Should guns be treated as smut?...

[spin]

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees a personal, individual right to keep and bear arms. But the Court left lower courts and legislatures adrift on the fundamental question of scope. While the Court stated in dicta that some regulation may survive constitutional scrutiny, it left the precise contours of the right, and even the method by which to determine those contours, for “future evaluation.” This Article offers a provocative proposal for tackling the issue of Second Amendment scope, one tucked in many dresser drawers across the nation: Treat the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense the same as the right to own and view adult obscenity under the First Amendment—a robust right in the home, subject to near-plenary restriction by elected government everywhere else. This Article’s proposal to treat guns like smut is sure to stir controversy. But it is grounded in solid methods of constitutional analysis. The Court in Heller sent unmistakable signals that the First and Second Amendments are cousins and may be subject to similar limitations. As Justice Scalia noted, the First Amendment excludes from its protection certain categories of speech: “obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets.” The Second Amendment may be “no different,” and almost certainly excludes from its protection certain categories of “bearing” and certain categories of “arms.” Moreover, the “home-bound” approach to the Second Amendment rationalizes the disparate norms that animate the Court’s privacy jurisprudence. It situates the Second Amendment within tradition and doctrine that accord constitutional weight to a spatial and conceptual distinction between the home and the public sphere. Finally, this proposal has the benefit of simplicity: The Court has already marked boundaries for an individual right to adult obscenity in the home. Those boundaries are surprisingly applicable to the individual right to bear arms, and far easier to administer. While this proposal will not resolve all issues of Second Amendment scope, its prudential and practical merits deserve serious consideration as part of post-Heller discourse on the Second Amendment.emphasis mine
http://www.columbialawreview.org/articles/guns-as-smut-...

Leave it to the Columbia Law Review to come up with a new and very liberal approach to gun control.

For kicks and grins I'll publish a bit of gun smut before it becomes illegal.


S&W Model 642 .38 Special My favorite carry weapon



$&W Model 351 PD .22 magnum My daughter's favorite carry weapon


S&W Model 686 .357 Magnum My favorite target revolver


S&W Model 25-2 .45 acp My daughter's favorite target revolver and the weapon she used to stop an intruder from breaking into our home.









Pornography is in the eye of the beholder.

Sometimes it seems as if the liberals are the biggest threat to the Democrats maintaining control of the House and Senate at the midterm and Obama's reelection.

It's time to realize that gun control laws are racist and far from progressive. Their whole concept is to keep "those people" from owning weapons. As Democrats we need to stop pushing draconian gun control and take one really big issue off the board for the Republicans. Most Democrats where I live (Florida) are very pro gun and in favor of the Right To Keep and Bear Arms.

In case you don't believe that gun control laws are racist, I'll provide some links:

The Ku Klux Klan once put a $25,000 bounty on Eleanor Roosevelt's head. She was in her seventies then and as outspoken about civil rights as she had been as First Lady. The year was 1958.

The Klan had learned that she was to speak in June at a workshop on methods of protest at the Highlander Folk School in Monteagle, Tennessee. The FBI warned her that it could not protect her and suggested that she not go. Eleanor thanked her caller for the warning, but decided she was going anyway, and flew to Nashville.

"This elderly white woman picks up a seventy-four-year-old Eleanor Roosevelt," relates historian Allida Black. "And here they are. They're going to go through the Klan. They're going to stand down the Klan. They get in their car, they put a loaded pistol on the front seat between them, and they drive up at night through the mountains to this tiny labor school to conduct a workshop on how to break the law. And she drove through the Klan to do it." Black is one of the people interviewed in Eleanor Roosevelt,a new NEH-funded documentary in The American Experience series. It airs in January on public television.
http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/2000-01/eleanor.html

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacGeorgiaCarry.pdf (A brief to the Supreme Court in the Heller case)

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. Eye of the beholder, indeed. Those pics do absolutely nothing for me.

[Katya Mullethov]

31. How about a really big one

A great big RED one ?


I spy with my little eye , something that starts with the letter F.....4 .

[spin]

50. They are just pictures of handguns...

firearms are tools that are used for a variety of tasks. Some people are interested in them some are not.

While they are not works of art, there is always a certain amount of beauty to any well manufactured device.

Some firearms could be considered works of art, but they are rarely used. Instead the become collector items often of high value.

[DJ13]

2. Load me!

Cock me!

Pull my trigger!


Nope, no smut there.
:rofl:

[Obamanaut]

3. I recall when "gravitas" appeared in most writings for a period of

several weeks. Now we have "robust", as in "robust public option", and in the article "...a robust right.."

I'm looking forward to the next favorite word.

BTW. We have .357s at my house. Colt and Taurus

[imdjh]

14. AT one time, I might have killed the next person who said "gravitas", now it seems like...

.... someone saying "Jiminy Crickets!" or "Cool Daddy-o!"

[NJCher]

16. that goes back to bushco

They started up with "robust" as a way of describing their terrorist interrogations which we now know were torture sessions.

I recall it well because I lamented their absconding with such a good word.

"Robust" has a positive connotation but with bush its connotation damn near changed.

At least with the Democrats, it more or less means "with punch" or "with some substance."


Cher

[greennina]

4. Outlawing guns outside of the home...

would be awesome. This statement:

"subject to near-plenary restriction by elected government everywhere else"

gives me hope for the future of this country. The only way we will grow as humans is to get rid of such things. Banning them outside of homes would be a good start in that direction. Making it illegal to have a gun in public to bring it to their home would finally solve the problem of people buying those things.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

6. and violate the Constitution. No thanks.

[The Straight Story]

8. Ban them in public and I am sure criminals would respect that law

Like they do all the other laws about CCW, harming others, using guns to rob banks, etc and so on.

Kind of like in the UK, where some cops are starting to carry guns - to protect themselves from the criminals there that do (but they have a ban on guns there for the most part....)

[alittlelark]

12. uh, yeah.... that makes soooo much sense.

Most gun owners (and their kids and wives) deaths occur inside their own home.


Exactly HOW would that help?

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. Guns aren't actually all that dangerous to their owners and their families

circa 80 million gun owners/ circa 35,000 deaths by firearm a year, about half of which are, ahem, business disputes.

Do the math. Better to take away their cars and high-fat foods if you want to go all nanny-state.

[SteveM]

55. Please be aware that childhood death by "home" firearms is in decline...

and has been for many years; in fact, the National Safety Council says that the decline is far greater for gun accidents than in the other categories of accidental death causation. It seems the old saw "more guns means more death" doesn't hold up.

[OttavaKarhu]

59. Show us your facts. Not your faith.

[imdjh]

15. A gun in your house isn't much good to you when you aren't in your house. nt

[SteveM]

56. Since mine are locked up, they aren't much good to the thug, either.

Of course, when I am home there is at least one firearm "unlocked" and ready to go.

[Lagomorph]

24. There ya go...

Making it illegal to have a gun in public to bring it to their home would finally solve the problem of people buying those things.

That's all the gun owners needed to hear. You've launched 180 million NRA emails, complete with gun grabber quotes.

[spin]

38. Plus most of those voters will show up at the polls....

and the midterm and the next Presidential election to vote for Republicans. In a close race, these single issue voters might make the difference.

If the Democrats would tell their super liberal faction to just forget draconian gun control, what would it cost? The super liberal faction of the party isn't going to leave the Democratic Party for the Republican Party.

[Lagomorph]

48. Good point, plus show me something that has been banned....

...that doesn't proliferate like the flu virus in criminal society.

If the government bans something for the citizens that it allows for itself, people are going to want it all the more.

[SteveM]

62. I don't see gun-controllers as a "super liberal faction..."

The Democratic Underground is considered by some talking heads as an example of the "left wing" of the Democratic Party. If this is so, then why do at least half of the respondents to a poll here said they owned at least one gun? I think modern gun-control laws are the result of fear that blacks would arms themselves even more (after the aftermath of the 60s civil insurrections). Some of these folks might be liberal on some issues, but there is a smelly prohibitionist skid mark that reflects an authoritarian bent and resentment toward other cultures. Doesn't sound very liberal to me.

[spin]

63. Well put and accurate...

the basis of gun control is racist.

One good read is The Racist Roots of Gun Control:

The historical record provides compelling evidence that racism underlies gun control laws -- and not in any subtle way. Throughout much of American history, gun control was openly stated as a method for keeping blacks and Hispanics "in their place," and to quiet the racial fears of whites. This paper is intended to provide a brief summary of this unholy alliance of gun control and racism, and to suggest that gun control laws should be regarded as "suspect ideas," analogous to the "suspect classifications" theory of discrimination already part of the American legal system.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

Another is Black Man with a Gun

Before the Civil War ended, State "Slave Codes" prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed "Black Codes." They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in its infamous 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford to uphold slavery.

***snip***

In the 1990s, "gun control" laws continue to be enacted so as to have a racist effect if not intent: Police-issued license and permit laws, unless drafted to require issuance to those not prohibited by law from owning guns, are routinely used to prevent lawful gun ownership among "unpopular" populations. Public housing residents, approximately 3 million Americans, are singled out for gun bans. "Gun sweeps" by police in "high crime neighborhoods" whereby vehicles and "pedestrians who meet a specific profile that might indicate they are carrying a weapon" are searched are becoming popular, and are being studied by the U.S. Department of Justice as "Operation Ceasefire."
http://www.blackmanwithagun.com/site/cpage.asp?cpage_id=140019513&sec_id=140000845

Another excellent read was a brief submitted to the Supreme Court in the Heller case.

Race neutral on its face, the GCA has been
described with other motives by an avid gun control
advocate:
The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not
to control guns but to control blacks, and inasmuch
as a majority of Congress did not
want to do the former but were ashamed to
show that their goal was the latter, result
was they did neither. Indeed, this law, first
gun-control law passed by Congress in thirty
years, was one of the grand jokes of our time.
First of all, bear in mind that it was not
passed in one but was a combination of two
laws. The original Act was passed to control
handguns after the Rev. Luther King, Jr.,
had been assassinated with a rifle. Then it
was repealed and repassed to include the control
of rifles and shotguns after the assassination
of Robert F. Kennedy with a handgun. . . .
The moralists of our federal legislature as
well as sentimental editorial writers insist
that the Act of 1968 was a kind of memorial
to King and Robert Kennedy. If so, it was
certainly a weird memorial, as can be seen
not merely by the handgun/long-gun shell
game, but from the inapplicability of the law
to their deaths.

***snip***

CONCLUSION
American history, from colonial times to the
immediate past, is replete with evidence that gun
control has frequently been implemented with a
nefarious purpose of subjugating blacks and other
minorities. Even today’s gun control laws are often
vestiges of, or the continuation of, the nation’s Jim
Crow past. At best, many such laws have greater
effects on minorities and the economically disadvantaged.
As the parties and other amici no doubt will
argue, the Framers put into place a constitutional
guarantee that the right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed. It clearly was the
intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment
to ensure that this guarantee applied to all people
and against the states as well as the federal government.
This Court should apply the Second Amendment
as it was intended, and eradicate any vestiges of Jim
Crow in the District of Columbia’s firearms laws.
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacGeorgiaCarry.pdf

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a very progressive idea along with the freedom of speech and the press and freedom of religion and assembly.

The ruling elite will always oppose such ideas. The tragedy to me is that the Republican Party has stolen this idea and use it to gain votes for their party. Unfortunately, the Republican party is quite possibly the most dangerous party when it comes to gun rights. They will sell gun owners down the drain in a heartbeat. The Democrats might if they could, but if they attempted to they would lose many elections to the two faced Republicans.

[SteveM]

66. Excellent summation! Thanks (nt)

[proteus_lives]

25. Not that bright are you?

Your little plan violates the Constitution and criminals would ignore it like they do will all bans.

[Strider2]

53. After all, that is what makes

them criminals.

[Euromutt]

27. I don't believe possession of smut in public is illegal

As long as you keep it covered up, e.g. in a bag or under a jacket, it's nobody's business, including the government's, if you're carrying the collected works of John "Buttman" Stagliano on you, provided you are not engaged (or in possession with intent to engage) in "exhibiting, publishing, passing, selling, or offering to sell" such material.

I think the author has rather a misguided idea on what the laws pertaining to pornographic or otherwise prurient material actually are. In that regard, the laws on firearms (depending on which state you're in) generally already are more restrictive than those on smut. Many states require some (e.g. handguns) or all firearms, when being transported in a motor vehicle, to be kept in an "opaque wrapper" or locked container, inaccessible from the passenger compartment, and that a vehicle containing a (particular type of) firearm be locked and the firearm hidden from view if left unattended. There's no system of Federal Smut Licenses, or a federal agency devoted almost entirely to monitoring the manufacture of and trade in smut, not even under Ed Meese and John Ashcroft. You don't have to undergo a federal background check to buy smut, or wait for 5-15 days after purchase to take delivery of your smut. When traveling on a commercial passenger aircraft, you aren't required to declare any smut at the check-in desk and transport it in a locked container, checked luggage only.

Need I go on?

The upshot being that if we treated firearms like smut, we'd have unlicensed nationwide concealed carry. Bet that wasn't what you had in mind.

[hack89]

30. Gun bans are un-Constitutional. nt

[PavePusher]

33. Are you going to collect them yourself?

Or are you going to send hired goons with.... guns?

And what will you want to ban after the firearms?


I don't know why, but I never get answers to those questions...

[spin]

39. You might be able to do something like this in countries...

where only 5% of the population owns firearms.

In our country like ours where perhaps one half of the adult population owns firearms the chances of passing a law like this is damn near impossible.

The best approach to reducing the tragic deaths caused by firearms is to go after those who illegally own firearms and improve our background check system to eliminate those with severe mental problems. We could also work on requiring all sales, including private sales, go through the background check.

[SteveM]

54. You should see my Ruger firing re-loads; smut flying everywhere! (nt)

[Fla_Democrat]

5. Fap, fap, fap

:evilgrin:

[izquierdista]

7. There's a fine distinction

Between cleaning guns and masturbating.

[benEzra]

28. Only if you have some really strange ideas regarding gun cleaning.

You've never personally cleaned and maintained a firearm, sewing machine, car engine, or other mechanical device, I take it?

[Euromutt]

29. Oh man! I would have to go and overthink that

I tried to visualize standard gun cleaning as carried on a penis, and when I got to running a solvent-soaked patch through my urethra with a brass rob, it all became a little too painful.

[spin]

40. The great majority of firearms owners hate cleaning their weapons...

it's a lot like washing dishes.

Also, an experienced gun owner will know that excessive cleaning does more damage to a firearm than anything else.

[SteveM]

57. I don't check either type barrel to see how well I did the job...

but there are others who gladly volunteer!

[MichaelHarris]

9. isn't there

a forum for this crap?

[Posteritatis]

10. Yes, but this forum isn't named Particular Discussion either

Nobody's forcing you to click.

[alittlelark]

11. Those pics just make me think of guys w/ viagra.

they are so not impressive.

[SteveM]

58. Yeah, I prefer Buntline Specials (nt)

[eqfan592]

61. Interesting, I got the same feeling about your post. :P (nt)

[blogslut]

13. Smut is legal

Obscenity is not.

There's a difference.

[imdjh]

17. If obscenity is illegal, then most cops are looking the other way.

[blogslut]

18. Cops don't define what is or is not obscene

Obscenity is defined by community standards in a court of law.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. The approach is not at all liberal, it is repressive at best

A true liberal should not support such claptrap

[Iggo]

20. Ew, gun porn!

[1]

21. dirty, dirty guns... *mmmmmgunsmmmmmm"...

[Touchdown]

22. Just make sure the shooting is consensual, and always use this...

[krispos42]

23. Sounds good to me

That means that if I keep my gun in my pants (like my privates) I can bring it anywhere I want to.

[proteus_lives]

26. S&W Model 25-2 .45 acp

One of my favorites!

I keep that one as my home-defense tool.

[spin]

41. The S&W Model 25-2 was my favorite target revolver...

but my daughter appropriated it.

hen she left the nest, I told her, "Take any of my firearms that you want." She has excellent taste.

[Retired AF Dem]

32. Expensive porn

My Les Baer Thunder Ranch Special.

[spin]

43. Beautiful weapon...

Far more attractive than a Glock.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

52. I disagree. Dressed properly, Glocks can be pretty sexy. ;)

Great everyday work guns if you ask me. Now that's not to take anything from a fine 1911 either (much classier).

My baby:

[GreenStormCloud]

34. Do both.

BTW - Ms. Jolie owns guns and supports RKBA.

(Spicier pics of girls and guns are easily available on the net, but I don't know what DU's limits are. Besides, she has lots of heat. Pun intended.)

[spin]

44. Now that's some true gun porn. (n/t)

[JonQ]

35. Grabbers always make these associations between sex and guns

that I have never heard gun owners make.

I think freud would have something to say about this. I wonder how many gun-grabbers have "issues" with sex?

And are you sure you really want to work on fetishizing guns and making them seem forbidden?

[AtheistCrusader]

36. I hope your daughter never has to shoot anything bigger than an angry squirrel.

Might want to get her a .38 in the same style frame.

[spin]

45. I tried to convince her to take my S&W Model 642 .38 snub...

She tried it and found the recoil oppressive.

I then let her try the .22 mag snub. She was able to rapidly put all 7 rounds in the a group that which I could over with my hand at 20 feet.

I went shooting recently with individual who had been a police firearms instructor for years. He had brought along a Ruger .44 mag with mid range reloads. When he fired the Smith snubbie with 38+P ammo, he said the recoil felt similar to his .44 mag.

Often at the range, I would offer the little .38 to other shooters. Most were interested as it is an excellent weapon for concealed carry. After a cylinder full of ammo they would hand the weapon back. When I would offer it again they would politely decline.

Now I also have a Model 60 4" .357 mag. with adjustable sights that I also carry occasionally. It's not as convenient as the .38 snub which simply drops into a pocket holster, but I carry it in an inside the waistband holster. When I offered this weapon to other shooters, they all loved it even with .357 ammo.


Model 60 .357 mag

Oops, more gun porn.

[PavePusher]

46. You perv....

Uh, got more? :evilgrin:

Never mind, I'll find my own...

http://www.gungirls.com/

http://www.girlsandguns.com/

http://www.girlswithguns.org/index.htm

[spin]

49. Your gun porn is far better than mine. (n/t)

[PavePusher]

60. Yours is pretty good too.

Re: Post 51, some things simply don't need enhancement.


Punning for the win.

[Hoopla Phil]

42. Nope. That would be nutty to do something like that.

First, smut is protected under free speech by expanding the definition of speech to include expression. If we were to expand the 2A in a similar fashion then we would not see a ban on new machine guns as was enacted in 1986. Nor would there be any debate about keeping bazooka's at home.
Second, the 2A is not just owning but bearing also. To bear arms only in the home would be liking free speech to only speaking your mind to those within your home. So much for the soapbox at the town square.

No, this would not meet constitutional muster.

[yay]

47. more pronz

[spin]

51. And some more....

[Katya Mullethov]

64. Porn has so many niche markets

I like food with my porn

[spin]

65. Now that is a great picture. (n/t)