Bill Moyers: "NRA turned 2nd amendment into a cruel and deadly hoax"

[flamingdem]

http://billmoyers.com/segment/bill-moyers-essay-living-under-the-gun/

In a web-exclusive video essay, Bill Moyers says Friday’s deadly shooting in Colorado is yet another tragic indication that our society — and too many of our politicians — covet guns more than common sense or life itself. The National Rifle Association in particular, Bill says, “has turned the Second Amendment of the Constitution into a cruel and deadly hoax.”

[DrDan]

1. well said

[brewens]

2. I've poked around looking for early second amendment debate information.

I don't think much of anything exists from "the founders". It seems that part of the Bill of Rights was accepted without much debate. We really have no clue what they would have thought had they had any idea what we'd be faced with now. I would speculate they would be in favor of more restrictions than we have.

I watched a guy on C-Span 2 talking about his book about ratification of the constitution. He said the Federalist Papers weren't all that important at the time. People look to that as the definitive source but they were not well known outside of New York. Something like that anyway. It was the debates in the various state houses that were the deciding factor. He never got into anything about the second amendment. If there is much it's not from well known figures.

[Hoyt]

4. I think Justice Stevens' Dissent in Heller is an excellent discussion of 2nd Amendment.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html


Right wingers and those who cannot imagine life without guns disagree.

In future, hopefully the mix of Justices will change, and decisions -- whether related to guns, or not -- will take society's interests into account.

[flamingdem]

5. Let's hope, we need to win congress in Nov. that will help nt

[Atypical Liberal]

8. Lots exists from the founders.

I don't think much of anything exists from "the founders". It seems that part of the Bill of Rights was accepted without much debate. We really have no clue what they would have thought had they had any idea what we'd be faced with now. I would speculate they would be in favor of more restrictions than we have.


This is simply just not the case. There is a lot of information about what the founders thought. All the meeting notes are available for their debates about what to include in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

There are extensive writings from the era.

The founders created a government with decentralization of power as its main theme. This is why they created a government with three independent branches, and why they continued a decentralized military system.

The second amendment is about keeping military-grade small arms appropriate for infantry use in the hands of the people.

[brewens]

12. I meant that there isn't all that much on specifically the second amendment.

Unless I wasn't looking in the right places. I see few relevant quotes posted anywhere. There is a good one from one of Washington's speeches that the gun rights guys like to distort. They cut out the part that shows he is speaking about the militia. kind of like the Obama "you didn't build that".

[Atypical Liberal]

15. Start with Wikipedia

There is actually quite a bit on the second amendment. You can also look at the contemporary constitutions of the states concerning the right to keep and bear arms.

Wikipedia is a good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[magical thyme]

30. within the context of a well-regulated state militia

the dissenting opinion is an excellent read.

"But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

Guns are used to hunt, for self-defense, to commit crimes, for sporting activities, and to perform military duties. The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939) , provide a clear answer to that question....

....The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law.1 Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, “n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. ....

....No new evidence has surfaced since 1980 supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to curtail the power of Congress to regulate civilian use or misuse of weapons. Indeed, a review of the drafting history of the Amendment demonstrates that its Framers rejected proposals that would have broadened its coverage to include such uses.....

....“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”

The preamble to the Second Amendment makes three important points. It identifies the preservation of the militia as the Amendment’s purpose; it explains that the militia is necessary to the security of a free State; and it recognizes that the militia must be “well regulated.” In all three respects it is comparable to provisions in several State Declarations of Rights that were adopted roughly contemporaneously with the Declaration of Independence.5....

....The parallels between the Second Amendment and these state declarations, and the Second Amendment ’s omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense, is especially striking in light of the fact that the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont did expressly protect such civilian uses at the time....

....The contrast between those two declarations and the Second Amendment reinforces the clear statement of purpose announced in the Amendment’s preamble. It confirms that the Framers’ single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee “to keep and bear arms” was on military uses of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias....

[Atypical Liberal]

32. But they have several erroneous points.

"But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

An important thing to note here is that even the dissent agrees that the second amendment protects an individual right.

But on to the errors:

It identifies the preservation of the militia as the Amendment’s purpose; it explains that the militia is necessary to the security of a free State; and it recognizes that the militia must be “well regulated.”

Wrong. The second amendment identifies the preservation of the militia as a purpose for keeping and bearing arms. It does not identify it as the only purpose for keeping and bearing arms.

It confirms that the Framers’ single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee “to keep and bear arms” was on military uses of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias....

Again, militia service is only a reason specified for keeping and bearing arms. It is not specified as being the only reason. Yes, there is no doubt that the founders wanted the people to keep and bear military-grade small arms appropriate for infantry use so that they could serve as military troops if necessary. But that is not the only reason why one should keep and bear arms.

For example, I can say, "I am out of bread; I am going to the store." This does not mean that the only reason I can go to the store is to buy bread.

it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case.

...

Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

...

...the Second Amendment ’s omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense, is especially striking in light of the fact that the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont did expressly protect such civilian uses at the time...


It is absolutely absurd to suggest that people can be trusted to keep weapons in their homes for military service, but cannot use those same weapons to protect themselves, their families, their homes, or for hunting.

Especially since they had done all those things with those weapons all along.

[magical thyme]

34. their point is that the 2nd amendment is very specifically written to address

only the preservation of the state militia.

It very does not address any other rights regarding arms, unlike state constitutions at the time, and therefore does not pertain to them.

You need to read the entire dissenting opinion. I only pulled out the summary paragraphs, not the details.

[magical thyme]

31. and the dissenters evaluation of the decision is also an interesting read

"The opinion the Court announces today fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons. Unable to point to any such evidence, the Court stakes its holding on a strained and unpersuasive reading of the Amendment’s text; significantly different provisions in the 1689 English Bill of Rights, and in various 19th-century State Constitutions; postenactment commentary that was available to the Court when it decided Miller; and, ultimately, a feeble attempt to distinguish Miller that places more emphasis on the Court’s decisional process than on the reasoning in the opinion itself....

and details on why.

[Atypical Liberal]

33. And Congress HAS regulated civilian uses of weapons.

Congress HAS regulated civilian uses of weapons.

But such regulations can only be determined to be reasonable in the context of the Second Amendment, which is about keeping military-grade small arms appropriate for infantry use in the hands of the people.

Congress and the states can regulate to their hearts content, as long as they don't contravene the intent of the second amendment.

[magical thyme]

35. the 2nd amendment is about maintaining state militias

versus having them pulled into a standing army.

It's actually about state versus federal rights. At least according to those absurd Supreme justices who, in your opinion, don't understand the results of their own research.

[Atypical Liberal]

37. That is true.

the 2nd amendment is about maintaining state militias versus having them pulled into a standing army.

This is true. However, the militias spoken of in the second amendment have not existed since 1903. No doubt the founders anticipated this, which is why they reserved the right to keep and bear arms to the people, and not the states, nor the militias.

It's actually about state versus federal rights. At least according to those absurd Supreme justices who, in your opinion, don't understand the results of their own research.

The US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, is a list of restrictions on the power of the federal government, not the states. Prior to the 1890s, that was all it was seen as.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

After then, some rights enumerated in the Constitution have been held to the States to respect also. This is called "incorporation". This was done so that States could not disregard certain essential rights.

The second amendment was incorporated to the States in 2010, with McDonald vs. Chicago.

[russspeakeasy]

3. Fuck the NRA. I'll donate to any politician who publicly states

that he/she HATES THE FUCKING NRA. and will do what they can do get rid of it, destroy it, and make it cry to reflect the cowards that make it up .

[Atypical Liberal]

7. You realize the NRA supports Democrats, right?

In the last election, all of my Democratic candidates except one had high marks from the NRA. Three were the endorsed candidate.

[iamthebandfanman]

10. Oh my, well in that case

we'll all just abandon our personal beliefs and morality and bow down to the mighty D...

Thank you ever so much for pointing out how flawed our party is tho

[russspeakeasy]

16. Yes, I realize that. That doesn't make the NRA any less despicable.

[Atypical Liberal]

19. Good to know you think supporting Democrats is despicable.

[russspeakeasy]

20. Hey, are you Ron Paul ?

[Atypical Liberal]

22. I don't get it.

[Overseas]

6. K&R. Well said.

[Atypical Liberal]

9. Many errors in his video

The shooter used an AR15, not an AK47.

Neither weapon was affected by more than cosmetics by the Assault Weapons Ban.

Firearms are far more regulated than toys. You don't have to get government approval to buy a new toy.

[Chorophyll]

11. Then the Assault Weapons Ban wasn't strong enough.

The same people keep showing up in these threads to correct us non-gun-lovers about precisely which guns the shooter used. You know what? I don't care. 71 people were shot, 12 are dead because they decided to go to the movies. This guy should not have had any kind of gun at all, ever.

And your line about toys is a complete head-scratcher. When someone walks into a movie theater and kills 12 people with a Lego set or a Barbie doll, we'll worry about toy control.

[gtar100]

13. +1000

[Atypical Liberal]

14. So how would you have changed it?

The law wasn't strong because it is impossible to make it any stronger without seriously compromising the second amendment.

You can't ban semi-automatic weapons technology that is over 100 years old.

You can't ban a gun that looks like this:


And not ban guns that look like this:


When they are functionally identical and shoot the same bullet.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

17. And the problem with that is?

Incidentally, an AK-47 can fire fully automatic, an M-1 carbine cannot.

[Atypical Liberal]

18. The weapons shown are neither an AK-47 nor an M-1 carbine.

The first weapon shown is a Romanian SAR-1. It looks like an AK-47, but can only fire in semi-automatic mode. The second weapon shown is the Ruger Mini-14. It first the same round as the SAR-1 (and AK-47), and does so the same way - semi-automatically, but happens to look like a hunting rifle.

And you see, that is what the problem is.

You've got people such as yourself who have no idea what they are talking about trying to make firearm policy. People who don't realize that all rifles combined, let alone "assault rifles", only kill about 300 people every year - about half as many as are killed by hands and feet.

And based on a terrible, high-profile tragedy and want to ban such weapons like the AR-15 even though they are the most popular center-fire rifle in America, with literally millions of them in circulation, and 99.99% of them are never used in crimes.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

21. OK, I don't know about those two specific weapons.

Fully automatic weapons should be banned. And I tend to agree with the Swiss policy on owning firearms: You only get a license to own a weapon if you can demonstrate an actual need. And "I want to have a penis substitute" is not an actual need.

There are simply too many weapons in the US. And gun-nut groups such as the NRA are only exacerbating the problem.

Incidentally, you will notice that I have the Vietnam Campaign Ribbon in my posts. That's because I was there in 1968-69 (1/502, 173d Airborne Bde).

[Atypical Liberal]

23. Ah the old "penis" canard.

Fully automatic weapons should be banned.

They aren't. Virtually anyone can own one today. You simply have to buy a $200 tax stamp and have a background check and you can buy one. The only real problem is scarcity. The machine gun registry was closed in 1984. So only machine guns manufactured prior to this date are transferable. Consequently an M16 that would have cost you $1000 or less in 1984 costs $17,000 today.

I don't have a problem with the restrictions on fully automatic weapons, as I believe the people can fulfill the intent of the second amendment with semi-automatic weapons. Fully automatic weapons are suppression weapons, and there is no point in trying to suppress a technologically superior force as they will simply stand off and call in artillery or air support.

And I tend to agree with the Swiss policy on owning firearms: You only get a license to own a weapon if you can demonstrate an actual need.

See, I'm more for freedom. I don't have to define a "need" for something, as long as I'm a law-abiding citizen, if I want it and can pay for it, I can have it.

Besides, your "need" metric is a waste of time. Here in Alabama, you can't buy sex toys unless you have a medical "need". So when my wife and I went to the adult store to buy one, we filled out a check box on a little piece of paper that said we had a medical need for it.

What kind of "needs" are going to be valid for owning a firearm? Home defense? Concealed Carry? Hunting? Target shooting?

And "I want to have a penis substitute" is not an actual need.

This is offensive to millions of women who engage in shooting sports, including our US Olympic team.

There are simply too many weapons in the US. And gun-nut groups such as the NRA are only exacerbating the problem.

Did you know that in spite of the AR-15 being the most popular center-fire target rifle in America, only about 300 people are murdered every year with rifles of all kinds, let alone assault rifles?

Incidentally, you will notice that I have the Vietnam Campaign Ribbon in my posts. That's because I was there in 1968-69 (1/502, 173d Airborne Bde).

Thank you for your service.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

24. It's not a canard, it's a major reason why gun nuts collect guns.

Private citizens have no, zip, zilch, nada use for automatic weapons.

I don't have a problem with the restrictions on fully automatic weapons, as I believe the people can fulfill the intent of the second amendment with semi-automatic weapons.

They can fulfill the intent of the amendment with bolt action rifles.

Handguns have exactly two uses: Killing people and acting as penis substitutes for those who want to be macho but aren't well endowed. Police and the military have legitimate uses for them, no one else does.

See, I'm more for freedom. I don't have to define a "need" for something, as long as I'm a law-abiding citizen, if I want it and can pay for it, I can have it.

So you just buy things you have no use for? I don't, especially something as costly as a firearm.

Your thing about sex toys is merely evidence of Bible-Belt squeamishness about sex. BTW, don't you feel that someone's priorities are wrong when it is more trouble to get sex toys than something whose primary use is killing people?

What kind of "needs" are going to be valid for owning a firearm? Home defense? Concealed Carry? Hunting? Target shooting?

And here you demonstrate the vacuity of your argument. Hunting is a legitimate use. If there were no handguns out there, "home defense" would be meaningless -- and far more people get shot accidentally or with murderous intent than for "home defense". Target shooting can be best done with .22s, which are as non-lethal as firearms get. "Concealed Carry" is gun-nut speak for "penis substitute", and don't try to pretend it's not.

And "I want to have a penis substitute" is not an actual need.

{I want to have a penis substitute} is offensive to millions of women who engage in shooting sports, including our US Olympic team.

I suspect that the poor dears will survive. That does not change the fact that "having a penis substitute" is the reason many -- if not most -- male gun nuts have guns.

Did you know that in spite of the AR-15 being the most popular center-fire target rifle in America, only about 300 people are murdered every year with rifles of all kinds, let alone assault rifles?

I find "only" 300 murders per year something odd to feel good about. Anyway, that is really irrelevant. Go to http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html -- part of the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports for 2009 (the latest year they have published data for) -- which is about types of weapons used in murders. Handguns lead the list of weapons by far. For example, in your home state of Alabama, there were 318 total murders, of which 196 were by handgun (and 1 with a rifle).

Incidentally, I want to trot out one of my favorite examples of lying with statistics. In 1996, a nut in Australia ran amok with an AR-15 in Port Arthur, Tasmania, killing 35 and wounding 23. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia) for the details.) In reaction to this, the Australian Parliament passed some draconian gun control laws. Either the NRA or some other gun-nut group pointed out that in 1997, in the Australian state of Victoria, murder by firearms increased to nearly 300% over the number of murders in 1996; thus demonstrating the uselessness of gun control laws. I did some digging, and found that the statement about the increase was correct, as far as it went. In 1996, there were seven murders by firearms in Victoria; while in 1997 there were 19.

I stand by my contention that there are too many firearms in the US, and some reasonable controls should be put on firearm possession. Mandatory registration of all firearms would be a good place to start.

[Atypical Liberal]

25. Crock of shit.

Private citizens have no, zip, zilch, nada use for automatic weapons.

The good news is we live in a free country where I don't have to satisfy someone's definition of "need" before I can buy something. Whether it is a boat, a camper, or a gun, I don't have to show anybody that I "need" it before I buy it.

They can fulfill the intent of the amendment with bolt action rifles.

With the exception of sniper rifles, the modern infantry no longer uses these.

Handguns have exactly two uses: Killing people and acting as penis substitutes for those who want to be macho but aren't well endowed. Police and the military have legitimate uses for them, no one else does.

Police and military use handguns to protect themselves. Why is it legitimate that they can do so but civilians cannot?

The whole "penis substitute" thing is a crock of shit. There are millions of women who own and use handguns and other weapons for sporting, hunting, and self-defense reasons, and they are almost certainly not out looking for a penis substitute.

I enjoy shooting firearms of all kinds because of the skill involved in doing so. It has nothing to do with penises.

So you just buy things you have no use for? I don't, especially something as costly as a firearm.

You are conflating "use" with "need".

Having a use for something is not the same thing as "needing" it. I don't need an RV, but I have a use for one - going camping with my family. No one needs a $50,000 Corvette, but lots of people find uses for them.

Your thing about sex toys is merely evidence of Bible-Belt squeamishness about sex. BTW, don't you feel that someone's priorities are wrong when it is more trouble to get sex toys than something whose primary use is killing people?

I agree with you about the Bible Belt, but I don't have to undergo a background check to buy sex toys.

[b Hunting is a legitimate use.

Yes, it is. It is not, however, the intent behind the second amendment. We don't insure the security of free states from Bambi.

If there were no handguns out there, "home defense" would be meaningless -- and far more people get shot accidentally or with murderous intent than for "home defense".

The consequence of your fantasy would be that every single victim of violent crime would have only three choices: Run away if they are fast enough, submit to their attacker if they are tough enough, or engage in a physical contest of strength with their attacker. The weak would be at the mercy of the strong. I will not support your fantasy.

Target shooting can be best done with .22s, which are as non-lethal as firearms get.

Yes, they can, but it does not require near the skill as higher calibers do. Many people, myself included, do enjoy shooting .22s (mostly due to cost) but I get more enjoyment out of the higher skill required for shooting bigger calibers.

"Concealed Carry" is gun-nut speak for "penis substitute", and don't try to pretend it's not.

Again, this is a crock of shit. Are you saying that every woman with a concealed carry permit wishes they had a penis?

It is hugely offensive that you slander anyone who wants to have the means to resist violence as wishing they had a (bigger) penis.

And "I want to have a penis substitute" is not an actual need.

But wanting a viable option to stand up to violent attackers most certainly is.

I suspect that the poor dears will survive. That does not change the fact that "having a penis substitute" is the reason many -- if not most -- male gun nuts have guns.

Do you have any evidence to support this or is this just something you are pulling out of your ass?

I find "only" 300 murders per year something odd to feel good about. Anyway, that is really irrelevant. Go to http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html -- part of the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports for 2009 (the latest year they have published data for) -- which is about types of weapons used in murders. Handguns lead the list of weapons by far. For example, in your home state of Alabama, there were 318 total murders, of which 196 were by handgun (and 1 with a rifle).

Any number of murders is tragic, but when talking about rifles like what Holmes used, it is amazingly good when there are only 300 homicides every year with all rifles considering the millions of them in circulation.

Yes, handguns are used in many more homicides than long arms.

I stand by my contention that there are too many firearms in the US, and some reasonable controls should be put on firearm possession. Mandatory registration of all firearms would be a good place to start.

I will never support nor comply with registration of firearms.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

27. A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Note: My previous comments are in italics, Atypical Liberal's responses are in bold

Private citizens have no, zip, zilch, nada use for automatic weapons.

The good news is we live in a free country where I don't have to satisfy someone's definition of "need" before I can buy something. Whether it is a boat, a camper, or a gun, I don't have to show anybody that I "need" it before I buy it.

Wholly unresponsive. Which means, I suppose, that Atypical Liberal agrees with me. And the purposes of boats and campers is not "killing people", which is the sole purpose of automatic weapons.

They can fulfill the intent of the amendment with bolt action rifles.

With the exception of sniper rifles, the modern infantry no longer uses these.

So what? We are speaking of civilians, not military.

Handguns have exactly two uses: Killing people and acting as penis substitutes for those who want to be macho but aren't well endowed. Police and the military have legitimate uses for them, no one else does.

Police and military use handguns to protect themselves. Why is it legitimate that they can do so but civilians cannot?

Civilians should not need to protect themselves. That's the job of the police. If you gun nuts didn't cry, "Oh, no, registering guns is too onerous. Having our penis substitutes is far more important than the safety of the general public!" you wouldn't talk about needing to protect oneself. No, the problem here is too many firearms, and the gun nuts' refusal to admit that reasonable restrictions should be placed on them.

The UN is having a conference on international trafficing in small arms. The NRA is making the hysterical -- and baseless -- claim that the treaty could "seriously restrict your freedom to own, purchase and carry a firearm."
(See http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/07/03/nra-kicks-off-un-arms-treaty-conference-with-fe/186926 for a write-up.) That's the typical reaction of the gun nut lobby.

Concealed Carry" is gun-nut speak for "penis substitute", and don't try to pretend it's not.

Again, this is a crock of shit. Are you saying that every woman with a concealed carry permit wishes they had a penis?

I don't know. I do not see any reason for concealed carry. If you can give me a better reason than "I need a penis substitute", then I'd be happy to hear it.

I will never support nor comply with registration of firearms.

Thereby demonstrating that "gun nut" is the proper name for you. Your penis substitute is more important than the safety of the general public.

[Atypical Liberal]

28. A question for you.

Wholly unresponsive. Which means, I suppose, that Atypical Liberal agrees with me. And the purposes of boats and campers is not "killing people", which is the sole purpose of automatic weapons.

It's quite responsive. You want to justify firearm ownership through need. In this country, we don't have to justify the things we choose to buy.

Yes, firearms are for killing, and yes, that is what the second amendment is about.

So what? We are speaking of civilians, not military.

Yes, but the whole point of the second amendment is to put military-grade small arms in the hands of civilians so that they can function as military forces and counter military force.

Civilians should not need to protect themselves. That's the job of the police.

OK, you are showing yourself to be woefully ignorant here. Police are almost never present during the commission of crimes. They show up after the fact to gather evidence, interview witnesses, and aid in the prosecution. Furthermore, the police are under absolutely zero legal obligation to protect anyone not directly in their custody.

The fact is, even if every firearm vanished tomorrow, there would still be violent crimes, and people would be victimized without a police officer there to protect them.

You can wish that there was no violence in the world, but there has been violence in the world for all of recorded history. Ultimately, it is your responsibility to protect yourself and your family. If you want to abdicate that responsibility to someone else, that is your choice and I respect that. But you won't be making that choice for me.

I don't know. I do not see any reason for concealed carry. If you can give me a better reason than "I need a penis substitute", then I'd be happy to hear it.

Right, because everyone who wishes to use a tool to protect themselves from violence really is looking for a penis substitute. How condescending.

A question for you:

Do you believe that women who carry concealed weapons are carrying them as "penis substitutes"?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

39. Latest

Wholly unresponsive. Which means, I suppose, that Atypical Liberal agrees with me. And the purposes of boats and campers is not "killing people", which is the sole purpose of automatic weapons.

It's quite responsive.

No, it is not. You were responding to a question about civilian ownership of automatic weapons, and you failed to address this even indirectly. So is there a civilian use for automatic weapons? If so, what is it?

You want to justify firearm ownership through need. In this country, we don't have to justify the things we choose to buy.

Since, as you admit, "firearms are for killing," there is a difference in kind, and not just in degree, about ownership of a camper or a boat, and ownership of a firearm.

Yes, firearms are for killing, and yes, that is what the second amendment is about.

You seem to be saying that the Second Amendment allows killing people. Is that what you really mean?

Yes, but the whole point of the second amendment is to put military-grade small arms in the hands of civilians so that they can function as military forces and counter military force.

That has got to be the biggest lump of shit that I've come across since a conservative told me that Obama was simultaneously a marxist, a fascist and an anarchist. Saddam Hussain was generally disliked by most of his people, yet gun ownership was high. Why did he seem not to care that his people were armed? Because he had an army and an air force to back him up. A few yahoos in the sticks aren't going to stop the US Army for more than 2 minutes should they decide to take control of the nation.

I think this conversation is done. I said that you were a gun nut, and you proved it. Since I am an intelligent human being, we have nothing to say to each other.

[Atypical Liberal]

40. I notice you didn't answer my question:

Do you believe that women who carry concealed weapons are carrying them as "penis substitutes"?

You seem to be saying that the Second Amendment allows killing people. Is that what you really mean?

The second amendment doesn't allow killing people, it is about keeping arms in the hands of the people so that they can kill those who would threaten the security of frees states. And the only animal on the planet that can do that is people.

The second amendment is about killing people.

That has got to be the biggest lump of shit that I've come across since a conservative told me that Obama was simultaneously a marxist, a fascist and an anarchist. Saddam Hussain was generally disliked by most of his people, yet gun ownership was high. Why did he seem not to care that his people were armed? Because he had an army and an air force to back him up. A few yahoos in the sticks aren't going to stop the US Army for more than 2 minutes should they decide to take control of the nation.

Whether you think the objective of the second amendment is feasible or not is irrelevant. It is still what the founders intended, and it is still the US Constitution and thus the law of the land.

But as far as feasibility goes, I'll just point out that the United States has lost or quit every military engagement it has engaged in for the last 65 years, despite massive technological superiority.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

42. Because it's a stupid question, which does not deserve answering

On the other hand, Atypical Gun Nut, you have given evidence that you support the violent overthrow of the government, through the use of your penis substitute.

And I notice that you did not answer my considerably more cogent quesion: Why do you need to carry concealed weapons?

[Atypical Liberal]

43. My question is no more stupid than your statement that prompted it.

Because it's a stupid question, which does not deserve answering

You are the one asserting that guns are penis substitutes. So if it is stupid to ask if you think that women who own and carry firearms are doing so because they want a penis substitute, then your assertion is likewise stupid.

Which, of course, it is.

I will take your refusal to answer the question as acknowledgement that women who carry firearms are not doing so because they want a substitute penis.

On the other hand, Atypical Gun Nut, you have given evidence that you support the violent overthrow of the government, through the use of your penis substitute.

I support the same thing the founders supported - a citizenry armed with military-grade small arms appropriate for military use so that they can fight to preserve the security of free states from enemies both domestic and foreign.

And I notice that you did not answer my considerably more cogent quesion: Why do you need to carry concealed weapons?

I personally do not feel the need to carry a concealed weapon, so I don't. Or rather, it is more hassle than it is worth, since I live in a relatively crime-free neighborhood and my days consist of traveling to work and home again and I am unlikely to ever be a victim of violent crime.

But I respect the right of people who choose to carry a concealed weapon. They really don't have to define a need, because even if there was no benefit to carrying, the fact is that people with CCW permits are hardly ever involved in crime. In fact, based on the data provided by the states that publish such data, people with CCW permits are less likely to be involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime, than any other member of the public at large that you may encounter.

So even if there was absolutely no benefit to carrying a concealed weapon at all, it wouldn't matter, because it is essentially harmless to allow it.

But the fact is that CCW permit holders do defend themselves and others with their weapons.

Here is a recent example where a 71-year-old man defended an internet cafe full of people from two armed robbers:

[MicaelS]

41. You are wrong, it is NOT the job of the Police...

Civilians should not need to protect themselves. That's the job of the police.

First back in 1981, under Warren v. District of Columbia.

Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.

In this case, three rape victims sued the District of Columbia for negligence on the part of the police. Two of three female roommates were upstairs when they heard men break in and attack the third. They phoned the police, reporting that their house was being burglarized, and waited on the roof. Their call was incorrectly dispatched as less important than it was three minutes after they made the call, and three police cars came to the scene, three minutes after the call was dispatched. One policeman drove by without stopping, and another officer walked up to the door and knocked. Upon receiving no answer, the officers left five minutes after they had arrived. Nine minutes later, the two women called the police again and were assured they would receive assistance. This call was never dispatched and the police never came. Believing that the police had arrived and were in the house, the two women called down to the third who was being attacked. This alerted the intruders to their presence, and they then took them captive at knife-point. They were then raped, robbed, beaten, and forced to submit to the attackers' sexual demands for the next fourteen hours. The court noted that because the police are only under a general duty to provide services to the public at large, a special relationship must exist between the police and the individual in question for the "duty" element of negligence to be satisfied. It held that no such special relationship existed so the case was properly dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.

Next under DeShaney v. Winnebago County.

was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 22, 1989. The Court held that a state government agency's failure to prevent child abuse by a custodial parent does not violate the child's right to liberty for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The court opinion, by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, held that the Due Process Clause protects against state action only, and as it was Randy DeShaney who abused Joshua; a state actor (the Winnebago County Department of Social Services) was not responsible.

Furthermore, they ruled that the DSS could not be found liable, as a matter of constitutional law, for failure to protect Joshua DeShaney from a private actor. Although there exist conditions in which the state (or a subsidiary agency, like a county department of social services) is obligated to provide protection against private actors, and failure to do so is a violation of 14th Amendment rights, the court reasoned, "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf... it is the State's affirmative act of restraining the individual's freedom to act on his own behalf - through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty - which is the "deprivation of liberty" triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause, not its failure to act to protect his liberty interests against harms inflicted by other means.". Since Joshua DeShaney was not in the custody of the DSS, the DSS was not required to protect him from harm.

Next Castle Rock v. Gonzales

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.

[link:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html|
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone ]

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

In short, unless you are in police custody, or an involuntarily committed mental patient or restrained against your will and unable to protect yourself the police have no duty or responsibility to protect you.

That means your personal safety is ultimately your responsibility. No one else's.

[DCBob]

38. well said.

++++

[meanit]

26. My guess

is that the Founding Fathers would wonder why we the people think we need all of this personal exotic firepower? We have the largest military and budget in the world and the British are now gone.

But seriously, there are few things more intimidating to a crook than looking down the barrel of an old fashioned shotgun.

[Rhiannon12866]

29. Exactly right. K&R!

[yurbud]

36. remember how after 9/11 conservatives said the Constitution isn't a suicide pact?

Apparently, they make an exception for their interpretation of the Second Amendment.