The Second Amendment in the Balance

[TPaine7]

The Second Amendment protects a sacred right, the right of the people to posses the means of individual and corporate self-defense defense. It is one of the pillars in the temple of freedom, as important as any other.

To switch metaphors, it sometimes seems to me that the major parties—the Democrats and the Republicans—fought over the Constitution, each ending up with a portion that they now pretend is the whole. Republicans typically are hostile to the non-establishment clause, free speech, the right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures, the forbidding of torture—in other words, most of the enumerated rights. They have typically been friendly to the Second Amendment. (And even George Bush has a perfect record on the Third Amendment, as far as I know.)

Democrats, on the other hand, apparently have the larger scrap. They tend to push for freedom on all fronts, all except one.

It’s incredibly frustrating that no one will step up to the plate and “support and defend the <entire> Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

As I’ve said before, Obama’s inconsistent and infuriating rhetoric on the Second Amendment has been pushing me away from him. Well, as fierce a supporter as I am for the Second Amendment, and as long as it has been trampled underfoot by lies and bad faith, it is not the only pillar in freedom’s temple.

Fortunately, McCain is making my decision easier by pushing back. Here’s Michael Goldfarb, the Deputy Communications Director of the McCain campaign:

Mitchell's less than persuasive answer : "Congress is a coequal branch of government...the framers did not want to have one branch in charge of the government."

True enough, but they sought an energetic executive with near dictatorial power in pursuing foreign policy and war. So no, the Constitution does not put Congress on an equal footing with the executive in matters of national security.

Source: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/02/goldfarb/index.html


Senator McCain shares George Bush’s contempt for freedom on another front as well:

Senator McCain supports the FISA modernization bill passed by the Senate without qualification. He believes no additional steps should be necessary to secure immunity for the telecoms; both the 109th and 110th Congresses have conducted extensive evaluation and examination of this topic and have satisfied the public's need for appropriate oversight; hearings purportedly designed to "get to the bottom of things" have already occurred; and neither the Administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the ACLU and the trial lawyers, understand were Constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001.

Source: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/03/mccain/index.html

Apparently, the Constitution and the oath to uphold it notwithstanding, I will have to vote for the least of two evils. And right now, that is definitely Obama. So the Supreme Court is all that stands between America and continued defiance of the Second Amendment.

Ok my fellow citizens who love all of the Bill of Rights, how do you conduct your own balancing act?

[OffWithTheirHeads]

1. By putting my new bumper sticker on my truck

"Bitter, white, blue collar, gun owner for
OBAMA

[TPaine7]

2. LOL

That was one of the dumbest things I've ever heard a politician say.

That he still has your support is a tribute to his political genius.

I hope he is more careful in the future, and that he picks a running mate (like Bill Richardson, for instance) who can influence and educate him on the Second Amendment.

[maxidivine]

34. I hope he understands

That the entire country is not a gigantic inner city chicago neighborhood, and that there are many, many things on our collective plate that need attention more than guns. Our current system of regulation is fine, NICS isn't perfect but it does a good job of not permanently denying people with no record, and when they do slip up and accidentally give a green light the ATF goes to correct the situation. I just really hope he doesn't get caught up in a wave of "change" and push for some foolish new AW ban, or .50 ban, or attempt to ban non-LEO concealed carry. I don't make that much money, and I am paying in the vicinity of 30% taxes. I will be pissed if that money is funding a Josh Sugarman or Dianne Fiensteins attempts to pass a bill like that.

[iverglas]

3. Freudian slip ...

individual and corporate self-defense defense

... or the word "collective" just won't come out of your keyboard even when it's the word you need and mean, and even when you are so obviously parroting what I have previously said?

[tularetom]

4. I'm a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment

I'm also a staunch supporter of the 4th Amendment and I gotta say the 2nd is pretty much meaningless without the 4th.

I'm not worried about any Dems defying the 2nd. But I am concerned about republicans trashing the 2nd by crapping on the 4th.

I've heard this scare stuff for 40 years at least and nobody has tried to "grab my guns".

But they have tried to snoop on my phone calls, read my e-mails and open my mail.

I'm concerned about the constitution too. The whole constitution.

[TPaine7]

10. It sounds like we have broad agreement

on respecting the entire Constitution--being worried about the Fourth and the Second Amendments, and about "public servants" trampling the Fourth on their way to trample the Second.

But I don't think concern for the Second Amendment is "scare stuff." In order to justify disobeying the Second Amendment, many sophistries have been developed. Some of them are legal in nature, and if they are allowed to stand they endanger other rights. If I establish that 2+2 = 22.75 in order to achieve my objective, I cannot very well argue that 2+2 = 4 when it suits my purposes later. Such is the effect of shortsighted, unprincipled, corrupt precedent. And you don't have to believe in gun rights to see that.

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz is hardly a paranoid "gun nut." He hates guns and wants the Second Amendment repealed. But even he has a problem with

foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by
claiming it's not an individual right…. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to
use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.

Source: Alan Dershowitz quoted by Gifford. Dan Gifford, “The Conceptual Foundations of Anglo-American
Jurisprudence in Religion and Reason,” Tennessee Law Review 62 (1995): 759, 789. Quoted in testimony
of Robert A. Levy Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, (June 28, 2005).

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-rl062805.html

[jody]

5. You asked "Ok my fellow citizens" but I expect you'll have a reply or two from those from lesser

foreign countries intent upon telling the greatest nation the world has ever seen how to conduct our affairs in a society so diverse and with competing interests in such conflict that Solomon would not be able to lead us into the 21st century.

To them I say, watch our progress because you'll always be behind the U.S., just trying to follow our lead, and you can kiss my
:dem:

[iverglas]

6. isn't it funny?

jody chooses to be blind, and then sees things that aren't there.

Myself, I'd be so embarrassed if I did this even once that I'd probably never post here again.

I guess the venom just needs to be spewed or something will explode, and it doesn't matter where or when it gets sprayed. Sadly, it seems to have long ago poisoned its source beyond the reach of any antidote.

Anyhow, I'll be waiting for those lesser foreign countries to reply. Do they, like, appoint ambassadors to DU or something? Maybe we in Canada could arrange a trade for whichever filthy right-wing lackey is representing the US here at the moment ...

[Anexio]

7. .

"Maybe we in Canada could arrange a trade for whichever filthy right-wing lackey is representing the US here at the moment ..."

Any country's ambassador, by definition, would be considered a lackey. He/she needs to be in perfect lockstep with government they represent.

Is David Wilkins still our ambassador up there in Rushville? I remember Wilkins when he was in state government in South Carolina and my dad was going to law school in Columbia. Even though he was a Republican he was one of the good guys when it came to ripping that disgusting Confederate flag off the State Capital building.

I saw David Wilkens speak at a rally my parents took me to on the grounds of the state capital where he spoke eloquently on need to move past racism and accept one another regardless of skin color. (Hey, I know you don't have a lot of black people like me up in Toronto but take my word for it, we are actually human beings. If you cut me, I promise I will bleed.)

Good for Ambassador Wilkens for sticking out his commitment to his country by spending far too long in a forth world curiosity.

[iverglas]

8. filthy right-wing lackeys ...

(Hey, I know you don't have a lot of black people like me up in Toronto but take my word for it, we are actually human beings. If you cut me, I promise I will bleed.)

How does one accomplish the feat of knowing false things? If someone would explain it to me, I'd be grateful. It's a trick that could come in handy occasionally.

I was in Portland, Maine, on Memorial Day one weekend. I was even wearing a brooch I'd just bought at an antique shop in New Hampshire. It read:

Remember Harbour

The woman working in the shabby old hotel where I always stayed nodded gravely and said "not enough people do remember Pearl Harbour".

Anyhow, I went to the public memorial activity, and listened to the two high school students selected to speak: a white girl and a black boy. I was awestruck. They had managed to find the one and only black adolescent in town. I was very impressed.


The Toronto subway ... or Portland, Maine?


http://www.newmindspace.com/


David Wilkins, the respectful choice for Ambassador to Canada.

http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2005-06-30/news_story3.php

And if Wilkins's record as a backroom Republican operative in the U.S. South is any guide, he may be less abrasive than former U.S. ambassador Paul Cellucci – but also more sinister. "Wilkins is likely to be less strident, but if anything, the message is going to be meaner, a meaner message delivered nicer," says Zeihan.

But Wilkins wasn't exactly hand-picked for his special talents, says Nelson Wiseman, a professor of political science at U of T. "This appointment is a political reward, and the specifics of what he'll do are afterthoughts. The guy admits he doesn't know Canada. He hasn't been a foreign policy wonk. Everything he says from here on will be scripted by the State Department."

The mission, however, Wiseman agrees is similar to Cellucci's. "The Pentagon monitors the military capacity of all their allies and their enemies. Because Canada and the U.S. are linked through NATO and NORAD, that monitoring will continue and there will be continued encouragement for Canada to pull its weight."

On top of this, as Reg Whitaker, a political scientist from the University of Victoria, points out, Wilkins backed U.S. tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber as speaker of the South Carolina House of Representatives.

"It looks bad for Canada," Whitaker says. "The fact that this ambassador's only public stance on Canada was related to softwood lumber probably says it all. He represents a huge constituency for the Bush administration, the Southern Christian right. His appointment is somewhere between neglect and kicking Canada."

Softwood lumber, I'm sure you're aware, is the trade issue on which the United States repeatedly refused not only to honour its own word, its signature to NAFTA, but also to comply with every single tribunal decision it had thereby agreed to abide by, and to stop charging illegal tariffs and pay full compensation for illegal tariffs charged, and eventually used its moral weight sheer thuggish size to cheat workers in Canada out of their incomes and jobs. Yes, Wilkins is a fine fellow.


Good for Ambassador Wilkens for sticking out his commitment to his country by spending far too long in a forth world curiosity.

We have some good schools up here, if you'd be interested in remedial English spelling. Unfortunately, now that your economy is heading down the toilet and our dollar is too damned high for our own good, you might not be able to afford them ...

[Anexio]

11. Portland, Maine doesn't have a subway

I know because I went to school a few miles up the road in Brunswick and have spent many a debauched night in PWM.

You took some time and effort to compose a response to my blatant callout on you and I should give you some modicum of respect because I appreciate your efforts. But I'm really curious about you, you seem on one hand retarded but on the other hand you string nouns and verbs together like an educated person. Are you a computer, a bot, a group of agitated wingnuts? Oops, sorry, I meant to say a Canadian bot?

I've got a number of priorities in my life but I'm fascinated with your need to comment on America. What would move a person that doesn't live here and is not a citizen to hate this place so much and to feel the need to comment here so often?

"Yes, Wilkins is a fine fellow." I can only attest to my experience with him. Civil rights is a more important issue to me than Canadian logging rights. Sorry, I can't debate you that, I know nothing about it.

In closing, good post, I need to learn how to add pictures and stuff. It makes a post so much more interesting and pertinent.

[iverglas]

14. "[your] blatant callout of me"?

html in subject fixed


You mean, where you called me out to demonstrate the complete falsehood of your really really dumb reference to Toronto?

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

The Demographics of Toronto make Toronto one of the most multicultural cities in the world; in 2004, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) ranked Toronto second, behind Miami, in its "List of World Cities with the Largest Percentage of Foreign-born Population". Source: Human Development Report 2004 - page 15 Data released by Statistics Canada as part of the 2006 census indicates that Toronto has surpassed Miami in this year, with 45.7% of the population of the city being foreign born.

Toronto represents a multiracial mosaic. The 2001 Canadian census indicates 42.8% of Toronto's population being of a visible minority. In March 2005, Statistics Canada projected that the visible minority proportion will comprise a majority in Toronto by 2012.

Ethnic group -- Population -- %
Black ---------- 208,555 -- 8.4

One has to admit that due to the relative unpopularity of slavery in Canada, the African-American population is proportionately smaller here, country-wide, than in the US. In Toronto, the proportion is not far different from in the US, country-wide, and certainly higher than in many places in the US.

If you'd like to continue displaying your ignorance and basing a few more insulting posts on it, feel free.


I've got a number of priorities in my life but I'm fascinated with your need to comment on America.

Me, I'm fascinated with your apparent inability to read what's in front of your face. My comment in this thread was about the vocabulary used by the thread originator. I speak English. I'm qualified to comment on an English speaker's vocabulary.

Poor visually impaired jody seems to have imagined I said something about the second amendment to the US Constitution. You don't seem to be visually impaired.


Civil rights is a more important issue to me than Canadian logging rights. Sorry, I can't debate you that, I know nothing about it.

I have no doubt that you neither know nor care about your country's thuggery in trade relations with its allies (the fact this issue has nothing to do with "logging rights" kind of illustrates that fact). As to how important civil rights are to you, well, I wouldn't know; but if being informed about racial equality issues is an indication of how important they are to someone, I'd have to guess they aren't to you.

[maxidivine]

35. Come to Toronto, you'll love it!

There aren't any canadians!

[iverglas]

37. and there are some who say

that my characterization of gun militants is inaccurate.

Next time I need supporting evidence, I'll just call on you! You can demonstrate.

I'll be sure to tell the young woman across the street, now a university student, who spent much of her free time at my house while she was growing up, that she isn't a Canadian. After all, she was born in China.

[maxidivine]

40. I find your explotation of minorities despicable

The one adolescent black male in all of Portland? Really iverglas? Really? are you aware that the ethnic or racial composition of a city is nothing to trumpet the way you do? Do you understand how disgustingly condescending you sound? You understand the composition of a city, state, or nation is not a matter of public policy? Having more other-than-white people than another city is not something you should go and trumpet as evidence that your town is more enlightened or more open or anything else like that. It is only evidence that there are more minorities in that city.

[iverglas]

43. do have a word with your chum, will you?

"(Hey, I know you don't have a lot of black people like me up in Toronto but take my word for it, we are actually human beings. If you cut me, I promise I will bleed.)"

I'm sure you find his/her exploitation of minorities, by pretending to be a member of one -- and then praising one of the most racist right-wing politicians around, quite appalling.

[SteveM]

47. You might find this interesting...

Were gun laws in the old South aimed at racial discrimination? (Quote by me)

Quotes from our Canadian commentator:

"-- and I shall assume you mean something along the lines of "were gun laws in the old South designed to maintain racial inequality" --

the answer is:

WHO THE FUCK CARES?"

[iverglas]

48. I'm sure someone will

Or at least ... someone else will pretend to.

[SteveM]

50. Try this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x173896#174131

[iverglas]

51. being careful not to miss the good parts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=173896&mesg_id=174054

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=173896&mesg_id=174087

I especially like:

Funny thing. You don't actually hear large numbers of African-Americans calling for firearms control measures to be repealed today, either.

You'd almost think that all the African-Americans and organizations of African-Americans who oppose the gun militants didn't give a crap about the gun militants' exploitive and diversionary noise, wouldn't you?

[SteveM]

53. Petty obfuscation. Defend YOUR WORDS (nt)

[iverglas]

49. I'd even bet

that you have a link for that quotation. And that you're not afraid to provide it so that the reading public can see for itself just how sad your sorry misrepresentation is.

Do I lose?

[iverglas]

9. hahaha, that was a good one

Even though he was a Republican he was one of the good guys when it came to ripping that disgusting Confederate flag off the State Capital building.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E2D71431F936A25751C0A9669C8B63

Compromise on Confederate Flag Gains Support
Published: February 15, 2000

Gov. Jim Hodges won the support of several ranking black state legislators today for a proposal to remove the Confederate battle flag from atop the State Capitol and to raise a smaller version of the flag near a monument on the side of the Statehouse.

... The Legislature controls the flag's fate, and several staunch flag supporters in the Republican majority of the House oppose the proposal.

But House Speaker David H. Wilkins, a leader of the pro-flag forces, praised the governor for putting the plan forward. He also issued a statement that seemed to leave open the possibility of some resolution.

HAHAHAHA!


http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=14023

Wednesday, May 24, 2000
South Carolina Gov Signs Confederate Flag Compromise

... the rancorous battle over the Confederate battle flag and its position over the state Capitol dome ended Tuesday when Democratic South Carolina Governor Jim Hodges signed into law a bill that removes the banner from the dome and from both legislative chambers. The flag will be transferred to a monument in front of the Capitol.

... "This does not heal," said Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, an African-American and the Democratic minority leader in the state House of Representatives. "All this does is divide."

Cobb-Hunter led the House Legislative Black Caucus in a defiant rejection of the flag compromise. Of 26 African-American House members, only four voted for the final bill.

... "The flag represents the Confederacy that enslaved, exploited, murdered, raped and killed our people for over three hundred years," said Rep. Joe Neal, Black Caucus vice-chairman. "But somehow it seems to be okay to ask us to fly it in front of our building."

... "I'm sorry we couldn't get everyone," Republican Speaker of the House David Wilkins said. "But a majority decided we need to move forward."

HAHAHAHA HAH!

That really was a good one. As, I suspect, were one or two other things you said.

[Anexio]

12. .

You've lost me. What the hell are you talking about? I read both your links but it's clear that Wilkins was working to get the flag torn down from the top of the Capital building.

I was there, and I'm going to assume that you were not there. I heard David Wilkins speak at a rally and regardless of his party, he was a friend of mine and my parents on that day.

You are poison.

[iverglas]

13. yes indeed!

it's clear that Wilkins was working to get the flag torn down from the top of the Capital building.

It's abundantly clear from things like: House Speaker David H. Wilkins, a leader of the pro-flag forces.

The rag was not torn down. It was moved to a slightly less prominent place on the legislative grounds.


You are poison.

(My boldface is to indicate the words are yours, and do not indicate my emphasis as in your post.)

Actually, what I am is not stupid.

And believe me, anybody trying to portray David Wilkins to me as a friend of African-Americans must really think I'm very stupid. Which I find quite insulting.

As to whether David Wilkins is a friend of you and your parents, I wouldn't have a clue.


http://www.jessejacksonjr.org/query/creadpr.cgi?id=830

South Carolina Legislature Reconvenes To Face Flag Controversy
Wednesday, January 12, 2000

Billboards popped up around Columbia that said, "Keep the flag. Dump Wilkins," as in Republican House Speaker David Wilkins of Greenville, a flag supporter.

http://www.usca.edu/aasc/Flag.htm

... Many within the legislature were not happy with the governor’s new position. House Speaker David Wilkins, a flag supporter, did not wish to alienate Republican constituents. But he was also hesitant to criticize a fellow Republican, so he took a neutral stance. Wilkins later indicated a willingness to meet with the governor and discuss a compromise of some sort (Bandy “Flag forces,” 1996, D4). ...

... On the day before the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce met, Governor Hodges proposed a compromise on the flag issue in a speech to the Columbia Urban League. Hodges asked the NAACP to end the boycott, and said that in return he would urge House Speaker David Wilkins to facilitate passage of a Martin Luther King Day state holiday. ...

... Accusations over who was to blame for failure to pass a King holiday bill flew back and forth between the two sides. Representative Joe Neal, vice chair of the Legislative Black Caucus, stated that South Carolinians were “still not ready for prime time…we still have a lot of baggage from the 19th century and the 20th century as it relates to race and bigotry and prejudice.” Speaker David Wilkins did not agree with this interpretation. He blamed black legislators for the defeat of a version of the bill that would have created two separate holidays, one for Martin Luther King and one for Confederate Memorial Day (Stroud “King Day bill,” 2000, A1, 14). ...

"Confederate Memorial Day"??

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6447/01-22-97.htm

Wednesday, January 22, 1997
House calls for flag vote

House Speaker David Wilkins, R-Greenville, who has in the past supported Beasley's tax and economic development issues, said Tuesday he differed with the governor on the flag.

"There are a majority of us," he said, "who prefer to have the flag remain flying. I'm in that category. But there is a growing recognition the debate will never end unless we allow a referendum."

Filthy and hardcore is how I'd call it.

Perhaps you've seen things like

He was a passionate advocate for the dignified removal
of the Confederate flag from the Statehouse

and actually thought it meant he advocated removal of the rag from the Statehouse. If that's the case, I'm happy to have been of service.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

16. you're very cute

or at least you apparently think you are.

Well, if only I could see any evidence of capacity for thought.


I don't know if you are brain damaged, on drugs or insane, but there is clearly something wrong with you.

The word you were looking for was WHETHER.

I don't know WHETHER you are brain damaged, on drugs or insane, but there is clearly something wrong with you.

God I hate having to read illiterate noise.



Here in America we have a saying, to paraphrase it goes something like this:

Well here in America, we have a few too. I see one we share:



Of course, we can spell it.






I sincerely hope you find some closure to your anger. Please get some help.

If I can stop laughing long enough, I'll be sure to take your advice.


Do you have an estimated time of departure? Or would you like a little friendly wager?

[iverglas]

17. oh, btw

Is David Wilkins still our ambassador up there in Rushville?

Was I supposed to know what that meant? I'll bet it was intended as an insult somehow. Damn, eh?

Ottawa is sometimes referred to as "Bytown" (Toronto, of course, is "Hogtown"). Rushville? There's one of them in Illinois, where that fake Ottawa is ...

[Herman74]

18. The "Sacred" Second Amendment

"The Second Amendment protects a sacred right, the right of the people to posses the means of individual and corporate self-defense defense. It is one of the pillars in the temple of freedom, as important as any other." -- TPaine7

LOL!!! Do you suppose that next time you could try to be just a bit more melodramatic about it?

How is it that the United Kingdom is able to get by perfectly well without having anything like this "sacred" 2nd Amendment? WELL?? Will any gunlover answer this question, or WILL THEY INSTEAD REFUSE TO ANSWER??? Are the Danish without guns fighting ever so hard to overthrow the tyranny that oppresses them? As they have no 2nd Amendment and notably less guns, would you say that the Canadians enjoy far fewer accidental shootings? Do the unarmed Japanese live in constant fear of attack by their fellow citizens, or is instead the homicide rate miniscule in Japan?

Indeed, isn't the homicide rate far higher in the United States than it is for other advanced industrialized societies? To me, it is the RIGHT TO LIVE that is the most "sacred."

"As I’ve said before, Obama’s inconsistent and infuriating rhetoric on the Second Amendment has been pushing me away from him." -- TPaine7

Like me, Obama values dearly human life. I shall stand with him. But with whom will the gunlovers stand with, if they find themselves being "pushed away"?

Well, this guy here loves guns and the 2nd Amendment, just like all you gunlovers do:

[solinvictus]

19. The UK....

.. poor example since hot break-ins ( also called home invasions ) have skyrocketed since the general ban on firearms, knives, swords, aerosol cans, air rifles, and even large dogs. The UK values the right to live all right; the criminal's right.

[Anexio]

20. You're kidding, right?

The UK has banned all those things? Can I assume that Tasers and pepper spray are banned too?

What is one supposed to defend their home and family with, a cup of tea and a biscuit?

[TPaine7]

21. I know it sounds like a bad joke, but I don't think they're kidding.

In many countries self-defense is highly suspect, frowned upon, and is only technically tolerated—for now. It is not supposed to be contemplated in advance. Having the means to defend oneself is “wrong” or at least very suspect. Self-defense, to be excusable, must be desperate, spontaneous, without forethought, and lucky. Oh, and while your life is not worth forethought and preparation, the utmost consideration must be given to the life, health, and well being of the criminal assailant. In Enland, he cannot even be psychologically traumatized.

That willingness was further undermined by a broad revision of criminal law in 1967 that altered the legal standard for self-defense. Now everything turns on what seems to be "reasonable" force against an assailant, considered after the fact. As Glanville Williams notes in his Textbook of Criminal Law, that requirement is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it <self-defense> still forms part of the law."

The original common law standard was similar to what still prevails in the U.S. Americans are free to carry articles for their protection, and in 33 states law-abiding citizens may carry concealed guns. Americans may defend themselves with deadly force if they believe that an attacker is about to kill or seriously injure them, or to prevent a violent crime. Our courts are mindful that, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed, "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an upraised knife."

…

� In 1973 a young man running on a road at night was stopped by the police and found to be carrying a length of steel, a cycle chain, and a metal clock weight. He explained that a gang of youths had been after him. At his hearing it was found he had been threatened and had previously notified the police. The justices agreed he had a valid reason to carry the weapons. Indeed, 16 days later he was attacked and beaten so badly he was hospitalized. But the prosecutor appealed the ruling, and the appellate judges insisted that carrying a weapon must be related to an imminent and immediate threat. They sent the case back to the lower court with directions to convict.

� In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, "My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life." In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.

� In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.

Source: http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

[iverglas]

23. "I don't think"

If you'd stopped right there, you would have been safe.

But since you didn't, you are apparently asserting that the allegation that hot burglaries have skyrocketed is true, that the allegation that a general ban on firearms has been implemented is true, that the allegation that a general ban on knives has been implemented is true, and that the allegations that general bans on swords, aerosol cans, air rifles and large dogs have been implemented are true. Not to mention the insinuation that in the UK only the right to life of "the criminal" is valued.

I live for the day when I will be able to say I am surprised to see such things being asserted in this place.


Source: http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

Oh look! Your source is a filthy dishonest right-wing rag!

I live for the day when I will be able to say I am surprised to see such sources being cited in this place.

So, how come you didn't quite the bit about Tony Martin? Even you have a vestige of shame left? Even you know that Tony Martin was a mentally unstable bigot who had announced his intention to shoot the Roma youth known to have attempted to burgle his farm, and who shot one youth in the back as he fled, outside any building, and killed him?

I do so love truth and sincerity in civil discourse ... that being all there can be in civil discourse, of course.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/columnists/gary_slapper/article2581201.ece?ILC-EVYcomments&ATTR=LAW

October 3, 2007
The Law Explored: self-defence
Professor Gary Slapper explores the complexities of English law in plain language

... As the law stands, if you hurt someone while defending yourself, or while stopping a crime, you won’t be prosecuted even if you kill, so long as what you did was reasonable in the circumstances. You’ll only be prosecuted if you have acted unreasonably. And reasonableness isn’t judged by the standards of behaviour at a vicar’s tea party, it’s judged by what someone in desperate circumstances would do.

The public – manifested in juries — can and has refused to convict people who have used violence to prevent crimes. In 1988, Ted Newberry, a 76-year-old from Ilkeston, Derbyshire, lay in wait on his allotment shed for an expected intruder, then shot a 12-bore gun at a Mark Revill when he tried to enter. Revill was badly injured and Mr Newberry was prosecuted on charges of wounding, but was acquitted by a jury.

Guidance issued in 2005 by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers says that anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others or to prevent crime. It couldn’t be plainer. It is based on the common law and section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. A citizen isn’t expected to make fine judgments over the level of force used in the heat of the moment. The official advice says:

“So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self-defence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon”

... In 2005, the Director of Public Prosecutions stated that during the previous 15 years (when the courts dealt with over 20 million crimes) there had only been 11 prosecutions against householders including one in which a burglar was tied up, thrown in a pit and set alight. Some people might say, “So what, it serves him right!” – but imagine what sort of society we’d descend into if that was our way of punishing crime. It would lurch towards those of Mad Max and 28 Days Later.

But surely the sky is falling.

I mean, if it weren't, there wouldn't be anything for gun militants to get all militant about, would there?


edited to add emphasis (underlining) to the bits of the above that sound just so much like the words of good old Oliver Wendell Holmes: "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an upraised knife."

[TPaine7]

25. To whom it may concern.

After encounters with iverglas here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x168492 ,

here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x168997 ,

and here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x170607 ,

I decided that talking to her was not a justifiable use of my time.

I told her that here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x174365#174429 .

[iverglas]

27. whom might it concern?

Not moi.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

54. enjoy them, but don't understand them?

Even when they're that short?

Of course, I guess that someone who makes a point of repeatedly telling someone s/he is ignoring him/her is just the sort one might expect to do a big flounce before leaving, so maybe you're prescient.

Now, if I were to get some help, would you promise me all the Young Republican frat boys I could eat?

[iverglas]

26. and lest anyone doubt my authority in all this

http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/tproc2.html

Burden of Proof in Action: a case of self defence.

Lets examine how the evidential burden operates through the example of a killing which the defendant claims was done in self-defence. The legal burden rest with the prosecution to prove all the elements of the offence of murder: the killing was intentional, defendant's act caused the death etc. To allow the jury to consider self-defence, the defendant must adduce some evidence to support that argument: some evidence that the killing was a reasonable response to the act of the victim. The defendant does not have to prove that it was self defence. If there is sufficient evidence for the issue to be considered, the prosecution bears the legal burden to prove that the killing was not in self-defence. ...

Woolmington: Rumpole's Golden Thread

The authority commonly cited for these points is Woolmington case BFN 379. This English House of Lords decision overturned the old common law rule for murder that once the prosecution had established that the defendant had caused the death of the victim, the killing was presumed to be murder, unless the defendant could prove that it was manslaughter. Lord Viscount Sankey overturned the defendant's conviction. In his view, the golden thread running through the web of the Criminal Law was the burden of proving guilt rested with the prosecution.

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

Ruling

The issue brought to the House of Lords was whether the statement of law in "Foster's Crown Law" was correct when it said that where a death occurred it is presumed to be murder unless proven otherwise.

The House of Lords could not find any basis for the claim in Foster's Crown Law. In articulating the ruling, Viscount Sankey made his famous "Golden thread" speech:

Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained. When dealing with a murder case the Crown must prove (a) death as the result of a voluntary act of the accused and (b) malice of the accused.

The conviction was overturned and Woolmington acquitted.

And we all know that John Sankey,

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

and I are both direct descendants of a couple who married in Canterbury in the mid-1700s. That makes the authority mine. Respect it!

[maxidivine]

38. Oh look! An attack on the source!

The article looked well written and rational. You labeled it "a filthy dishonest right-wing rag!", without giving any grounds for that smear, or even any reasons why that would be relevant.

[iverglas]

42. oh look! your statement is false!

Quelle surprise. Two in two posts. Perfect record.

I said:

So, how come you didn't quite <quote> the bit about Tony Martin? Even you have a vestige of shame left? Even you know that Tony Martin was a mentally unstable bigot who had announced his intention to shoot the Roma youth known to have attempted to burgle his farm, and who shot one youth in the back as he fled, outside any building, and killed him?

The relevant passage in the article in question in the filty right-wing rag in question:

In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted �5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin.

The truth:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/708345.stm

A farmer accused of murdering a teenage burglar had made threats to shoot any intruders in his home, a court was told.

Tony Martin, 55, of Emneth, Norfolk, is charged with murdering market trader Fred Barras, of Newark, Nottinghamshire, during a break-in at his home in August 1999.

Rosamund Horwood-Smart QC, prosecuting, told Norwich Crown Court how Martin was known for his vitriolic tirades against criminals and gypsies.

... She said he talked of putting gypsies in a field, surrounded by barbed wire and machine gunning them. "He made his views public at a Farmwatch meeting which had been organised in his area and attended by a number of his neighbours and friends", she said.

... "And when he reported the <previous> burglary, which he did shortly after midnight, ... he told the operator that the burglars had left some furniture outside and they may come back and if they did return he would blow their heads off."

(I apologize for stating earlier that the youth who was killed was not in the building at the time; I recalled that he was shot in the back while fleeing, and died outside the building.)


Haha: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

On 12 February 2004, Tony Martin was arrested on suspicion of stealing number plates <vehicle licence plates>.

Guess he's lucky to be alive. The British National Party would surely miss him if one of its loyal supporters had shot him in the back and claimed self-defence.


Yuppers. Filthy right-wing LYING rag, that "Reason". Of course, it's not above insinuating things that aren't true, too:

In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.

"Now", like there's some causal connection. In fact, a majority of "gun crime" in the UK is committed with imitation firearms. One suspects this might be the actual causal connection.

Anything else you'd like?

[jody]

32. Thanks for posting. n/t

[maxidivine]

36. They are supposed to do everything in their power

to ensure that the mixed up individual who is invading their home does not get hurt. Ridiculous system over there, the number of people who die from shootings may be lower but at least we don't prosecute people for grappling with a knife-armed attacker who ends up stabbing himself and dying in the struggle. Especially not when that attacker has an active arrest warrant for armed robbery.

[iverglas]

39. which one was that?

The DPP:

In 2005, the Director of Public Prosecutions stated that during the previous 15 years (when the courts dealt with over 20 million crimes) there had only been 11 prosecutions against householders ...

You:
at least we don't prosecute people for grappling with a knife-armed attacker who ends up stabbing himself and dying in the struggle. Especially not when that attacker has an active arrest warrant for armed robbery.

Total of 11 prosecutions up to 2005; shouldn't be hard to provide some details on the one you cite, whether it occurred before or after 2005.

Perhaps you're referring to this one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7266555.stm

Wednesday, 27 February 2008, 17:01 GMT

A shopkeeper has said he is "relieved" to not face a murder charge after a man who tried to rob him was stabbed to death with his own knife.

... The CPS has decided not to prosecute Mr Singh. The shopkeeper says he does not know how Kilroe's injury was caused.

... Following the announcement not to prosecute Mr Singh over the attack, Det Supt Mick Gradwell of Lancashire Police said: "This was a violent attack on Mr Singh by a convicted armed robber. My recommendation was that Mr Singh should not be prosecuted and I am pleased that the Crown Prosecution Service has agreed with that."

John Dilworth, assistant district Crown prosecutor for South West Lancashire, said Mr Singh was acting in self-defence. "While this case does not concern a householder defending themselves against an intruder, it has very similar considerations," he said.

So we have an statement from the appropriate authorities that a man was not prosecuted when the man he claimed attacked him with a knife died after being stabbed with his own knife.

And we have a sneaky insinuation from you that a man was prosecuted when the man he claimed attacked him with a knife died after being stabbed with his own knife, the facts you insinuate being false.


Anything you'd like to say?

[maxidivine]

41. My mistake, it was mr. Singh I was thinking of

But I had read the story prior to the Prosecution Service deciding not to charge him with murder, so when I read it he was very much in danger of being prosecuted for murder. I believe when I read the story he was sitting in jail while they figured out what to do with him. Good to know they did the right thing.

[iverglas]

44. what would we do without me?

Why, all sorts of, er, misremembered things might get passed off and swallowed as truth around here.

Just as they do on the websites operated by the racist / misogyinst / right-wing gun militants where people around here pick them up ...



spelling typo fixed

[maxidivine]

45. hmm, I apologized for being wrong,

explained that when I read about Mr. Singh it was while he was sitting in a cell waiting to learn what his fate would be, and that it was outdated information. I congratulated the CPS on a job well done. I gave you kudos for being right. and your response is to insinuate that I am intentionally misleading the members of this forum by spreading "racist / misogyinst / right-wing gun militant" ideology.


Fantastic technique iverglas.

[iverglas]

46. nope

My response was to say that this forum is full of false factoids, and I appear to be one of the very few, if not the only one, who bothers to question them and correct them.

Where they come from and why they're posted, I don't know and I don't really care. The point is that if I don't correct them, they sit here uncorrected, and that's not good for democratic discourse. Correct information is essential. And I'm always happy to provide it.

Of course, myself, if I'm going to make allegations of fact, I try to verify them first, and cite some sort of source. This generally averts gross inaccuracies.

[iverglas]

22. well, "kidding" is one word for it

There are others.

The one I'm thinking of would describe every single word of this post.

Most of them are so obviously false we needn't waste breath on them.

Let's look at the big one.

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page55.asp

How the British Crime Survey (BCS) works

* For a variety of reasons, people do not always report crimes to the police - which means they don't get reflected in police recorded crime figures.

* The British Crime Survey (BCS) asks people about their actual experiences - and so gives us a more accurate picture of crime levels and trends across England & Wales.

Note: The BCS only measures domestic burglary. It does not measure burglary from buildings other than dwellings, nor burglary as a whole.


According to the BCS:

* In 2005/06 the total number of domestic burglaries in England and Wales was around 733,000.
* Domestic burglary peaked in the mid 1990's and fell by 59% between 1995 and 2005/06.
* In 2005/06, around 2 in 100 households were burgled (this includes attempted burglaries where nothing was taken).

Personally, I'm very leery of using surveys as a basis for crime information. In this case, the number of burlaries "reported" in the survey was less than half the number reported to police.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/comparingbcs.pdf
-- see page 9 for survey / reported to police comparisons.

But I think some around here like them. And as indicators of trends, they may be useful.


So, for it to be true that "hot burglaries" have "skyrocketed" in the last 15 years, during which total burglaries fell by OVER HALF, well, I'd have to see some numbers, myself.


It really is time that gun militants stopped citing 15-year-old data and the flawed dishonest Lott / Kopel / Kleck representations of them.

[TPaine7]

24. Are you intentionally misrepresenting my position?

I didn’t say that the Second Amendment was sacred; I said that the right it protects is sacred. There’s a big difference. The right existed before the Amendment, and it will continue to exist if the Amendment is repealed.

LOL!!! Do you suppose that next time you could try to be just a bit more melodramatic about it?

Notice that I said the right to arms “is one of the pillars in the temple of freedom, as important as any other.” I have the same fierce loyalty to the other pillars. Freedom is worthy of drama, if not melodrama.

How is it that the United Kingdom is able to get by perfectly well without having anything like this "sacred" 2nd Amendment? WELL?? Will any gunlover answer this question, or WILL THEY INSTEAD REFUSE TO ANSWER???

First of all, your question is based on a distortion of my position. Secondly, while being as nice as I can, I would like to point out that your “shouting” all caps are not remotely impressive or intimidating. And no, I will not refuse to address your question, bogus as it is.

The United Kingdom got along with serfdom, slavery, absolute monarchy, and religious persecution for quite a while. There were, I am sure, many people who imagined that they were getting along “perfectly well.” So what?

The fact that freedom of speech is curtailed in Germany does not make me value it less. The fact that England has a state church does not make me value freedom of religion less. The fact that India has a caste system does not make me doubt that “all men are created equal.”

And the fact that in England, criminals feel free to walk in to people’s houses and rob them as they sit watching does not strike me as “getting along perfectly well.” The fact that people are buying stab resistant jackets for their children does not strike me as “getting along perfectly well.” The fact that “Britain is Now the Crime Capitol of the West” (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/britain-is-now-the-crime-capital-of-the-west-648274.html ) does not strike me as “getting along perfectly well.”

Do the unarmed Japanese live in constant fear of attack by their fellow citizens, or is instead the homicide rate miniscule in Japan?

You seem to be making an argument without spelling it out, so I will spell it out as I read it and then address it.

There are fewer guns in Japan than in the US. Japanese people do not “live in constant fear of attack by their fellow citizens.” It follows that having fewer guns in a society leads to not having “constant fear of attack” by one’s fellow citizens and having more guns leads to having “constant fear of attack” by one’s fellow citizens.

Your premise is bogus. I live in the US, I have lived several places here, and I have never lived “in constant fear of attack by <my> fellow citizens.” You have a fantasy view of America.

Now admittedly, I have never lived in American slums. But I think I would be concerned about violence if I lived in a London slum.

Let’s forget that bogus premise and address another.

There are fewer guns in Japan than in the US. Japanese people have a higher rate of suicide. It follows that having fewer guns in a society leads to more suicide and having more guns leads to having less suicide.

Ridiculous? Yes, but no more so than the logic underlying your unstated argument.

Indeed, isn't the homicide rate far higher in the United States than it is for other advanced industrialized societies? To me, it is the RIGHT TO LIVE that is the most "sacred."

That is not the American way. “Give me liberty or give me death”, not give me liberty or don’t give me liberty.

There are those who do not value liberty, and I have no quarrel with them—until and unless they try to get me to join them. Scratch that. Actually, I do—their surrender of their rights tends to endanger mine, but I cannot force them to value their rights so I live with it.

Read my posts here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x174863#174942 ) and see if you think the people in the UK actually have a right to life. Read my posts here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x170607 ) and see if you think the people in the District of Columbia actually have a right to life.

How can your right to life be respected if you can be prosecuted for taking actions necessary to protect your life? It can’t.

Like me, Obama values dearly human life. I shall stand with him. But with whom will the gunlovers stand with, if they find themselves being "pushed away"?

I agree that Obama values his own life and those of his family. He got Secret Service protection because he thought that he and his family were in special danger. I don’t begrudge him that. What I do begrudge him is the fact that he does not want other people—even people under specific and officially recognized danger with protective orders—to have the protection of arms. One would think that either he is a “special person” of a higher rank than ordinary people, or he is illogical on the subject of armed self-defense.

Well, this guy here loves guns and the 2nd Amendment, just like all you gunlovers do:

If I proved to you that Charles Manson believes that 3 + 3 = 6, would you suddenly lose your ability to do math? If so, I feel bad for you.

[iverglas]

28. snork

The United Kingdom got along with serfdom, slavery, absolute monarchy, and religious persecution for quite a while.

Your own ancestors come from Mars, did they? Perhaps Germany? We all know what a bastion of enlightenment and freedom Germany was ... and every other bit of Europe was ... during the times to which you refer.

Of course, then there was the United States of America, and its precursors. Bastions of ... religious persecution and slavery, I believe were two of its main features.

Hey, maybe your ancestors came from Africa. My friend the hereditary chief of that little village in Cameroon -- his grandfather sold people into slavery. I'm not sure what the people of that village might have thought of somebody dissing the hereditary chief a couple of hundred years ago. But I'll bet it wouldn't have been a wise idea.


The fact that freedom of speech is curtailed in Germany does not make me value it less. The fact that England has a state church does not make me value freedom of religion less. The fact that India has a caste system does not make me doubt that “all men are created equal.”

And the fact that your country has murdered and is murdering children and adults all over the world -- that makes you, what, not value homicidal imperialism any less? If there's another conclusion here that I might be missing, I'm sure you'll tell me what it is.


But I think I would be concerned about violence if I lived in a London slum.

Can you point to a "London slum" on a map? Or is the one you're thinking of a figment of your imagination?


That is not the American way. “Give me liberty or give me death”, not give me liberty or don’t give me liberty.

Is this something that you people voted on at some point? Is it in some constitutional instrument I'm not aware of?

Or might it just be the witticism of one individual, expressing the choices of that individual and others who might share his interests and values?

I wonder whether anyone actually pointed a firearm at him and said "(a) I shoot you dead now, (b) you go to the church of my choice for the rest of your life; your choice", and what he actually said.

How 'bout you? Had to make the choice lately? Or are we seeing childish prattle from a prattling child? I go with the latter.


Read my posts here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... ) and see if you think the people in the UK actually have a right to life.

Yeah, and be sure to read my post exposing that one for the recitation of right-wing talking points that it is.


How can your right to life be respected if you can be prosecuted for taking actions necessary to protect your life? It can’t.

How can you sit there with your bare babyface hanging out and make the false assertion that people in the UK may be prosecuted for taking actions necessary to protect their lives? Apparently you can. Could be a miracle, I guess.


I agree that Obama values his own life and those of his family. He got Secret Service protection because he thought that he and his family were in special danger. I don’t begrudge him that.

Ha! HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH. Your and your colleagues' constant bitter whining along these lines is the perfect proof of how much you DO begrudge it.

And further proof of your complete disregard for the PUBLIC WELFARE, and the fact that having people who hold or seek to hold public office in your society ARE at special risk of harm, and that it is in the PUBLIC INTEREST to take measures to protect public office holders or seekers from harm.

Because the public interest, that just ain't your concern.

[Herman74]

29. Time to think about the carnage caused by guns

"The United Kingdom got along with serfdom, slavery, absolute monarchy, and religious persecution for quite a while." -- TPaine7

Haven't you better things to do with your time than to provide irrelevant, ancient history nonsense for your readers? My post referred to the UK of today.

"The fact that 'Britain is Now the Crime Capitol of the West' (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/britain-is-n... ) does not strike me as 'getting along perfectly well.'" -- TPaine7

Might help if you were to provide a link for information that was less than half a dozen years old.

"And the fact that in England, criminals feel free to walk in to people’s houses and rob them as they sit watching does not strike me as “getting along perfectly well.”

As opposed to this country, where a fellow can just walk into a local gun shop, buy some guns, and then proceed to murder 30-plus college students? Somehow, burglary can't quite match the intensity of murder, wouldn't you agree?

"There are fewer guns in Japan than in the US. Japanese people have a higher rate of suicide. It follows that having fewer guns in a society leads to more suicide and having more guns leads to having less suicide."

"Ridiculous?" -- TPaine

Yes, ridiculous of you to present a bogus argument irrelevant to the fact that the leading source of homicide in this country, what sets it apart from other industrialized nations, is gun homicide, which you don't get in Japan.

"That is not the American way. “Give me liberty or give me death”, not give me liberty or don’t give me liberty"

LOL (again)!!! So you're now an expert on "the American Way." Maybe, though next time you can find some quote or other about liberty from someone other than a slaveowner (as Patrick Henry was). As for me, give me "peace on earth."

"How can your right to life be respected if you can be prosecuted for taking actions necessary to protect your life?" -- TPaine7

Would you support those who claim they need a machine gun for self-defense? How about a bazooka, especially given that bazookas can definitely be a part of a militia as well? Or how about a switchblade knife? And if the answer is "no," and you give your reasons why it is "no," maybe then you'll understand that these same reasons could easily apply to the pistol as well.

You want to defend yourself cause you're afraid, get pepper spray.

"What I do begrudge him is the fact that he does not want other people—even people under specific and officially recognized danger with protective orders—to have the protection of arms." -- TPaine7

Can't you understand, what Obama has no problem with understanding, that your right to own guns also means that crazy people can have them too, including the fellow who shot ten Amish schoolchildren crying and begging for their lives, five of them dying? Or don't the gunlovers care about the ongoing carnage (being preoccupied instead with their own self-protection)?

[jody]

30. Are you saying that Obama wants to ban handguns or long-guns? How can that be when he is desperately

trying to CHANGE his image from that of gun-grabber because of his history of association with them?

[bossy22]

31. hah

"You want to defend yourself cause you're afraid, get pepper spray."

pepper spray is quite ineffective against most attackers- just ask any corrections officer in NYC...and they carry the shit thats illegal for even police officers to carry.

if you are going to defend yourself with weapon- the best weapon is a gun

[solinvictus]

55. Your wish...

"As for me, give me "peace on earth.""

Only the dead know true peace. Human nature is immutably tied to our evolutionary history. There are still two-legged predators about and, given this, I'll take my changes with owning a firearm rather than leaving me to their tender mercies.

[Xela]

33. Edit

Edit