4.1. SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS
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]
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]
Excellent post. 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 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] We are still arguing about incorporating the 2nd amendment against the states as we have almost all other basic protections against government excess. One can lead a court to the Constitution but one cannot make them drink. Like This Reply to this comment by s416 August 16, 2009 12:00 PM EDT I believe I have a second Amendment right to own Scud missiles and Nukes. [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]
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]
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]
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. [2] For some 2nd amendment rights enthusiasts there's no place that is innappropriate for guns and no restrictions or controls are appropriate. [2] What you're saying is that 2nd admendment rights are more important than 1st amendment rights and T-shirts are more dangerous than guns. [2] 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. [3] I suspect that the Founders may have been smart enough to use the term "Arms" so as to make a broad definition, and not limiting to the weapons of that time. I hold that EVERYONE has the right to self-defense, and when anyone infringes on the right, they defy a guarantee listed in the Bill of Rights as Amendment II. I also hold that the misuse of ANY right must bring consequences, including death or incarceration. [1]
"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. [2]
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. [2] 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. [2]
"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." [4] 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] 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. [2]
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]
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]
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. [2]
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]
"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] 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]
"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. [4] 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. [2] So far, at least, lower courts have been overwhelmingly hostile to gun owners' rights. [1] I guess in your mind though, being watched for exercising your legal and constitutional rights to carry a gun is not profiling. [2] I respect our Second Amendment rights and the right to protest, but I can definitely understand how people see this sort of behavior as an implicit threat. [2]
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. [2]
Based on America's history, the Founders' answer to that question clearly lies in the Bill of Rights' deliberate sequencing. The First Amendment ethos guarantees people -- whatever their politics -- a fundamental right to participate in their democracy without concern for physical retribution. It is the primary amendment because America was first and foremost created not as a gun-owners' haven, but as a place to shelter citizens from oppression. Over two centuries, we have taken this tradition seriously, enacting statutes reinforcing freedoms of speech, creating the secret ballot, and outlawing harassment at Election-Day polling stations. This is why, whether tracing roots to Colonial England, Nazi Germany or any other tyranny, so many Americans say they came here specifically looking for protection from political persecution. [3]
John Modica, who died and appointed you the official intent mind reader? These people did NOT take any actions that indicated the "intent" you so cleverly conjured up. It sounds as if your intent meter has more to do with your politics than what actually happened. Their intent may be exactly what they said it was, to exercise their legal rights. If that's what they say, who are you to read your bias' into their rights? That sounds like the Obama thought police. [2]
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] "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]
Elizabeth, actually, your Second Amendment rights are indeed normal civil rights. [2] Again I say, a pretty dicey proposition at an event where the President is going to attend. And, for that very reason, if these individuals were doing anything even remotely resembling a threat or an illegal act, they would have been pounced upon immediately. Here is something for you liberals to realize: this nation is largely conservative, center right. [2]
Let's see, exercising a contitutionally protected right while quoting an acknowledged patriot? I see no threat or intimidation, just the facts. [2] My militia rights shall not be infringed in any way, or you are Anti-American. [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] The current liberalization of the gun rights is not "well regulated". [2]
RANKED RECOMMENDED SOURCES
(6 source documents numbered in order of appearance in text)
2. OPINION Blog | The Dallas Morning News
1. Gun Rights Don't Apply In Domestic Violence Cases, Appeals Court Rules - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
3. What it means to wear a gun in public | Salon
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. W.H. Backs Right to Guns Outside Events - CBS News
2. OPINION Blog | The Dallas Morning News
1. Gun Rights Don't Apply In Domestic Violence Cases, Appeals Court Rules - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
3. What it means to wear a gun in public | Salon
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. W.H. Backs Right to Guns Outside Events - CBS News
4.2. BEAR ARMS
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] 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]
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]
Little by little our rights are taken away, one small piece at a time, and we are becoming more and more of a "police state" every day. Like This Reply to this comment by woeisme1 August 15, 2009 8:17 AM EDT And you can thank all the republican extremists for that. [1]
Citizens at the time had better arms then the military yet the murder rate was not higher then now.Before 1936 during the frontier days civilians had lever actions while the military still used single shots, there were no massacres in every town nor was there mass school shootings. Where do these guys comes from????????? Like This Reply to this comment by andacar August 15, 2009 9:51 AM EDT I guess what I have never understood in this debate is the willingness of each side to take such extreme positions. [1]
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. [2] 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. [3]
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]
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. [3]
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] The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." meant that the authors of the second amendment intended that no level of government (whether local, state or federal) could even touch the right of any individual to own and carry "arms" (of any sort.). [2] It states: "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." [2]
What about that do you consider to be hard to understand, jmac? to the authors of that amendment, a well-regulated militia meant a well-trained body of citizens, separate from the Federal, state or any local government, familiar with the use of arms, and supplying the arms and ammunition for same themselves. The second part of the introductory or declarative phrase, "being necessary to the security of a free State", should be fairly self-explanatory, even to intellectually-challenged individuals. [2] Get it in writing. Because until you do there will be those of us who think the 2nd amendment gives the right to the state to fight the federal government. [2]
I don't remember which state - YOU look it up. After that, 14th Amendment was enacted in 1866 directly to counter southern states, during Reconstruction, who were attempting to bar former slaves from their 1st and 2nd Amendment rights. [1]
So, jmac, there are those who wish to preserve their clearly stated 2nd Amendment rights because there are those who cannot accept it. [2]
4.3. DEFINE ARM
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]
"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. [4] Regardless of the second amendment, carrying assault weapons to town hall meetings and gatherings involving the president, especially President Obama, in the current climate is insane. And, no one can convince me that the individuals involved don't recognize the intimidation factor of an assault weapon over their shoulder. [2] In June 2008, six people tied to the militia movement were arrested in Pennsylvania after officials found assault rifles, improvised explosives and homemade weapons. Pennsylvania Citizens Militia recruiter Bradley T. Kahle allegedly told authorities he intended to ?shoot Black people from a rooftop in Pittsburgh? and predicted civil war if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton was elected president, the report said. [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. [2]
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]
Over a span of four years, the incidents have increased. In June of this year, White supremacist Dennis Mahon and his brother were indicted in Arizona in connection with a mail bomb sent in 2004 to a diversity office in Scottsdale that injured three people. That same month the White forerunner of an anti-immigrant vigilante group that conducts ?citizen patrols? on the Arizona-Mexico border was charged with two counts of first degree murder for the alleged role in the slayings of a Latino man and his 9-year-old daughter in Arivaca, Ariz. [3]
I am in fact a conservative, a real one, in that I never supported wiretapping or any of the other constitutional atrocities that happened during the Bush Regime (odd how no one says the Obama regime). there are no real conservatives left in the Republican Party, but it is only the Left who believe that big brother watching everyone is a good thing. Your wanting to put people on a to be watched list is reprehensible and contrary to the spirit this nation was founded upon. Once you list people out, the next step is seperate them from the rest of society just to make it easier to keep an eye on them, then you realize that they have to leave their ghettos sometimes so you give them a nice bright symbol to wear so they can be more easily identified. [2]
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] 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. [2]
As all can see, some will protect that right. And, once again, these arms become necessary when opposing liberal factions appear on the scene to disrupt and intimedate. [2]
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. [2] You must define "Arms" in the vernacular of the times that the constitution was written. [1]
Brazil, where I live, is a case in point. It is almost impossible for a private individual to own a fire arm. [1] The police can't be everywhere to protect you from street predators or any predator for that matter, especially if you are an alien, the target or object of violence from ignorant nativists. To ensure safety, this person may arm himself for self-defense or even for other actions that warrants using a firearm to fire first before being fired at. [5] Only a couple of months ago, a neighbor was raided and police confiscated three handguns. There is no evidence to even suggest that this individual is a criminal (other than illegal possession of firearms) but he was able to obtain not one, but at least three, weapons. [1]
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]
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. [2] The words on the t-shirts that I saw were obscene and a step over the line of First Amendment rights. [2] NAM reserves the right to edit or delete comments. Once published, comments are visible to search engines and will remain in their archives. If you do not want your identity connected to comments on this site, please refrain from commenting or use a handle or alias instead of your real name. [3] I guess those "center rights" aren't too bright then. This country is split between cons, moderates and lefties with the moderates (able to be open on issues and vote either party, some more than others) making up the biggest slice. [2] Just because you and others tolerate and even encourage infringement of that right does not make it any less a right. [2]
SALON® is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as a trademark of Salon Media Group Inc. [6] "The protester carrying an AR-15 rifle outside President Barack Obama's speech in Phoenix on Monday staged the "publicity stunt" with the help of two local Libertarian groups that have worked with the man on Ron Paul's presidential campaign." [2] Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Vice President Joe Biden announced on Thursday that the White House is releasing $1.2 billion as the first step toward establishing national medical health records, as outlined in the stimulus bill. [5]
John Modica, I guess you watched the MSNBC version of this incident. MSNBC did a real good job on editing this piece. The guy with the AR-15 and side arm was black and he was pro-Health Reform. In the MSNBC piece, you never see the guys face and then they switch to some white guy getting talked too. [2]
RANKED RECOMMENDED SOURCES
(6 source documents numbered in order of appearance in text)
2. OPINION Blog | The Dallas Morning News
1. Gun Rights Don't Apply In Domestic Violence Cases, Appeals Court Rules - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
3. Distrustful of Government, Upset About Race, Militias Rise Again in America - NAM
5. Is there a connection between healthcare reform and gun rights? | csmonitor.com
6. What it means to wear a gun in public | Salon
4. W.H. Backs Right to Guns Outside Events - CBS News
2. OPINION Blog | The Dallas Morning News
1. Gun Rights Don't Apply In Domestic Violence Cases, Appeals Court Rules - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
3. Distrustful of Government, Upset About Race, Militias Rise Again in America - NAM
5. Is there a connection between healthcare reform and gun rights? | csmonitor.com
6. What it means to wear a gun in public | Salon
4. W.H. Backs Right to Guns Outside Events - CBS News