Politics Gun violence in CT

Proposed legislation

Wyoming House Bill HB0104

snopes.com: Wyoming Gun Law

 

Other red states (TX, MO, TN) have introduced similar legislative proposals to defy federal law.

And individuals in the gun rights/anti-federalist movement (like the CEO in TN) have threatened violence if attempts are made to enforce laws with which they disagree.

Which gets right to the heart of a new report from the US Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center that found a significant increase of acts of violence or plots over the last five years by three far right type groups - racist/white supremacist, anti-federalists, and Christian fundamentalists (groups like the Aryan Nation fit into all three).

There is a danger out there from these groups and I believe that any new federal law will only inflame some to act out in a violent manner.

 

Ok, so a majority of Americans support Mr. Obama's Victim Disarmament agenda.

At one time, a majority of Americans supported slavery, Jim Crow, and the genocide against the American Indians. At one point, a majority of Europeans were anti-Semitic, supported witch-burnings and the Inquisition, and thought the universe orbited the Earth being motivated by the physical hand of God himself. Simply because an idea is popular or widely-held does not mean it is -right-, only that it is -popular-.

As for the Supremacy Clause, it states specifically that this applies only laws "made in pursuance" of the Constitution. Meaning that it applies -only- to the laws which do not -violate- the Constitution. Since the 2nd Amendment clearly states that the rights of the People to the ownership (keep) and carrying (bear) of weapons may not be infringed, no law which infrinfes upon such rights -is- made pursuant to the Constitution.

And before you trot out that tired old "collective/militia right" argument, look at the grammar of the Amendment itself. According to the plain rules of English, the -second- part of the sentence is the only part which means a damn. The "well regulated militia" part is a preamble of sorts- it states the reason for the existence of the second (post-comma) portion. It has no legal or grammatical bearing upon the second clause of the sentence. Stated a bit more plainly it might be read as:

"Since a properly functioning (well regulated) Militia (armed irregular/civilian force) is needed to preserve the independence of the nation, the right of the People to own and carry weapons may not be infringed."

However, even -this- is too statist an argument in my opinion. To my mind, people have the same right to own whatever arms they like as they do to own whatever car they like. So long as they don't harm anyone or damage their property (and the vast majority don't), depriving them of -any- form of property by force (and any Government action or ban -is- force) is wrong. Period. Should I have my car taken away, or regulated into a track-day-only hobby, simply because someone -else- couldn't handle their shit and went crazy or criminal? Should your computer be tracked, registered, and the ownership of it made contingent upon an invasive background check because some 4chan fuckweasel hacked somebody's network or sent a virus "fer teh lulz?" Should the Feds require a permit to publish a newspaper, or write a book, simply because monstrosities like "Mein Kampf" or "The Communist Manifesto" have motivated the murder of a hundred million people? Maybe an "assault religion" permit for the Asatru or Vodun practitioners, or for the Kosher/Halal slaughterers? Should further production and transfer of the Arial Atom 500 or Bugatti Veyron be stopped by legislative fiat because "nobody -needs- to go that fast and they're dangerous?" Of course not! No individual may morally be punished by the State for the actions of another individual over whom he/she had no control. If they could have stopped such actions- if a person could have prevented a crime and allowed it to happen anyway- yes, they should be punished. But otherwise, to punish, sanction, or infringe upon the rights of one individual for the acts of another individual is -wrong-, pure amd simple.

 

That same Constitution left that to the federal judiciary, not the selective interpretation of gun rights extremists or misguided Tenthers.

 

I can't help it if a bunch of black-robed statist thugs can't read plain English, or prefer to put their political prejudices ahead of the plain text of the law whose integrity they are honour-bound to uphold.

But the fact remains that you do have a point- Federalist thugs like Hamilton -did- place the power of review with such creatures, and they have used that power to the sorrow of us all. This is why I use the Constitution as a "bare minimum" or baseline, if you will. The Articles of Confederation were a far superior document which were done away with when it became obvious to slime such as Hamilton and his Federalist buddies that they granted to State insufficient power to rob, enslave, and order-about the populace for their own benefit.

 

Well, Dunedan has a point - the similar parts in the Articles of Confederation are much clearer on what was meant.

From article 6:

"No state may engage in war, without permission of Congress, unless invaded or that is imminent on the frontier; no state may maintain a peace-time standing army or navy, unless infested by pirates, but every State is required to keep ready, a well-regulated (meaning well trained), disciplined, and equipped militia, with sufficient public stores of a due number of field pieces, tents, a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."

 

Fine, as long as you can show me that the American majority has always supported the wrong side of every issue.

I prefer to avail myself of the writings of the founding fathers on the finer details, many which do in fact, support the right of non-militia gun ownership. What they don't consider in their writings is a change in circumstances. A future of high-tech firearms, hollow-point bullets, and the mass killing of children. Had they a crystal ball, they might have considered a world such as we live in now. Are we so irresponsible that we would limit our actions and decisions in favor of stubborn adherence to an 18th century document that fails to address our 21st century problems?

If a thief steals a firearm from a home or vehicle due to the negligence of the owner to properly secure it from theft, and that firearm is subsequently used in the commission of a crime, do you agree that the original gun-owner should not be at least charged with said negligence? And if you agree that this might be reasonable (and I'm assuming that anyone who believes that failing to prevent a crime should be punishable, would likely also agree to punishment for failure to properly secure a deadly weapon) how do you suggest it be enforced if gun-owners are under no obligation to report stolen firearms or even license and register them in most states? And as you yourself pointed out, a disproportionate amount of guns in the hands of criminals have been stolen from you responsible gun owners.

And I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but there are no federal proposals currently seeking to deprive gun owners of their gun property, unless you are looking ahead and weeping over the fact you might not be able to buy yourself a new M-4 next year. I'd say, get over it. The 2nd amendment doesn't define the type of firearm you have the right to bear. One could say the absence of such detail entitles you to bear whatever you want. One could also say that it is not unconstitutional for the "State" to determine what those firearms can be, going forward, as a recourse to furthering public safety.

So please stop with this silly "Obama's wants to/is going to take our guns" It's just plain wrong and stands in the way of the debate.

There's no proposed Federal ban on any non-assault rifle firearms, that I'm aware of. None that will be taken seriously, anyway, so you can stock up on anything else you want.

 

I could support, without restriction, the framers intent regarding the right to bear a muzzle loaded musket.

 

Maybe they were time travelers. Is it possible that 21st century gun tech was the real hero of the Revolutionary War?

 

the argument that supporting increased controls over the circulation of certain classes of guns amounts to some genocidal relation to this imaginary entity called "gun culture"...and, especially, the finish on the tautology that qualifies doubting the existence of this imaginary "gun culture" to be symptomatic of a will-to-genocide ---all this is pretty entertaining as tautological tautologies go.

so is the attempt to dissolve gun-related violence into "accidents and stupidity." this would appear to operate as a social-darwinist "logic" that justifies otherwise unacceptable levels of gun-related violence by saying, well, all those people were stupid or incompetent so, ultimately, deserved to be maimed or killed.

then there is the assertion of a strict constructionist-style 2nd amendment fundamentalism that, as is always the case with such assertions, comes without the least actual historical evidence though we are throwing around assertions about the betterness of the articles of confederation and saying snippy things about alexander hamilton as if that sort of theater is all that's required to ground a strict-constructionist style 2nd amendment fundamentalism in something beyond the shabby scholarship particular to conservative think tanks and the footnote level circle jerk that has, somehow, enabled this strict-construction stuff to appear as something other than the utter bullshit that it is.

but i like reading about "black-robed thugs" who "do not understand plain english."

i assume all this has totemic value in "gun culture" the existence of which we are told we have to concede lest we be classed as genodical.

 

Beware the government overlords in black helicopters

 

Inauguration Day, celebrating howevermany years of peaceful democracy. Woot!

Is it now time that America moved away from the 2nd amendment on the basis that a well armed militia is no longer required, as democracy has taken over in the meantime?

Over here (UK) the Magna Carta (1215) has taken a backseat to common law, president and electoral reform.

I don't see how democratic freedom can sit easily with amendment No2 licence to kill.

 

The hope is that the far right wing fueled by the NRA/GOA/JPFO induced paranoia and conspiracy theories and their rhetoric of gun grabbing/victim disarmament/black robe thugs emasculating the Second Amendment will be marginalized and rational thinking gun owners will step up so that, at the very least, universal background checks will become the law of the land.
--- merged: Jan 22, 2013 4:28 AM ---
The quote of the day at the inauguration, from Stevie Wonder:
I was talking to one of my friends, I said you know what, ‘You should go get me a gun…I’m going to go with you to get a gun and then like, show how it easy for me to get a gun, and then imagine me with a gun.’ It’s just crazy. I think that we have to do something about it.”

 

well here we go. feinstein's bill apparently.

 

Feinstein's bill will not get passed the Senate and certainly has no chance in the Republican House.

But the American people want action:

 

What pisses me off is where did all of these people come from that want to bam guns. When i was 18 and they had the shooting at colombine people didnt have a shit fit.

 

Most guns go "bam" when you fire them.

As for why people might want to restrict some gun purchases it might be because since Columbine and your 18th birthday there's been a lot of mass shootings. People are looking at many option in an attempt to try and reduce them.