Obama: AK-47s belong on battlefield, not streets

[Salmoneye]

Glenn E. Meyer

Bush didn't allow it. He was against the AWB expiring. He said he would sign a new AWB if it got to him.

Because he knew full well that there was a snowball's chance in Hades of that bill making it to his desk...

The same as the UN Treaty...The current admin knows they have no chance of getting it ratified by the Senate, but they get the luxury of saying, "We did the hard work, and it's not our fault..."

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by BlueTrain

If the original definition of the militia as used in the second amendment is obsolete, what does that mean?

It isn't obsolete though. By current statute, all males from age 17-45 are members of the unorganized militia (i.e. subject to conscription).

The bill of rights is god given?

Are you familiar with the concept of Natural Law? Our Founders were fond of that philosophy. Saying that rights are God-given is just another way of expressing that same idea.

[Brian Pfleuger]

The idea that rights exist because men (and who would these men be, besides "government"?) put them on paper is an oxymoron.

If they came from men, they're not "rights", they're privileges. They could have not given them, they weren't "there" before, and they can be gone again.

If the rights are not God given, they are a figment of imagination. A convenient construct whose only purpose is to dictate an orderly society at the whim of the men who gave the rights and who can just as well take them back.

There is, after all, no real right there at all, if they are constructs of men written on paper. It is not wrong to take them away. It can't be wrong, because there is no wrong, because wrong would be defined by whomever has the power to define it.

If the right to live free, to defend oneself, to pursue happiness, are simply constructs of the powerful, who is to deny the powerful the ability to remove them at will? They are, after all, the powerful and we are weak. For what cause would we rail against them? We fight for figments of imagination? What would be the rallying cry? We are weak and you who are powerful took what we want?

No. We fight for our rights because they ARE. They exist whether they be denied or removed by force. Our only reasonable argument is that those rights are universal, built into the fabric of our existence.

Do the people in Iran not have the freedom of religion? Or is it merely denied them by force? Do they not have the right to pursue happiness, or is it merely forcefully denied them?

No, rights are universal. They must be, or they are not, at all.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond

They are GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.
Well, I still don't think I've gone wrong on that. I would submit that this is a personal belief not a fact.

I haven't gone back and looked at who posted the part you quoted, PJP, but that poster was correct in the assertion that the Bill of Rights is not a statute. I won't opine as to the source, but the first part is correct. As a constitutional provision, the 2A is superior to statute.

Originally Posted by BigMikey76

. . . . To qualify as infringement, an action must, according to the definition you posted, "violate law or the rights of another." As I stated previously, since waiting periods and background checks do not stop us from owning firearms, they are not an infringement.

Each one of the measures that seem to be the hot topic in this thread (waiting period for guns, waiting period for ammo, mandatory permitting, etc), taken individually, represents a small infringement on the RKBA, in the sense that they encroach upon that area protected by the 2A. Start stacking them together, and you wind up with a significant infringement. For example, in a jurisdiction where you have to have:
A Firearms Owner's ID or license;
A Permit to Purchase;
A requirement for some classes to obtain the first two & attendant fees;
A 5-day waiting period;
A background check and an attendant fee.

All of this put together sure begins to look like fairly serious infringement to me.

Can anyone say "with absolute certainty" that the restrictions have never stopped a killing? No, but that's not the applicable legal standard. A prosecutor doesn't even have to meet the "absolute certainty" standard in a murder trial. Why would that ever be the standard for the constitutionality of a statute?

And I have to say that Bart's analogy about crowbars is spot on. These kinds of 2A restrictions operate on the assumption that every purchaser is a potential villain, and required to prove otherwise before ownership of a firearm is allowed.

[Wyoredman]

Exactly, Bartholomew! Our founders used the idea of "Natural Law" as their basis for our Constitution. maybe "God Given" was the wrong term, but our Bill of Rights are definatly not "statutes". If I am not mistaken, "statutes" are laws whereas those freedoms expressed in the Constitution and it's first 10 ammendments are not laws, they are guarantees that anyone who is a citizen of the USA is afforded.

Laws and Statutes can be changed by our elected officials in D.C by simple majority, the Consitution can not be changed without the consent of the people (ratification by 3/4ths of the State legislatures).

I realize it is hard to grasp, but it simply not true that the Bill of Rights is a set of Statutes!

[hogdogs]

Since this thread blossomed huge... Lemme add the "want"/"need" into the equation...

No one "NEEDS" a 500+ hp corvette...

No one "NEEDS" a 600+hp Caddillac 2 seater...

No one "NEEDS" a 200+ hp motorcycle...

All 3 of these will spool the mill and create 165 mph...

It is not a matter of need!!! It is a matter of BECAUSE I AM A DERN AMERICAN AND I CAN!!!

No one needs a 13 inch blade on a kitchen butcher blade but I have one in chef's blade and one in a boning blade... I rarely ever use them and NEVER could I NOT get by with out them but when I wash them 2-3 times per year, I am glad I CAN!!!

Brent

[Glenn E. Meyer]

1. Bush - knowing the AWB wouldn't get through Congress and thus saying he would sign it - that's the pure hypocrisy we see on the gun issue. If it is a basic right you support it. If you think it is a danger to society, then you are against it. Otherwise, you are not someone with a strong moral foundation. Being clever in politics is what's wrong with most politicians.

2. Why I don't like Mayor Bloomberg: http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issu...r-gun-control/

Also, read the editor's reply. However, Bloomberg, who I have no use for, at least says what he thinks. When it comes to basic rights, no weasel words.

As far as natural law - that's a giant debate for the basis of human behavior. I'll just watch that one for a bit.

Again, as Bart points out - there are measures that have surface validity - like waiting periods. Empirically, they have done nothing.

A well run NICS might have caught Cho. Could he have gone a different route perhaps? We can't tell the negative cases with disturbed individuals like him.

[BlueTrain]

Some kings believed in divine rights, too. You cannot invoke the divinity to convince me.

[Brian Pfleuger]

No individual has rights that all individuals do not have.

I'm not trying to convince anyone, simply pointing out the self-contradictory nature of an argument about "rights" which are figments of imagination.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We will not debate divinity.

[hogdogs]

All I can ask of those willing to hand over rights to own certain weapons or magazine capacity is this...

Is there one single LEGITIMATE use for those you are willing to give up? Not legitimate for you but legit for ANYONE?

If there is ONE SINGLE LEGIT USE than your arguments are not only wrong (no one needs an AR with 100 round drum) but detrimental to those of us who wish to use said items for legitimate uses...

Don't give up MY rights to appease some sense of "DUTY"...

Brent

[Spats McGee]

Brent, part of the problem comes down to how we define "legitimate." Some consider armed resistance to a tyrannical government "legitimate," and some only consider "sporting purposes" to be "legitimate."

[hogdogs]

I am not even implicating the "anti-tyrannical government" issue... Legit sporting use only...

And yes... I see the benefit of a single 100 round snail drum over a gob of mags or ammo boxes when I trudge out in my jeans and t-shirt...

"100 in the mag beats one in the pocket..."

Brent

[pgdion]

We have worked very hard to put people in the House of Representatives who understand and support the Second Amendment. We have been so successful at it that we have a clear-cut majority and a reserve there.

Yes, and lets just hope it stays that way. Votes on your side in either house is no more than a 2 to 6 year guarantee. Maybe I'm a minority here, but every time an event like this happens, it scares the heck out me. I count on nothing as being ensured no matter what the state of things are today.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

You are correct to be concerned that a vivid event can stampede folks into bad decisions. We don't have to just look at the gun world for such.

It is currently the case that there is a strong buffer for gun rights that might stop a stampede for draconian new laws.

Even strongly antigun bastions like the NY Times have op-eds (by some, I note) that argue that the 2nd is fundamental and SD is fundamental. Of course, the official Times position is to ban all but ducky-wucky O/U shotguns. However, the position of the legitimacy of the 2nd Amend. has been expressed.

I think the country wouldn't be stampeded anymore as happened with the AWB.

Of course, things could change with a vivid incident again but I don't think the risk is that great.

In fact, the every reintroduction of AWB, mag bans by the usual suspects just makes them get ignored - except by their little groups.

[MLeake]

Last time I saw UK crime statistics pop up in one of these threads, they wre solely focused on rates of crimes committed with firearms.

I don't think it requires mathematical nor statistical genius to realize that a nation that has effectively banned all handguns and most long guns won't see much gun crime.

On the other hand, I'd like to see a comparison of other violent crimes.

Crimes committed with knives? Must be some, since the UK has been talking about knife control, to the extent of possibly limiting some larger kitchen knives to licensed chefs. (I don't think that one passed, but who knows?) Also, the UK apparently limits pocket knife blades to a maximum of 3". (A friend who spends a lot of time in England can't bring his Leatherman...)

I wonder what the assault rate is, in the birthplace of soccer hooliganism.

I wonder what the robbery rate is.

I wonder about the rape rate.

I suspect that, other than gun crime, the UK probably falls into very similar percentages with the US. Humans are humans, and have preyed upon one another for as long as there have been humans.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by pgdion

I count on nothing as being ensured no matter what the state of things are today.

Life is like that. For the time being, we have Representatives and Senators who support the Second Amendment. I think continuing to work to put people in office who recognize the importance of the Second Amendment is a better strategy than premature capitulation.

[BlueTrain]

When were things ever otherwise? You have to recognize that mass murderers jeopordize your gun-owning rights more than anything and that you should do everything you can to prevent such things from taking place. To do otherwise is to ignore the whole reason there is an anti-anything movement. No amount of quibbling over words will make it different.

[hogdogs]

Blue, I am guessing you agree it ain't about "gun or ammo control"... I am also guessing that you agree that the guns are not at all an issue... I am guessing you agree that whack-job crazy folks needn't access anything sharper or harder hitting than a Crayon....

So we are in agreement? The only thing needing controlled are the nutjobs... NOT THEIR CHOICE OF TOOLS!!!

If the latter were needing controlled, Galvanized Pipe (choice of pipe bomb makers the world around) would need controlled...

Brent

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by BlueTrain

You have to recognize that mass murderers jeopordize your gun-owning rights more than anything and that you should do everything you can to prevent such things from taking place.

Weren't you just arguing "What you have to do is to convince people that a small number of deaths from the illegal use of firearms is acceptable"?

I ask because that statement seems contradictory with the statement you just made, and the more recent statement you made above, taken literally ("you should do everything you can") would basically mean creating a police state where every citizen was under such close observation and control that no mass murder could occur.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't the meaning you meant to convey though given your earlier statement. Maybe you could clarify that for me?

[hogdogs]

Leave my guns alone (current)... Keep those who wish to predate upon me at bay (current)...

Arrest all you can and leave me to my own devices to prevent unforeseen crime... THEE AMERICAN WAY!!!

If you want a nanny state, or oversight from big brother... GO ELSEWHERE!!! America shall not need change to suit you... there are already plenty of nations to plop your Co2 producing self into...

As many who did not listen in American Public Schools... There are plenty of places for the ilks who do not want freedom or responsibility... AMERICA IS NOT FOR YOU!!! NEVER WAS... NEVER WILL BE!!!

Brent

[gc70]

Originally Posted by MLeake

Last time I saw UK crime statistics pop up in one of these threads, they wre solely focused on rates of crimes committed with firearms.

I don't think it requires mathematical nor statistical genius to realize that a nation that has effectively banned all handguns and most long guns won't see much gun crime.

On the other hand, I'd like to see a comparison of other violent crimes.

Murder in the US in 2010 versus Homicides in England and Wales in 2009/2010:

US% UK% WEAPON
13% 37% Sharp Instrument
04% 09% Blunt Instrument
06% 22% Hiting, Kicking
02% 08% Strangulation
68% 07% Shooting
07% 17% Other

Since the British have such a low incidence of firearms deaths, I wonder whether they feel some degree of moral superiority as they cut, stab, bludgeon, beat, kick, strangle, poison, and burn each other to death?

[Pond, James Pond]

but that poster was correct in the assertion that the Bill of Rights is not a statute. I won't opine as to the source, but the first part is correct. As a constitutional provision, the 2A is superior to statute.

I realize it is hard to grasp, but it simply not true that the Bill of Rights is a set of Statutes!

Fair enough.
If statutes is the wrong term for their part in the function in the country, I stand corrected.

I'd be interested to know what term should be used to describe them as part of that document.

[hogdogs]

What terms...??? How about you try inalienable... or SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!! Not much room to negotiate as our founding fathers intended... Leave our rights alone... Enforce the laws on the book... when all attempts (real ones) are exhausted... Come see me... then we can send the legal beagles on the next hunt...

Brent

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond

I'd be interested to know what term should be used to describe them as part of that document.

Technically, it is the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. When dealing with language from a constitution (both the federal government and each of the states has a constitution), "constitutional provision" usually suffices. The first 10 amendments to the US Constitution are collectively known as The Bill of Rights.