John McCain on Individual Liberty
February 27th, 2008 at 09:18am Mark Noonan
He gets it, even though he’s off the ranch on campaign finance reform:
John McCain believes that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right that we have a sacred duty to protect. We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals - criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway…
…As part of John McCain’s defense of Second Amendment rights, he cosponsored legislation to lift a ban on the law abiding citizens of the District of Columbia from exercising their Constitutional right to bear arms….
…John McCain has opposed “waiting periods” for law abiding citizen’s purchase of firearms.
While gun control is a dormant issue, we can look forward to it being revived if an liberal extremist like Obama or Hillary becomes President in 2009. Liberals hate individual rights - they love group rights; my pet phrasing about this is that liberals love humanity, but really can’t stand individual humans. At any rate, a right is something which can only accrue to an individual, not to a group - including gun rights, which liberals especially hate because guns are mean and people who own them are buck-toothed rednecks in flyover America, anyways (this, seriously, is the level of intellect most liberals expend on gun issues).
Now, I don’t own a gun and never intend to own a gun - guns make me nervous; but that is just me. I am very happy for my neighbors to have guns and I wouldn’t mind at all putting a sign in front of the neighborhood stating “Criminals: some of the people here own guns; do you want to guess which ones?”. I’m safer for my neighbors having guns becaue the criminals out there aren’t sure who has them - and thus they are extra careful in their criminal plans, given them less opportunity to actually commit crimes (and thus we’ve only had one robbery since I moved here - rather brazen one, at that, but understandable why it went off so smoothly - un-lived-in house in a neighborhood which, being relatively new, is used to having moving vans around…just drive up and “move” all the stuff).
At all events, John McCain understands where a right resides, and we can count on him, I think, to defend our rights.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Republicans
75 Comments
1. Right Wing News&hellip | February 27th, 2008 at 9:19 am
British Government to Investigate Catholic Church for Being Catholic By Mark Noonan
Just astounding: London, Feb 26, 2008 (CNA).- A committee in the British House of Commons will investigate Catholic schools following the Bishop of Lancaster’s instructions to schools to place crucifixes in every classroom and stop “safe sex” edu…
2. eric | February 27th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Based on his campaign website, Senator Obama would like to limit gun ownership to sportsmen, i.e., hunters and target shooters.
Check it out if you can find it, go to his website, click on issues, then scroll down and click on additional issues. From there, if you click on sportsmen, you will find a link to a .pdf in which Senator Obama pledges to “protect the rights of hunters and law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting.”
This is from a guy who was a Constitutional law professor and proclaims to understand the Constitution. I am looking at my pocket guide to the U.S. Constitution and I do not see where the 2nd Amendment limits gun ownership to just hunters and target shooters.
3. DM | February 27th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Think we could define a criminal as the “target”?
4. Kahn | February 27th, 2008 at 10:04 am
I don’t think gun control is a dormant issue. I see localities and states creating new and stupid gun laws every day.
For example, the California ban on .50 cal rifles. They cost like $7000, weigh like 30 pounds, and none - not one, not ever had been used in a crime. Now, they do look scary. Thats apparently all it took. There’s lots you “could” do with them. But no one ever had. But ya know, there’s lots you “could” do with a truck of gasoline.
This right was not about hunting. It was about revolution and defense. Look who wrote it. Look what they had just done.
If that is Obama’s actual position then he’s wrong. I’m sure I’ll be getting info from the NRA on working against him. Sorry liberals - I can’t stand you taking away my rights.
You know whats stupid about it? Mark Warner (our former governor) is running to replace John Warner for our Senate seat. As governor, he was very good on 2nd Amendment rights. That will help him win. The Republican (Gilmore) was not so good. Even Webb, who I’m not so fond of is good on guns.
Being anti-guns is being anti-civil rights. The rights in the Bill of Rights were central to the passing of the Constitution. Don’t be quick to throw them away. The government will not always be there to protect you.
5. Almiranta | February 27th, 2008 at 11:05 am
My complaint about McCain-Feingold was that it was unconstitutional. My complaint about Roe v Wade is that it is unconstitutional. My favorite thing about Huckabee was his many references to the need to pay more attention to the 10th Amendment.
Just listing some of my creds, to show my consistency on Constitutional matters.
I think it’s appalling that a candidate even HAS to discuss whether he does or does not support constitutional rights. Doesn’t that Presidential Oath have something in it about upholding the Constitution?
The very idea that there is even discussion on which constitutional rights should be upheld is very disturbing to me, almost as disturbing as debate on which new “rights” should be scabbed onto the Constitution even though they were never part of the original document or the Bill of Rights or the following legal amendments.
I’ll always go for the candidate, and the party, with the best record on retaining the rights actually outlined in the Constitution, and on trying to keep unelected officials from tacking on psuedo-rights they just want to be included.
Congress and the President went along with McCain-Feingold, though I understand Bush signed it rather than veto it with the hope that the Supreme Court would hear it and find it unconstitutional, a position I did not admire. So there is plenty of blame to go around on that one.
But it called attention to how easily a constitutional right can be taken away, and I think the next effort will meet with a lot more opposition.
6. David B. Schmidt | February 27th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Go back and look at Senator Obama’s 1998 campaign and you will realize that Senator Obama’s pledge to “protect the rights of hunters and law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting” is a cover for banning all handguns and semi-automatic weapons.
7. Darva Conger | February 27th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Look, a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll from Dec 07 of adults nationwide showed that 65% of Americans interpret the U.S. constitution as guaranteeing each person the right to own a gun.
Obama is not going to take away your semi-automatic rifle in the dead of night. The people, thru Congress, won’t let him.
This is all huffing and puffing over nothing so you can get your hair on fire about Barack. Gotta fire up the base. You guys are going to have to find another albatross to hang around his neck.
8. eric | February 27th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Darva,
The quote I posted is from Mr. Obama’s own website in which he lists his positions on many issues. Is he lying? Or, is he, once again, pandering to his far left base?
So the poll you point to negates his stance on the issue of guns? Great argument. Really great.
9. sam | February 27th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
keep the guns around, the more you idiots keep shooting each other up, the better the rest of the world will be…keep it up people..doing a great job.
10. TiredofLibBullShit | February 27th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
“Obama is not going to take away your semi-automatic rifle in the dead of night. The people, thru Congress, won’t let him.”
Uh, darva…….. Have you heard of the Brady Bill?
That bill banded semi-automatic rifles if they LOOKED like an assault weapon. For example, take any semi-automatic rifle and add any accessory - bipod, folding stock, etc. - then its an assault weapon - BANNED UNDER THE BRADY BILL. Those additions did not change the functionality - one press of the trigger fires ONE BULLET.
And liberals bitched that it was watered down by the evil Republicans and their Big Gun special interests.
Please darva, come back to reality.
11. TiredofLibBullShit | February 27th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
“keep the guns around, the more you idiots keep shooting each other up, the better the rest of the world will be…”
sam, the only idiots I see that keep shooting each other up are those most likely to vote Democrat! Turn on any news channel.
Did you see the headline the other day….”Hillary supporter stabs Obama supporter”?
12. Retired Spook | February 27th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Sam,
I think you took a wrong turn somewhere. The website you really want is here
13. SteaM | February 27th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
To sum it up… Liberals hate individual rights and can’t stand individual humans. Liberals especially hate guns and think that all people who use them are buck-toothed rednecks in flyover America.
Mark… mark… mark…
Oh my how you judge and hate that which you do not understand.
Are you like Ann Coulter where she thinks its ok to call John Edwards a “faggot” assuming no one will be offended then when people are (obviously) offended she defends herself by saying “it’s just a school-yard taunt, what’s the big deal!).
I am under the impression that you think these things are funny as well and are shocked when people are offended.
I am offended and think you above assumptions about liberals are completely untrue, silly, and hateful.
Do you disagree?
i think you are being narrow-minded.
14. Diana Powe | February 27th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Unlike Mark I have owned, do own and use firearms. What is more interesting than the debate about the Second Amendment (hey, it’s right there in the Constitution) is the fetishism of the Second Amendment. Firearms by their nature lend a feeling of magical power to the user. You squeeze the trigger, there’s a loud noise and a jump from the weapon and suddenly you can affect objects at a distance.
People who own guns do so for any number of legitimate reasons. They may use them in their work. They may use them to develop an interesting skill. They may appreciate them for their elegance of design. All of these are perfectly appropriate and defensible.
Unfortunately, there are a number of firearms owners who can’t get any perspective. Despite the completely ludicrous nature of the notion of having someone “take our guns away” (Any idea of the practical difficulties of doing such a thing? They can’t even get that done in Iraq with most of the American Army being there.), they present every attempt to regulate firearm ownership as one step away from confiscation. Rather than point out the entirely reasonable basis they have for gun ownership they want to imagine the Federal Government cowering in fear of the “armed citizenry” and entertain themselves with imagined effects on criminal conduct.
There are the very real examples of where an armed citizen has made the positive difference. The American Rifleman has a column every month proving that. However, having been in the thick of the state of Texas enacting a concealed handgun license law, and having dealt with a few felons over the last 30 years, I can assure you that they aren’t making career decisions based on individual’s carrying handguns. However, whatever illusions one wants to have, I suppose.
15. SteaM | February 27th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
tiredoflibbullshit…
Now, now… I think you are being very racist and also very irrational. It’s very dangerous and immoral to claim that only democrats “shoot each other up”. I also sense a bit of racism in this comment. You are not suggesting that only blacks “shoot each other up” and, also, vote democrat… are ya? I hope not.
Right… and every democrat stabs people all the time. It’s our favorite thing to do!
Please.
You guys are so hateful, racist, and immature. I am aware of this… I know, I should stop coming here. leave you intolerant damn-near-klan-members to your love-fest.
16. TiredofLibBullShit | February 27th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
“Despite the completely ludicrous nature of the notion of having someone “take our guns away””
Uh, Diane…….. gun ownership is ILLEGAL in Washington DC - any type of gun. Gun ownership within 1000 feet of a school is ILLEGAL. I know of many homes that are within 1000 feet of a school that cannot have a gun legally.
For those who will obey the law, those guns have been taken away. You are speaking of those who will of course disobey the law. Have you ever heard of the practice of incrementalism? Take a little here, take a little there - such as the myth of “reasonable” gun ownership and the so-called “closing the loophole” legislation. Sooner or later the law abiding citizen will not be able to own a gun for fear of jail time.
17. TiredofLibBullShit | February 27th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
go ahead meathead bring up the race card.
Did I mention race? NO………
Did I suggest that ALL Democrats stab people ALL the time? NO………….
I never said they were Democrats…..I said they are likely to vote Democrat. BIG DIFFERENCE.
Just reporting what is actually on the news……maybe the news channels are racist.
Typical USELESS IDIOT liberal.
Stop the lies, loser.
18. SteaM | February 27th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
TiredofLibBullshit…
So what was your point then if not to be subtly racist and hateful towards people who vote for democrats?
What is your point? Seriously, I think I have gotten the point. The conservatives on this blog seriously hate people who either call themselves liberal or can be labeled such by conservatives.
Is this stuff not really damaging to our democracy? Is it not also very polarizing?
I realize we have differences in our lives, our perspectives, and some values but when it comes down to it all Americans generally are good people who want to be happy and support their families.
There are always a few exceptions here and there but we should rise above that petty crap and be united towards progress and comprimises. It’s pretty hard to be united when an entire group (liberals) are lumped into this group that is to be hated and not be trusted.
Am I misunderstanding something here? I hope so.
19. TiredofLibBullShit | February 27th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
meathead, just making an observation on behavior.
Is it my fault that the majority of people who would use guns on each other are more likely to vote Democrat?
Is it my fault that a Hillary support stabbed a Obama supporter?
You are misunderstanding or just plane refuse to face reality. One of your misunderstandings: “Is this stuff not really damaging to our democracy?” First we do not have a democracy as the form of government. Second, you believe that pointing these facts out is more damaging to the country than these people who commit violence on their fellow human beings.
You are misunderstanding and over-sensitive. It is time for liberals (because you are the ones who are overly sensitive to this type of material) to grow a spine and face reality rather than spin it as something a little less harsh.
What you need is a slap in the face and if accepting the reality is that slap then so be it.
20. Darva Conger | February 27th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
TiredofLibBullShit:
Yeah, I knew you were going to the Brady Bill. Just one simple question. The bill has been in place since ‘93. Since ‘93 the GOP has had control of Congress more than the Dems and has had the WH since ‘01. If the Brady Bill is such a piece of crap, why can’t the GOP with control of Congress and the WH repealed it?
My point remains, this is ONLY an issue to bring the GOP up to warp speed to slam Obama. Most Americans are NOT clamoring for the right to own an AR-15. If they were, the law would be repealed.
The guns that Americans think folks should be able to legally own are the weapons that hunters and sportsmen use, like Obama says. Guess the AR-15 would be handy to mow down an herd of deer, I suppose.
21. SteaM | February 27th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Well I may be a bit sensitive by oh well. It’s better than having no perspective and respect for how other people who are different might think.
This is a rediculous and false statement. Unless you can back it up with something, I think you should set aside the polarizing argument that democrats are more likely to shoot each other than republicans.
And why do I think that is damaging to our democracry?
Reason, stupid. Reason and common sense.
Our government is for the people, by the people.
United we stand.
Divided we fall.
You’re ignorant hateful speechs about how those who vote democrat are more likely to shoot each other is a very divisive comment. Maybe not when you say it but when Rush or Hannity says it then millions of alread-angry anti-”liberal” people become very incited, very angry.
Therefore the division takes place and is strengthend. And the end result is more division, less debate and more hateful intolerant shouting arguments about issues we should just comprimise on and move on.
Divided we fall.
22. js | February 27th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
The key phrase words are “people” and “infringe”.
People are plural. That means each individual as a group, not a group as in militia, yet militia is a group of individual citizens that have come together as a group for defense, so the people in the militia are the ones with the right, not the militia itself.
The key “shall not be infringed” is the crux of it all. ABSOLUTELY NO INFRINGEMENT. None, nada, zero. Any law infringing on the right to keep and bear arms…is not allowed.
So effectively, many of the laws on the books requiring license to carry firearms are a violation of our constitutional rights to bear arms. It is an infringement against that right.
23. Diana Powe | February 27th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
js,
You need to read the decision in United States v. Miller before you make statements such as “Any law infringing on the right to keep and bear arms…is not allowed.” The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=307&page=174
24. plainjane | February 27th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
It is as if this blog is in a time warp. Each day it is the fear of the day. Just name them; abortion, universal health care for all citizens, gay marriage, or getting out of the civil war in Iraq will all lead to the death of the American civilization. Today it is gun control and tomorrow the fear we must all face will probably be the evils illegal immigration. They are discussed at nausea with Repugs offering no solutions other than to say by their reasoning all are bad and should be feared.
25. Kahn | February 27th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
sam, well thanks for that. You do realize that most gun violence is black-on-black, right? And that in several of the big cities where these murders happen guns are already heavily restricted or completely illegal, right? And that EVERY school and college murder has happened where guns are already 100% illegal, right?
26. Darva Conger | February 27th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Plainjane:
They have a schedule for Fear of the Day:
2/28 blacks
2/29 gays
3/1 San Francisco
3/2 Muslims
3/3 Hollywood
3/4 Massachusetts
3/5 Feminists
3/6 New York
3/7 latte-drinkers
3/9 Volvo drivers
3/10 Saab drivers
3/11 Secularists
3/12 Women who think medical decisions should be left between them and their doctor
3/13 Sean Penn
3/14 Surge Works!
Then repeat.
27. BARRASSO | February 27th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
The liberal strawman in their head wants their guns!! I know a lot of evil liberals and the majority own guns, have jobs, and aren’t rich. This is odd because the strawman liberal that conservatives have built to rail against has properties that are contradictions. He is a welfare loving rich guy who wants to raise his own taxes to give away to the poor. He hates the constitution because he wants the laws of the land to reflect the constitution, “well regulated militia” and all.
Hell I am a liberal and I own a couple of guns, I just don’t live my life in a conservative fear bubble that requires me to be armed at all times, and spend hours wanking to “guns and ammo.”
28. Poli Sci Student | February 27th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Tired of Bullshit,
Washington DC was developed especially to be the national capital to distinct it from the states. In many ways it is different from other states. The Constitution gives Congress the direct jurisdiction on DC. Residents in the district have no representation in the Senate and in the House of Representative they have a non-voting representative. So residents of that states probably realizes that they give up certain Constitutional rights living there (and of course some are fighting it). Considering the high crime rate (surpassing LA & NY), is it completely unthinkable that guns are banned? This is the capital of our country and visitors come from all over the world. Do we want the impression of US being dangerous with guns all over the streets be left for tourist?
I understand that the bottom line is this is about the Bill of Rights. But can anyone deny that there are both people who are responsible gun owners and there are dangerous gun owners out there? Are gun laws that infringe on the 2nd Amendment taking away individual rights or is it preventing violent crimes like shootings at school from happening? I think Diane is right that there is a fetish over the 2nd Amendment. If I choose to have a gun in my house I rather move out of the 1000 feet radius from schools to prevent school shootings from happening.
I enjoying shooting at the range as much as the next person, but I also know that not everyone can be trusted with a gun. Of course this is just opinions of one student who was sent onto the internet to analyze blogs supporting presidential candidates. So allow me to pose this question. Mark, you believe that John McCain can be “counted on to defend our rights,” I’m curious as to how many of you here would not vote for a candidate that proposes gun controls?
29. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 27th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Darva,
Most parts of the Brady Bill has expired. But a Republican Congress repealling it was not the point. Nice deflection.
Need I remind you of your quote? Obviously, “Obama is not going to take away your semi-automatic rifle in the dead of night. The people, thru Congress, won’t let him.”
The Brady Bill went through a DEMOCRAT CONGRESS. So your question is BS.
“Most Americans are NOT clamoring for the right to own an AR-15 (a SEMI-AUTO model of the M-16). If they were, the law would be repealed.” They already have the right it is the 2nd Amendment. Also parts of the Brady Bill have expired to allow ownership again. Don’t you remember this was a bashing point against Bush and the Republicans in Congress? You forgot that talking point? Again, you have no clue as to what you are talking about.
Also, it is called the BILL OF RIGHTS not the BILL OF NEEDS. If I wanted to hunt with an AR-15 that is my right and it is not for you to determine my “needs”.
My advice to you is to just shut-up to spare you further embarassment.
30. Joe | February 27th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
nice Tired… “My advice to you is to just shut-up to spare you further embarassment”
You are such a condescending prick.
You have a serious friggin’ problem.
31. TiredofLibBullShit | February 27th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Meathead whines….
“Well I may be a bit sensitive by oh well. It’s better than having no perspective and respect for how other people who are different might think.
the majority of people who would use guns on each other are more likely to vote Democrat?
This is a rediculous and false statement. Unless you can back it up with something, I think you should set aside the polarizing argument that democrats are more likely to shoot each other than republicans.
And why do I think that is damaging to our democracry?
Reason, stupid. Reason and common sense.
Our government is for the people, by the people.
United we stand.
Divided we fall.
You’re ignorant hateful speechs about how those who vote democrat are more likely to shoot each other is a very divisive comment. Maybe not when you say it but when Rush or Hannity says it then millions of alread-angry anti-”liberal” people become very incited, very angry.
Therefore the division takes place and is strengthend. And the end result is more division, less debate and more hateful intolerant shouting arguments about issues we should just comprimise on and move on.
Divided we fall.”
You are the one with no perspective. Have you lived in a large city like New Orleans? I have. Daily murders by those who would vote Democrat. 90% of the city council, state representatives and congressmen WERE CONSISTENTLY DEMOCRATS!!!! Just look at any other major city with high gun violence and look at who represents them! I am sure you can find a very few exceptions, but the statement holds true.
You say it is a divisive statement? THAT IS YOUR OPINION. IT IS A TRUE STATEMENT and shows your ignorance and desire not to face the truth. You libs are always talking about being tough, and make the tough decisions, blah, blah, blah………”. - As long as it does not hurt someone’s feelings. Spraring someone’s feelings versus alerting someone to a problem does nothing to solve it. That just perpetuates the problem further - HOW DOES THAT NOT CAUSE SOCIETY TO FALL???
Again, you have no clue.
Why are you libs so afraid of words? You find words more threatening than criminals.
32. TiredofLibBullShit | February 27th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Joe also whines….
“nice Tired… “My advice to you is to just shut-up to spare you further embarassment”
You are such a condescending prick.
You have a serious friggin’ problem.”
Joe, Joe, Joe…..
If you find that condescending, then you realize I have to sink to your level to make that statement. I can buy that.
Now shut up and save yourself further embarassment. You are such a f*cking moron.
33. Darva Conger | February 27th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
TiredofLibBullShit:
Democrats = Murderers?
You take the cake, bro.
34. Almiranta | February 27th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
I was taught never to make fun of the kids on the short bus, so I tend to overlook a lot that really could use some attention. But in the case of Darva’s post # 26, I have to say something.
This has to be the most brilliant example of what seems to pass for both wit and political discourse, from the radical Left, that I have ever seen.
It is so bad, if I were Darva I would write a complaint to Mark and Matt claiming that someone had stolen my identity to post something obviously designed to make me look like a total idiot. Moron. Loser. Whatever. They all fit that post.
Definitely humor-impaired.
Come ON, guys!! You are so hooked on making everything as ugly and mean and hateful as possible, you have completely lost sight of just how awful you come across.
The issue is gun control. For or agin? Why? Constitutional? Yea or nay? Why?
But we get the anti-humor of Darva, we get this gem–”Do we want the impression of US being dangerous with guns all over the streets be left for tourist?” from, no less, a STUDENT—-see thread on the education in this country degenerating from education to indoctrination—-it is just one pathetic, irrelevant, and nasty post after another from you guys.
The quality of the Left contributions here can be summed up in Joe’s soaring oratory:
“You are such a condescending prick.
You have a serious friggin’ problem.”
And that’s about as good as it gets, folks.
Tip to radical Lefty handlers and minders: You really need to get these guys shut up, because the most damaging thing anyone could do to the Socialist movement in the United States would be to print up the Lib posts and circulate them around the country, to show America what a true radical Lib is like.
You are not only NOT promoting your cause, you are harming it.
Unless your cause is to convince America that you are rude, foul-mouthed, hate-driven, irrational spewers of vile rhetoric, unable to support any cause or candidate based on its merits but only capable of meeting rational discourse with rage and insults.
In that case, good job, boys. Joe—a little extra in your envelope this week. Keep it up.
35. Aaron | February 27th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
John McCain: DOA
36. Aaron | February 27th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Almiranter: “Unless your cause is to convince America that you are rude, foul-mouthed, hate-driven, irrational spewers of vile rhetoric, unable to support any cause or candidate based on its merits but only capable of meeting rational discourse with rage and insults.”
Pot, meet Kettle
37. Kahn | February 27th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Poli Sci Student - to your point about owning a gun 1000 feet from a school. EVERY school shooting has been in a place where guns are already restricted. EVERY one. Look how good that worked out. Meanwhile, if you are a college student and want to carry a gun - your Constitutionally protected rights are violated. Why? Those restrictions haven’t helped. So why have them?
When I was going to school. I was already a lifelong shooter, hunter, and former Marine. Who better to have a gun in the briefcase when a whacko walks into the room?
Not all Democrats are criminals - but most criminals are Democrat. This is known.
38. Kahn | February 27th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
You know what’s funny? The people here who say they are not arguing about restricting guns, are in fact arguing about restricting guns.
So much for it being a dead issue.
I’m NRA, and I Vote.
39. SteaM | February 27th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Seriously, I’m not letting this one get by.
No one can seriously show me proof that most people who shoot each other are democrats.
That’s just a hateful statement directed at people you don’t like.
Think about it. Just think.
I’m not buying what you are selling because it’s pure fantasy and you know you cannot back it up so instead you just say I am an idiot.
This whole “most criminals are democrat” makes no sense and is wrong on so many levels.
40. js | February 27th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Diana Powe | February 27th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
“You need to read the decision in United States v. Miller before you make statements such as “Any law infringing on the right to keep and bear arms…is not allowed.” The Supreme Court disagrees with you.”
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
what is it about the written word that confuses you? “shall not” is pretty clear
41. js | February 27th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Seeing the Supreme Court performing legislation is a dark day in America. The Second Amendment does not say one word about the rights of a militia to keep and bear arms.
That right is granted to the people alone.
42. Darva Conger | February 27th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Tired:
“If I wanted to hunt with an AR-15 that is my right and it is not for you to determine my “needs”.
Be honest, please. Your AR-15 is not used for hunting; they’re used for killing people. Their availability does contribute to deaths of humans, not deer.
43. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 27th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Darva, gets it wrong again….
“TiredofLibBullSh**:
Democrats = Murderers?
You take the cake, bro.”
Never said it. Can you read above the fifth grade level?
Again, my advice to you is to just shut-up to spare you further embarassment.
Meathead,
You are getting it wrong again. These individuals are most likely to vote Democrat, not that they are Democrats - big difference. The proof is in the party that represents their districts on the local, state and federal level. It is that simple.
Stop with the lies of “most criminals are democrats” nobody said it. Stop the lies.
Since you claim the statements are hateful and divisive, I take it you do not vote Democrat since they are the most divisive group in the country. They are constantly pitting on “side” against another - black vs white, illegals against legals, gay vs straight, men vs women, rich vs poor, the haves vs the have nots - all to enhance their power.
Oh, prove that they are not likely to vote Democrat.
44. eric | February 27th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Darva,
Have you ever hunted? Or fired a weapon? I don’t hunt. I actually don’t see the fun in killing animals, but I have enjoyed the spoils of a hunt (deer, black bear, etc.) and I don’t judge those that hunt. I do, however, own several handguns and I (and my wife) are fully prepared to use them to defend our property if necessary. Senator Obama, it seems, would gladly outlaw the ownership of handguns. This will cost him many votes in the general election.
Check this out for AR-15 hunting:
http://www.huntingmag.com/guns_loads/phsar_022707/
Many hunting weapons first started out as military weapons.
45. Diana Powe | February 27th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
js,
You might also consider reading the Supreme Court’s ruling in Marbury v. Madison which established the principle of judicial review.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=5&invol=137
46. Diana Powe | February 27th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
TiredofLibBullSh**,
You say, “Stop with the lies of ‘most criminals are democrats’ nobody said it.” Kahn said in Comment # 37, “Not all Democrats are criminals - but most criminals are Democrat.” Unless you are going to argue some distinction between the word democrats and Democrat in these instances, you’re mistaken.
47. Kahn | February 27th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
SteaM - Most murders occur in the major urban areas on the east coast, Texas, and California. You know, blue country. Also, Democrats have gone into prisons registering voters and have worked tirelessly to get the vote re-instated for some convicted felons.
Here’s your reference. Chase down the study yourself if it bothers you so much.
Felons vote Democratic, national study says
http://dwb.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/4850294p-4452879c.html
Darva - How many people have been shot with AR-15’s? How does that relate to other guns? FYI - most people are shot with cheap “Saturday night specials” that are pistols. Most of this happens in Democrat controlled urban areas. Most of these areas completely ban or heavily restrict guns already. And most of the shooters are black or Hispanic.
48. eric | February 27th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
So, Diana, do you think the Supremes are always correct? Remember, this is a group that in 1893, declared that tomatoes are legally vegetables (Nix v. Hedden) and in 1896, declared that racial segregation was constitutional (Plessy v. Ferguson). Many decisions by the Supremes have been deemed wrong and subsequently overturned.
49. eric | February 27th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Kahn,
Quick correction, Texas is red with a small blue spot near the middle where I live (Austin).
50. Kahn | February 27th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
See the above Diana - Felons Vote Democrat.
“On average, 74 percent of felons would have voted Democratic in presidential and U.S. Senate elections dating back to 1972, according to the study’s analysis of demographic and voting data.”
74% is way into “most” territory, isn’t it?
By the way, your party knows this already.
Jailhouse vote
http://www.economist.com/diversions/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=4154584
http://www.capoliticalnews.com/s/spip.php?article514
51. Kahn | February 27th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
eric, Dallas County and Fort Worth have red areas that overlap crime areas. So does Houston. Point?
splitting this in two for quick post (otherwise gets moderated)
ee the above Diana - Felons Vote Democrat.
“On average, 74 percent of felons would have voted Democratic in presidential and U.S. Senate elections dating back to 1972, according to the study’s analysis of demographic and voting data.”
74% is way into “most” territory, isn’t it?
By the way, your party knows this already.
Jailhouse vote
http://www.economist.com/diversions/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=4154584
52. Kahn | February 27th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Jailhouse vote
http://www.capoliticalnews.com/s/spip.php?article514
Hey, maybe just Democrats should have gun restriction imposed on them?
53. eric | February 27th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Kahn,
Point is that Texas is not considered blue country. Not trying to pick a fight with you. I’m on your side on this issue.
54. Darva Conger | February 27th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Tired in #31: “Daily murders by those who would vote Democrat.”
“TiredofLibBullSh**:
Democrats = Murderers?
You take the cake, bro.”
Tired in #43: “Never said it. Can you read above the fifth grade level?
Again, my advice to you is to just shut-up to spare you further embarassment.”
Take my advice. You are a liar.
55. js | February 27th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
45. Diana Powe | February 27th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
js,
“You might also consider reading the Supreme Court’s ruling in Marbury v. Madison which established the principle of judicial review.”
The same supreme court that opened the floodgates of abortion?
The Supreme Court shouldnt legislate, they should “only” enforce existing laws.
Just because a few errant justices extend thier power beyond its rightful limits, and a Congress failing to show the moral fortitude to stand up for what is right, does not make it constitutional.
What is it about the word “shall not” that confuses you? Its pretty senseless repeating errant legislation from the courts in light of the constitution. Do you purport that the “people” and the “militia” are not separate entities?
Funny, I dont think you can win this one. I dont think you think so either, otherwise you would not post links, you would be arguing the merits yourself.
56. js | February 27th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)
“The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun.” (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)
“The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)
“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.” (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)
http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm
57. Kahn | February 27th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Darva - Most felons ARE Democrat. See above.
58. Freedom1 | February 27th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
I strongly suggest that all law-abiding and responsible Americans buy guns and ammunition before January 20, 2009.
59. Kahn | February 27th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Freedom, you mean MORE guns. Hah!
60. eric | February 27th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
How about a Cobray Street Sweeper? For hunting … right.
61. eric | February 27th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Or an AA-12?
62. Freedom1 | February 27th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Kahn,
:)
63. FmrMarine | February 27th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
>>>>Guess the AR-15 would be handy to mow down an herd of deer, I suppose.<<<<
NO
BUT they came in REAL handy for the Koreans during the LA riots.
Some in NO also benefited by them.
I own one, and an AK-47, and shot guns, and pistols.
So what? so do MANY of my neighbors.
You WONT see us sitting back while the police hide, as they have in MOST of the major riots, rampages, and natural disasters we have seen during the past 50 years.
64. FmrMarine | February 27th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
JS;
You have to remember diana powe is an ex-cop, an AA one.
I have asked her stand on - drunk driving checkpoints, hate crime laws, search and seizure laws, abortion, and many of the constitutional rights the police violate every day…..NO answer.
So why do you believe she wouldnt be of the school of take away all guns as “we just want to go home safe tonight” dwadle !
65. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 27th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
darva, you are hopeless……
“Daily murders by those who would vote Democrat.”
“TiredofLibBullSh**:
Democrats = Murderers?
They would vote Democrat does not mean all Democrats are murderers and that they are all Democrats. Sheesh. Let me explain it to you…..I know people who are Republicans that vote Democrat and I know Democrats that vote Republican.
THEY ARE MORE LIKELY TO VOTE DEMOCRAT! Those who are ELECTED in their district whether city, state or federal ARE DEMOCRATS!
“Be honest, please. Your AR-15 is not used for hunting; they’re used for killing people. Their availability does contribute to deaths of humans, not deer.”
Uh, I never said I owned an AR-15. BTW, more people are killed with small caliber handguns than are killed with assault weapons. The Brady Bill was meant as a gun grab, plain and simple. Brady was not shot with an assault weapon. He was shot with a .22 caliber pistol. That means the bullet has a diameter of .22 inches. You do know what the diameter of a circle is?
Again, my advice to you is to just shut-up and spare yourself further embarassment.
66. Diana Powe | February 27th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
eric,
No, I don’t think the Supreme Court always decides in the way that I would think is correct. My point with js was not to do anything but point out that one may say the law is this or that, but what courts say about the law matters whether one agrees with it or not. js may disagree with the court’s reasoning in United States v. Miller and that’s fine. However, that case is the state of the law regarding the federal government’s authority to place limits on firearm ownership.
FmrMarine,
You give every evidence of hating the police as a group. So, I’m curious. Would you ever call the police for anything?
67. Gozer the Carpathian | February 27th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Aww.. why does a Gun Control thread pop up when I’m enroute to work and not able to post! Boo. Didn’t you get the Memo Mark, don’t talk about guns until after 4PM when I’m at work. ;)
9AM, sheesh I’m not even awake yet. Hehe. :D
As I’ve stated many times I’m a card and gun toting member of the NRA. I regularly donate time and money to fight anti-gun regulations. Unfortunetly I’m in California so we’ve had several loses lately. (Though we keep fighting back those STUPID microstamping laws)
I support Castle Doctrines. I support WILL ISSUE concealed carry. (Unlike MAY issue like we have here in California. It’s VERY hard to get a permit here) I dislike the “One Gun a Month” rules. I’m for waving the waiting period for anyone who gets a paper shield. (I.e. a Restraining order) The “Assault Weapons ban” is 100% BS. Mainly because what people THINK are assault weapons aren’t, like the people talking about AR-15’s in this thread.
Just because a weapon is “too futuristic looking” it shouldn’t be banned. (I want that Cx9 Storm damn it!) Just because it shoots pistol ammo out of a longer barrel/design shouldn’t make it illegal. (No carbines in California? WTF?!) Just because it’s a Bullpup design shouldn’t make it illegal. Just because it holds 11 shots shouldn’t make it illegal. Just because it has a carrying handle shouldn’t make it illegal. Pistol Grip. Variable Length Stocks. I can go on and on.
Yet all of these silly reasons are in the “Assault Weapons Ban.” Notice I never said “Full Auto.” That’s not covered in this ban, never was. Fire rate, bullet size, nothing that controls the damage or deadly nature of a weapon are in most of these idiot laws. They just want to take away guns one at a time. Until they have them all.
That’s why I respect Gun Banners far more than gun control people. Because at least gun banners are honest with thier opinion.
68. Gozer the Carpathian | February 27th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
I’m curious Diana, and anyone else who think the police our the answer. (And they are to a lot of things. Don’t get me wrong.) What is the average response time to your house?
No seriously. How long does it take for the police or any help to arrive in your area?
I do believe in my neighbor hood (which BTW is 2 blocks from the Sherrif, Police, and CHP stations) that the average wait on a 911 call is 4:30 minutes.
That’s of course considering you can make the call, the call can be traced (not everyone has advanced 911 and with new cable phones and Cell phones that’s even less likely), you tell them wehre you’re at, and what have you.
Assuming you do make the call and everything. What do you do for the 4-5 minutes before the police arrive? Hope? Lock yourself in a closet and hope they don’t find you? Hope everyone else in your house is safe?
What about seeing a neighbor in trouble? Do you just call and watch? Yell that you’ve called? Hope the police are available?
How about those who live further from town? I live in the desert where the outlying areas have 15-30 minute (Minimum) response times of any kind. Do we just leave it to the police?
69. Kahn | February 27th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Fellow conservatives, you may have noticed that we are posting facts, and they are posting emotions.
What is important is that we see evidence here that the gun control issue is NOT dead. We’ve seen the nonsensical arguments right here. What maybe is important for liberals to learn is that we will not go down easily on this point.
We see who the REAL group wanting to limit civil rights is. Leave us alone. Liberal enclaves are the centers of most of the crime in the country. Good job.
70. Diana Powe | February 27th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Gozer the Carpathian,
I live very close to the police department but that’s not a meaningful factor because, by definition, patrol officers are patrolling the entire city not hanging around the station waiting for the phone to ring. I’m not sure if you’re asking me because you think I’m against owning firearms. I’m not.
If you’re alluding to my reference to the non-factor of firearm ownership relative to crime, then response time could be really important if you were in your home and someone entered with criminal intent and they wanted to assault you rather than leave because they were a typical house burglar who avoids residence that are occupied. That’s a reason why people should be able to own firearms. However, anyone who thinks seriously about self-defense knows that the mere fact of a firearm, even one that is loaded and fairly accessible, being in the home does not automatically translate into a successful defense. It may, but it may not. Self-defense is as much a mindset as it is possession of a tool like a firearm.
71. js | February 27th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
66. Diana Powe
“Would you ever call the police for anything?”
Thats a topic all on its own. But if you need to find the truth, just look.
Police stop traffic enforcement, what happens? More traffic fatalities. Police start playing detective instead of cop, what happens? Our jails get filled with pot smokers and our streets get filled with gangs and violence.
Ever read up on all the “special” solicitation they send to “police”? How to break arms, legs, evade corruption charges..tools to maximize lethality..tons of stuff the KKK would be proud of. But the old lady that just got robbed? Sorry folks, cops no where around. Kids get stopped for harrassment, cops bully them, big ego gig. Sex for tickets, anyone? Or the crew in blue that runs the local crack house, and even worse, who raids the drug pushers and turn in half the cash, and even less of the dope…pretty dopey eh? Ya, people trust the police. They trust that they are just as corrupt as the crooks.
So whatta ya want, a medal now? I guess you can figure out why none of them wear white now, cant cha? Did ya fall off the rotten apple tree?
The report, “Law Enforcement: Information on Drug-Related Police Corruption,” number GGD-98-111, may be accessed online by visiting http://www.gao.gov and using the search engine.
Based on evidence provided by federal law enforcement agencies, the report supplied a mind-boggling list of major drug corruption cases in the 1990s, including the police departments in such major cities as Atlanta, Cleveland, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Savannah, and Washington, DC.
We didnt wake up one day and find it all went away either. Cops dont talk. Internal investigations are hushed. Society is being lied too, and victimized, by the very people we pay to protect us.
Why would anyone call the police? Ego? lol. got any more jokes DP?
72. Diana Powe | February 27th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
js,
There is corruption among police. That’s true. That’s not a new phenomenon. Corrupt police officers deserve particular scorn. However, it sounds like to me that you’re saying that all police are corrupt. If so, you’re quite wrong. Corruption is the exception, not the rule.
If you think that’s not true, then you need to come out and say that the police should be disbanded all over the country. While you’re at it, since we know that there are corrupt politicians, corrupt clergy, corrupt physicians, corrupt sanitation workers and corrupt everything then I suppose we should just fire everyone, including you. Anyway, your writing is interesting in allowing others to see some of the unusual places some people’s ideas take them.
73. js | February 28th, 2008 at 11:53 am
I see you just want to deny the truth.
Then again, so what. You missed alot of the meaning, and begin unilatteral denials by implying everyone everywhere is corrupt.
But thats a red harring. You have no clue how wide spread the corruption is. Thats because the nature of organized crime is to hide. Your conclusion that not all police are corrupt is meaningless. Power corrupts, and the courts (ya, getting right back to that Supreme Court that creates legislation instead of enforcing our laws again…) are just as corrupt.
74. Jim | February 28th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
I see a lot of people missing the points of ownership. G u ns are for more than self defense, hunting/sporting, heritage, and military preparedness. They are about Constitutional liberties as well as the options to keep the country free. The existence of those who want to constrain the 2nd Amendment or other liberties is precisely the reason we need an armed population, so that we can remain free without fear of tyranny. I would argue that the people should have greater control of even more powerful devices to match the technological changes that have occurred since the 2nd Amendment was written.
I’m always disappointed by perceptions of guns. Criminals and extremists choose whatever weapon is available to commit their infractions. On 9/11 it was an airplane, in Rwanda and Darfur, it was the machete. Most deaths in the US are from car accidents, but the media would have you believe that gun control would solve the murder/crime rate. They’re just lying SOBs.
Whatever the legal outcome, I will always own fire arms.
75. Kahn | February 29th, 2008 at 12:57 am
Jim, well said. I agree. As far as normal citizens are concerned, gun and weapon technology stopped advancing in 1918.