Can someone please tell Instapundit why heavily black neighborhoods might not want guns running like water through them? In DC, if a gun ban were put up to a vote, it would pass pretty overwhelmingly. I can’t imagine why that might be.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Glenn Reynolds Can’t Imagine Why Black Neighborhoods Don’t Want Tons Of Guns Around Them
March 26th, 2009
71 Comments
Hey Glen, why not landmines? What a douche.
Your entry is really odd. You almost make it seem like you’re arguing for stronger gun control in heavily black neighborhoods because black people are always killing each other. Of course, such social concerns have nothing to do with gun control or lack thereof because if criminals want to commit crimes, gun control won’t stop them. But I think you’re smart enough to understand that. I can’t say the same thing for those at Brady and the NAACP however.
Considering that Washington DC has had the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, it should essentially be crime free yet 2 years ago, there were more gun-related homicides in the district than there was before the ban was put in place over 30 years ago. Yet if you look at a state like Vermont, it has virtually no restrictions and is still one of the safest states in the country. It seems freedom isn’t as dangerous as some make it out to be.
You almost make it seem like you’re arguing for stronger gun control in heavily black neighborhoods because black people are always killing each other.
Don’t blame your lack of reading comprehension on me. Black Americans, as most rational people know, are averse to gun culture because the black community has been hit so hard by rampant gun violence. It’s one thing for a conservative in an upper middle class neighborhood with low crime to talk shit about guns, its another when its a low income black family who has experienced gun crime firsthand.
Considering that Washington DC has had the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, it should essentially be crime free yet 2 years ago, there were more gun-related homicides in the district than there was before the ban was put in place over 30 years ago.
Because they can go a few inches down the street over the border to Virginia for some gun dealer to sell them a gun like it was candy.
And the economic state of Vermont is not comparable to Virginia. And Vermont’s got representation in congress to look out for them.
Yet if you look at a state like Vermont,
Because except for the gun laws, Vermont and DC are so much alike?
Hmm… anyone ever notice that the areas with the strictest gun control laws have the highest violent crime rates, while those with the laxest gun control laws have the lowest?
It’s almost like the laws tend to be obeyed mainly by those who are initially inclined to obey the laws, while those who are already inclined to disobey laws flock to the areas where they know that the people are mostly defenseless.
Nah. Can’t be THAT.
J.
Or it could be that urban areas will always have strict gun control laws for perfectly sane reasons, but will always have hive violent crime because guess what, a lot of people including many in poverty in a small area.
On the other hand, those with the loosest gun control laws (ie. Bumfuck, Montana) will have little violent crime because it’s five miles to the next bleepin’ house _or_ the town is about 500 people and it’s hard to rob someone when they know your truck or car by sight.
And as a final side note. Euorpe + Japan have much stricter gunc control laws and shockingly, also much lower murder rates. Despite being more urbanized than the US overall.
Hmm… anyone ever notice that the areas with the strictest gun control laws have the highest violent crime rates, while those with the laxest gun control laws have the lowest?
Hmm… anyone ever notice that the people who take the most medicines have the most serious diseases, while those who take the least medicine are generally more healthy? Almost makes you think that medicines cause diseases… hmmm?
“Straw purchases” (guns bought by someone with a clean record in Virginia, then sold to criminals in DC) are still common. (George Pelicanos wrote a great novel about the phenomenon.) At the end of the day, if the District wants to enact a hand-gun ban and the people vote for it, then it should stand.
Locality and States’ rights? Those things Republicans like to talk so much about? They don’t give a damn if it’s a majority-black population, and they’re happy to let Congressional Mandate over-ride the will of the people.
That said, it’s a complicated issue. Everybody knows it’s easy to get a hand-gun in DC. WATB like Jay and Jay, living in rural areas, can’t be bothered the huge differences in economics and culture between Armpit, Vermont and the District.
At least it’s not the 80’s though. Man, that was a horrible time for my hometown re: gun violence.
Black Americans, as most rational people know, are averse to gun culture because the black community has been hit so hard by rampant gun violence.
Which has NOTHING at all to do with gun control. You keep forgetting that little important detail.
It’s one thing for a conservative in an upper middle class neighborhood with low crime to talk shit about guns, its another when its a low income black family who has experienced gun crime firsthand.
Actually, its talking “shit” about those pesky things called RIGHTS. You know, the kind left-wingers care about (not liberals because classic liberals support the 2nd amendment) when they talk about every amendment in the constitution…except of course for number 2 as left-wingers are happy to drop a number 2 right on that part of the document.
Because they can go a few inches down the street over the border to Virginia for some gun dealer to sell them a gun like it was candy.
Yeah, right after they pass a background check of course. So those people are then going out and breaking state and federal laws by selling them to others illegally. You see, if the NAACP and those running Brady would remove their heads from their asses on this issue, they’d be pushing legislators to put more emphasis on clamping down on those who actually you know….break the law…and not wasting time making implementing yet another layer of gun control that won’t do crap to curb crime.
And the economic state of Vermont is not comparable to Virginia.
The economic state? I thought this had to do with gun control?
And Vermont’s got representation in congress to look out for them.
And that has to do with anything how exactly? Vermont’s representation in Congress has nothing to do with the STATE gun laws dude.
Because except for the gun laws, Vermont and DC are so much alike?
Errr…that’s the comparison we’re making chief. Gun laws. One with basically no restrictions and yet has low crime. The other with very stringent gun control laws and high crime.
At the end of the day, if the District wants to enact a hand-gun ban and the people vote for it, then it should stand.
The Supreme Court decided in The District of Columbia v. Heller that they can’t enact a handgun ban.
Locality and States’ rights? Those things Republicans like to talk so much about? They don’t give a damn if it’s a majority-black population, and they’re happy to let Congressional Mandate over-ride the will of the people.
Guess what Jaim? There’s this thing called THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION that gives Congress the authority “to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District” which in this case is the District of Columbia. Or Washington DC as it is know.
WATB like Jay and Jay, living in rural areas, can’t be bothered the huge differences in economics and culture between Armpit, Vermont and the District.
Once again we delve into the social and economic aspects. Which is it? Gun laws or socioeconomics? If you want to say it’s socioeconomics fine. At least admit at that point more gun control laws is not a solution.
Cons love guns because they don’t trust the police. They think the officer walking the beat has direct instructions from the Bilderberg meeting to put them in FEMA camps
The economic state? I thought this had to do with gun control?
Jesus. This is why Michelle Bachman gets elected.
States should generally have the right to enact their own laws. The District is obviously a special (and complex) case. It’s been a while since I read Heller, but the SCOTUS wasn’t saying states don’t have right to make their own laws (they do), but that the district isn’t a state. That takes nothing away from my original argument.
But I do love how Republicans are all for states’ rights as long as they don’t enact something that bothers them — assisted suicide in Oregon, medical pot in California, etc.
And yes, gun violence has a hell of a lot to do with economics. I realize you’re not much a book-reader Jay, but you should try it some time.
Hmm… anyone ever notice that the areas with the strictest gun control laws have the highest violent crime rates, while those with the laxest gun control laws have the lowest?
Let’s see, Iraq is the most heavily armed modern society, followed closely by Afghanistan, so let’s compare their crime rates with Japan, which has restrictive gun laws…
You’re right. Japan is anarchy, while Iraq and Afghanistan are free, democratic societies. I guess you showed us.
BTW, why don’t YOU own a gun? Scared? Too cheap? Don’t you want to help protect society?
Um…as been pointed out several times, nothing “illegal” is happening w/ gun sales in Virginia. Person A sends Person B (usually a woman or girl) to Virginia to buy a gun. She has a clean record, so she gets the gun. Person B hands Person A the gun. Boom.
The purchase in VA isn’t illegal, but the re-sale in DC is.
Jaim said:
At the end of the day, if the District wants to enact a hand-gun ban and the people vote for it, then it should stand.
Jaim, do you have the same philosophy when it comes to cases like, say, gay marriage in California? You know, where a majority of the people voted to ban it?
Gun ownership has its own specific Constitutional amendment. Those who argue marriage as a Constitutional right have to engage in some fascinating linguistic gymnastics to justify it.
jr babbled:
Cons love guns because they don’t trust the police. They think the officer walking the beat has direct instructions from the Bilderberg meeting to put them in FEMA camps
No, most people understand the truth of the statement: “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” Most people tend to respect and appreciate the police, but know they have their limitations.
As far as “cons” not trusting the police, and the implication that the “libs” do, I bring up one example: generally, on which side did each political spectrum break over the Rodney King case? One side was willing to give the police the benefit of the doubt, while the other was all too willing to condemn from the outset.
J. (Who resides in East Bumfuck, NH, and resents the slur of saying he’s from Armpit, VT)
“Jaim, do you have the same philosophy when it comes to cases like, say, gay marriage in California? You know, where a majority of the people voted to ban it?”
Yes. Unlike you, I’m consistent in my political beliefs. For example, I would never accept tax-payer provided socialized health-care for myself or a member of my family and then excoriate the idea of socialized health-care. I mean, you’d have to be a completely hypocritical douche-nozzle to do something like that, no? I think states are moving towards gay marriage, but it’s going to be a gradual evolution, not unlike the civil rights movement.
“Gun ownership has its own specific Constitutional amendment.”
Yes, the second amendment of the Bill of Rights: “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.”
Hmm, “A well regulated Militia” has a right to weapons, but not so much Jay the Wingnut. (IMO, I support the right of individuals to own guns, as long as they’re mentally stable and don’t have a criminal background. DC is a highly specific case however, being the former “murder capitol” of America. If the people there want to ban hand-guns, they should do so.)
Like I said, I’m a big fan of states having the right to enact their own laws except for extreme examples like slavery. There are times when the Fed should be allowed to step in and over-rule the state, but the DC handgun ban was not one of them. DC obviously isn’t a state, and that’s a whole other debate I’m not in the mood to have right now.
“douche-nozzle?” Gee, misogynistic much?
The principle here, Jaim, is whether or not a simple majority vote can override the minority’s Constitutional rights. The latest Supreme Court ruling has affirmed that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, not a “collective” right.
And that is entirely consistent with the wording of the 2nd Amendment — linguistically, it is equally valid to interpret the first clause as limiting (as you do) as exhortatory (as I do). Further, contextually, nowhere else in the Bill of Rights does “the people” refer to a collective and not an individual right.
In California, the argument against Proposition 8 was that it was an attempt to deprive individuals of their Constitutional right — said right being derived through some very creative interpretations of the Constitution. There, the measure passed with a healthy majority.
In DC, though, you’re arguing that a simple majority vote ought to override a Constitutional right.
Try some new arguments, moron. “Majority rule can override the Constitution” and “the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to individuals” have been thoroughly debunked.
J.
In California, the argument against Proposition 8 was that it was an attempt to deprive individuals of their Constitutional right
California Constitution, classic liberal.
Get it right, don’t distort anti-prop 8 arguments in the service of gun and bible clinging, learn about the topic before you open your mouth.
People’s right to defend themselves isn’t subject to a public vote. Besides, it never stops at guns. In some countries, they’ve started taking away stun guns and pepper spray. That causes the rape rate to skyrocket.
I’d be hard pressed to think of any policy more anti-female than to ban the very things that give them a chance when confronted with a violent male assailant.
Back to the topic at hand…
So, the argument is that if we get rid of the legal guns, the illegal guns will go away, too?
Under that principle, why don’t we get rid of the drug problem by outlawing pharmacies?
J.
I’m pretty pro-gun rights, but I’m also pretty pro-federalism. I see no reason cities/towns shouldn’t be allowed to regulate their own backyards. It’d make a patchwork, sure, but people should be allowed to live how they want, be that around legal guns or not.
It almost sounds like Ollie is making the arguement that black Americans neither understand nor deserve the same Constitutional rights as thier less violent prone and criminally minded fellow Americans. Jaime seems to think that our Constitution is a neighborhood option. Why should an American give up a single Constitutional right because some groups in our society are unable to behave in a responsible fashion?
Jesus. This is why Michelle Bachman gets elected.
Oh boy. Another zinger from Comic-Strip Man.
Zzzz.
Moving on…
The District is obviously a special (and complex) case. It’s been a while since I read Heller, but the SCOTUS wasn’t saying states don’t have right to make their own laws (they do), but that the district isn’t a state. That takes nothing away from my original argument.
Your original argument is flawed. The central case in Heller revolved around DC’s law that to own a handgun in DC required the handgun to be registered. DC banned the registration of handguns in 1976 which was essentially a de-fact handgun ban (those who registered handguns prior to that were exempt). The Supreme Court struck that law down, ruling it was unconstitutional. Many localities across the country in the wake of the Heller decision, rather than being subject to costly litigation, removed their own similar bans. Chicago has remained a holdout, but that’s not surprising. To Chicago politicians (almost exclusively Democrats) “rule of law” to them means “Whatever the fuck we want it to mean.”
But I do love how Republicans are all for states’ rights as long as they don’t enact something that bothers them — assisted suicide in Oregon, medical pot in California, etc.
There you go again. Everything fits neatly into the stereotypical little dossier for which you apply to all conservatives/Republicans. For the record, I do not support assisted suicide, but don’t support a federal ban. Also, I support the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Barack Obama doesn’t. I guess he’s a Republican.
And yes, gun violence has a hell of a lot to do with economics. I realize you’re not much a book-reader Jay, but you should try it some time.
Read for content. I didn’t say it didn’t have anything to do with economics. But you guys can’t seem to make up your minds. One second you’re talking about gun laws and the next you’re talking about economics. If your position is that gun violence is largely socioeconomic, then why is the public debate about more gun laws?
BTW, why don’t YOU own a gun? Scared? Too cheap? Don’t you want to help protect society?
Nice heap of stupid here. Such pretzel logic would have one believe they need to be arrested first in order to support the principle of due process.
I see no reason cities/towns shouldn’t be allowed to regulate their own backyards.
So then you’d have no problem with cities/towns passing laws that for example, ban abortion outright?
Parthenon, as a general rule, I agree with you. But the Constitution has a Supremacy clause — it is the highest law in the land, and no state or locality can violate or contradict it.
I understand that became kind of a big issue back in the 50’s and 60’s with certain other civil rights…
J.
So then you’d have no problem with cities/towns passing laws that for example, ban abortion outright?
I can ALMOST see your point. Guns have a possibility of harming your neighbors and becoming an extremely public choice, whereas an abortion is strictly a private choice can’t be a danger to your neighbors.
Though I haven’t seen any data in years as to how much damage legal guns cause.
But the Constitution has a Supremacy clause — it is the highest law in the land, and no state or locality can violate or contradict it.
And the SCOTUS agrees w/ you, clearly. I’m not certain I agree the handgun ban was contrary to the 2nd amendment, but I’m no lawyer.
“So, the argument is that if we get rid of the legal guns, the illegal guns will go away, too?”
Nobody made this argument.
Errr…that’s the comparison we’re making chief. Gun laws. One with basically no restrictions and yet has low crime. The other with very stringent gun control laws and high crime.
And you can’t see any other factors that might make your comparison a little more complicated than that?
That doesn’t leave us with many ways to estimate your truthfulness.
Hey Glen, why not landmines? What a douche.
Ssh. Don’t give him any ideas.
And the economic state of Vermont is not comparable to Virginia.
There is virtually nothing comparable in re Vermont and Virginia.
Once again we delve into the social and economic aspects. Which is it? Gun laws or socioeconomics?
This is the basic flaw in the Conservative movement. They cannot see connections or correlations.
“douche-nozzle?” Gee, misogynistic much?
How is a douche nozzle misogynistic? It’s an actual thing. Unless your calling noun-ism.
Hmm, “A well regulated Militia” has a right to weapons, but not so much Jay the Wingnut.
Well, okay. In keeping with the letter of the 2nd Amendment, I propose that any and all gun owners be required to sign up or at least be on record with their state’s National Guard, to be called upon to defend their state in the event of invasion and/or armed insurrection by enemies either foreign or domestic.
Any objections?
Amused Observer
March 27, 2009 at 8:24 am
Oh christ, look who stumbled in. You out on parole, AO?
Your concern is well noted. Medical concerns have been formost on my mind. I have been studying our healthcare system up close and personal. Interesting insights, upon closer examination it appears to function much better than reported. It is unclear how involving the typical work ethics, effiency, and dedication to the job of public sector workers will yield a higher quality lower cost product.
And you can’t see any other factors that might make your comparison a little more complicated than that?
Yes, I do and that’s what people like Oliver and company don’t want to be bothered with.
School shooting? Blame gun laws.
High crime in DC? Blame gun laws.
Workplace shooting? Blame gun laws.
Cartel violence on Mexican border? Blame US gun laws.
And of course the NRA is thrown into the mix all of the time as well.
It’s the same knee-jerk reaction every time. It’s funny then when I point out how a state like Vermont with very little crime has the fewest restrictions of any state in the USA with regard to guns that everybody is suddenly like, “Oh it’s more than that!” Well no shit.
It’s just the “more than that” is never touted in the wake of a tragic shooting or when discussing gun violence in the inner city. The instant reaction is to lament the lack of more gun control. That’s why we have a bunch of idiotic mayors filing stupid lawsuits against gun manufacturers as if they are somehow to blame and dolts like Eric Holder floating the return of the completely useless “assault weapons” ban.
The instant reaction is to lament the lack of more gun control.
Because in many cases its an immediate thing that can be done versus the long term underlying causes that also need to be addressed. One change in law can’t solve poverty and long term neglect but it can often lead to the streets not being flooded with guns. And its also a knee jerk reaction from some like myself because some con inevitably says essentially “well, if they had all been armed to the teeth, this might not ever have happened” or some other form of gun nuttery.
The instant reaction is to lament the lack of more gun control.
C’mon. You can’t compare population density of Montpelier with West Baltimore. In one place, more gun control would be superfluous and unnecessary. In the other, it would not.
One change in law can’t solve poverty and long term neglect but it can often lead to the streets not being flooded with guns.
Yeah, but Oliver, folks like Jay don’t see a connection. Same with unplanned pregnancies. It’s all “personal responsibility” and shit.
dolts like Eric Holder floating the return of the completely useless “assault weapons” ban.
Explain to me why anyone living in a large metropolitan city NEEDS an AK-47. Please.
Explain to me why anyone living in a large metropolitan city NEEDS an AK-47. Please.
Duros, may I introduce you to what I like to call “The BIFFLI principle?”
If something is a Constitutional right, then it needs no justifying. The only necessary response to a request as to why someone chooses to exercise a Constitutional right should be “Because I Fucking Feel Like It.”
That’s all that’s needed for a Constitutional right.
As to the “douche-nozzle,” it’s simple: a feminine hygiene product was being used as an insult. Therefore, it’s no great stretch to comprehend what the speaker considers an insult — something tied in to feminine hygiene.
That’s why I use the old standards — asshole, fuckwit, asswipe, pig-fucker, and the like. It keeps things simple.
J.
pig-fucker
I take offense, sah. That is anti-porcine!
The only necessary response to a request as to why someone chooses to exercise a Constitutional right should be “Because I Fucking Feel Like It.”
So is that the Libertarian stance? Like I said, you want to go shooting AKs or RPGs in your backyard, don’t be surprised when your neighbor shoots back.
Assault rifles have no place in polite society. Or rude society for that matter.
Jay Tea, do you approve of me owning live hand grenades? How about bunker-busting missiles? How about a nuclear fucking warhead? Or maybe weaponized anthrax?
Why do I need these things? Why, because I fucking feel like it!
I’d like to know where the line is, and why it is where it is.
Why is is that our urban liberal fellow americans have no grasp of our common history, our Republican form of government, or our Constitution? An erosion of one liberty is an erosion of all liberties.
Amused Observer: “Why is is that our urban liberal fellow americans have no grasp of our common history, our Republican form of government, or our Constitution? An erosion of one liberty is an erosion of all liberties.”
Your irony meter is broken again.
Like I said, you want to go shooting AKs or RPGs in your backyard, don’t be surprised when your neighbor shoots back.
But… but… the neighbor isn’t armed! He used to own a gun, but he turned it in when it was banned! That’s why it’s safe for me to fire off my AK-47!
Nice straw men. Fully automatic weapons are, for all intents and purposes, banned. Grenades, missiles, and warheads are regulated as explosives, not firearms. Weaponized anthrax is also a controlled substance.
I can pretty much live with the line the way it is. I don’t agree with all current gun laws, but I’ll accept them.
New laws? I don’t see the need. Most of the people committing gun crimes are already breaking laws. New laws are extremely unlikely to discourage them; they only seem to affect those who are already obeying the laws.
Except, of course, for certain types like liberal columnists in DC who argue for gun control, then get caught shooting a teenaged tresspasser with an illegal gun…
J.
LOL,
Start with a junior high school class on civics and as your understanding and knowledge base grow, work your way through the harder parts.
Tea, that’s all well and good. I generally accept your position on this. I wasn’t setting up a strawman in the slightest – I was merely illustrating that there’s a line somewhere, and people have differing opinions on the nature of that line. If you accept that the Constitution protects the right to bear arms, you still need to clarify what “arms” you’re talking about. Nuclear arms, for example. And we do regulate those. However, if someone wants to claim that semi-automatic weapons belong in the same class (with respect to regulation) as nuclear/biological/chemical arms, I don’t see it as being ludicrous on its face. The classifications you bring up – explosives, controlled substances, etc. – are constructs that we’ve created that don’t change the fundamental nature of these items – they ARE still arms, just quantitatively different from firearms.
It’s kinda like my argument with my extremely conservative uncle. He argues that government should only spend money on items for the public good, which he defines as ONLY roads, public schools, and the military. I agree with his premise but not with his specifics – I extend the notion of the public good to include scientific research, social programs, etc.
AO, what kind of non-sequitur is that? Where in my response to you did I cast doubt on my understanding of basic civics?
You’re a hopelessly retarded individual. Go DIAF.
Why is is that our urban liberal fellow americans have no grasp of our common history, our Republican form of government, or our Constitution?
Why is it that so many conservatives who love guns never serve in the military? After my hitch in the Army (patriotic service of the sort you wouldn’t understand) I am over any desire to pull triggers and hear things go boom. I have not fired a weapon since I left the service on February 15, 1968. I figure I also have a constitutional right NOT to own a firearm.
You like guns, go to Iraq where everyone has one, and tell me how that place illustrates the maxim (!) that only armed citizens stand between civilization and anarchy.
Conservatives never answer the question of whether grenades should be legally sold. Care to take a “crack” at that one? Ever throw a real grenade? You can’t throw it far enough that you don’t hide behind something when it goes off. What about a mortar? Should that be legal?
Repack,
You were in nam,I get it You’re a tough old bird and a liberal. I get it. But your grasp of American history and an understanding of the Constitution you once swore to uphold, I don’t see any overwhelming evidence that you understand much about that.
Mambo,
Hopelessly retarded, lol
you’re in command of an army of men made of straw.
If something is a Constitutional right, then it needs no justifying.
Just like slavery.
“I propose that any and all gun owners be required to sign up or at least be on record with their state’s National Guard, to be called upon to defend their state in the event of invasion and/or armed insurrection by enemies either foreign or domestic.”
Huh. This is a brilliant idea.
Duros, let’s take your idea and run with it a little:
I propose that any and all gun owners be required to sign up or at least be on record with their state’s National Guard, to be called upon to defend their state in the event of invasion and/or armed insurrection by enemies either foreign or domestic.
So, how’d you feel about all those Tea Party people signing up with the National Guard and, as a logical extension, having the right to keep and bear full military grade hardware? Assault rifles (NOT “assault weapons” — a made-up term that has no military meaning), fully automatic weapons, grenades and grenade launchers, mortars, man-portable missiles (anti-tank and anti-aircraft), and the like? After all, if they’re an extension of the Guard, like the original militia, then they ought to be equipped with the same grade of weaponry as the military — just like the original militia.
Even I’m not calling for that. Just the status quo will be all right with me.
You wanna increase the penalties for using guns in crimes? I’m right there with you. Fuck, how about just ENFORCING the existing laws? Massachusetts has a law called Bartley-Fox that mandates adding years in prison for crimes committed with a gun. It’s a great law. IT’S NEVER USED.
You wanna pass laws based on the idea that someone MIGHT do something bad if given the choice or opportunity? You wanna pass laws to outlaw temptation?
Bad move.
J.
fafaroo, I bet you think you just dropped a game-winner.
You lose.
Yes, PRECISELY like slavery.
Slavery was enshrined in the Constitution — see Article I, Section 2 and Article IV, Section 2. That is why it took a civil war and three separate Amendments to get rid of it and get around the “takings” clause of the Fifth Amendment.
You wanna revoke the 2nd Amendment? Then you better be willing to do the work to get at least one Amendment passed. This nickel and dime bullshit — the “assault weapons” (alias “the scary-looking guns”) ban, ammunition control, “gun-free zones,” and all the half-assed measures won’t cut it.
J.
Wow. What a disingenuous argument. The simple logic is that, according to the second amendment, people who have guns need to register with their local National Guard unit in case they’re needed to perform militia duties. (It’s actually not that different than what we have know, where gun-owners register with local police authorities.)
Nobody said anything about giving out RPG’s or .50 cal’s because, um, it’s stupid for individual citizens to have these since they aren’t practical for home defense and they threaten the safety of the neighbors.
But please, run back over to NRA.com and get some more talking points, sparky.
Sorry, Jaim, but your straw-man attempts are doomed. I don’t own a gun. I never have. I have no interest in owning guns. And I have never been a member of the NRA.
If you want gun owners to be part of the National Guard, then it’s a two-way street. Let them keep and bear the arms that they will be expected to use should they be called up.
I’ll spare asking you to buy them for them, though — I’ve never been a fan of the argument that “what good is a right if you can’t afford to exercise it?”
It’s the TANSTAAFL principle here. If you want gun owners to be a part of the National Guard, then there should be something in it for them. Some kind of compensation or recognition of their worth and potential sacrifice.
Now you go and hide under the bed and be afraid of the big, scary, law-abiding gun owners. I’ll save my worrying for those who have already demonstrated that they have no respect for the law AND have guns.
J.
“then there should be something in it for them”
They get to own a gun, Einstein.
And I’m all for responsible gun ownership. Keep the weapons registered, and don’t allow people access to machine guns and assault rifles. If you can’t defend your home with a semi-automatic handgun, you probably shouldn’t own one in the first place.
I get it You’re a tough old bird and a liberal. I get it. But your grasp of American history and an understanding of the Constitution you once swore to uphold, I don’t see any overwhelming evidence that you understand much about that.
Au contraire. My military experience, and the times when I had it, give me a perspective on current events that you apparently lack.
Were you “defending the Constitution” from Bush’s warrentless wiretaps? Before we invaded Iraq, did you demand that Congress issue the declaration of war that the Constitution requires before such adventures? Or used to?
I think I understand the Constitution. Now, do you think you should be able to buy a grenade?
Tea, that’s all well and good. I generally accept your position on this
So do I, generally.
You like guns, go to Iraq where everyone has one, and tell me how that place illustrates the maxim (!) that only armed citizens stand between civilization and anarchy.
Better yet, I hear Mogadishu is nice this time of year.
Wanna go Galt? Go Somalia!
THERE’S a tourism slogan if I ever heard one.
If you want gun owners to be part of the National Guard, then it’s a two-way street. Let them keep and bear the arms that they will be expected to use should they be called up.
No, they get to keep the guns they already have or are interested in buying.
“douche-nozzle?” Gee, misogynistic much?”
Oh Jay, you are the LAST person I want defending my honor. You hypocritical douche-bag.
(And since I’m a woman, it’s not sexist to use that term.)
There ya go, Jay :=P
AO, what’s my strawman argument? I addressed JayTea’s point and clearly illustrated that I was not setting up a strawman argument. I never claimed that he, or anyone here, approves of people having the ability to own WMD. I was illustrating a point that there’s a line somewhere, and people have differing opinions on where that line ought to be. I don’t even strongly disagree with JT’s position here.
Do you even know what a strawman is?
You’re a fucking imbecile. Why don’t you go away so that people who want to engage in actual conversation can do so without having to deal with your idiocy? All you are is a hopeless, pathetic troll. Enjoy your life. Idiot.
I’m absolutely sure that if those senior citizens in the nursing home in NC had been armed, as they should have been to properly protect themselves, that they would have stopped the gunman in his tracks before he hurt anyone. (Sarcasm). At least the NURSE should have been carrying (bedpan in one hand, AK in the other).
citizenw, congratulations on finding yet another example of how nutcase spree killers will head for places where they know that there won’t be anyone else armed who can fight back. I admire your solution — let’s make MORE places like that! If we make enough “gun-free zones,” then they’ll be so confused by all the opportunity that they’ll never actually get around to shooting anyone!
J.
Mambo,
You’re an extremely inclusive progressive fellow representing the best ideals of liberalism, willing to embrace the entire range of diversity of your fellow Americans. Welcoming all viewpoints into the marketplace of ideas, eager for intellectual honesty and civil discourse…right?
Repack,
I most certainly believe Congress has dropped the ball and completely shirked thier duty regarding declarations of war. I am passionate in defending the Constitution, I believe it is what makes this country exceptional. I cannot really speak intelligently to the subject of the wiretaps in question but my general feeling is that would be a violation of the right to be secure in one’s home.
As to grenades I believe the common script for this argument usually devolves into a “what about tanks or nucular missles” type of thing. I would imagine I may have less of an aversion to grenades than the typical reader here but I suspect this is a bit of a red herring so to speak.
AO,
I’m not interested in discussing things with someone, anyone, who doesn’t converse honestly. I also don’t suffer idiots. I can have civil discussions with conservatives, both here on this blog and elsewhere. Witness above my conversation with JT.
You, on the other hand… you’re either an idiot or you’re a lying sack of shit. Probably both. I clearly did not set up a strawman argument. It’s plain as day. So either you know this, and you’re lying about it now, or you’re a fucking moron and you cannot comprehend simple, straightforward English.
So which is it?
If you want to have a legit discussion, let’s do that. If you want to engage in stupid and false attacks, while disregarding the points that others make, while simultaneously making stupid and unfounded claims of your own… well, then have at it. Just don’t expect me not to call you an ignorant fucktard.
Mambo,
Jay Tea, do you approve of me owning live hand grenades? How about bunker-busting missiles? How about a nuclear fucking warhead? Or maybe weaponized anthrax?
Why do I need these things? Why, because I fucking feel like it!
I’d like to know where the line is, and why it is where it is.
Your examples are extreme, are meant to provoke, are very close to off topic, and illustrate a basic ignorance of American history.