Current weather

  • Overcast
  • 39°
    Overcast
  • Comment

A red herring in the gun control debate

Posted: January 14, 2013 - 8:39am

I lived in Alaska for 18 years beginning in 1967. I taught school in a variety of settings, flew airplanes, was in business, and babbled for a while in a column on these pages. There were ups, and downs. Since leaving, I’ve lived for a long time in several countries where guns are vigorously controlled (Australia, France, Ireland, China, and The United Kingdom). I have come to think the following is obviously true.

I have been a gun owner and hunter for over 50 of my 71 years. Hunting moose and caribou for the table, many of my days have been spent in areas of Alaska well populated by brown bear. Doing so, I have never felt I needed more than the five cartridges held in the magazine of my hunting rifle. Only once did I see another hunter bring a military style, assault rifle, to the field, only to be greeted with knowing smiles from more experienced riflemen. We wondered why the hunter didn’t spend time improving his marksmanship, instead of packing all those heavy extra bullets around in an area where one shot should be enough to kill the prey we were after.

There is a red herring being championed by the NRA and other gun fanatics, unscrupulous legislators, gun manufacturers and those in debt to them, and uninformed, inexperienced members of the press. It is the idea that it is too difficult, even impossible, to define the line separating weapons a private citizen has a legitimate need for, and right to have, from those for which there is no Constitutional, hunting, or self-protection justification for owning. That is nonsense.

We need to make a clear distinction between the firepower of law enforcement, and that of the general populace. That distinction protects the law abiding, and threatens those who are not. It will take many years to do the job completely. We have polluted our environment with millions of guns that should not be in private hands. Collecting them will take effort, education, and, from time to time, force. It should be a federal felony for a private citizen to possess any weapon capable of semiautomatic or fully automatic fire after a period of “No questions asked” opportunity to turn them in for disposal.

The Second Amendment was written at a time when the most powerful weapon a person could carry was a muzzle loading, smooth bore, flintlock long gun. Only an expert could fire it as many as four times a minute, and not for very long. Modern semiautomatic and fully automatic weapons are able to fire four to nine times a second. They may be fitted with magazines carrying one hundred or more cartridges available for purchase over the internet. No questions are asked beyond, “Credit card number?” That is a situation the civilized world legitimately calls “insane.”

We have already barred the private possession of fully automatic weapons except under strict registration requirements. They are almost never used in the commission of a crime. Regarding semiautomatic firearms, we have seen schools shot up, people cut down on the streets of our cities and university campuses, gun fights with our police forces that kill and injure public servants, and a broadening opinion among the populace that such weapons should be in their closet or desk drawer as the result of our toleration of their profusion. Many states now permit people to have such weapons hidden on their person. It is time to take a simply defined and politically demanding action to reduce substantially such scenarios, and partially redeem our standing among the civilized countries of the world.

We should immediately outlaw the private possession of any weapon capable of semiautomatic or automatic fire, and magazines for any firearm capable of holding more than six cartridges. Again, barring such weapons is entirely consistent with the citizens right under the Constitution to bear arms. Under such a law, a citizen could still lawfully possess revolvers, single shot weapons, pump action shotguns, and/or bolt, pump, or lever action rifles, even a muzzle loading, smooth bore, flintlock long gun. We would be prevented from being able to cut down trees, or huddled masses in a mall, with a burst from our “hunting rifle.”

We should be.

  • Comment

Comments (233) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 02/10/13 - 07:20 pm
2
0
Raoulduke,

My illustration regarding background checks specifically suggested that background checks cannot stop gun violence just as they could not hope to stop crime in general. My suggestion of doing a background check on a dope dealer might appear to stop him from purchasing illegal prescription drugs but he would just find another illegal way to acquire the drugs. I suggested the same for background checks for bank robbers. If a person has robbed anyone in the past they could be banned from entering banks! right? Bank robbing stopped right? We all know they would just locate another way to rob banks.

The same would happen if we banned guns, the bad person would just find a different gun or knife. What are you going to do? You can build a gun with a Bic ink pen and a rubber binder. Are you then going to ban ink pens? You cannot hope to make bad people good by removing their tools, you must address the person, not the tools of their stupidity.

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 02/10/13 - 10:49 pm
0
1
@kenai123

We have laws against speeding in a car on the public highway. I guess you don't think they work because 'some people will speed anyway.' We have laws against people molesting children. I guess you don't think they work because 'some people will molest children anyway.' We have laws against breaking into peoples homes and taking their stuff. I guess you don't think they work because 'some people will continue breaking into peoples homes and taking their stuff anyway.' We have laws against advocating the violent overthrow of the United States government. I guess you don't think they work because 'some people will advocate the violent overthrow of the United States government anyway.' I see a pattern here, don't you? In your world, we should not try to limit people's behavior in any way, because they'll just find a way to do bad things anyway.

Banning all Semi and full automatic weapons, after a short period during which they may be turned in 'no questions asked,' will make it a crime to have them, which is a substantial change from our present situation. It will take a long time to clean them up, because there is a small number of fanatics out there that think they know what the Constitution means better than the Supreme Court does, and they will attempt to conceal illegal guns and ammunition. A reward will be established for informing police about the location of such weapons, and that will bring an end to weapons cashes.

Nothing is more attractive to the super patriot than money.

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 02/12/13 - 07:53 am
1
1
Some easy morning reading...

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/civil-liberties/report/2013/02/12...

Tragic mass shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, and elsewhere have prompted renewed national interest in the federal regulation of firearms.

In January 2013 President Barack Obama publicly announced support for three new legislative measures to regulate firearm ownership and sales:
Banning certain semiautomatic weapons with military-style features—commonly referred to as “assault weapons”—in addition to high-capacity ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds
Requiring background checks on all firearms sales, not just those purchased from federally licensed firearms dealers
Enhancing penalties for trafficking in firearms
Proposed legislation with similar elements has been introduced in Congress. These measures as written would not violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms as recently defined in two landmark Supreme Court decisions—District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, and McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010. Under Heller and McDonald the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense in the home. The proposed measures would not violate that right, but rather fall squarely within the scope of “presumptively lawful regulatory measures” that Heller identified as constitutionally sound. Furthermore, these proposals would effectively advance the important government objectives of preventing gun violence and protecting law enforcement officers and would not unduly burden law-abiding Americans or impose upon the core right identified in Heller.
Below we discuss these three proposals in greater detail.
Summary of current proposals
Banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. President Obama’s proposal would reinstate a ban on assault weapons, which were the subject of a federal law that was in place from 1994 to 2004, and would limit the sale of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds. A bill tracking the president’s general approach has already been introduced in the Senate by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Both Sen. Feinstein’s bill and the expired law that President Obama proposes to reinstate define an “assault weapon” as a semiautomatic weapon with specified military-like features, such as a folding stock or a grenade launcher, as well as firearms on a list of specifically named weapons.
Requiring universal background checks. President Obama proposes to strengthen the currently existing National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, by requiring every gun buyer to submit to a background check—not just those who purchase firearms from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Approximately 40 percent of all gun sales are made by private sellers often at gun shows or through online transactions. Under current federal law these sales are exempt from the background check requirement. A bill aimed at achieving the president’s goal of universal background checks was introduced in the last Congress by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY).
Enhancing penalties for gun trafficking. President Obama has also announced support for increased efforts to stem the flow of firearms to criminals, taking aim especially at so-called straw purchasing. Under current law, convicted felons cannot purchase firearms from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Straw purchasing is a technique used to evade this prohibition by using a third party without a criminal record—the “straw buyer”—to purchase weapons from a licensed firearms dealer under false pretenses. The president’s proposal is similar to legislation introduced by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Richard Durbin (D-IL), as well as a separate bill introduced by Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Mark Kirk (R-IL). Both proposals would impose criminal penalties on the straw buyer. The Gillibrand and Kirk proposal would also impose penalties on the ultimate firearm recipient.
The Second Amendment under Heller
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that “[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.” In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court issued its most significant opinion regarding the Second Amendment since 1939, striking down a total ban on handgun possession in the home as inconsistent with the right to keep and bear arms conferred by the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home,” even apart from collective service in a militia. In striking down the District of Columbia’s ban on handgun possession, the Court took note that the handgun is “the quintessential self-defense weapon” and that it is “the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.”
Two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment is fully applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment because it protects the “fundamental” right to self-defense. The Court emphasized that at the core of the Second Amendment is the “basic right” of self-defense, and that this right is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
Even as the Court affirmed and reaffirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess weapons, it also stressed that the right to bear arms is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” In particular, the Court identified a nonexhaustive list of firearms regulations that are “presumptively lawful,” including:
Longstanding “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill”
Laws “forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings”
Laws “imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms”
Laws prohibiting “dangerous and unusual weapons”
In Heller and again in McDonald, the Court emphasized that legislators retain “a variety of tools” for combatting the problem of gun violence—repeating assurance that Heller “did not cast doubt” on measures such as these and that “experimentation with reasonable firearms regulations will continue under the Second Amendment.”
Thus Heller and McDonald make clear that the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense may be subject to reasonable regulation. This is entirely consistent with other cherished liberties in the Bill of Rights, such as the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. (See, for example, Ward v. Rock Against Racism, which ruled that restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech, such as noise limitations, are permissible, and United States v. O’Brien, which ruled that content-neutral regulations of expressive conduct, such as burning draft cards, are permissible). And as the Supreme Court has emphasized in the First Amendment context, state and federal legislators “must be allowed a reasonable opportunity to experiment with solutions to admittedly serious problems.”
There is no question that gun violence in the United States is a serious national problem. As the Court noted in Heller, “We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country.” In addition to devastating mass shootings such as those in Newtown, Connecticut, and Aurora, Colorado, approximately 1 million Americans have been wounded or killed by gunfire in the last decade. In 2010 alone firearms were used in an estimated 11,000 murders, 128,000 robberies, and 138,000 aggravated assaults. Social scientists have calculated that the lifetime medical costs for gunshot injuries in the United States in one year alone is $2.3 billion, of which $1.1 billion was paid by taxpayers. When lost earnings, pain, disability, and the costs of lost life are included, the aggregate economic cost of gun violence to American society approaches $100 billion annually.
The proposed measures do not infringe the Second Amendment
Banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines
The proposed ban on “assault weapons” with military-style features and high-capacity magazines is consistent with the Second Amendment. Heller made clear that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to own “any weapon whatsoever” and “dangerous and unusual weapons” may be prohibited. Courts that have examined bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines post-Heller have agreed that such bans do not infringe the Second Amendment because “[t]he prohibition of semi-automatic rifles and large capacity magazines does not effectively disarm individuals or substantially affect their ability to defend themselves.” (See also People v. James—“Heller does not extend Second Amendment protection to assault weapons.”)
A ban on assault weapons is consistent with the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller because these weapons are both “dangerous and unusual” and are not well-suited to self-defense in the home, which is the “central component” of the Second Amendment right. Assault weapons do not constitute a significant percentage of firearms in circulation in the United States—an estimated 1 percent or less prior to the 1994 federal assault weapons ban. Assault weapons are also dangerous to an extraordinary degree. The prior federal assault weapons ban covered weapons with features such as protruding pistol grips, which help the shooter stabilize the weapon during rapid fire or spray fire from the hip position, and barrel shrouds, which protect the shooter’s hands from the heat generated by many rounds fired in rapid succession.
Other characteristics of assault weapons, such as telescoping stocks, principally facilitate concealment and thus have little value to those who use firearms lawfully—but obvious appeal to criminals. Firearms incorporating these characteristics enable the shooter to inflict a high degree of lethal damage rapidly and often indiscriminately. These features are thus better suited to offensive and mass assaults than responsible self-defense, particularly in urban areas where rapid and indiscriminate firing would pierce walls and injure innocent bystanders.
The Supreme Court has not yet addressed the applicability of the Second Amendment to ammunition magazines. But if ammunition magazines are within the protections of the Second Amendment, then it stands to reason that high-capacity magazines would also fall within the scope of Congress’s authority to regulate “dangerous and unusual” weaponry. High-capacity magazines enable the firing of more than 10 rounds without requiring the shooter to pause and reload. High-capacity magazines are therefore well suited to enabling offensive, indiscriminate, and rapid firing, and ill-suited to self-defense situations where rapid and indiscriminate firing is more likely to injure innocent bystanders.
The tragic mass shootings in Tucson, Arizona; Aurora, Colorado; and Newtown, Connecticut, were all carried out by assailants using high-capacity magazines, and there is evidence in some of these cases that the shootings halted or were stopped only when the shooter was forced to pause to reload or switch weapons. High-capacity magazines also pose a particular threat to law enforcement, as they are used in 31 percent to 41 percent of fatal police shootings. As noted in Heller II, “the evidence demonstrates that large-capacity magazines tend to pose a danger … particularly to police officers.”
Requiring universal background checks
The proposed expansions to the existing background check system are also consistent with the Second Amendment. Heller made clear that the individual right to bear arms does not extend to felons or the mentally ill. Such “longstanding prohibitions” have been uniformly upheld in post-Heller cases in the federal courts. Both United States v. Barton and United States v. Smoot upheld the federal ban on possession of a firearm by convicted felons. If Congress may prohibit felons, the mentally ill, and other unfit persons from possessing firearms, it follows that Congress may also take reasonable measures to enforce the prohibition such as background checks at the point of sale. Indeed, Heller specifically observed that firearm sales would continue to be subject to reasonable “conditions and qualifications” enacted by legislators. The Court in Heller assumed that such regulations would exist when it ruled that the District of Columbia was required to permit the plaintiff to own a handgun, “assuming that [he] is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights.”
Experience with the existing National Instant Criminal Background Check System has demonstrated that background checks can be effective at reducing violent crime without burdening the ability of law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms. The national background check system has proven to be a meaningful check on access to firearms by convicted felons and other “prohibited persons.” Since 1999 the system has blocked prohibited purchasers from buying firearms at federally licensed dealers more than 1.9 million times. The most common reason for denial was a prior felony conviction. In 2009 alone approximately 150,000 applications for a permit to transfer or purchase a firearm were denied as a result of background checks. Here again, the most common reason for denial was a prior felony conviction. Given the efficacy of the system, a court would be unlikely to conclude that expanded background checks during firearm sales would unduly burden the Second Amendment right of law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms.
Enhancing penalties for arms trafficking
The Second Amendment would also not be infringed by the enhanced penalties for gun trafficking currently under consideration. The proposed measures outlaw “straw purchasing”—the practice of using a third-party intermediary to purchase weapons from a federally licensed firearms dealer for ultimate delivery to a felon or other person prohibited by law from buying the weapons.
Such measures would be constitutional because they do not impede the possession of firearms for self-defense by “law-abiding, responsible citizens,” which the Supreme Court found to be at the core of the Second Amendment. Straw purchasing is not done for a “lawful purpose,” but occurs only to circumvent legal restrictions on the purchasing of weapons by felons or the mentally disturbed. The Supreme Court left no doubt about the constitutionality of current, longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons, therefore straw purchasers violate that prohibition by purchasing arms under false pretenses and with the intent to transfer the weapons to another person.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful self-defense, and that this right is violated by a total ban on possession of handguns by law-abiding citizens in their homes. But many forms of firearm regulation remain constitutional, including laws to prevent firearm possession by criminals and limitations on the possession of dangerous and unusual weapons. The measures endorsed by President Obama and proposed by Congress are safely within these confines and reflect the sort of reasonable regulation that the Supreme Court endorsed in Heller and has accepted in a host of other constitutional contexts.
Winnie Stachelberg is the Executive Vice President for External Affairs at the Center for American Progress. Arkadi Gerney is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. Robyn Thomas is the executive director of the Law Center to Prevent Violence.

Luvflyfishing
214
Points
Luvflyfishing 02/12/13 - 03:52 pm
0
0
@Kenai123

Reading fourms such as this one certainly gives one a broad perspective of the differences of opinion on this subject as well a few other subjects. I have never expressed my opinion here to try to persuade anyone to change their stance on what they truly believe in. Yes, we can all learn from others opinions. I agree with you that the entire gun control issue is based on trying to stop violence. But gun control is null and void when it is never enforced. Criminals are given a slap on the hands and spend a few days in jail and then back on the streets. Law Enforcement is the problem. Strictor penalties should be the big issue, not banning guns.
I am curious to know what drives Mr. JDBishop with such continuous tenacity to try to persuade everyone to believe as he does.
It is getting to the point now that the Media will make a massive report on a bee bee gun now. What next, slinghots? :-)
It breaks my heart to see the continuous gun tragedies that have been taking place in our country. We, the people cannot stop these senseless acts ourselve. Taking away any type of guns will not stop them. STRICT punishment is the only way. Insanity pleas are copouts for a lot of the shootings. When, in reality, it is envrionment, lack of parenting and just plain evil people in the world. (only my opinion)
I am sure I will have a lot of people disagree with me and that is their right.
The statistics about gun related deaths in the USA was very interesting. I did read the article and it did not take in to acount the total MIA in the wars.
Wars are sad, Violence of any kind is sad. It is getting worse everyday.
HOWEVER, One thing that I would like to mention is the number of abortions (that are on record) is shocking!
Read This and then tell me about MURDERS in the USA.
All abortions are children being murdered.

The law which legalizes abortion during the first and second trimesters of pregnancy came into existence as a result of the Roe vs Wade case decision on 22nd January, 1973.
In 1973, after the restrictions on abortion in third semester came into existence around 615,831 cases of abortion were reported. In 2005, the number reached 820,151 (after reaching its peak of 1,429,279 cases in 1990).
Abortion statistics compiled in 2009 reveal that more than 45 million abortions have been carried out in the United States since 1973. Now that is a number which continues to soar, and going by the current trends, the 2010 data is going to put forth a much more grievous picture.
As we mentioned earlier, every year around 1.4 million abortions are carried out in the United States. That amounts to more than 3000 abortions every single day, and one abortion every 20-23 seconds.
Around 40 percent of the total unintended pregnancies in the country are terminated by induced abortion. If overall pregnancies in the nation are taken into consideration around 22 percent end with induced abortion.
If the statistical data by age groups is taken into consideration, women in their 20s top the group with 58 percent of the total cases of induced abortion, followed by women in their 30s with 22 percent cases and women below 20 accounting for 18 percent of the total cases.
Of the overall cases of abortion, girls belonging to the age group of 17-19 constitute for 11 percent of the cases, those in the age group of 15-18 constitute for 6 percent and those who are 14 and below constitute 0.4 percent of the total cases.
Approximately, 61 percent of women who opt for abortion in the United States are those who already have one or more children
Read more at Buzzle: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/abortion-statistics-in-america.html

BigRedDog
670
Points
BigRedDog 02/20/13 - 05:31 am
0
0
Gun Grabbers Read and Weap

Something very BIG has just come onto the scene and it is the NAIL in your left wing gun grabbers coffin. It's call the Dick Act of 1902, and it has to do with the efficiency of the militia. You see an efficient militia is more effective and better armed. Fact is the whole name of the Law is "The Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R.11654" passed and signed into law June 28, 1902. This law is where our forefathers dealt with you pesky gun grabbers and they did it right!
This Law clearly identifies the 3 classes of Militia that make up our National Defense. First the National guard of any State, Territory , or the D.C. Then the Un-organized Militia, and the Regular Army. The Un-organized Militia is defined as every able bodied man ages 18 to 45. All members of the Un-Organized Militia have the absolute personal right, and the 2nd Amendment rights to Keep &Bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford!
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed, to do so would violate the bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This law has one primary function, it is a guarantee that the Militia will always be able to arm themselves properly. I think that might even cover those 20 ,30 ,and 40 round mags. You see the enemy we may have to face won't come thinking it's going to be a party, they will be well armed.
Our forefathers have hit this speed bump of Gun Control before and saw you gun Grabbing Liberals coming. This law is also lauded as the "Protection Against Tyrannical Government" act and makes the 2nd Amendment untouchable!
But the heart of the matter comes down to this, Gun violence in America Today is a problem of the Democratic Party. Today 68% of all those gun crimes you are crying about (over 2/3) happened in the 50 huge metro areas of the US. The 62 cities that make up these metro areas are and have been controlled by the Democratic Party for over 40 years! These metro areas are in decline and house most of the O-47 voters that put Obama where he is today. The Dems run these places like Voter storage sites, mass storage of voters on the Dole. Here is where most of our social problems in our Great society originate. Here it is nearly impossible for the average citizen to purchase a hand-gun for home protection, you can't even have firearms to protect your business or loved ones!
WOW how did this happen that any City or State would dare to tell it's honorable law abiding citizens you cannot have firearms to protect yourselves!
Gun Control by the way isn't working very well in Chicago. This is the 2nd generation of Draconian Gun laws in that great American City. Now the gang-banger crowd is the one with the guns and law abiding folks their victims. Go figure!

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 02/21/13 - 04:39 am
0
0
FYI

Perhaps we will get a answer out of the Supreme Court with this case.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/21/prosecutors-to-pursue-felony-charges-a...

Raoulduke
3055
Points
Raoulduke 02/25/13 - 12:12 pm
0
0
god given

We have no god given rights.We have as humans the right of self preservation.The same as all animals.There are some folks.Who believe.These are god given.They are wrong in my judgment.The belief in a god is just that a belief.Which is not a fact.So! there is no indisputable truth about god given rights.I haven't found the word god in our Constitution.I did find the word creator.My creator/creators were my parents. Gravity is a fact,and indisputable.

BigRedDog
670
Points
BigRedDog 03/01/13 - 06:20 am
1
1
It's the mentality of anti- gunners

It sure feels good to be a citizen of this great Nation and a member of her unregulated, unorganized militia. Lately it's been a little unsettled in the neighborhood with two faced foreigners making comments about something that IS NONE of thier business. So just to give you a good nights sleep the above article about the Dick Act of 1902 is the WAY it is! You see our Forefathers reacted to an issue envovling the militia. Our militia when called up was poorly armed with flitlocks and other cap and ball rounds. They got thier ass handed to them a few scurmishes. (That's where you get in a fight, wake up 3 days later still in the Hospital. Your good budy comes to visit and informs you that you didn't get a punch in.)
The unorganized militia is something ANY responsible Leader would be over-joyed to have backing up his military. It makes this Nation,"The land of the free and the home of the Brave" And about as safe as Ft Knox. Outside of crazy people loosing their cud and goin for it with a gun, firearms keep homes safe all accross America today. Obama and other gun grabbing Tyrants have all applealed to the bleeding heart humanist side of the story.
Doesn't this sound appealing? "This year will go down in history, for the 1st time a modern civilized nation has full Gun Registration. Our streets will be safer, our Police more efficient. And the World will follow our lead into the future."Adolf Hitler 1935

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 03/01/13 - 07:51 am
0
1
As is to be expected...

your quote is nonsense. You could have found this yourself an avoided looking like a damned fool. Oh wait...

"This year will go down in history, for the 1st time a modern civilized nation has full Gun Registration. Our streets will be safer, our Police more efficient. And the World will follow our lead into the future."

Was never said by Hitler.

http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/01/11/hitler-gun-control-47887/

http://www.hkweaponsystems.com/cgi-bin/quote.pl?_disputed

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1791/did-hitler-ban-gun-ownership

Norseman
3616
Points
Norseman 03/01/13 - 08:30 am
0
1
JD they are quite a few of

JD they are quite a few of the local folk who only get their info from the likes of faux news, the militia, glenn beck, rush limbaugh, and they just keep regurgitating the same ol lies day after day. If they say it enough times, they then beleive it is true.

They are beyond having any form of reasonable or rational diaglogue with. All that can happen is for time to go by and let history be the judge who stood on the right side of history and who didn't.

Just watched a pbs special on the 60's. Perfect example. So many bigoted, racist, and ignorant folk spewing their hatred towards blacks. The hate and violence was caught on tape.

2 Days ago a statue of the first black woman in history who REFUSED to give up her bus seat to a white person was unvieled in DC. Ms Parks was on the right side of history. The ignorant racist person who demanded her seat is where in history? Thats right, no statue for him.

Time after time we have these heated discussions and after some time has passed, we see who were champions and who were fools.
The state passing a nullification law will rate as being on the wrong side of history. Just as it well prove in court.

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 03/01/13 - 12:41 pm
0
1
Yes.

I persevere in this Don Quixote campaign for two reasons. First, as an ex-teacher, I have had to believe people could change their minds. Change is essential in the educational process. Secondly, I wanted to smoke out the people on the peninsula that I was sure were there. Those people who have no concept of how a Constitutional Republic works, and, in this set of circumstances, are actually dangerous. In my view, as with having children, people should be required to have a basic understanding of the processes involved before they are allowed to participate in possessing high powered weapons. And, some of the 'processes have to do with the law.

ManInBlack
182
Points
ManInBlack 03/01/13 - 12:32 pm
1
0
Perseverance in ignorance...

... is still ignorance.

You state that "change is essential in the educational process", yet you exhibit such a closed minded mentality. Quite hypocritical (and typical) to talk the talk, and not walk the walk.....

Please expound on your last statement of "In my view, as with having children, people should be required to have a basic understanding of the processes involved before they are allowed to participate in possessing high powered weapons." So are you saying that American people should be required to register their intent to have children (do you actually live in China?)? I mean, as a former "teacher", surely you can see how much more destructive unintended pregnancies are to American society (particularly amongst the younger population).

Are you also amonst those who believe that the Holocaust was a hoax, perpetrated by propogandists in an effort to sway public opinion....? Your cut and paste references would point to "yes".

Please explain, in your OWN WORDS (not taken from this pundit, or that), how limiting law abiding citizens ability to own firearms will result in a change in CRIMINAL/MENTALLY ILL behavior....

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 03/01/13 - 01:01 pm
0
0
@ManInBlack

Read the entire thread before you post. Most of your questions have been answered in detail above. I have not referred to 'pundits' at all. I have referenced factual studies. If you have alternative sources of factual studies to offer, I'm interested.

Relating to child bearing, yes, I have long thought we should not allow people to have any number of children, any time they want to so, whether or not they have any interest in, or ability to raise, a family. When I was born, there were two billion human beings on earth. Now there are seven billion. The Petri dish is foaming over, and part of the reason is that we allow anyone with the proper reproductive equipment to procreate, and we permit superstitions to influence our ability to control population growth. In much the same way, we allow any person to possess powerful weapons for which there is no legitimate use beyond what they were designed to do, kill large numbers of human beings quickly. That is not protected by the Second Amendment, and offers a result that is entirely forecastable. A visitor from a civilized planet would think we lack common sense, and would be correct to do so. Birth rates must be controlled by rational limitations, or nature has her ways. Famine, disease, and war await us down the road we currently travel. Similarly, mass murders will descend from the accumulation of military firearms among the general population, and letting them grow in numbers is cultural suicide.

LaFern
147
Points
LaFern 04/04/13 - 02:46 pm
0
1
Gun Control

People need to think of guns as cars. Everybody has a right to earn the privilege of using them, but not everybody should be able to use them. We put a lot of effort into training young people into learning about cars and safe driving, why? Because cars are dangerous. So why would it be a problem to establish a permitting agency for guns? Yes it is more bureaucratic tape to traverse, but it is the only solution to make everybody happy. If you want to operate a handgun or rifle, go take the test and submit to a background check, and re-register your gun periodically similar to how cars must be renewed. If you want to own and operate heavy artillery, you'd be required to attend military level training courses and exams, and have to have those certifications renewed periodically. With a qualifying permit and licensing program like motor vehicles everybody can feel safer plus the 2nd amendment would be in tact and made valid for our life today all at the same time. One big drawback is that gunmakers would still be opposed, because they make billions of dollars in selling firearms to fuel overseas domestic conflicts by selling them to people who lie about their identity, and because there is no licensing program most jurisdictions can't document or cross-reference identities even if they have background checks.

Not many people know, but most if not all guns you see or hear on the news in areas of violent conflict came right out of shops in the USA and shipped overseas.

Raoulduke
3055
Points
Raoulduke 04/05/13 - 01:58 am
1
0
not so

The 3rd World conflicts When looked at closely.You will see variations of the AK 47.Which is mostly produced in Communist China,Russia,and other former Eastern Bloc countries. The M-16 variations We can claim most of these.

ManInBlack
182
Points
ManInBlack 04/05/13 - 09:56 am
1
0
@ lafern

.... You're joking, right? Because if you're not, then you are also implying that every other right (2nd Amendment guarantees the RIGHT, not "privilege", of firearm ownership) would be subject to the same foolhardy thinking. How would you like the government to be able to tell you that you had to meet certain criteria to exercise your RIGHT to free speech, to freedom of religion, to unreasonable search and seizure, from cruel and unusual punishment, etc.

Be sure, if you allow feeble minded consessions to your right of one Amendment, the same will eventually be applied to others.

Luvflyfishing
214
Points
Luvflyfishing 04/06/13 - 01:11 pm
0
0
Maninblack

I agree with you 100%. I suppose that everyone is trying to come
Up with a solution. It is a difficult situation. We have a right to bear arms and I do not plan to give up that right. I think the biggest question and problem with guns is keeping them out of the hands
Of people with mental problems. Most of the time we know not who these people are until after the tragedy happens.
Our population is growing and so is crime. It is all to do with money.
Drugs and poor parenting. The media promotes and dramatizes everything. Just for money.

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 04/15/13 - 05:56 am
0
0
The Supreme Court speaks on an important issue, by not speaking.

You do not have an unrestricted Second Amendment right to carry firearms outside your home.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-15/new-york-gun-limits-intact-as-h...

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 06/11/14 - 01:38 am
0
0
Just to remind everyone.

There have been 74, (Seventy four!), (More than one a week!), school shootings since this discussion started. Most have been with semiautomatic firearms. Students dying in their classrooms is the new American way of life.

If one takes an objective look at the rest of the world, we are the only country that slaughters its young people in their schools. What is the difference between us and the rest of the world? We have gone completely insane about who can have guns, where they can have them, and the kind of firearms ordinary citizens may possess.

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 06/11/14 - 03:44 am
0
0
I wish I'd written this.

1. White terrorists are called “gunmen.” What does that even mean? A person with a gun? Wouldn’t that be, like, everyone in the US? Other terrorists are called, like, “terrorists.”
2. White terrorists are “troubled loners.” Other terrorists are always suspected of being part of a global plot, even when they are obviously troubled loners.
3. Doing a study on the danger of white terrorists at the Department of Homeland Security will get you sidelined by angry white Congressmen. Doing studies on other kinds of terrorists is a guaranteed promotion.
4. The family of a white terrorist is interviewed, weeping as they wonder where he went wrong. The families of other terrorists are almost never interviewed.
5. White terrorists are part of a “fringe.” Other terrorists are apparently mainstream.
6. White terrorists are random events, like tornadoes. Other terrorists are long-running conspiracies.
7. White terrorists are never called “white.” But other terrorists are given ethnic affiliations.
8. Nobody thinks white terrorists are typical of white people. But other terrorists are considered paragons of their societies.
9. White terrorists are alcoholics, addicts or mentally ill. Other terrorists are apparently clean-living and perfectly sane.
10. There is nothing you can do about white terrorists. Gun control won’t stop them. No policy you could make, no government program, could possibly have an impact on them. But hundreds of billions of dollars must be spent on police and on the Department of Defense, and on TSA, which must virtually strip search 60 million people a year, to deal with other terrorists.

Back to Top

Spotted

Please Note: You may have disabled JavaScript and/or CSS. Although this news content will be accessible, certain functionality is unavailable.

Skip to News

« back

next »

  • title http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321268/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321253/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321248/
  • title http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321243/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321208/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/320593/
  • title http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321173/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321163/
My Gallery

CONTACT US

  • 150 Trading Bay Rd, Kenai, AK 99611
  • Switchboard: 907-283-7551
  • Circulation and Delivery: 907-283-3584
  • Newsroom Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Business Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Accounts Receivable: 907-335-1257
  • View the Staff Directory
  • or Send feedback

ADVERTISING

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES

SOCIAL NETWORKING

MORRIS ALASKA NEWS