DaVinci 0
Recommended Posts
DaVinci 0
QuoteTo paraphrase our very own Attorney General:
"There is no expressed right to bear arms in the Constitution; there’s only a prohibition against taking it away. The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to bear arms. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be infringed."
One person's view does not make anything right or wrong on most issues.
And really, what is the difference between allowing people to own guns and not allowing the Gov to prevent people from having them?
The way the Constitution is written people have the right "to keep and bear arms" and the right should not be taken away.
I don't see how it really makes a difference? Allowed to have vs not allowed to prevent from having?
billvon 3,078
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>One person's view does not make anything right or wrong on most issues.
I agree. But when it comes to the legal interpretation of the constitution, the US Attorney General has a lot more power and influence than you or I (or even the NRA.)
>I don't see how it really makes a difference? Allowed to have vs
>not allowed to prevent from having?
They are almost identical to me, but apparently not to Alberto Gonzales. Mindsets such as his are dangerous when it comes to the erosion of our rights.
I agree. But when it comes to the legal interpretation of the constitution, the US Attorney General has a lot more power and influence than you or I (or even the NRA.)
>I don't see how it really makes a difference? Allowed to have vs
>not allowed to prevent from having?
They are almost identical to me, but apparently not to Alberto Gonzales. Mindsets such as his are dangerous when it comes to the erosion of our rights.
[replyTo paraphrase our very own Attorney General:
"There is no expressed right to bear arms in the Constitution; there’s only a prohibition against taking it away. The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to bear arms. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be infringed."
(original quote below.)
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/011907Parry.shtml
"There is no expressed right to bear arms in the Constitution; there’s only a prohibition against taking it away. The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to bear arms. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be infringed."
(original quote below.)
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/011907Parry.shtml
He tried to make the same claim on habeus corpus as well.
Makes even Clarence Thomas seem scholarly.
QuoteHow Criminals Get Guns
by Dan Noyes, Center for Investigative Reporting
Useful detail - Dan Noyes is a reporter for the San Francisco ABC affiliate. These days he might be best known for always hitting the mayor with an embarassingly blunt question.
Not to dismiss his segment out of hand, but let's not pretend its a scholarly report. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were unaware of his job status.
Quote
Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception.
Not more than a week or two ago, you held that same belief, blaming owners for negligantly allowing crooks to steal their guns.
Quote
Or, to put it another way, the "law abiding gun owners" of America are, for the most part, the ones responsible for arming the criminals through straw purchases, unregulated sales, shady but legal dealers...
Straw sales aren't legal, so the "law abiding gun owners" phrase rings false. In CA, private transfer aren't allow at all. In other states, I don't know what responsibility is place on the seller if he knows the buyer is a felon.
And the conclusion that guns used in crimes within 2 years implies criminal behavior by the gun shop is unsupported. A straw buyer isn't going to sit on his purchase for 3 years. If you find a dealer that is falsifying paperwork, fine. Close em down, send them to jail.
kallend 2,108
QuoteQuoteI think that could be done by constitutional amendment to clarify the right to own firearms
It is already there.
If it's so well delineated, why are there so many opinions on just what it means?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,108
Quote
Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception.
Not more than a week or two ago, you held that same belief, blaming owners for negligantly allowing crooks to steal their guns.
.
If you READ the relevant post CAREFULLY you will see that I made no claim at all about how the majority of criminals get their guns. But since some 300,000+ guns are stolen each year, it is blindlingly obvious that many criminals get their guns this way.
(DoJ data shows that some 340,000 guns are stolen every year. IMO, that does show negligence by gun owners.)
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteJohn The NRA has come out strongly in favor of PROSECUTION of people committing "STRAW PURCHASES."
Please rethink your statement.
I suppose lip service is good, but what have they done about checking up on sales by unlicensed people, either in private or at shows? What have they done to support ENFORCEMENT of laws against straw purchases other than giving lip service?
The problem isn't the 2nd Amendment**, the problem is the hotch potch of unenforcible and inconsistent laws that do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns, and the intransigence of the NRA in opposing any laws that help prevent crooks from getting guns.
** actually I think the way the 2nd Amendment is worded IS part of the problem, combined with the vague interpretations of its meaning by the courts.
His "lip service" is worse than yours??!!
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteI think that could be done by constitutional amendment to clarify the right to own firearms
It is already there.
If it's so well delineated, why are there so many opinions on just what it means?
In reality this is not. There are the anti gunners and then there is the MAJORITY of the constitutional scholars who say if the 2nd amendment is not for the individual then none of the amendments are.
Nice try though
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
jm951 0
In case any of you haven't attended a gun show lately, if you try to purchase from a dealer at the show, you will have to produce proper ID, fill out the relevant paperwork (in the case of a handgun- permits must be present) and then the dealer runs an on the spot background check through the NIC system.
Some transactions are conducted in the parking lot between private individuals. Buyer beware on that type of thing. Sting operations have been conducted in this manner and I'll never sell that way.
Some transactions are conducted in the parking lot between private individuals. Buyer beware on that type of thing. Sting operations have been conducted in this manner and I'll never sell that way.
rushmc 23
QuoteIn case any of you haven't attended a gun show lately, if you try to purchase from a dealer at the show, you will have to produce proper ID, fill out the relevant paperwork (in the case of a handgun- permits must be present) and then the dealer runs an on the spot background check through the NIC system.
Some transactions are conducted in the parking lot between private individuals. Buyer beware on that type of thing. Sting operations have been conducted in this manner and I'll never sell that way.
Help me with your point. I am not sure where you are going with this.
I know of the things you post and I do go to shows when I get the chance
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
mnealtx 0
QuoteOhh I know that sentence all to well by now. it doesn't give the right to all Americqans though, just those belonging to a well regulated militia.
So exactly what is the definition of a well regulated militia?
(On a second note, does that mean that laws preventing convicted felons from owning guns are unconstitutional?)
Incorrect - the sentence does not say "the right of the people in the organized militia"
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 2,108
QuoteQuoteOhh I know that sentence all to well by now. it doesn't give the right to all Americqans though, just those belonging to a well regulated militia.
So exactly what is the definition of a well regulated militia?
(On a second note, does that mean that laws preventing convicted felons from owning guns are unconstitutional?)
Incorrect - the sentence does not say "the right of the people in the organized militia"
Careful, Mike. Once you start debating semantics, you open yourself up to the Gonzales ploy that the 2nd doesn't actually say that the right exists at all.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
DaVinci 0
QuoteIn Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that could be done by constitutional amendment to clarify the right to own firearms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is already there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's so well delineated, why are there so many opinions on just what it means?
Because people will try and read into it what they want.
QuoteAmendment II
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.
It says in very simple english that an armed populace is necessary to have a free state so the right to have weapons will not be changed.
People who dislike guns will try to make it read only if you are in a militia....That it only applies certain arms...ect.
Just like others will read it as to permit military grade weapons....since it is about a militia.
I think the founding fathers were smart enough to know that any government can become corrupt. They were in the middle of an armed revolt against a Government that did not represent them. I think they intended to allow the Nation to have weapons incase the need came again. They also intended to allow people to have weapons to aid in the fight that was coming.
But people who dislike weapons will claim that is far from the case. I dont really understand their views to be honest.
Just like they wrote in the 8th.
QuoteAmendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
They left the amount of "Excessive" out. And there has been tons of debate about "cruel and unusual".
The founding fathers were smart enough not to paint themselves into a corner on many issues.
But the rights are still there. Cruel punishments are not allowed and people should be allowed to have Arms. The definitions of "cruel" and "Arms" can be changed.
Once stocks were fine, now they are considered cruel.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17307316/?GT1=9033
SEATTLE - Modern hunters rarely become more famous than Jim Zumbo. A mustachioed, barrel-chested outdoors entrepreneur who lives in a log cabin near Yellowstone National Park, he has spent much of his life writing for prominent outdoors magazines, delivering lectures across the country and starring in cable TV shows about big-game hunting in the West.
Zumbo's fame, however, has turned to black-bordered infamy within America's gun culture -- and his multimedia success has come undone. It all happened in the past week, after he publicly criticized the use of military-style assault rifles by hunters, especially those gunning for prairie dogs.
"Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity," Zumbo wrote in his blog on the Outdoor Life Web site. The Feb. 16 posting has since been taken down. "As hunters, we don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them. . . . I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles."
Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Squarely in the crosshairs
The reaction -- from tens of thousands of owners of assault rifles across the country, from media and manufacturers rooted in the gun business, and from the National Rifle Association -- has been swift, severe and unforgiving. Despite a profuse public apology and a vow to go hunting soon with an assault weapon, Zumbo's career appears to be over.
• More U.S. news
His top-rated weekly TV program on the Outdoor Channel, his longtime career with Outdoor Life magazine and his corporate ties to the biggest names in gunmaking, including Remington Arms Co., have been terminated or are on the ropes.
The NRA on Thursday pointed to the collapse of Zumbo's career as an example of what can happen to anyone, including a "fellow gun owner," who challenges the right of Americans to own or hunt with assault-style firearms.
From his home near Cody, Wyo., Zumbo declined repeated telephone requests for comment. He is a 40-year NRA member and has appeared with NRA officials in 70 cities, according to his Web site.
Shot across Congress’ bow
In announcing that it was suspending its professional ties with Zumbo, the NRA -- a well-financed gun lobby that for decades has fought attempts to regulate assault weapons -- noted that the new Congress should pay careful attention to the outdoors writer's fate.
"Our folks fully understand that their rights are at stake," the NRA statement said. It warned that the "grassroots" passion that brought down Zumbo shows that millions of people would "resist with an immense singular political will any attempts to create a new ban on semi-automatic firearms."
Some outdoors writers drew a different lesson from Zumbo's horrible week.
"This shows the zealousness of gun owners to the point of actual foolishness," said Pat Wray, a freelance outdoors writer in Corvallis, Ore., and author of "A Chukar Hunter's Companion."
Wray said that what happened to Zumbo is a case study in how the NRA has trained members to attack their perceived enemies without mercy.
"For so many years, Zumbo has been a voice for these people -- for hunting and for guns -- and they just turned on him in an instant," Wray said. "He apologized all over himself, and it didn't do any good."
Circling the wagons
Zumbo's fall highlights a fundamental concern of the NRA and many champions of military-style firearms, according to people who follow the organization closely. They do not want American gun owners to make a distinction between assault weapons and traditional hunting guns such as shotguns and rifles. If they did, a rift could emerge between hunters, who tend to have the most money for political contributions to gun rights causes, and assault-weapon owners, who tend to have lots of passion but less cash.
The NRA appeared to be saying as much in its statement Thursday, when it emphasized that the Zumbo affair shows there is "no chance" that a "divide and conquer propaganda strategy" could ever succeed.
"Jim Zumbo Outdoors" was not broadcast as scheduled last week on the Outdoor Channel and will not air next week, said Mike Hiles, a spokesman for the channel. He said sponsors have requested that they be removed from the program. The show "will be in hiatus for an undetermined period of time," he said.
Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zumbo's long career at Outdoor Life, which is owned by Time Inc., also came to a sudden end in the past week. Zumbo was hunting editor of the magazine, which is the nation's second-largest outdoors publication. He wrote his first story for Outdoor Life in 1962.
‘Living in very delicate times’
The magazine's editor in chief, Todd W. Smith, said that Zumbo submitted his resignation after hearing of the large number of readers (about 6,000, at last count) who had sent e-mails demanding his dismissal. Smith dismissed as "conjecture" a question about whether Zumbo would have been fired had he not resigned.
"Jim is a good guy, and I feel bad about this unfortunate situation," Smith said. "We are living in very delicate times. For someone to call these firearms 'terrorist' rifles, that is a flash-point word. You are painting a bunch of enthusiasts with the word. They don't like being called terrorists."
When he wrote his now-notorious blog entry, Zumbo was on a coyote hunt in Wyoming sponsored by Remington, a detail he noted in the entry.
That mention -- as it bounced around in recent days among a number of assault-weapon Web sites -- triggered a call for a boycott of Remington products.
That prompted Remington to issue a news release, saying that it has "severed all sponsorship ties with Mr. Zumbo effective immediately."
Remington chief executive Tommy Millner issued a personal appeal to gun owners who might be thinking about boycotting the company's products: "Rest assured that Remington not only does not support [Zumbo's] view, we totally disagree," Millner said. "I have no explanation for his perspective. I proudly own AR's and support everyone's right to do so!"
Zumbo, in his public apology, said that when he wrote the blog entry that criticized assault rifles, he was at the end of a long day's hunt.
"I was tired and exhausted," he wrote, "and I should have gone to bed early."
SEATTLE - Modern hunters rarely become more famous than Jim Zumbo. A mustachioed, barrel-chested outdoors entrepreneur who lives in a log cabin near Yellowstone National Park, he has spent much of his life writing for prominent outdoors magazines, delivering lectures across the country and starring in cable TV shows about big-game hunting in the West.
Zumbo's fame, however, has turned to black-bordered infamy within America's gun culture -- and his multimedia success has come undone. It all happened in the past week, after he publicly criticized the use of military-style assault rifles by hunters, especially those gunning for prairie dogs.
"Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity," Zumbo wrote in his blog on the Outdoor Life Web site. The Feb. 16 posting has since been taken down. "As hunters, we don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them. . . . I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles."
Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Squarely in the crosshairs
The reaction -- from tens of thousands of owners of assault rifles across the country, from media and manufacturers rooted in the gun business, and from the National Rifle Association -- has been swift, severe and unforgiving. Despite a profuse public apology and a vow to go hunting soon with an assault weapon, Zumbo's career appears to be over.
• More U.S. news
His top-rated weekly TV program on the Outdoor Channel, his longtime career with Outdoor Life magazine and his corporate ties to the biggest names in gunmaking, including Remington Arms Co., have been terminated or are on the ropes.
The NRA on Thursday pointed to the collapse of Zumbo's career as an example of what can happen to anyone, including a "fellow gun owner," who challenges the right of Americans to own or hunt with assault-style firearms.
From his home near Cody, Wyo., Zumbo declined repeated telephone requests for comment. He is a 40-year NRA member and has appeared with NRA officials in 70 cities, according to his Web site.
Shot across Congress’ bow
In announcing that it was suspending its professional ties with Zumbo, the NRA -- a well-financed gun lobby that for decades has fought attempts to regulate assault weapons -- noted that the new Congress should pay careful attention to the outdoors writer's fate.
"Our folks fully understand that their rights are at stake," the NRA statement said. It warned that the "grassroots" passion that brought down Zumbo shows that millions of people would "resist with an immense singular political will any attempts to create a new ban on semi-automatic firearms."
Some outdoors writers drew a different lesson from Zumbo's horrible week.
"This shows the zealousness of gun owners to the point of actual foolishness," said Pat Wray, a freelance outdoors writer in Corvallis, Ore., and author of "A Chukar Hunter's Companion."
Wray said that what happened to Zumbo is a case study in how the NRA has trained members to attack their perceived enemies without mercy.
"For so many years, Zumbo has been a voice for these people -- for hunting and for guns -- and they just turned on him in an instant," Wray said. "He apologized all over himself, and it didn't do any good."
Circling the wagons
Zumbo's fall highlights a fundamental concern of the NRA and many champions of military-style firearms, according to people who follow the organization closely. They do not want American gun owners to make a distinction between assault weapons and traditional hunting guns such as shotguns and rifles. If they did, a rift could emerge between hunters, who tend to have the most money for political contributions to gun rights causes, and assault-weapon owners, who tend to have lots of passion but less cash.
The NRA appeared to be saying as much in its statement Thursday, when it emphasized that the Zumbo affair shows there is "no chance" that a "divide and conquer propaganda strategy" could ever succeed.
"Jim Zumbo Outdoors" was not broadcast as scheduled last week on the Outdoor Channel and will not air next week, said Mike Hiles, a spokesman for the channel. He said sponsors have requested that they be removed from the program. The show "will be in hiatus for an undetermined period of time," he said.
Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zumbo's long career at Outdoor Life, which is owned by Time Inc., also came to a sudden end in the past week. Zumbo was hunting editor of the magazine, which is the nation's second-largest outdoors publication. He wrote his first story for Outdoor Life in 1962.
‘Living in very delicate times’
The magazine's editor in chief, Todd W. Smith, said that Zumbo submitted his resignation after hearing of the large number of readers (about 6,000, at last count) who had sent e-mails demanding his dismissal. Smith dismissed as "conjecture" a question about whether Zumbo would have been fired had he not resigned.
"Jim is a good guy, and I feel bad about this unfortunate situation," Smith said. "We are living in very delicate times. For someone to call these firearms 'terrorist' rifles, that is a flash-point word. You are painting a bunch of enthusiasts with the word. They don't like being called terrorists."
When he wrote his now-notorious blog entry, Zumbo was on a coyote hunt in Wyoming sponsored by Remington, a detail he noted in the entry.
That mention -- as it bounced around in recent days among a number of assault-weapon Web sites -- triggered a call for a boycott of Remington products.
That prompted Remington to issue a news release, saying that it has "severed all sponsorship ties with Mr. Zumbo effective immediately."
Remington chief executive Tommy Millner issued a personal appeal to gun owners who might be thinking about boycotting the company's products: "Rest assured that Remington not only does not support [Zumbo's] view, we totally disagree," Millner said. "I have no explanation for his perspective. I proudly own AR's and support everyone's right to do so!"
Zumbo, in his public apology, said that when he wrote the blog entry that criticized assault rifles, he was at the end of a long day's hunt.
"I was tired and exhausted," he wrote, "and I should have gone to bed early."
Gee isn't the latest article fair?
They only said "assault weapon" 64 times
They only said "assault weapon" 64 times
kallend 2,108
Are you claiming that there is no debate over what the wording of the 2nd means? Really?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Kennedy 0
QuoteAre you claiming that there is no debate over what the wording of the 2nd means? Really?
Actually, that is fairly accurate in terms of informed intellectual debate. I don't know of a single scholar who would take up for the "collective right" view of the second amendment (as opposed to individual right). Any truly in depth reasearch into the history of the second leaves the reader in no doubt as to the intentions of the framers.
Also, as a side note, do you know who the last academic to profess the collective rights view was?
His name is Michael Bellesiles. He is a former professor of history at Emory University. He's been so thoroughly discredited that he actually had an award, the Bancroft Prize from Columbia University, revoked.
(by "scholar" I mean respected writers published in peer reviewed journals)
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
But but , aren't academics allowed to lie and misrepresent facts regarding just the Second Ammendment?
I mean hey, it's the one ammendment you won't hear many outspoken scholars defending.
I mean hey, it's the one ammendment you won't hear many outspoken scholars defending.
Kennedy 0
I put this thread together to help enlighten people as to what the Assault Weapon Ban (AWB) is and is not.
While a few of the provisions have changed, it's still all about banning semi-automatic rifles that look mean while confusing people about full auto weapons.
While a few of the provisions have changed, it's still all about banning semi-automatic rifles that look mean while confusing people about full auto weapons.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
The Anti Gunners cannot spew their venom without resorting to lies and misinformation.
kallend 2,108
QuoteQuoteAre you claiming that there is no debate over what the wording of the 2nd means? Really?
Actually, that is fairly accurate in terms of informed intellectual debate. I don't know of a single scholar who would take up for the "collective right" view of the second amendment (as opposed to individual right). Any truly in depth reasearch into the history of the second leaves the reader in no doubt as to the intentions of the framers.
Also, as a side note, do you know who the last academic to profess the collective rights view was?
His name is Michael Bellesiles. He is a former professor of history at Emory University. He's been so thoroughly discredited that he actually had an award, the Bancroft Prize from Columbia University, revoked.
(by "scholar" I mean respected writers published in peer reviewed journals)
Are you claiming that there is no debate over what the wording of the 2nd means?
(I've seen plenty of debate just in this forum).
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
It is already there.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites