Originally Posted by B Butler

Appreciated.

This forum seems to attract people dissatisfied with the status quo, who might be more ready than most to embrace change or even force change. A spiral taking off is possible... but a strong part of the current culture is rejecting 'terrorists'. There may be more resistance to use of violence to promote political change than there was in earlier eras.

***

On another front, CNN reports a Judge rules Chicago gun ban is unconstitutional. A while back the Supreme Court declared the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right. The case that lead to that ban started in Washington DC, however. The new individual right had not been tested in a state jurisdiction. Thus, state and local gun laws that do not treat the keeping and bearing of arms as an individual right have remained in effect.

This Chicago case is apt to be one of many as gun rights advocates test laws on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis. Note that neither the Supreme Court nor the Chicago judge would protect criminal or insane folk's gun rights, but the Chicago gun laws are rather extreme, making it nigh on impossible for a law abiding citizen to own a gun.

One basic if technical principle might be covered if this one is appealed. The recent supreme court declared the 2nd guaranteed an individual right that a branch of the federal government (the local government of Washington DC) could not infringe. A states rights argument might be made that a state can over ride rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.

I am highly dubious that such an argument would stand.

***

There is another principle that hasn't been addressed by modern courts yet. One of the old Supreme Court cases attempted to say Thomson sub machine guns were not protected by the 2nd Amendment as such weapons have no military use. The 2nd was interpreted as protecting the Militia, not Prohibition era gangsters. Gangsters started using assault weapons before the military did. Thus, during that brief era, there was no right to keep and bear assault weapons. During World War II, Thomsons and other large magazine fully automatic weapons came into common military use. The logic of the old Supreme Court is that weapons in common military use are protected by the 2nd.

To my knowledge, nobody is eager to bring that particular ruling into modern play. Or, at least, I am aware of nobody trying to force a test case yet.

In reply to an earlier post of yours concerning stressed out workers resorting to violence. could the next growth industry be in the revival of sanitariums?

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

In reply to an earlier post of yours concerning stressed out workers resorting to violence. could the next growth industry be in the revival of sanitariums?

That's socialist, and punishable by DEATH. It violates the No Sympathy For Anybody But Generation X Act of 2008.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

In reply to an earlier post of yours concerning stressed out workers resorting to violence. could the next growth industry be in the revival of sanitariums?

It would have to be private for profit, as Bad Dog suggested. As the government is not the solution, it is the problem, it follows that the government is not capable of effectively running or sponsoring sanitariums. Thus, the market would be limited to the 1%, likely the only people who could afford them.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Good for you! When those fanatics meet their God face to face, they'll be very surprised to see who he is and where they are, just based on all the hurt they've dished out to our military families. One hint - they won't be singing with the heavenly choir!

I'll be satisfied to hear Luciano Pavarotti singing again, thank you!

....One image of Heaven is a ringside seat with a grand view of the torments of Hell endured by all the 'blasphemers, fornicators, sorcerers, etc.' I suggest that it is the other way around -- that those in Hell get an excellent view of delights denied them. I figure that after seeing Blondi* rip the shade of Der Phooey to pieces and the Nazi 'Hanging Judge' Roland Freisler dangle on by piano wire from a meat hook for a few seconds I'd want to see something more like Turandot or the Grand Canyon.

*Hitler's pet dog, given a fatal vial of cyanide to test its effectiveness. In the end Hitler betrayed even a dog who had never done anything to him!

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/0...er-it-happens/

A Kentucky lawmaker has confirmed that she accidentally discharged a handgun in her Capitol office on Tuesday.
State Rep. Leslie Combs (D) told WHAS that she was unloading the gun in her Capitol annex office when it discharged. A bookcase was struck by a bullet after it ricocheted off the floor.
Democratic state Rep. Jeff Greer was also in the room but was not injured in the shooting.
“I don’t want to use it anymore,” Combs explained to reporters on Wednesday.
“I thought it was totally clear,” she said. “I am a gun owner. It happens.”
Speaker of the House Greg Stumbo (D) asked Kentucky State Police to investigate the incident.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

... “I thought it was totally clear,” she said. “I am a gun owner. It happens.”

Well, I too am a gun owner, and it seems to me highly probable that her gun was a semi-automatic pistol of some kind. If my assumption is true, then it also seems highly probably that she was wandering around with a round "up the pipe." Stupid.

Clearly, if one was limited to NON-semi-automatic weapons, much less of this crap would occur, as unloading a revolver has many fewer natural hazards. If she owned a revolver, it wouldn't have "just happened."

As a gun owner, I would favor outlawing all semi-auto weapons, and requiring proper, locked storage of all weapons. And then, if "accidents" happened, such as a kid picking up a pistol from Dad's bedside table, Dad would get to go to jail.

Originally Posted by TnT

Well, I too am a gun owner, and it seems to me highly probable that her gun was a semi-automatic pistol of some kind. If my assumption is true, then it also seems highly probably that she was wandering around with a round "up the pipe." Stupid.

Clearly, if one was limited to NON-semi-automatic weapons, much less of this crap would occur, as unloading a revolver has many fewer natural hazards. If she owned a revolver, it wouldn't have "just happened."

As a gun owner, I would favor outlawing all semi-auto weapons, and requiring proper, locked storage of all weapons. And then, if "accidents" happened, such as a kid picking up a pistol from Dad's bedside table, Dad would get to go to jail.

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.

A "well regulated militia" would be a militia with lots of regulations and the training to follow said regulations. The founding fathers were not idiots. Congress has an explicit power to specify the regulation and training of the militia. The states are responsible for appointing officers and implementing the training and regulation. The militia was and remains all males of military age. That might have to change in this more gender equal age.

It's my opinion that one could regulate gun ownership quite nicely with the Constitution as written. It's just that the major parties are so divided that they couldn't agree on what the militia is or how it should properly be regulated. Meanwhile, the NRA and like organizations are all gung ho for the rights of those who keep and bear arms, but might wish to disregard the duties thought important when the Constitution was written.

Originally Posted by B Butler

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.

A "well regulated militia" would be a militia with lots of regulations and the training to follow said regulations. The founding fathers were not idiots. Congress has an explicit power to specify the regulation and training of the militia. The states are responsible for appointing officers and implementing the training and regulation. The militia was and remains all males of military age. That might have to change in this more gender equal age.

The Founding Fathers were not fools or anarchists. They did not intend for brigands to get firearms. The States got the right to form militias (basically what they had during the Revolutionary War) to suppress pirates, slave revolts, and Indian attacks (all of which no longer have relevance). The "well-regulated" part implies that those whom a 'well-regulated militia' would reject for moral turpitude had no right to bear arms.

The right to bear arms is a collective right for State and local governments, and not a personal right. State governments can apparently regulate what weapons are permissible and can dictate who gets them, how they may or must be stored, and how they are to be disposed of. I am fully satisfied that if one has no right to purchase a firearm in New York one has no inherent right to buy one in Virginia and transport it to New York.

...Does anyone have a problem with the right to bear arms having a non-discrimination clause attached? Or a federal prohibition against bringing firearms into a State in violation of the law of such a State?

It's my opinion that one could regulate gun ownership quite nicely with the Constitution as written. It's just that the major parties are so divided that they couldn't agree on what the militia is or how it should properly be regulated. Meanwhile, the NRA and like organizations are all gung ho for the rights of those who keep and bear arms, but might wish to disregard the duties thought important when the Constitution was written.

The Second Amendment is badly written by the standard of other laws that grant citizenship or the vote permit the sale of alcoholic beverages.

What do you mean, they no longer apply to slave revolts, asks the working population?

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

What do you mean, they no longer apply to slave revolts, asks the working population?

It isn't quite slavery unless the masters can sell (antebellum South) or shoot (Third Reich) their employees.

Working people are getting cheated out of their lives.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It isn't quite slavery unless the masters can sell (antebellum South) or shoot (Third Reich) their employees.

Working people are getting cheated out of their lives.

Indentured servitude. Most supporters of wide 2nd Amendment rights don't realized how badly they've been used.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The Founding Fathers were not fools or anarchists. They did not intend for brigands to get firearms. The States got the right to form militias (basically what they had during the Revolutionary War) to suppress pirates, slave revolts, and Indian attacks (all of which no longer have relevance). The "well-regulated" part implies that those whom a 'well-regulated militia' would reject for moral turpitude had no right to bear arms.

The Constitution grants the Congress the ability to call up the militia to repel invasions, suppress insurrections and to enforce the law. The first two are pretty much obsolete, or at least are not controversial at this moment. The third? At the time the Constitution was written, there were very few police forces. The militia was often the mechanism for enforcing the law. Each adult male of military age was as responsible for enforcing the law as any other. This was a duty as well as a right and privilege.

The attitude of the people has changed at a deep core level. Many believe it is the duty of the government to protect them, while they themselves have no obligation to defend their communities. There is a strong disconnect between how many feel about the law and the law itself.

Yes, given due process as described in the rest of the Bill of Rights, one can declare an individual a felon and in the process revoke the right to keep and bear arms. One cannot declare that another individual's morals are not comparable with one's own and on that basis revoke a guaranteed right.

While we might agree that the founding fathers were not idiots, they were bigots. Depending on race, nationality, gender, ownership of property and similar factors, some individuals were a lot more equal than others. That should not be the case today.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The right to bear arms is a collective right for State and local governments, and not a personal right. State governments can apparently regulate what weapons are permissible and can dictate who gets them, how they may or must be stored, and how they are to be disposed of. I am fully satisfied that if one has no right to purchase a firearm in New York one has no inherent right to buy one in Virginia and transport it to New York.

...Does anyone have a problem with the right to bear arms having a non-discrimination clause attached? Or a federal prohibition against bringing firearms into a State in violation of the law of such a State?

I would not think a non-discrimination clause necessary. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, the 2nd guarantees an individual right. If one was born in the US or has otherwise become a citizen as per the XIVth, it is one of the privileges and immunities.

If a law prohibits a US citizen from keeping and bearing arms as he crosses a a state border, that law is unconstitutional. It violates an individual right. As a collective states right interpretation of the 2nd has been in place for decades, the above is more a personal opinion than a reflection of current law enforcement policy, but if one has a right to keep and bear arms, it does not go away when one crosses a state border.

Mind you, it might very well be possible to regulate interstate commerce without systematically denying a guaranteed right.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The Second Amendment is badly written by the standard of other laws that grant citizenship or the vote permit the sale of alcoholic beverages.

During the Jim Crow era, virtually the entire Bill of Rights was nullified. The people in the south wanted to deny black rights. Majorities on the Supreme Court found really perverse readings of perfectly clear laws in order to gratify Jim Crow. The collective rights interpretation of the 2nd is an example. The phrase "right of the People" is used to indicate an individual right, not a power of the state government. (In the legal language of the times, governments did not have rights. They had powers.) Reading the 2nd otherwise is perverse.

It is not that the 2nd was poorly written, it is that the true intended reading is in conflict with your values.

I don't think that this is what the founders had in mind wrt the 2nd:

http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/24...#axzz2qJOQx9kk

Originally Posted by Aramea

I don't think that this is what the founders had in mind wrt the 2nd:

http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/24...#axzz2qJOQx9kk

Likely not, and yet Burr shot Hamilton, and bunches of Hatfields exchanged fire with McCoys. Our era doesn't have a monopoly on emotion, anger or lack of control, nor can they be legislated out of existence.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Likely not, and yet Burr shot Hamilton, and bunches of Hatfields exchanged fire with McCoys. Our era doesn't have a monopoly on emotion, anger or lack of control, nor can they be legislated out of existence.

Correct. What we want is the big fat mouths smacked down, humbling them. Example: Every time they get an erection from having weapons fantasies, their balls get shot off. That might do, for a start. Then, the mandatory attendance at funerals for the political enablers, at bayonet point.

Originally Posted by TnT

If my assumption is true, then it also seems highly probably that she was wandering around with a round "up the pipe." Stupid.

How else would you carry a pistol? You aren't seriously suggesting that a carry pistol shouldn't have a round chambered are you? Carrying a semi-auto pistol un-chambered sort of defeats the purpose of carrying in the first place (that it is ready to use immediately when needed). When I'm carrying my pistol I can guarantee you that it is carried ready to fire. Hell my pistol doesn't even have a safety. Provided you know what you are doing, you don't need one. If you are in a situation where you need to pull your pistol to save your life, pretty much the last thing you ever want to have to do is first rack a round into the chamber and then switch off a safety (and do all of this under pressure). Seconds can and do count.

Originally Posted by TnT

Clearly, if one was limited to NON-semi-automatic weapons, much less of this crap would occur, as unloading a revolver has many fewer natural hazards. If she owned a revolver, it wouldn't have "just happened."

I disagree. These things don't "just happen" even with a semi-auto pistol; She was negligent, plain and simple. There is a very clear method for safely unloading a pistol. She clearly didn't follow it. Firearms (including semi-auto) don't just go off by themselves unless they are severely malfunctioning.

Originally Posted by TnT

As a gun owner, I would favor outlawing all semi-auto weapons, and requiring proper, locked storage of all weapons. And then, if "accidents" happened, such as a kid picking up a pistol from Dad's bedside table, Dad would get to go to jail.

How do you propose these laws be enforced?

Can someone explain what it is they're owning in the 21st century that isn't shooting at semi-auto or a comparable rate of fire in a pistol format? Black powder is fun for a lark, and pump and lever actions are great for shotguns. Sometimes bolt action on rifles is nice... but a bolt action carbine or pistol is silly in concept. I'm not a big self defense guy. I don't think that having guns makes a person safer. That said, I think this idea that reverting to Luddite technology is a ridiculous concept. All those methods I mentioned can be fired at semi automatic rates with little training or practice.

I mean, it's a laughable idea that we should ban a century old technology, especially when violence is down nation wide despite it's proliferation.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

Correct. What we want is the big fat mouths smacked down, humbling them. Example: Every time they get an erection from having weapons fantasies, their balls get shot off. That might do, for a start. Then, the mandatory attendance at funerals for the political enablers, at bayonet point.

This sounds like a weapons fantasy to me.

You go first.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

How else would you carry a pistol? You aren't seriously suggesting that a carry pistol shouldn't have a round chambered are you? ... Seconds can and do count.

Yes, I'm seriously suggesting that. I own a fine Kimber .45 that I carry when I'm out in the wilderness backpacking, and when I'm out hunting. Of course I don't hunt with the .45; I also have either a rifle or shotgun for that. And I can't imagine a circumstance, 99.9% of the time when a "quick draw" would be required. When I review the stuff that happens in this city where the police find it necessary to shoot someone, it's clear to me that there's more than enough time to jack a shell into a semi-auto pistol virtually every time it comes up.

If "cowboy quick draw" is essential, then it seems to me that everything is up for grabs. I think I get it why concealed carry folks think like you do, but as one who is trained in science, I tend to think in terms of probabilities, and the probability of me needing my Kimber to be cocked, in my pocket, with one up the pipe, to be vanishingly small. And, the probability of me hurting myself or someone else needlessly, goes up a lot. Interestingly, even in the Gabby Giffords shooting in AZ, the three CCW guys on the scene there found it impractical to shoot the perp. Instead, they disarmed him. So I guess I'm not convinced by your "seconds count" concept. Sure, it's "possible." Anything is "possible." But probable? No. Probable enough to substantially increase one's own danger and those around him? No.

And ... to go back to my other point ... If one carried a revolver, one wouldn't have to worry about any of this, would one?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

I disagree. These things don't "just happen" even with a semi-auto pistol; She was negligent, plain and simple. There is a very clear method for safely unloading a pistol. She clearly didn't follow it. Firearms (including semi-auto) don't just go off by themselves unless they are severely malfunctioning.

I agree with you on this. She was negligent.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

How do you propose these laws be enforced?

Clearly, my whole orginal post borders on fantasy. In the USA, nothing is going to change our culture in the foreseeable future. We have always been a gun society, we continue to be, and very likely will always be.

I've always been a Rocky Mountain westerner, and guns are simply embedded in that sub-culture. My sense is that the mid-west is much the same what with pheasant hunting, migratory bird hunting, etc. I'm not so sure about the large cities on the coasts, as I've not spent much time there. Hunting itself has declined a lot in my lifetime, so there are fewer and fewer of us, and I guess fewer hunters to advocate for the hunters' perspective. Yet it seems that there are more and more folks who believe that any minute, a gang of crazies are going to kick down their front door and that a Bushmaster will be required to defend the family. I know that my perspective, as a hunter and outdoorsman is very different from the "personal protection" crowd that advocates universal CCW and whatnot.

Enforcing laws requires the cooperation of the populace. Without passing some sort of tipping point, there's just not enough support to enforce sensible regulations around guns. We've gone down the polarization road too far.

Explain this:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...l#.UtWu4PRDvzg

I started shooting at age five. By the time I turned 12, my parents gave me an NRA Life Membership. I’ve studied, written and taught about firearms law and the Bill of Rights since the 1960s, helping to enact concealed-carry laws in states across the country and authoring numerous other pieces of pro-firearms legislation. I’m a competitive shooter who’s hunted on five continents, and I founded a 150-acre shooting park in my home state of Illinois. All told, I’ve written more than 1,700 articles for firearms publications over the last four decades, as well as hosting and producing several firearms television programs.


Yet today I am labeled a “gun control collaborator,” a “Bloomberg supporter” and a “modern-day Benedict Arnold”—not to mention a “decrepit, mentally defunct self-important old fart.” And on Nov. 6, 2013, my 37-year career as a firearms journalist came to an abrupt end.


Why? Because I wrote an 800-word column for Guns & Ammo magazine exploring the distinction between regulation and infringement as it applies to constitutional rights. As discussions of the Second Amendment go, the column was innocuous. I did not call for any new regulations, but merely noted the Second Amendment was already regulated and that such regulations had been validated even in recent Supreme Court and federal appeals court rulings affirming an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. “Way too many gun owners seem to believeany regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement,” I wrote. “The fact is, all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

Explain this:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...l#.UtWu4PRDvzg

I started shooting at age five. By the time I turned 12, my parents gave me an NRA Life Membership. I’ve studied, written and taught about firearms law and the Bill of Rights since the 1960s, helping to enact concealed-carry laws in states across the country and authoring numerous other pieces of pro-firearms legislation. I’m a competitive shooter who’s hunted on five continents, and I founded a 150-acre shooting park in my home state of Illinois. All told, I’ve written more than 1,700 articles for firearms publications over the last four decades, as well as hosting and producing several firearms television programs.


Yet today I am labeled a “gun control collaborator,” a “Bloomberg supporter” and a “modern-day Benedict Arnold”—not to mention a “decrepit, mentally defunct self-important old fart.” And on Nov. 6, 2013, my 37-year career as a firearms journalist came to an abrupt end.


Why? Because I wrote an 800-word column for Guns & Ammo magazine exploring the distinction between regulation and infringement as it applies to constitutional rights. As discussions of the Second Amendment go, the column was innocuous. I did not call for any new regulations, but merely noted the Second Amendment was already regulated and that such regulations had been validated even in recent Supreme Court and federal appeals court rulings affirming an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. “Way too many gun owners seem to believeany regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement,” I wrote. “The fact is, all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”

Yup. What I said. The train left the station a long, long time ago. And it's not coming back.

Originally Posted by TnT

Yup. What I said. The train left the station a long, long time ago. And it's not coming back.

Then all that is left is to count the dead, and the costs. Which is illegal. Ask M&L. Is it too much to ask the crazies to stop being sore *winners*? I'm guessing "yes".

Butler: You win. OK, we'll cut it down to the forced attendance at funerals of the victims.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

Then all that is left is to count the dead, and the costs. Which is illegal.

Consider the automobile wreck carnage over the years. About the same order of magnitude as gunshot deaths. Though the number of miles per capita has skyrocketed over the last four or five decades, we have agreed as a society, to insist on seatbelts, air-bags, collision-absorbing body parts, all manner of safety devices.

As a result, even the total number of deaths has plummeted, and of course the deaths per mile driven even more.

We, as a society, certainly are attached to our cars, perhaps more than any other industrialized country, and yet we managed to work our way through many sensible innovations to make driving much, much safer.

What in the world do you suppose is the matter with us, that we are so opposed to regulating another mechanical device that we are emotionally attached to? And, it doesn't have even close to the same utility to us as a society. Why are we so enamoured of our guns?

I could not have stated it better, Tim.

Originally Posted by TnT

Consider the automobile wreck carnage over the years. About the same order of magnitude as gunshot deaths. Though the number of miles per capita has skyrocketed over the last four or five decades, we have agreed as a society, to insist on seatbelts, air-bags, collision-absorbing body parts, all manner of safety devices.

As a result, even the total number of deaths has plummeted, and of course the deaths per mile driven even more.

We, as a society, certainly are attached to our cars, perhaps more than any other industrialized country, and yet we managed to work our way through many sensible innovations to make driving much, much safer.

What in the world do you suppose is the matter with us, that we are so opposed to regulating another mechanical device that we are emotionally attached to? And, it doesn't have even close to the same utility to us as a society. Why are we so enamoured of our guns?

Because the laws that people are trying to push aren't good laws. Just because there's problems doesn't mean the advocated solutions are any good. For instance, nobody had made it a law that governor springs be installed in all cars. That would be a bad law. Most people are finding that traffic monitoring by camera is quite terrible and frought with logistical problems.

Also, we've found that when we make things safer we tend to take larger risks. That's great when those risks build to something better, not so much when it causes you to do something stupid. You see this with speed bumps all the time. People slow down for speed bumps, but gun it in between. Meanwhile shared space designs are actually showing reductions in accidents. Not all laws are good laws, and frankly I could do without the majority of the new laws and features that risen up within the past 20 or 30 years.