they go to a Mosque and worship Christ.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
8:10 pm
indigo
“Refute it if you can.
Take your best shot.”
Why would I want to take the time? It’s just an exercise like one would have in a language and logic class. The statement itself – about banning private ownership of guns – is irrelevant in the US.
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
8:10 pm
“What’s been proposed that violates Constitutional rights? That the Supreme Court would likely overturn?”
I don’t know what is in Obama’s proposals. Do you? I think the question of whether or not, say, an AR-15 can be banned is a Constitutional one. Same with semi-automatic weapons in general. Possibly the number of bullets held in a clip (if it did not exceed that of a conventional military weapon like an M-16, which is 30). If we want to limit what weapons “the people” may possess, then we need to limit the weapons the government can use against “the people”. I would be fine with that. I personally am not in favor of people having AR-15s, but grudgingly argue in principle they should to defend against the threat of a tyrannical government. This nation was founded upon armed revolt; it is curious to see people argue that such revolts (under certain circumstances) are not justified. It is a contradiction in terms.
Mr_B
January 15th, 2013
8:10 pm
Mama Says:
“But in general the real issue is the fact that guns are specifically mentioned in the constitution. As any other constitutionally mandated right, any action which imposes limits or conditions on that right will surely be found unconstitutional”
But guns aren’t specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment specifies “arms.” It has long been recognized that SOME arms may be restricted; you cannot legally own a thermonuclear device. As long as you are legally permitted to own a saber or a ten- foot pike, you still have the “right to bear arms.”
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
8:11 pm
Mama Says
January 15th, 2013
7:56 pm
Kam is correct Mama. I have a good friend that owns several fully auto guns legally.He has a FFL.
Mama Says
January 15th, 2013
8:17 pm
Man you folks will try to tell a stop sign that it can’t make you stop.
At the beginning of the impositions by the king the Colonies were under the jurisdiction of the British military. The British military, also know as the kings men, appointed, more or less, very lightly armed militia which were headed by members of the kings army who were appointed by the governor, a British appointed dictate. The thought of Militias was originally a British way of calling up a defensive group of citizens who could fight an enemy. It was used in the colonies for the first time, by the British King to fight off Spanish threats in the colony of Virginia.
When the revolution began the militias were disbanded if they did not maintain loyalty to the king and were illegal. Therefore there were no effective armed militias in resistance only armed citizens. Those militia members eventually became part of the Colonial Army under Washingtons command. Matter of fact Washington himself thought the militia was an obstruction to the effort because as it was initially used by the citizens it provided little opposition to the British Army. Since the colonies could not afford to arm the colonial army the citizen soldiers brought their own guns when they joined. Meaning that the citizens armed the colonial army. No armed citizens no colonial army !
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
8:17 pm
“I didn’t think the reference to the Death Star petition was any kind of a deflection. It was meant as another illustration of nuttiness. Especially as no one’s saying what those subverting acts are.”
I have argued here that the Constitution has been “subverted” in one way or another by all 3 branches of government almost from the beginning. If you think otherwise, then perhaps you should do some research. I have not investigated claims about Obama doing so (because I haven’t seen any alleged subversions as being particularly egregious), but I certainly don’t dismiss such claims out of hand as “nuttiness”. That would be dumb of me, knowing as I do all of the ways Congress, the SC and presidents have “taken liberties” with certain passages of the Constitution – right from the beginning (with the establishment of a “national bank” by the FEDERALIST Hamilton).
Recon 0311 2533
January 15th, 2013
8:18 pm
Lets first of all protect our children as the NRA has suggested and which thousands of school systems nationally have taken steps to implement. They’ve taken these steps prior to Sandy Hook and are way out front of Obama and Biden. Next lets recognize the fact that there is at least as many guns as we have people living in America and no amount of feel good gun control legislation can protect the masses in a free, open society. Finally, lets recognize politicians for what they really are as displayed by this grandstanding for ever campaigning poor excuse for an American president and reject the notion that the federal government has the answers.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
8:19 pm
Towncrier
“I don’t know what is in Obama’s proposals. Do you?”
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/politics/gun-laws-battle/index.html
He apparently isn’t proposing banning semi-automatic weapons.
Or, for the other bloggers here, he also isn’t calling for confiscating all guns, outlawing all guns, or any of the other tactics the NRA and others have used to push gun sales (with great, good effect, I should add).
But it’s late, supper and other activities await.
And for anyone else who’s going to jump on with a follow-up from some time back saying ‘I come on and he leaves!!!!” – I’ll be happy to address the issues with you in the morning.
Pleasant evening, all -
Jay
January 15th, 2013
8:20 pm
Mama, I appreciate your post. Allow me to respond.
You write: “As (with) any other constitutionally mandated right, any action which imposes limits or conditions on that right will surely be found unconstitutional.”
Given that stance, surely you support private ownership of fully automatic weapons, flamethrowers and anti-tank weapons, up to and including F-16s for those able to afford them. Sure, Stinger anti-aircraft missiles could be used to bring down airliners, but they could also be used against black helicopters so they too must be publicly available to the heroic fighters of federal tyranny.
After all, if this fantasy of opposing a tyrannical federal government by force is to have any meaning, the private citizen must be allowed to arm himself in a fashion that would make such a fight somewhat plausible, right? That’s what the Founding Fathers intended, correct?
The Supreme Court, in Heller, made it quite clear that it disagrees, ruling that the Second Amendment “does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Heller was decided almost entirely on the basis of the right to self-defense, with Justice Scalia giving short shrift to the whole idea of a right to armed revolution. Scalia essentially concludes that technology has made the whole concept of a right to armed rebellion an archaic artifact, because “a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large” and that “no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.”
He’s right. In the modern world, access to personal weapons does little or nothing to resist tyranny. In Bosnia, private gun ownership is extensive, but that didn’t stop the Serbs from carrying out genocide there, a horror ended only by outside military intervention. In Iraq, guns are even more plentiful than in Bosnia. Everybody owns them, and many of them are fully auto versions of what we call assault weapons. Yet Saddam Hussein nonetheless succeeded in imposing a brutal tyranny on that country for many decades, and he did so without even attempting to confiscate personal weapons. They simply posed little or no danger to his power.
Conversely, in countries such as Tunisia and Egypt, gun ownership is very low. Yet in recent years they somehow managed what the well-armed Iraqis never could, overthrowing pretty brutal military dictatorships.
Guns don’t overturn tyranny. People do.
I also note that you yourself propose requiring “mental health certification for ownership of guns,” along with a requirement that all parties with access to weapons be listed on the certification. You yourself are proposing that the government be allowed to determine who can and cannot possess guns, based on mental stability. It’s a fine idea. How does that pass the constitutional test that you yourself established?
Maybe the list of those banned from ownership ought to include anyone who argues that private citizens have the right to take up arms against a legitimately elected government, simply because they don’t like what that government does. You know, Timothy McVeigh. David Koresh. And the idiot James Yeager from Tennessee, who just got his carry permit yanked because he started yacking about killing people if any new gun control laws are passed.
No doubt you disagree with that decision by Tennessee authorities. By your theory, after all, Yeager not only has the First Amendment right to advocate armed overthrow of the government, he and others like him also have an implied constitutional right to pursue “Second Amendment” remedies to what they perceive as tyranny. By your line of argument, Yeager should even have the right to possess Stinger missiles.
I ordinarily despise “slippery slope” arguments. But in this case, on your interpretation of the Constitution, what constitutional basis exists for denying Yeager as many Stingers as he might be able to afford? In what provision is that power contained.
Personally, I do not cede to idgits such as Yeager the right to decide when our constitutional order must be overturned at the point of a firearm.
It’s important to note that in the 1790s, when the people of western Pennsylvania launched the so-called Whiskey Rebellion, taking up arms against the federal government to fight a tax they did not like, George Washington, while president, led state militia troops into the field against the insurrection and the protesters vanished into the mist.
In other words — and as Scalia also notes in Heller — the armed and “well-regulated” state militia back then was a force to be used BY the federal government to suppress insurrection to its legitimate laws, not as a weapon by which to launch such insurrection.
Finally, you claim that a national database would only be useful after a murder, and can never be used to prevent a murder. That would be true, I suppose, if all murders were one-offs, if a murderer, having killed once, never kills again. However, that is not their pattern. A national database that allows a very quick identification of who last purchased a particular murder weapon would of course be useful in ensuring that a murderer does not kill again, and I think you’re stretching your case beyond its snapping point to claim otherwise.
Mick
January 15th, 2013
8:20 pm
recon
Your criticisms of the president lack substance. First, he whips romney, your classic american millionaire republican, with a far superior campaign strategy and team. A loss by the way you didn’t seem to see coming. He has kept us safe for the past fours years, authorized the hit on bin laden, raised taxes on the sacred wealthy, is calling out the republican azz klowns on their pathetic threat to not pay the bills, and finally, the cahones to do something about our over saturated sick gun loving culture. Now, thats good leadership!!!
Paul
January 15th, 2013
8:22 pm
Towncrier 8:17
That’s fine. My interest is focused on those who are exclusively all Obama, all the time.
As far as “but I certainly don’t dismiss such claims out of hand as “nuttiness”. stick around. You may. Heck, you may even see the “but he’s PLANNING to. We don’t know what he’s planning, but he IS planning to…” posts.
I think that’s nutty.
G’night.
Mama Says
January 15th, 2013
8:25 pm
Do you guys understand that when you say people own full autos therefore they are legal that you are completely ignoring the fact that you must obtain FEDERAL PERMISSION to do so?
That means it is illegal folks get it ? You have to have government approval !
Why is this hard for ya ll ?
As for your argument Mr. B,
Try another route. Now you are trying to say the constitution doesn’t say what it actually says. No right to arms, that’s news to even the liberals in congress
USA Patriot
January 15th, 2013
8:26 pm
JB – “Given that stance, surely you support private ownership of fully automatic weapons, flamethrowers and anti-tank weapons, up to and including F-16s for those able to afford it”….and the I stopped reading.
Yep, you are the Ben of the Rats!
USA Patriot
January 15th, 2013
8:28 pm
….and THEN I stopped reading.
TBS
January 15th, 2013
8:30 pm
“Yep, you are the Ben of the Rats!”
Is that the same Ben from Bennie and the Jets?
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
January 15th, 2013
8:31 pm
Well, there’s always a wise-acre. I see where the AJC is reporting that the PSC decided to start charging 5 bucks a month for what use to be free cell phones. Then some smart-alec posted a crack that ended with “Sent from my o-phone.”
Have a good night everybody.
Recon 0311 2533
January 15th, 2013
8:33 pm
“Your criticisms of the president lack substance.”
Ah yes comrade Mikhail your loyalty to the party is remarkable or remarkably stupid depending on ones perspective. Can you guess what mine is?
Jay
January 15th, 2013
8:33 pm
Then Patriot, walk me through your line of constitutional logic. If the purpose of the Second Amendment is to keep the federal government vulnerable to violent overthrow by its citizens — and that’s exactly what is being claimed — then what is the constitutional basis for keeping those arms out of private hands?
Jay
January 15th, 2013
8:34 pm
This whole “we have to be able to possess AR-15s cuz then we can overthrow the government” argument is truly inane.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
8:36 pm
I can’t WAIT to read Mama’s response to that 8:20…..
Looking forward to the morning.
Now, I’m powering the ‘puter down.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 15th, 2013
8:37 pm
Very well said, Jay Bookman.
Mr_B
January 15th, 2013
8:39 pm
That means it is illegal folks get it ? You have to have government approval !
Why is this hard for ya ll ?
As for your argument Mr. B,
Try another route. Now you are trying to say the constitution doesn’t say what it actually says. No right to arms, that’s news to even the liberals in congress
Is it illegal to drive a car? I have to have “governmental approval to drive one in Georgia.
Is it illegal to fly an airplane? I ‘d have to have a federal license to do that.
As to your second point, you might want to reread a copy of the Bill of Rights:
:”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear ARMS, shall not be infringed.”
Note the fourth word from the end.
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
8:39 pm
never kills again. However, that is not their pattern. A national database that allows a very quick identification of who last purchased a particular murder weapon would of course be useful in ensuring that a murderer does not kill again
Jay,if you have the time! Will you expound on that last sentence? Sorry,but I can’t follow you here.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 15th, 2013
8:39 pm
Well stated Jay! So far, none have taken up a valid articulable standard of when the “stand against tyranny” is permitted other than a lame “you know it when you see it” unarticulated standard.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
8:40 pm
This whole “we have to be able to possess AR-15s cuz then we can overthrow the government” argument is truly inane.
WOLVERINES!
Recon 0311 2533
January 15th, 2013
8:41 pm
“This whole “we have to be able to possess AR-15s cuz then we can overthrow the government” argument is truly inane.”
That isn’t the representative thought of the millions of typical law-abiding American gun owners but is the typical thought of far-left ignorance.
USA Patriot
January 15th, 2013
8:42 pm
JB – Wow, little bowed up are we? Seriously, who the hell is talking about “flamethrowers and anti-tank weapons, up to and including F-16s for those able to afford it”? I believe most of the folks here are speaking about “quick enacting laws that will further prohibit us”, as law abiding citizens.
Don’t get your panties all in a wad, you wanted a debate and got some push back – seems to me you accomplished your objective.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
8:44 pm
Don’t get your panties all in a wad…
More projection than an IMAX theater.
Mr_B
January 15th, 2013
8:44 pm
Sorry, Fifth word from the end. (I’m not a math guy.)
USA Patriot
January 15th, 2013
8:45 pm
There I go again, typing slower than the mind…..”QUIT enacting laws that will further prohibit us.”
Mama Says
January 15th, 2013
8:45 pm
Jay,
For the most part what you are saying is entirely correct. While I know you have to read through a lot of post I made your very argument about two weeks ago. We the people cannot oppose any government with semi or fully automatic rifles. That was the point I used to argue that the 2nd amendment is no longer useful, I believe I said it should be abolished.
However while it is with us I have suggested more extensive background checks, logical mental health requirements and more logical recognition, by cons, that gun control is completely reasonable.
Tonight my argument largely focuses on what can be banned. The basic argument that I put forth is that in saying semi auto rifles should be banned we are really saying that semi autos should be banned. A semi auto shoots one bullet at a time. Pistol or rifle. Unlike Kam, I know full auto weapons are illegal for citizens to own. It is also illegal to convert a semi to full.
My point is that as long as we put merit into the 2nd amendment it’s impossible to ban semi auto s without banning all guns, they are all semi autos.
As for your registry argument. Your thoughts on tracking are minimally helpful at best. Serial killers would be stopped. But the percentage of murders committed by the serial killer is less than 3%.
Most murders are domestic and gang related, registration stops neither.
But to engage you from a more conservative position, actually a fundamentalist position.
When the 2nd amendment was ratified there were no weapons of mass destruction. Government, the oppressive entity, is the body which has determined what is acceptable under the amendment. Wouldn’t the king ban the mechanism by which he would be deposed ?
Listen overall I support gun control, it is one of my more moderate positions, like environmental issues but we must address the 2nd amendment. Either it exist or it dosent
Jay
January 15th, 2013
8:47 pm
I’m merely continuing the debate, Patriot, in a calm and rational manner.
Again, if the federal government must always be vulnerable to violent overthrow — if privately owned weapons are really the biggest thing standing between us and tyranny, as many NRA “patriots” like to claim — then what is the constitutional basis for banning any militarily useful weapon?
Mama Says
January 15th, 2013
8:51 pm
B,
Is your right to drive in the constitution ? If so where ?
Recon 0311 2533
January 15th, 2013
8:52 pm
“Either it exist or it dosent”
It does exist and should be an amendment to our constitution that overrules politics.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 15th, 2013
8:52 pm
Obama could simply come out and say: let’s arm all black males with a weapon.
And that would pretty much turn the whole gun “debate” on its head, right there.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 15th, 2013
8:53 pm
Kam, over the weekend, I discovered the Australian Red Dawn: Tomorrow When the War Began
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1456941
Given Australia’s tough gun laws, its amazing these teens were able to fight back. They had no 2d amendment. Who would have thought they could fight against trained soldiers.
Spoiler alert: No yells of Wolverine.
Elections Have Consequences
January 15th, 2013
8:54 pm
“angry, paranoid and politically aggressive minority ”
Nice divide and conquer tactic Jay. Problem is, any cogent, serious, law abiding gun owner (the REAL majority) knows exactly what the intent is with regards to the 2nd Amendment, regardless of a Washington Post sampling or platitudes from the President.
One look at the Draconian gun legislation passed in NY state tells you liberals know even less about addressing crime than they do about dealing with fiscal issues.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 15th, 2013
8:54 pm
Recon: “It does exist and should be an amendment to our constitution that overrules politics.”
Nothing “overrules” politics. And certainly not an amendment to the quintessential political document, the Constitution.
n
January 15th, 2013
9:00 pm
Bravo Jay.
Almost always the sweet voice of reason.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
9:00 pm
Keep
The cable channels had a free weekend and it was in moderate rotation on one of the networks.
I didn’t watch it thinking it was just another overthrow-the-government violence pornos — besides, John Carter was available for my viewing pleasure.
Mama Says
January 15th, 2013
9:01 pm
I truly believe that this is an issue which is basic.
We have constructionist who believe the constitution is made of clay a d can therefore be sculptured.
We have constitutionalist who believe government must remain within the words of the constitution as written.
I have no idea how to rectify the two
Josef
January 15th, 2013
9:02 pm
Jay
@ 8:47
I would argue that given the time and place, that was very much what was in mind. The founders, however, were not prescient to the technological “advances” which came. They were setting the framework for a spasely populated, largely rural republic. I strogly suspect, had the foreseen the development of the nation state as it is today, there would be a lot of things they might make different.
Old Goober
January 15th, 2013
9:03 pm
When the 2nd amendment was ratified there were no weapons of mass destruction.
Oh, cannon existed. The point is that it’s rather silly to assert that private citizens’ ownership of weapons is a barrier to governmental tyranny. Ever see a full Marine regiment—less than a third of a division—assembled? I can pretty well assure you that no rag-tag collection of private citizens with rifles and other weaponry could stand up to that. Throw in supporting aircraft and artillery and you have a rout.
The best defense against governmental tyranny is the vote. We settled the argument about the supposed right of citizens to rebel against what they see as federal government “tyranny” some 149 years ago. If you are so dissatisfied with the actions of the federal government that you cannot tolerate living here, then by all means find another country.This country will continue to abide by the wishes of the majority.
Recon 0311 2533
January 15th, 2013
9:03 pm
“if privately owned weapons are really the biggest thing standing between us and tyranny, as many NRA “patriots” like to claim — then what is the constitutional basis for banning any militarily useful weapon?”
I’m a U.S. military veteran a firearms owner and NRA member for several years who has known many like me and Jay, your arguments are no where near an accurate truthful description of the typical American gun owner of which there are millions.
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
9:04 pm
“I ordinarily despise “slippery slope” arguments. But in this case, on your interpretation of the Constitution, what constitutional basis exists for denying Yeager as many Stingers as he might be able to afford?”
First of all, the SC is (by its own edict) the final arbiter of what the Constitution means. And no one with any historical knowledge is going to argue they are right all or most of the time. So Heller is the current “law of the land”. But that can change in time.
There can be little doubt, I think, that the 2nd Amendment was intended (among other things) to guard against the potential tyranny of the federal government. The historical evidence, the linguistic evidence, is too compelling. So Scalia can (like most SC justices) brush away intended meanings of the Constitution due to this or that reason, but it is in the end intellectual dishonesty. At the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified, a armed citizenry could in fact successively revolt against an oppressive government. Indeed, that is PRECISELY what the “founding fathers” did.
Admittedly, “the people” are now “outgunned” for technological reasons. So, I would propose (instead of tossing my hands in the air and plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment out of the window) that it be stipulated in the Constitution that the federal government not be allowed to use tanks, flame throwers, bombs and the like against “the people” of THIS nation, its citizens.
That solves the problem of inequality in arms (not in numbers). As for the justifiable grounds for a revolt, one need look no further than at the Declaration of Independence. I think that spells it out nicely. Anyone who is familiar with the cases of people like Koresh and McVeigh will clearly see their revolts were unjustified (even though liberals never fail to allude to them in their arguments).
As for some of the early rebellions that were quashed by militias, the legitimacy of some of those are worth investigating. Washington was a strong Federalist and so probably failed to see the potential hypocrisy in playing the “king” after just playing the “rebel”. I have just begun to study this question. In any case, Scalia’s allusion to these rebellions does NOT demonstrate that the SOLE purpose of militias was to put down insurrections. It was one of 3 purposes – the other two being to defend against a foreign invasion and to defend against tyranny.
Finally, neither guns or people overturn tyranny with any degree of certainty. Weapons make the difference in some cases, people in others and neither in the rest. But that has NO bearing on the INTENDED meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Just like people argue others can’t revolt simply because they don’t like something, I would argue people shouldn’t ignore or twist words of the Constitution simply because they don’t like them.
USA Patriot
January 15th, 2013
9:04 pm
JB – I’m not one of the “tyranny” concerned here.
“if privately owned weapons are really the biggest thing standing between us and tyranny, as many NRA “patriots” like to claim” – Your words, not mine. I don’t think “ownership of weapons” is the “biggest” thing.
I believe what’s transpired through this blog today is more telling. Some feel that if the government takes “this right” away, where will is stop? The EMOTIONS on this “gun” topic are telling and worthy of debate, however, changing laws based on emotion don’t typically accomplish more than political capital….my opinion.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
9:05 pm
“They were setting the framework for a spasely populated, largely rural republic”
I disagree. They were operating in society like that, in some ways, but they were prefectly aware that change happens. They did their best to give us a governing document robust and flexible enough to accomodate conditions and situations they, themselves, could not forsee.
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
9:06 pm
Jay, I asked the other day but I think you were gone by then. If you care to answer…….
Do you or have you ever owned any firearms, ie rifle, shotgun or pistol? Do you or have you ever hunted? Have you ever shot a fire arm?
Not prying, just curious. I understand if you choose not to answer. I never answer when folks ask me if I currently own fire arms when I am “identifiable” as you are.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
9:08 pm
“This country will continue to abide by the wishes of the majority.”
Unless that will is a danger to the rights of a minority. That is our strength, we accomodate minorities…not just the majority.
Recon 0311 2533
January 15th, 2013
9:09 pm
“Nothing “overrules” politics. And certainly not an amendment to the quintessential political document, the Constitution.”
Welcome to the occupation…I’m not a futurist but I think you and others may be in for a rude awakening fairly soon.
USA Patriot
January 15th, 2013
9:10 pm
Doggone – well said.
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
9:13 pm
Kam: You finished John Carter? I started it but didn’t last too long. I can still see it if you say it’s good though…………
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
9:14 pm
I’m a U.S. military veteran a firearms owner and NRA member for several years who has known many like me and Jay, your arguments are no where near an accurate truthful description of the typical American gun owner of which there are millions.
Me too Recon.USAF though,no combat.And some call us the Brown Shirts. Go figure!
Mr_B
January 15th, 2013
9:14 pm
Mama: (and BTW, I really appreciate the fact that you have shown the ability, often rare here, to engage in a rational discussion without resorting to personal attacks or name-calling . Kudos!)
You asserted that it is illegal to own a fully automatic weapon in the US. It is not illegal, one merely has to be willing to jump through a series of regulatory hoops to legally own such a weapon, much as it is legal to make your own whiskey, if you are willing to comply with the appropriate Federal regulations.
We as a society live with a myriad of regulations everyday, and yet do not deem that an infringement on our liberties. I may only drive up to a certain speed on a public road, I may not appear in public nude, I may not engage in sex with someone under the age of consent..If we as a society determine that certain classes of weapons or their accessories such as high capacity magazines, silencers, etc. pose too great a danger to be permitted, we are free to enact those determinations into law, if we as a people so choose.
As I noted earlier, nowhere in the Constitution is the word “gun” or” firearm” used. I would not , however, advocate the removal of all firearms from society. I personally have owned and used several guns, and I still do. Neither do I believe that firearms are necessary means of overthrowing a tyrannical government. (see Mahatma Gandhi and the struggle for Indian independence, or the “Velvet Revolution ” in Czechoslovakia.)
Recon 0311 2533
January 15th, 2013
9:14 pm
“That is our strength, we accomodate minorities…not just the majority.”
That’s why we’re a Republic….very good, I’m impressed.
Recon 0311 2533
January 15th, 2013
9:16 pm
Me too Recon.USAF though,no combat.And some call us the Brown Shirts. Go figure!
You served and should be proud. I’m proud of you.
Josef
January 15th, 2013
9:17 pm
Doggone
I much agree with what you say relative to the document that is flexible to meet change, I wasn’t implying that it was not. I wasn’t clear on that. In fact, that is really where I was headed. The whole history of our nation has been determined, imeoiuo, by the ability of that document to meet the issues of the changing and evolving state and society.
Mama Says
January 15th, 2013
9:17 pm
Goober,
While your argument may be factual you still fail to apply the constitution as written.
The what would they do argument applied by either side is illogical because it presupposes that the authors meant something other than what they wrote.
The fact is and it’s undeniable, the constitution was written to ensure we were protected from government itself. If not there would be no other reason for it.
To argue that it is now unreasonable to fight the government with these guns does nothing to evade or justify the partition of any part of the constitution.
What you guys ain’t getting, or I suck at saying, is that any amendment is subject to edification if the 2nd is. There may be a day when it’s in the people’s interest to take your car to prevent you from driving drunk. To simply take your papers if you may be writing insurrection letters. The point is legislation is not a means of constitutional change. Ratification is, the governed must submit to be governed, we submit by a ratifying process for constitutional change, not a politician who is trying to get votes.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
9:17 pm
The EMOTIONS on this “gun” topic are telling…
Robert and Mary Schindler say, “WHAT?”
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
9:17 pm
Thanks Patriot
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
9:18 pm
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
9:05 pm
You hit the ball out of the park with that one Doggone! Great post.