1.1. GUN CONTROL
There is no hint at compromise from anyone, only frakizoid ravings about government conspiracy and nonexistent roundups. When has there ever been any such program? Like This Reply to this comment by MikeSettles August 15, 2009 2:46 PM EDT Andacar: The new pres changed his tune during the runup to election last year. In the U.S. and Illinois senates, he never saw a gun control law he didn't like, and stated that he prefered to ban hand guns and "assault weapons". When he began to campaign for the presidency, he then said "we're not coming for your guns". The people he appointed to key positions in his administration are all avowed proponents of gun control, to include wishing for total bans: Emanuel, Holder, Clinton, etc. [1]
We should keep you around for the entertainment value, if nothing else. Like This Reply to this comment by gunownerdan August 16, 2009 4:06 AM EDT Learn about the racist roots of gun control in America. From 1970-2009, 150 MILLION people have not been murdered Like This Reply to this comment by alliberty August 17, 2009 12:13 PM EDT Cambodia during Pol Pot had gun control, Rwanda during the genocide had gun control. Only countries with gun control in the late 20th century their people were victims of genocide or ruled by dictatorships.No country giving liberal gun rights to its people were never victims of genocide or ruled by a dictator. The Europeans were not murdered because the U.S. military protected them and prevented them from being over run by the USSR who committed mass murder and oppression. Gun control did nothing to save the lives of these people it was our military. The sitting courts did not like the idea that blacks should/did have the same rights as whits nor did they like the idea that all the precedent on the issue of rights was obsolete so they ignored the 14th. 11 years after the 14th was passed in large part to insure blacks had the same rights as whites in gun ownership to protect themselves and families from the KKK, we had the Supreme Court in Cruikshank decide the federal government has no role in protecting black gun rights, assembly rights, speech rights or voting rights. [1]
Maybe your liberal bias can only see red neck as a gun owner doing the drive bys. Like This Reply to this comment by alliberty August 17, 2009 12:54 PM EDT Ever since South Africa instituted gun bans it has the second highest murder rate next to gun control Columbia. Those people in S. Africa constantly live in fear. [1] Fake Republicans who don't even know the history of gun control in America. Its always been there. Like This Reply to this comment by rocketjl August 15, 2009 9:56 AM EDT Odd, that someone mentioned how long gun control has actually been in place. [1] Obama strikes again. Like This Reply to this comment by the_majesty August 14, 2009 8:04 PM EDT In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. [1]
1.2. CONTROL LAWS
MIke D. you just show your ignorance again (8:24 pm 8/21/2009 post). The news media are lying when they call a semi-automatic firearm, whether it is an AR-15, a Browning Auto Shotgun, an AK-S, or any other commonly-owned semiautomatic, whether a handgun, rifle, or shotgun, an "assault weapon". they have had the difference explained to them many times. they still want to, as the leader of the anti-gun movement in this country says, "Capitalize on the ignorance of most people who go by looks." (may not be an exact quote, but it comes pretty close). they think they know better than anyone else what is good for everyone else. they are inherently racist, because all gun control laws are racist in origin, intent and purpose. criminals will never obey laws, so the gun control laws are intended solely for the law-abiding citizens. Fran, sometimes I wish we were in the Old West, where everyone carried. it was far safer then than now. everyone knew what firearms were capable of. and that there were bad people who would use them at the drop of a hat. and the bad people would drop the hat. in the forty years between 1850 and 1890, when the U.S. Census Bureau declared that the frontier was closed, most reputable historians have found that there were fewer than 4000 recorded altercations between individuals in which firearms were used (gunfights, in other words). [2] Gun control advocates counter that the Constitution doesn't give anyone the inalienable right to wield automatic weapons that can kill scores of people in seconds. This is the stultified freedom-versus-safety quarrel that seemed to forever define gun politics -- that is, until anti-government activists started bringing firearms to public political meetings. [3]
Acorn thugs and bullies and others not only blustered and intimidated people who were rightly concerned whether everyone voting in the November 2008 election was legally allowed to vote in that election, in each precinct on election day, they conducted an extensive, nationwide campaign against such actions in the weeks leading up to the election, claiming that it was intimidation against "people of color" to ensure that only those who were legal residents of the precinct in which they were voting were allowed to vote. There is no such thing as a "reasonable" gun control law. All gun control laws are, at their roots, racist, because they are intended to keep firearms from the hands of any group to whom the authors of such laws feel superior, because of their race, "moral superiority", intellectual superiority, or other self-perceived cant. Until they armed themselves and showed up, en masse, to vote and stayed, en masse to ensure that all votes were counted. The sitting sheriff was unseated. and was later prosecuted and convicted for criminal acts he had performed while sheriff. [2] There was an attempt at a gun control law in the 1820s, thrown out by the state court, as being "repugnant to the 2nd Amendment". [1] California is the ideal gun control state according to The Brady Campaign. Your utopia is so wonderfull with it's endless murdering gang bangers. In ten years without further criminal record he can reapply through the ATF to get his gun rights back. [1] Contrast that with NYC, which has averaged more than 2000 gunfights every year since 1900, and, where, BTW, it is effectively illegal for the average citizen to carry a firearm. or Washington DC, which passed an unconstitutional ban on ownership of firearms in about 1973. and led the world in homicides in firearms for the next 30 plus years. (but the states of Virginia and Maryland, which border Washington DC, and have less gun control, have far fewer murders with firearms than DC. [2]
PANAMA CITY -- A sign on the front window of C & G Sporting Goods on Harrison Avenue states that the experts all agree gun control works. [4] I don't remember the exact gun control rules the three times I went to Vietnam. My government just gave me a gun, with all the free ammunition I wanted and told me to go kill, so they could count the bodies. [1] Never have gun advocates made it clearer that it is time for some gun control. [2]
Anti-gun campaigners disagreed with Gibbs's comments, voicing fears that volatile debates over health-care reform are more likely to turn violent if gun control is not enforced. [5]
RANKED RECOMMENDED SOURCES
(5 source documents numbered in order of appearance in text)
1. Gun Rights Don't Apply In Domestic Violence Cases, Appeals Court Rules - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
2. OPINION Blog | The Dallas Morning News
3. What it means to wear a gun in public | Salon
4. Local dealers see spike in gun ownership - The News Herald
5. W.H. Backs Right to Guns Outside Events - CBS News
1. Gun Rights Don't Apply In Domestic Violence Cases, Appeals Court Rules - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
2. OPINION Blog | The Dallas Morning News
3. What it means to wear a gun in public | Salon
4. Local dealers see spike in gun ownership - The News Herald
5. W.H. Backs Right to Guns Outside Events - CBS News
How about requiring a license to own a firearm? Like a driver's license or pilot's license, it would not indicate that you own a car or plane, but that you are qualified to do so. You have had training in the safety, care, and use of a firearm and have passed a test on those issues. This will not prevent criminals from owning guns, but will ensure more responsible gun ownership for everyone else. Like This Reply to this comment by MikeSettles August 15, 2009 2:19 PM EDT The British began their slide in 1903 with the passing of a licensing law for "high capacity" revolvers ("You can kill six people without reloading!"). This at a time when violent crime there was all but non-existent. It took the do-gooders about 100 years, but legal gun ownership is all but gone now, the Bobbies must be armed, (unlike before), no one even has the right to self defenses, and violent crime rates are still climbing - oh, and the criminals are smuggling guns in from outside the country. [1]
Second - No one takes away my guns except God, period, so what any court says has no meaning to me on the issue. Third - The right wingers said Obama is taking our guns away so once again their babbling is nothing but a pack of lies. Like This Reply to this comment by AK-47_Justice August 15, 2009 10:35 AM EDT The defendant, Rick Engstrum, has an earlier misdemeanor domestic violence conviction and has been charged with possessing a firearm in violation of a federal law that applies to anyone "who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." He has pleaded not guilty. [1]
The idea that Repiglicans protect Second Amendment gun rights is ludicrious. Like This Reply to this comment by servantRdw August 15, 2009 8:18 AM EDT I'm thinking that all the posters on here are RETARDED, yes I said RETARDED. There is nothing in the second that's states you can't have a gun if you slap your momma or the wife, while both of these so called crimes have there own punishment. Some retard came up with the idea, hey lets take their guns away if we arrest them and they arrest all even if it's a heated debate between lovers, if the laws called, someone's going down to the pokey. Something all of the anti-gun nuts (and they ARE nuts, as in crazy) cannot grasp is that no gun law ever prevented a criminal from obtaining a firearm. [1] Or better yet, lobotomize them. /s Like This Reply to this comment by AOCGUY August 15, 2009 9:26 AM EDT While I'm all for requiring gun safety courses for individuals who wish to use guns, licensing individual firearms has more to do with collecting tax revenue than it does controlling who will own one. [1]
Like This Reply to this comment by woeisme1 August 14, 2009 11:06 PM EDT The lower courts are hostile to the gun nuts. Well if these ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous southern white red neck republican extremists are considered a part of that group, I say ban them from owning guns until they learn to treat women with some sense of dignity. Napolitano was right about these extremists. The religious right abuses scripture and they are a dangerous whack job breed of sub-humans. They should worry about the 2d Amendment. They don't deserve the 2d Amendment. They have no business having guns. Like This Reply to this comment by alphaa10 August 15, 2009 2:31 AM EDT woeisme1-- Your forum name may mean nothing-- and is the same name you used on other forums related to TV programming, as well-- but it can suggest emotional connotations you do not intend. [1]
The defendant, Rick Engstrum, has an earlier misdemeanor domestic violence conviction and has been charged with possessing a firearm in violation of a federal law that applies to anyone "who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." He has pleaded not guilty. (The prosecution arose when Engstrum broke up with his girlfriend, who subsequently told police that he had a gun in his bedroom. Engstrum voluntarily showed police the gun, which he inherited from his father; there's no evidence he has ever used the firearm, let alone threatened anyone with it.) Engstrum, reasonably, wanted to argue to the jury that the Second Amendment renders that law invalid, at least when applied to people who show no risk of future violence. (Remember, this is a Utah jury, which raises the odds that jurors are familiar with the right to keep and bear arms, and may even have heard of the concept of jury ification.) The Justice Department rejected this idea out of hand. By a 2-1 margin, a Tenth Circuit panel agreed, concluded that the Second Amendment didn't apply, and prohibited those jury instructions. "If the case proceeds to trial, the district court is directed not to instruct the jury on this Second Amendment defense, including not giving the proposed jury instruction," they wrote. The two judges who slapped down the Second Amendment defense were both Republican appointees. [1]
Ed Donovan, a spokesman for the Secret Service, said incidents of firearms being carried outside presidential events are a "relatively new phenomenon." He said the president's safety is not being jeopardized. "We're well aware of the subjects that are showing up at these events with firearms," he said. "We work closely with local law enforcement to make sure that their very strict laws on gun permits are administered. These people weren't ticketed for events and wouldn't have been allowed inside and weren't in a position outside to offer a threat." The immediate area occupied by Obama on such trips is considered a federal site where weapons are not permitted, Donovan said. [2]
Growing up in Alaska and spending time in Arizona, the open carry of firearms is a common occurence. These people are simply exercising their rights to do so. These guns did not magically fire or injure one single person at this events. Why is this? The were being carried by responsible citizens who well within the confines of the law. People that are have in inordinate fear of inanimate objects probably need to examine their own insecurities. [3]
The fact just doesn't sound politically correct to blame minorities better for a liberal to project it on red necks. Like This Reply to this comment by alliberty August 17, 2009 11:25 AM EDT I fail to see the point of being an idiot for bringing a gun to a town hall meeting with the president if he is a legal CCW only that people like summarex has beleived the lie from Daily Beast and Huffington post that CCW people are all red necks and out to kill the first black president.Would an ex felon gang banger because he's a minority, who isn't permitted to own a gun, be allowed by summarex to go to a town hall with the president carrying a loaded gun. I think the felon would get a pass because he was oppressed. Sure and your an expert! First people always make the connection that Peasant means poor (it does not) As a matter of fact the primary reason for oppression under Stalin was that he felt th Koolots (peasants) were hording in fact they were in fact better off than a lot of city folk as he took time to get control of the country side. [1]
An H-bomb would fit perfectly into my arsenal, to add to my cop killer bullets, nerve gas agents, and chemical weapons. Since I am rich, I'm also looking for some Pershing missiles, and to add to my hand grenade, and land mine collection(to scatter on my estate-lest any Liberals try to take away my rights) My rights to own these agents of destruction shall not be INFRINGED, you Commies! LOL Like This Reply to this comment by winchester70 August 16, 2009 1:47 PM EDT As funny as the,in the immortal words of Elvis Presley, "A turd in a punchbowl". There is a differnce between individual weapon for the soldier and crew served weapons for the group such as the squad. Like This Reply to this comment by alliberty August 17, 2009 12:47 PM EDT Most americans were poor during the american revolution yet they could still buy guns. [1]
This RED state bozo was found in possession of a firearm in violation of federal law. He and the rest of you republican'ts can whine and cry all you want about the 2nd Amendment, but FEDERAL LAW is cut and dry on this issue, and he will never be able to legally own a firearm due to his previous law-breaking days! PERIOD! Like This Reply to this comment by alliberty August 17, 2009 11:57 AM EDT Wow blue state California has a higher murder rate then red state Utah. [1]
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million disidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. What relevance does this have to the case in this article? Does it say anything about taking all guns away from everybody? Does it say anything about the government turning into an Eastern despotism? Like This Reply to this comment by xlib August 15, 2009 9:34 AM EDT The relevance of the post is trying to give you and other libs a history lesson on what has happened in the past in countries where the government had such control that they were disarmed. [1] Most who fought against the crown under Gen. Washington were poor. The guns were not available to th russian peasants so there was no way to know if they can afford them. Like This Reply to this comment by alliberty August 17, 2009 12:51 PM EDT How do you know he's a red neck. [1]
In April, Department of Homeland Security officials warned in a report that right-wing extremists could use the declining U.S. economy and the election of the country's first Black president to increase membership. Recruiters have penetrated social networking sites such as YouTube and Facebook. If such violence were to occur, it likely would be isolated, small-scale, and directed at specific immigration-related targets,? warned Homeland Security officials. This makes rational and sensible debates hard in this country. Mr. Pennington, who heads communications for the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence headquartered in Washington, D.C., said, ? the rise of these militia groups is evident that law enforcement needs more funding for personnel to enforce gun laws that are already on the books. [4]
According to the SPLC report, the most law enforcement officers murdered at the hands of a domestic extremist since the Oklahoma bombing occurred on April 4 in Pittsburgh. It was on that day that White supremacist Richard Andrew Poplawski fatally shot three Pittsburgh officers to death. According to the SPLC report, Mr. Poplawski told a friend that America is controlled by a cabal of Jews, that U.S. troops may soon be used against American citizens, and that he feared a ban on guns was coming. [4]
"Anyone seriously committed to the Second Amendment and gun rights getting serious constitutional respect should be seriously disturbed by how willing and eager lower courts have been to accept federal prosecutors arguments that Heller is of no consequence for an array of broad and severe federal gun possession crimes," Berman wrote. The bottom line? Forget the rhetoric on both sides after last year's Heller decision. At least, there seems to be few state or federal gun-related laws -- except, perhaps for a complete handgun ban -- that U.S. courts are willing to strike down as unconstitutional. [1]
Unfortunately, last year's U.S. v. Heller doesn't provide much in the way of guidance to the lower courts. The majority opinion did say, without elaborating, that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." That was enough for a federal district judge in Maine, in U.S. v. Booker, to rule that the domestic violence prohibition was constitutional. (Plus, a 2009 Supreme Court decision raised no objections to the domestic violence statute, but without evaluating it in terms of the Second Amendment.) [1]
Paul Kelly was a George H. W. Bush appointee, and Harris Hartz was a George W. Bush appointee. More interesting is the dissent, written by Clinton appointee Michael Murphy. (An aside: Murphy spent much of his life in Wyoming and Utah, while his colleagues spent most of their careers in New Mexico.) Murphy wrote: This court has not yet passed on the constitutionality of (the federal law dealing with domestic violence) in light of District of Columbia v. Heller. That opinion? s recognition of an individual right to bear arms for the defense of self, family, and property, raises substantial questions about how (the law) may be constitutionally applied. This case presents novel constitutional questions, and I would prefer further briefing before deciding them. I express no opinion on whether the district court's approach is correct, but I cannot conclude the government has met its heavy burden of showing that the district court, in light of virtually no guidance from this court or the Supreme Court, is so far afield that the government is clearly entitled to relief. [1]
Semi-automatic handguns require people to pull back on the bolt and pull the trigger, but the bolt sometimes can be too heavy for weaker gun owners, Groom said. "It's a simple thing, and it's not going to jam on you," Groom said of the revolver. "It's going to work." Officials in law enforcement say they are not concerned about the rising number. Maj. David Humphreys of the Panama City Beach Police Department said his agency supports the "constitutional right to bear arms." He described gun ownership as a privilege, not unlike driving a vehicle. [5]
John Modica: Based on what I saw on the news shows, your premise is flawed, thus all the commentary after is also flawed. This was a group of well behaved people, exercising their constitutional right to be heard, not breaking any gun laws, and not acting in a threatening way. You describe them as bullying and threatening civil discourse. How can you say that when they broke no laws and were protesting in a way consistent with the constitution. Bet you can't say the same for the Black Panthers at the PA polling places, or ACORN anywhere they organize and go. [3]
Contrary to McCullagh's opinionated reportage, lower courts have read the law, which is not being "hostile" to anybody. That McCullagh should put it as, "hostile to gun owners' rights" places his POV close alongside the K Street lobby industry. [1]
Phoenix police made no arrests, saying Arizona law allows weapons to be carried in the open. Last week, a man with a gun strapped to his leg held a sign outside an Obama town hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., that read: "It's time to water the tree of liberty." ( Read an interview with the man here ) Before the same meeting, Richard Terry Young, a New Hampshire resident, was arrested by the Secret Service for allegedly having a loaded, unlicensed gun in his car. [2]
"What Gibbs said is wrong," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Individuals carrying loaded weapons at these events require constant attention from police and Secret Service officers. It's crazy to bring a gun to these events. It endangers everybody." The past week has seen a spate of men carrying firearms while milling outside meetings Obama has held to defend his health-care reform effort. A man with an AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle strapped to his shoulder was outside a veterans' event in Phoenix. He was one of a dozen men who reportedly had guns outside the forum. [2]
Armed men seen mixing with protesters outside recent events held by President Obama acted within the law, the White House said Tuesday, attempting to allay fears of a security threat. Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said people are entitled to carry weapons outside such events if local laws allow it. "There are laws that govern firearms that are done state or locally," he said. "Those laws don't change when the president comes to your state or locality." [2]
I do belive, however, that gun-ownership by resposnible people poses no threat to anyone and that licensing (ownership) laws do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of the criminal element nor can we predict when a responsible gun owner might crack and use a gun in an irresponsible manner. I'm somewhat bothered by this article as it doesn't refer to what the defendent did to get a misdemeanor domestic violence charge. He may have simply grabbed is partner without her consent. As the article states, there is no evidence he has ever even fired the gun in question. [1]
We already have a clearly stated amendment, "shall not be infringed" - no mention of "congress shall not" no mention of the National Guard, no limitations to one specific segment of society or another, protecting a pre-existing right. This was law abiding citizens attending a political function while enjoying their rights under the Second Amendment. They endangered no one, they caused no problems, they were nothing if not perfectly civilized, which cannot be said of the people accusing them of some sort of crime and advocating prior restraint of civil rights. If the president is afraid of law abiding citizens, then here's a suggestion, he should resign. If the Secret Service is afraid of law abiding citizens, then they should get a law passed against something that is currently legal. [3] "If the president is afraid of law abiding citizens, then here's a suggestion, he should resign." By your reasoning, Bush should have resigned back in 2007 when a law abiding couple while enjoying their 1st amendment rights when attending a Bush rally in West Virginia on July 4th. were arrested for refusing to remove their anti-Bush T-shirts. [3]
1.3. GUN RIGHTS
Many people were startled to see a man bring an AR-15 assault rifle to the vicinity of a presidential town hall on healthcare in Phoenix on Monday. His intent, he told reporters, was to show his willingness to ??? forcefully resist??? an overreaching government. He broke no laws, police say, and he was not a threat to the president. It turns out there??? s an actual connection between gun rights and healthcare reform, at least according to one gun lobby. [6] If you are protesting unfair gun laws, then feel free to show up to the protest wearing your guns as a symbol of what you are fighting for. Guns have nothing to do with the health care debate, so bringing them can only be seen as a form of intimidation. [3]
Nice backpedalling there mike. In your original statement you said "And if they show up at multiple such events with a gun, they get on a list to watch even more closely." Profiling someone and putting them "on a list" is not the same as watching them at an event. The tired old arguement of "If people watched don't do anything illegal then they have nothing to worry about. (You know like people being racially or ethnically profiled.)" has been used by facists and dictators worldwide. That is a dangerous step down a slippery slope. [3]
" Right. I stand by my position that people brandishing weapons at or nearby Presidential events should be watched closely and if they show up at multiple events with weapons, they should be on a more closely watched list. It's interesting that in listening to conservatives who have strongly defended racial and ethnic profiling to help catch terrorists and illegal aliens, the argument has often been used that if they aren't doing anything wrong, then they have nothing to worry about. [3]
Carrying a weapon is not a free speech issue. They are two separate rights. The original gun carrier in NH said that he brought his weapon to demonstrate that people need to exercise their rights, and he was showing how he was exercising his rights as a gun owner. [3]
The number of permits granted in Bay County nearly doubled. Between July 1, 2007, and June 30, 2008, 711 people applied for and received new concealed carry permits, while from July 1, 2008, to June 30 of this year, 1,297 people received permits, according to Florida's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. If gun owners meet Florida's approval requirements, they can pick up a gun after a three-day waiting period and carry it in their homes and cars. A concealed weapon permit allows people to carry the weapon in public except for certain places, such as schools and courthouses. Gun owners must be 21 to get a concealed carry permit and the permit allows them to carry it on their person or in their purses. [5]
Those of us living in the Rocky Mountains are steeped in America's famous gun culture -- and we therefore know well the binary debates surrounding the Second Amendment. Firearm enthusiasts -- the vast majority of whom use weapons responsibly -- believe the Constitution protects their right to bear arms. [7]
Of course, firearms for hunting are little match against American made, belt-feed machine guns. Read closely the judges and who appointed them in this case you will be very surprised -- the republicans (a Bush 41 and a Bush 43 appointee) where in the majority striking down the defense the democrat was in favor of a full hearing backward to everything you allege. The Justice Department rejected this idea out of hand. By a 2-1 margin, a Tenth Circuit panel agreed, concluded that the Second Amendment didn't apply, and prohibited those jury instructions. "If the case proceeds to trial, the district court is directed not to instruct the jury on this Second Amendment defense, including not giving the proposed jury instruction," they wrote. The two judges who slapped down the Second Amendment defense were both Republican appointees. [1]
Under the law, a concealed weapon includes firearms, tear gas guns, electronic devices, and knives and billy clubs. [5]
Pratt???s critics agree there are some legitimate privacy concerns around having a central medical data repository. They point to an independent 2008 report showing that 90 percent of so-called disqualifying records for a gun purchase are not in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). A central medical records system could, therefore, help enforce federal laws that ban those who have been adjudicated as a ???mental defective??? or who have spent time in a mental institution from buying a gun. [6]
Mr. Fogg is a Black retired chief deputy U.S. Marshal for the Department of Justice with over 30 years of experience. ?Racism is a threat to national security and I have seen it within law enforcement. These militias are orchestrated efforts by those who feel they are losing something. This is unheard of and unprecedented,? said Mr. Fogg, who is also the original author of the NO-FEAR Act signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2002 to fight discrimination across federal agencies. Everyone must take a stand and fight injustice and racism,? he said. President Barack Obama has received more death threats that any of his predecessors and extremist plots increased during the presidential race of 2008, according to the SPLC report. [4]
All men are created equal as President Lincoln once said. That is what I believe, that is how I was raised to be. The Southern Poverty Law Center has lost it direction, they use to be a whistler blower organization concerning hate crimes. The sad fact is that the Southern Poverty Law Center has become a hate organization themselves as they demonize conservative Americans who are not racist, but who love their country, served their country and will continue to defend the U.S. Constitution. [4]
Although the administration has not introduced any gun-control measures and national gun rights have, in fact, expanded since Mr. Obama took office, there???s an ongoing insistence ??? fueled by National Rifle Association president Wayne LaPierre and others ??? that the Democratic leadership is itching to take away gun rights. Concerns about issues such as the interplay between medical privacy and gun rights don???t necessarily amount to paranoia by gun owners, some legal scholars say. [6]
The gun lobby loves to cite paranoid and improbable warnings of boots in the night, especially recently, despite the fact that Obama has never said anything about rounding up guns and gun owners. Has anybody ever bothered to define "arms"? The Consitution was written in a time when they were referring to a musket with a short accurate range and a firing rate of perhaps two rounds per minute if you were good. A friend of mine once defined arms as anything he can hold in his hand. By that standard a SAM launcher is a "gun". [1]
President Barack Obama has made no moves and asked for no legislation that could restrict gun ownership, but that hasn't stopped a massive spike in applications for $120 concealed carry permits. Florida's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services should get 150,000 requests, a 67-percent increase over 2008 this year, the Associated Press recently reported. [5] The fear of Uncle Sam seizing guns has been constant since the election of President Obama. [6] "There's a lot of anger out there," Levin said. "A key thing that's been bubbling under the surface is what's going on with President Obama and guns," he said. [2]
Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University at San Bernardino, said concern about whether Obama will enact new gun restrictions may also be contributing to the tense political climate. [2] Here in liberal California most of the prisons are filled with hispanic and black inmates for violent crimes, and that applies in southern states ( Bureau of Justice Statitics)where blacks are disproportionately in prison for violent crime with guns yet your quick to blame the red neck. [1] While most retailers in Florida are hurting during the recession, the gun business is booming. C & G Owner Ronnie Groom attributes the recent business boom to many first-time gun buyers purchasing weapons and ammo to "protect themselves and their families." [5] The Brady Campaign works to enforce sensible gun laws, regulations, and public policies. They linked up with the Million Mom March Network, launched nine-years-ago, to educate the public about gun violence through litigation, grassroots mobilization, and outreach to affected communities. [4] So what? Even if the idiots wearing the obscene shirts were within the law, so were the people wearing guns, and the ones wearing guns were less threatening. [3]
While I would not choose to wear my gun openly in a large crowd such as the town halls (nor could I, legally, in TX) No laws were broken and no one was harmed or threatened. [3]
"Feelings are very tense, and we were just trying to make sure that things were safe." One man at the meeting disclosed that he had a firearm and complied with a request to put it in his vehicle, she said. Other lawmakers said they intended to take no precautions in future town hall meetings or to ask the advice of local law enforcement. C.J. Karamargin, a spokesman for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), said the congresswoman will "balance rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment and providing her constituents with a safe forum to share their views." [2] The staff of some, including Rep. Stephen I. Cohen (D-Tenn.), have taken precautions to guard against guns being brought into gatherings. "We asked everyone with firearms to check them with the sheriff before we began the meeting," said Marilyn Dillihay, Cohen's chief of staff, describing an Aug. 8 town hall debate in Memphis. [2] What would have happened if Cindy Sheehan showed up at a Bush town hall meeting with a (legal) gun? Just asking. [3]
Could someone please explain to me how having a gun strapped to your hip while holding a "time to water the tree of liberty" sign outside a political meeting isn't an act of intimidation or threatening? No you can't, so don't even try unless you wanna look like a total idiot. [3] The "patriots" proudly displaying guns at public rallies are not exercising normal citizenship rights. They are intimidating and bullying anyone who has a different opinion or doesn't look like them. [3] For some 2nd amendment rights enthusiasts there's no place that is innappropriate for guns and no restrictions or controls are appropriate. [3] So far, at least, lower courts have been overwhelmingly hostile to gun owners' rights. [1] What you're saying is that 2nd admendment rights are more important than 1st amendment rights and T-shirts are more dangerous than guns. [3] I guess in your mind though, being watched for exercising your legal and constitutional rights to carry a gun is not profiling. [3] I love color. every color in the spectrum. This is about law and anarchy. This is about incentive and deterrent. This is about right and wrong. and this is about America. The citizens are feeling disenfranchised by our representatives and we aren't able to make ourselves heard over the din of special interest groups trying to push their specific agendas. How many people aren't being considered in this equation? Too many. [4]
We can take liberal views and actions in moderate doses. This administration, while campaigning as center left, as made a sharp left turn towards ultra-liberalism with its appointments, nominees, czars, statements and policies. Some of these actions are a bit hard to swallow, but can be tolerated, allowed to play out to see if they would, indeed, produce some positive results. Some, such as cap and trade, which will devastate private industry with no positive benefit, this particular health care proposal which would result in a shortage of health care and exorbitant, nation ruining costs, and a continued assault upon the 2nd Amendment, with a goal of permanent arms bans, are what is causing normal, quiet, every day citizens to wake up. These and other infringements upon real rights will not be tolerated or taken lightly. This display of unchecked and arrogant liberalism has been an eye opener for the real majority of this nation and the left is going to regret having overplayed their hand. These people you see with handmade signs and speaking at town halls are people you would never have seen before. They were the ???Silent Majority???. They are waking up, stirred by the realization that if they do not speak out and act, TODAY, it will be too late and too bad tomorrow. [3] I assume it wasn???t an assault rifle either, as that would mean it was capable of fully automatic fire, which would require a special, special license and most likely indicate that the carrier has a squeaky clean record. These people were making a 2nd Amendment protection statement. Since this concerns guns, the most likely visual aid would be a gun. [3]
Citing the Second Amendment and the increasingly maniacal rhetoric of conservative media firebrands, a small handful of violence-threatening protesters aims to make the rest of us -- whether pro- or anti-health-reform -- afraid to speak out. So we face a choice that has nothing to do with healthcare, gun ownership or any other hot-button issue that protesters of both parties are fighting over. It is a choice about democracy itself -- a choice that comes down to the two axioms best articulated by, of all people, Mao Zedong. [7] The Repigs are very happy to take your guns away. They think only the private security guards of rich people should be able to own guns. They are far too dangerous to leave in the hands of the peasantry. [1] Groom said it was more than just a change in presidential leadership that led to the current spike in gun ownership. People are concerned about crime and more aware about what's going on, he said. Groom added that while people used to leave their doors unlocked, they can't anymore for fear of a violent break-in. [5] People with guns patriotic; people with anti-Bush t-shirts treason. [3] Why do people keep posting this lie? Since Australia established restrictions on certain kinds of guns in 1996, homicides have in fact declined. [1] Why don't you take your facts back with you to Mongolia. This is gun country and will be forever. [1] You are dead wrong. unting was still at that time inportant in the country areas and guns were passed down through generations. It is intersting that you are so ignorant that you are unaware that Stalin was a murerous dictator. [1] Bullying and threatening civil discourse? What next? Thugs with guns patrolling polling places when we go to vote? Yes, indeed it is time for a change. [3] I will tell you the good side about having a gun handy, every time somebody tried to kill me, I was able to defend myself and my friends. A lot of bad guys died trying to kill me and their friends ducked a lot, because I was able to shoot back. [1] Next time you wimps see a gun in public cal lthe police. They'll fix it. [3] Anyone seen carrying a gun near a Presidential appearance should be watched very carefully by Secret Service and police. If they show up at multiple such events with a gun, they get on a list to watch even more closely. [3] If gun is not allowed and you become a victim of violence, the city and the police are liable; also to include the anti-gun lobby. [6]
Unanswered are questions about carrying firearms in public, gun sales on government property, firearm registration, guns in government housing, handgun restrictions that aren't exactly the same as the District of Columbia's, zoning and gun stores, and so on. [1] Safe gun courses are already in abundance sponsored by the NRA, Boy Scouts, gun ranges etc. From this post you might believe that I am an gun-toting NRA caring card emember. [1] The anti gun lobby seems willing to ban all guns, which is clearly unconstitutional. [1] I am a Vietnam combat veteran. I know what it is like to be the one with the gun among those without. It is nothing less than threatening and in this case, as it had nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, bullying those who had come with good intent to talk about healthcare. [3]
The gun has been transformed from a sport and self-defense device into a tool of mass bullying. Like the noose in the Jim Crow South, its symbolic message is clear: If you dare engage in the democratic process, you risk bodily harm. [7]
Intent is at the heart of the matter. What was the intent of those carrying guns at a contentious meeting? If someone takes a gun to an angry argument, why if not to bully or threaten. [3] BTW, I never heard anyone carrying a gun into any of the last Administrations speeches, or meetings with the public except the Secret Service. Why is it allowed now? Is it going to take a tragedy at one of these meetings before anyone stops this? I really believe it's dangerous. [3]
I was never a gun advocate, never. That is until I started doing a bit of research on the thug that was elected to totus. [1] NO guns, no signs, just some questions and some public sign wavings and suddenly you are a possible "terrorist". [3] Voices will arise above gun fire and the pen is mightier than the sword". [3] Guns don't water the tree of liberty. Crack-brained morons who haul semi-automatics to tension-filled public gatherings to emphasize their innate hostility water the tree of liberty. That said, these fools are behaving in the finest tradition of the Black Panthers. [3] There is an old saying, "Put a gun on stage in the first act and you have to use it by the third act". [3] There is a difference between debate and shere agression. They are only idiots that have to speak with fists or guns. [3]
I don't think it helps the gun rights cause for folks to be carrying weapons where the President is present, because it evokes the comments we have seen lately, describing gun-toting right-wing loons. In the states where these incidents have occured, it is a legal right to openly carry a weapon, when licensed, in public (as opposed to concealed here). And, I am sure, if we could get some kind of credible assurance that our right will be forever honored, such demonstrations would not be felt as necessary by some. And, as Pat says, there have been multiple incidents of violence agaist those opposed to this stupid plan. [3] Douglas Berman, a professor of law at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law, said on Friday that the panel's decision "shows significant antipathy toward serious consideration of Second Amendment rights." [1] Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Apparently, none of these people broke any laws, they exercised their Second Amendment rights. It was, however, a rather foolish thing to do. [3] "With privileges and rights come responsibilities," Humphreys said. "People have to bear that in mind and follow the rules that govern those rights and privileges." He added that if they can, locals should let law enforcement agents protect them. [5]
While the police may not act until AFTER a crime has been committed, it seems the Congress thinks it can. While a person is incarcerated, they have had legally removed almost all rights, but once their debt to society is paid, those rights MUST be reinstated. If an individual proves himself to continue to be a threat to society, then remove him from it - incarceration or death. Don't leave him in society with reduced rights - that just creates an underground of people who "go around" their restrictions, in order to live and prosper. [1]
The Democratic party won the majority because the "center right" was fed up with Bush. Those self identifying "center rights" also known as "moderates" were conned into voting for Obama who campaigned as a "moderate." It wasn't until Obama came into office, did he start to show his true liberal colors for the majority to see. [3] Re: "Gun-bearing marchers show up outside site of speech," Tuesday news story. I have never been an anti-gun advocate, in fact quite the opposite, until I saw those anti-health care advocates carrying side arms to contentious town hall meetings. [3] Your reliance on crystal balls and old sayings to villify people acting in a lawful manner just shows that you really have no facts to back up an ugly letter. [3]
Not so, as long as warrants are obtained, including after the fact to avoid delays as the law allows. [3] A report from the Southern Poverty Law Center reveals a growth in angry White militia operations saturated throughout the Deep South, Northwest and Midwest parts of the country. [4] These and other similar examples are accurately summarized with the same language federal law employs to describe domestic terrorism. [7] While the NRA has sided with background check reform, Gun Owners of America has historically opposed federal background checks for gun ownership. The organization says such checks overly burden lawful Americans and have no effect on criminal violence. [6]
We could even change the name of Dallas to Dodge City, or Tomstone? I own plenty of guns, and would never want anyone to try, and take them away, but there are places where guns simply should not be allowed. Not everyone is a responsible gun owner, and just how are we to know the intensions of some who carry their guns to public, and crowded places? Ok, now you can attack me for my opinion, but please try not to call me any unecessary, and ugly names. It does nothing but convince me I just might be correct in my opinion. [3] C & G sports guns for just about any user, including large rifles and petite handguns. Groom said he often recommends revolvers for new gun owners. [5] Pratt says GOA, based in Springfield, Va., has not encouraged anyone to bring weapons to political protests. He hopes more gun owners will make the connection between gun licensing and new healthcare proposals. [6] Gun Owners of America director Larry Pratt says that a Democrat-sponsored government-run healthcare system with a centralized patient record database could keep guns out of the hands of ???gazillions??? of lawful Americans. [6]
If jmac is afraid of law abiding citizens, well that's just too bad. [3] Now the black panthers and other community organized, grass roots thugs who patrolled polling places carrying billy clubs broke the law. They did directly threaten citizens coming to do thier public duty of voting. [3]
I'll tell you what's intimidating: Showing up as a legal deligate to the local Republican district convention in TEXAS and having the local republican leadership call in the law and personally point you out because you have had the temerity to support someone they didn't like. [3]
The assault weapons ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision. [1] With respect to the "militia", it has been held by courts that the citizen would show up equipped with whatever type weapons the soldier of the day would have - individual weapons (rifles, pistols, swords, knives, clubs, etc.), and provided by himself. The type that every Soldier might carry into combat, not crew-served weapons or any such. [1]
If an ignorant redneck shows himself to have violent tendencies, that should be enough. Maybe he didn't own a handgun at the time. Maybe he hasn't been emboldened by enough Budweiser to use the handgun yet, but will soon if we don't intervene. [1] Let's remember that gun rights must be for everyone. This country would be a much better place if everyone was well armed. For one we wouldn't need these abusive police departments and three letter agencies. [1] "There is a real question mark not only for extremists but for gun rights advocates in the mainstream." Staff writer Carrie Johnson contributed to this report. [2]
RANKED RECOMMENDED SOURCES
(7 source documents numbered in order of appearance in text)
3. OPINION Blog | The Dallas Morning News
1. Gun Rights Don't Apply In Domestic Violence Cases, Appeals Court Rules - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
2. W.H. Backs Right to Guns Outside Events - CBS News
5. Local dealers see spike in gun ownership - The News Herald
6. Is there a connection between healthcare reform and gun rights? | csmonitor.com
4. Distrustful of Government, Upset About Race, Militias Rise Again in America - NAM
7. What it means to wear a gun in public | Salon
3. OPINION Blog | The Dallas Morning News
1. Gun Rights Don't Apply In Domestic Violence Cases, Appeals Court Rules - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
2. W.H. Backs Right to Guns Outside Events - CBS News
5. Local dealers see spike in gun ownership - The News Herald
6. Is there a connection between healthcare reform and gun rights? | csmonitor.com
4. Distrustful of Government, Upset About Race, Militias Rise Again in America - NAM
7. What it means to wear a gun in public | Salon