Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Your argument depends on the ratio of accidental shootings against the justified shootings. This does not include deliberate murders like Columbine, Hunter Shootings, etc.

In any case, citing one example is foolish and childish. I can easily throw numerous examples to counter yours. Provide some solid statistics on Gun-Related Violence next time.

Nope — in every single case, Columbine etc. the persons using the guns to commit a crime were possessing/using them illegally at the time they committed their crime. But the mere illegality of it didnt stop them.

When it comes to rights, any rights, the anecdote matters because any exemplary beneficial use outwighs a million misuses. One “I have a Dream” speech outweighs the risk of a million spoken words in conspiracies to suppress civil rights, both are enabled by free speech. One act of Christian charity outweighs a thousand KoolAid suicides at Jonestown in the argument over freedom of religion. And each virtuous example is a poetic and pragmatic illustration of why the right exists.

Rights are not statistical balancing acts, but things which are virtues in themselves. A right to a means of minimal unfettered personal and community self-defense is a virtue in itself. If others abuse it, that’s a problem for better enforcement around the edges.

Rights are situations where the needs of the one outweigh the understandable fears of the many.

I think you’d be hard-pressed to find any mainstream liberals in this day in age advocating a complete ban on firearms possession.

Also, Mr. Hogan, the logic of your reply to Aldous’ comment on the validity of anecdotal evidence leaves me cold. The Columbine shooters possessed guns illegally and carried out their murderous rampage anyway. Doing away with the laws is not the answer, more active enforcement of them is.

Look, keep up attitudes like this, and you will one day see the ruin of gun rights. There need to be reasonable restrictions on access and ownership of weapons. Otherwise, the system gets pushed too far one day, and there is a draconian backlash.

You know, half the reason you’d make it a law is so that people getting it wrong would be punished. Would you argue against an extra few years or months in prison for those criminals?

I can’t help but think all Republicans are on Prozac, Zoloft or some other “be happy” pill. The deficit, no big deal, it’s under control. The war, no problem, going just fine. Mistakes, sorry, just can’t think of any. National security, all is fine, never better. Economy, don’t worry, be happy (go shopping). Guns, everybody should have one, they’re great.

Some days I think I should start popping “happy” pills; after all it is easier than dealing with the problems of the world. Of course that would require me to trust the F.D.A.; sorry that’s a rant for another day. Anyways, you have to be blind, deaf, or stupid to think America does not have a serious problem with guns.

In 2000, nine children a day were killed by a gun. In 2000, 16,586 people committed suicide using a gun. Over half of family murders are caused by guns. A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense. The medical cost of gun violence to the US is over $100 billion annually.

Notice the stats are from 2000, I would give you updated numbers but at the request of the N.R.A. the Bush administration no longer funds the Justice Departments studies into gun violence. What are they afraid of? They would just find a way to twist the numbers they like and ignore the ones they don’t anyways. All statistics aside, America does have a gun problem.

Those of you not taking happy pills go with your gut on this one. Blame television, blame movies, society, the N.R.A., what ever you want just don’t say there isn’t a problem. The Assault Weapons Bill for instance, I’m a deer hunter who has never said “if only I brought my AK47”. My friends say they need those types of weapons in case they have to rise up against the government. Yes, the government is shaking in its boots. Sure let’s go Red Dawn on them. Having served in the military, I can tell you that at the press of a button from a ship hundreds of miles away using GPS they can take you out with little to no effort. The N.R.A. killed the bill because any loss of gun revenues is unacceptable to their number one supporter.

You would think the NRA’s number one supporter would be its members and their dues, so why would gun revenues matter. Unfortunately the NRA has become a special interest to a special interest; the gun lobby is now their biggest supporter. Being a hunter I belong to the NRA and at one time believed they did great things. Today they have been high jacked by the gun lobby and even if all its members had supported the Assault Weapons Bill they still would be forced to push for its defeat by the gun lobby. Do you honestly believe that the millions of dollars used to bribe our government officials (campaign donations) came from my measly little dues?

The bad guys have guns because the good guys have guns because the bad guys have guns. Nice little cycle. My neighbor gets robbed so I go and get a gun. A week later I get robbed but luckily I’m out of town, of course they take my gun in the robbery. The following week another neighbor is robbed and shot dead after startling the 16 year old bad guy. What do you know; the gun he stole from my house is what he used to kill my neighbor. The bad guys get their guns from the good guys who are afraid of bad guys.

Enforce existing gun laws, yes. Pass the Assault Weapons Bill, yes. Allow the Justice Department to again keep stats, yes. Use those stats honestly in a way that will help to find a solution to the problem, yes. Stop listening to the N.R.A.’s propaganda, yes. Ignore the problem, no.

AMERICA DOES HAVE A GUN PROBLEM! But hey, let’s just ignore it, it’ll go away.

A quick note…
The 2nd Amendment was written specifically for the individual to protect himself against his own government, and to keep his need for his government to a minimum. This is as fundamental as the first amendment which was written to allow us to speak against our government.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that liberals want all firearms eliminated. This is very much in keeping with their love of big oppressive government, and the socialist utopian pipe dreams they were spoon fed in an ivy league university.
As typical as the sun rising this morning.

Matthew, this is a silly article based on a right-wing wacko fantasy world where everybody but Republicans wants firearms banned.

Fabricating a mythos where your elite, but underappreciated group is the only one who can save the world - in this case from the misguided pacifist liberals who want to bare this country’s neck to criminals and Islamo-fascists - is compelling and common among fringe societies. But reality is much healthier.

Seriously, put on a coat, step outside, and take a deep breath of cold, fresh air. Take a walk around the block. It’ll clear your head. No one is going to ban firearms.

few of us are healthy enough to own firearms. so many men and women of all shapes and sizes are angry with each other. so much emotional violence haunts our citizenry. in ghettoes and nice neighborhoods. the fact that a deadly weapon is out of your reach will save so many lives. perpatrators and victims alike. i do believe in the right to bear arms and each of us needs to take stock of our mental fitness to do so. take it from a woman who knows. and lived to tell.

The pipe dreams are fogging your minds. Guns carved America out of a wilderness. Guns insured our freedom. Guns insure the government does not get so big we can’t control it. (Maybe they can use GPS guided missles to take us out… but, on the other hand, I refer you to that handful of insurgents in Iraq keeping the enire US Army bottled up.) Guns are a fact of life in America. Guns are not the problem. Society is the problem. There is no way the government can rid this country of guns. They are simply to easy to maufacture in a home workshop. So get used to armed citizens in America.

From a “concealed carry state”

“Longstreet”

Matt said: “When it comes to rights, any rights, the anecdote matters because any exemplary beneficial use outwighs a million misuses.”

Matt, you may want to rethink that statement. That argument can be used in the following way. Any abridgement of civil rights that puts one guilty criminal behind bars is worth a million innocent people also being put behind bars.

As you can see, the logic completely fails rationality.

Longstreet said: “Guns insure the government does not get so big we can’t control it.”

I had to chuckle at that statement. If you think the American people have control of this government, I have to question your reading material. Last I checked, the majority of Americans are not seeing their will reflected through government policy on issues like debt, taxes, Soc. Sec. reform.

With the current laws of the Patriot Act and others, armed insurrection by the American people is not even possible against the government’s military powers to put down such insurrection. Try it, see how far you get. The only protection the American people have against government, is its influence on individual members of the military chain of command as part of that public. To the extent the civilian population’s views are reflected in the minds of the military, there is some margin of safety from oppressive government. Guns in the hands of civilians however, is no defense against America’s military.

Very well said Longstreet.

Great topic Matthew. This is one of those “right before their eyes” type of issue for the liberals.
If they would just open them and see that what they want is unconstitutional and wrong, they would probably get back alot of the Democrats they have lost over the past 15 or 20 years.

Gun ownership is a right that every American should cherish and be willing to die for.
I guarantee there are some who think these two victims were wrong and used too much force. The real victims are the poor criminals and the shop owners should be procecuted.

Thanks for the link Matthew, I am surprised it made CNN. Guns prevent crimes everyday.

David
Very interesting reply there and its got me going in a certain direction that often times I forget about, thanks.

Do you think the majority of our military would be willing to take up arms against the American people?

At one time, I believed the majority would have been on our side, but now I am not so sure.

Bob Kelly,

Bill of Rights: Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

You wrote “the 2nd Amendment was written specifically for the individual to protect himself against his own government”. Do you belong to a well regulated militia? Being necessary to the security of a free state, state, not Bob. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. People as a group, not individual. If it meant individual we would not be able to stop any person from carrying a gun. Felons, kids, thieves and the mentally ill’s right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. I think not, your interpretation that the 2nd Amendment was written for the individual does not stand up. James Madison, the principal author of the Amendment, was thinking more of states rights than individual rights.

Next, “liberals want all firearms eliminated”, maybe we do need happy pills. Stop buying into the N.R.A.’s propaganda. Liberals want common sense gun laws and enforcement of them. Plane and simple. My hunting rifle is safe, your AK47, Uzi, and Tech 9 stored in the fall out shelter might not be.

Finally, “spoon fed in an ivy league university”, “big oppressive government”, careful someone may see those words and think George W. Bush.

Longstreet,

You “refer me to that handful of insurgents in Iraq keeping the entire US Army bottled up”. I argue that our lack intelligence on the enemy and a huge uncontrolled supply of explosives may have more to do with bottling us up. This would not be the case if American’s found it necessary to do battle with our government. My training in the military involved, at times, scenarios that required us to subdue the public. Biological outbreaks, resulting quarantines, riot control, etc. You would lose.

David Remer,

You get it!

Everytime the left argues about all the accidental deaths as the result of guns, I can’t help but think of all the kids that drown every year in swimming pools. These pools are not “necessary” by any stretch, and there ownership is not specifically protected in the Bill of Rights either. And yet we cold Americans let our children die every year by refusing to ban them.

And I believe that the “9 children a day” that were killed in 2000 by guns includes kids up to 19 years old, and most of them were the result of gang activities. The actual number of little kids (grade school age) accidently shooting themselves because of a gun in the house is a very small proportion of those “9 per day”.

wise, just a few questions please.

“or the right of the people peaceably to assemble”
- Does this mean we can only “assemble” in groups and that one person cannot?

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”
- So individuals aren’t secure against these violations but groups of people, the state as you say, are?

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
- OR TO THE PEOPLE. Now why include this part if what they are really saying is that the people = the state?

It is cool though that you know exactly what James Madison was “thinking” over two hundred years ago.
Was he also thinking that the people should not be able to protect themselves from violent criminals or its own govt? or that the people should not be allowed to say negative things about the govt? or that the people would be forced to give 20% or more of they’re pay to taxes? you know, excessive taxation.
Or is it that we only know what he was thinking if it supports a certain agenda?

If they would just open them and see that what they want is unconstitutional and wrong

You guys are all wacked. No one is trying to ban our firearms. This thread is silly. I give up.

liberals want all firearms eliminated. This is very much in keeping with their love of big oppressive government

Clinton shrank government, and Bush is growing it, as well as cutting into practically every item of the bill of rights *except* number 2. Looks to me like the Reds, now that that they run government, are all completely happy with “big and oppressive”.

I don’t know of any liberals that want all firearms eliminated. Generally we support ownership, but under some reasonable restrictions. We’re not alone on this law enforcement groups also support firearm restrictions, too.

The only extreme position on this issue is taken by the NRA, which wants all firearms allowed, no matter what the social consequences. Didn’t the NRA support legalizing ceramic guns and armor-piercing “cop-killer” bullets back in the 80s?

A few years ago, I was fairly shocked to see a pro-gun ad somewhere it didn’t fit. I went to the web site it spoke of, glanced around, then e-mailed the owner. I told him I didn’t think it was appropriate to have pro-gun ads in that place, and that guns aren’t the savior of our times. He wrote back, angry as I was, and told me I probably didn’t even read his site, liberals never do, etc.

So I did.

And realized the obvious: Pro-gun or anti-gun, we’re after the same thing. People just want to feel a little safer, they want to not be afraid, they want to protect their families from harm. His site details the same anecdotes most pro types do which amounts to this: If your gun is in the exact right place at the exact right time, you might have a chance of defending yourself with it. Otherwise, you need to consider other options.

Guns are in the Constitution, for better or for worse, and you won’t get me to believe that any current state militia has a snowball’s chance in Hell against the government if pressed. That’s no longer the point. Like many freedoms, the right to bear arms is just that - the freedom to choose. It’s American. It’s what we’re about, what we’re supposed to be about anyway.

I venture to say (and I may be stretching here) that anti-gun people are similar to pro-lifers in their plight. Both are trying to protect life, but both are stripping the freedom to choose. We’d like to force responsibility on others - traffic tickets, smoking bans, harassment law suits - but people are people and if you stop letting them decide, then you’re starting something you’ll regret.

I’ve met two very reasonable teen-agers who grew up around guns with their dad. They’re excellent shots with rifles, handguns, shotguns. They’ve attended gun safety classes and do not store guns in their home. Educated, experienced, sensible. Then we all go out on a camping trip and while I’m making dinner over the fire, they start shooting their .22 at a bottle on a stump. Super, but I’m 2 feet out of their line of fire, and they aren’t thinking anything of it - don’t consider flying glass, ricochets, a bump of the shoulder. A .22 wasn’t going to kill me, but if I got hit I’d be upset (understatement of the year).

My point? Gun ownership is a huge responsibility. Many people own them who probably shouldn’t. Education, experience, common sense, and a sense of personal responsibility for your actions are all vital. If you’re missing one, you probably should not own your own gun, and certainly not keep one in the home, until you find it. Should there be a law telling you this? There already is one telling you the opposite.

I’d be happy about gun licenses being slightly more challenging to acquire though, and this would help owners from being victims no matter what side of the gun they were on.

First the reason the founders wrote the second amendment was because the notion of a standing army was to them antithetical to liberty. In the intervening years we have gone down the garden path and the original meaning is lost. Second, the second amendment means nothing because it has not been challenge. the NRA goes not go to the supreem court to fight its gun battles, it fights at the state level. Why? becuase they know they will loose and loose big. If the Federal government wanted to outlaw hand guns for example it could (if it was couched in a constitutionally legitimate fashion like interstate trade). But they do not because we the people love our guns, when we change the culture around guns then we will have change.

“You guys are all wacked. No one is trying to ban our firearms. This thread is silly. I give up.”

Thats to bad AP and it seems like the Democratic party has given up on this “silly” right also.
I wonder how many Democrats only vote Republican because they support the 2nd Amendment? Do you think the Dems could use any of those votes?

Yeah, its silly.

William-

Can you agree that, with the exception of interstate commerce and importation, the federal government has no role in application of the reasonable restrictions? That would go a long way in blocking meanigless “feel good” legislatioin like the Brady Bill……

If you guys want to live where guns are
banned,move to the UK. Now they have the
highest rate of crime in modern history.
Seems the criminals forgot to turn in their
guns.

American Pundit
No one is trying to ban our firearms?
What rock have you been hiding under the last 20 years?

To Wisevil:

Your suggestion that the Second Amendment — an amendment in the Bill of Rights — does not protect “individual rights” is incorrect. For a solid analysis, the Department of Justice recently issued a comprehensive legal opinion that the 2nd Amendment confers to all individuals the right to bear arms in this country that you might enjoy. Your “well regulated militia” argument is an outdated misinterpreation used by the gun control lobby to modify the undeniable meaning of the 2nd Amendment — an amendment James Madison and Thomas Jefferson believed important enough to prioritize SECOND in the Bill of Rights, second only to the right to free speech. Here is a link to a description of the opinion, if you’d like to read it:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/12/21/104408.shtml

Second, for those of you who are still fooling around with emotions and anecdotes on the subject of gun control, I offer this to think about: if we, as a people, don’t believe that gun ownership prevents crime and saves lives, then why doesn’t someone simply propose a bill to disarm america’s police? Personally, it doesn’t matter to me what the statistics say. The U.S. Constitution protects the right of the individual to bear arms and provides that that right shall not be infringed. However, for those of you who are a few hundered years behind the times, and want statistics to show that gun control laws kill, please read the most comprehensive study on the subject ever conducted: More Guns, Less Crime by the University of Chicago Law School economist John Lott. If anything, it provides a great insight into how something so simple can be twisted by politics into something so unnecessarily complicated. Review:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226493644/qid=1106853962/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-8667593-9384036?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

So what you are saying is that one example of legitimate self-defense excuses years of school shootings and murders of family members by other family members by guns? And who is to say that if the hypothetical ban were in place, the criminal would even have guns, or it your contention that criminals will always have guns? And what if as a result the hypothetical ban criminal were not longer afforded easy access to guns, would the crime have even taken place?

Issues, like life are seldom black and white, thought those who hysterically (and wrongly) cling to the belief that the 2nd Amendment grants them the right to unfettered access to firearms would have us think so.

“So what you are saying is that one example of legitimate self-defense excuses years of school shootings and murders of family members by other family members by guns?”

NO. But the other million or so times are year that guns are used in a legitimate act of self-defense helps put things in perspective.

I recently read a book that discussed the debate that led to the adoption of the Bill of Rights, and the debate about which rights should be included in it. The founder’s idea of a “well-regulated militia” was that every able-bodied male who was age 18 or over was automatically considered a member or the militia, subject to call-up at any time. This was there idea of the best way to defend the country, instead of having a large standing army. (There was also some who wanted to add a clause to the amendment that would have allowed those who had religious objections to military service, such as Quakers, to be excused from serving in the militia. But, that clause was ultimately left out.) Therefore, those who wrote the 2nd Amendment not only wanted everyone to have the right to own guns, but encouraged everyone to own at least one firearm that they could use in case they were called to active service. There were also some who feared that a standing national army could take over through force, and wanted citizens to own weapons and be part of state militias that could help prevent that from happening. So the idea that the 2no Amendment only applies to those who have joined the military is ridiculous. It is true that times have changed, and that all persons over 18 are not automatically considered members of state militias. It is also true that those who are members of state militias (the National Guard and Reserve) no longer use their own weapons, but have weapons provided by the government. But, that doesn’t change the meaning and intent of that amendment, which was for each individual to have the right to bear arms.

Great article, Matthew. Thanks for posting it. It’s a sad fact in the media today that any criminal misuse of a firearm is always reported, usually in some sensational manner, but the innumerable times (I’ve read various figures in different sources but the minimum seems to be one million times) a year the mere presence of a gun has prevented a crime really see the light of day.

I am curious about Mr. Remer’s comments, however. IF, perchance the tables were turned and it was the U.S. Military on the offence, so to speak, searching our vehicles at roadblocks, for weapons, or whatever, due to some imposition of martial law, for example, what are we to do? Submit? Like hell. There will be some shooting incidents, because some of us believe in the right to bear arms strongly enough to risk dying for it. Furthermore, there are some 80-100 million gun owners in this country. If even only 1% actively resist, and the rest wimp out, the U.S. Military will have big problems on their hands. So will the BATF. No one will ever convince me that WE the people don’t have a chance against our own military.

I believe guns should be used carefully, stored responsibly, and every parent who owns one or more is responsible for teaching or otherwise imparting a sense of respect in their children that firearms are useful, but potentially dangerous tools that have no business whatsoever in the hands of said children, without adult supervision.

Some excellent reading about the “gun culture”, of which I am a proud lifelong member, can be found in a novel by John Ross, “Unintended Consequences.” I would urge anyone with even the slightest interest in the subject to get a copy and read it. If you happen to be anti-gun, you’ll quickly see what you are up against.

A quote from (liberal) Senator Hubert Humphrey:
“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say thatfirearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” Sen. Hubert Humphrey, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns Magazine, Page 4, Feb. 1960.

Remember: FIGHT CRIME; SHOOT BACK.

How can anyone be pro life and also support indiscriminate gun ownership? It’s not about mental illness its abpit flash moments where you do an say things completely out of character. Moments where you think you know what you saw but didn’t.

While I am aginst gun control laws I believe that the best way to stop accidental shootings is in gun education.
Parents are the first in this by teaching their children not to play with guns. They can also teach kids how to safley handle them.
If the parents wish their a coarses teach gun safty. Gun safty also teaches how to fire a gun.
The best form of gun control is teaching someone how to hit what they’re aiming at.

Liberals want all guns made illegal, right? Wrong. We want them regulated. A gun purchased on a seven-day waiting period defends one’s house just as well as one purchased right at the counter. Background checks do not an ineffective gun make. The Right has made a habit of absolutely rejecting gun control legistlation even when it has no bearing on the average, law abiding citizens ability to get a gun suited for home defense.

I find it sad that the NRA takes such an irresponsibily absolutist position on guns. All this “cold, dead hands” crap amounts to getting people all afraid of authority figures kicking down their doors to get their guns. Worse, you got all these people convinced that they cannot compromise between public safety and gun rights.

It just isn’t true. I have no problem with people owning guns and having the firepower to defend themselves from an intruder. What bothers me is an attitude towards gun rights that is so uncompromising that it invites folks to believe the worst of those who champion the right to bear arms. Many people find such a focus on the liberties of lethal weapons to be a morbid, paranoid, disconcerting quality in people. But I hardly think that most gun enthusiasts are so morbid or so naturally paranoid.

I think its symptomatic of a kind of fear that has been allowed to permeate into our society, and which the unscrupulous have nurtured into a means of acquiring power for themselves. That is, the fear of authority. A great deal has changed in our world, and that has frightened people over the last century. The shift towards secularity, the rise and fall of communism, the new deal, the great society, the change of values in our media, the shift in power towards minorities.

Guns are one issue among many that have been so altered. In the last century, we have seen light arms progress dramatically in their power and discharge rate. In World War I, a machine gun was a bulky creature that had to be cooled by some sort of fluid. Now you can carry an uzi in your jacket. We’ve learned new and interesting ways to make bullets fragment, cavitate, mushroom and do various other gruesome things to the human body. Military rifles have gone from bolt-action single shot repeaters with stocks to pistol-gripped, banana-clipped automatic and semiautomatic weapons with much greater range and stopping power.

We need to regulate weapons according to their new power, to keep the interests of law and order in line with second amendment rights. Otherwise the tensions that gun violence creates will be interpreted as the result of insufficient control of such things, instead of being seen as a social, psychological problem.

As long as even reasonable restrictions on guns are eliminated, people are going to see gun violence not as a discipline problem, but instead as a problem of power being put in the hands of the wrong people. Allow some gun control and you can legitimately label the excess of the other side for what they are. If we can’t speak of things in rational, adult terms, we will have bought anxiety for our self-righteousness.

Stephen:

You are wasting your time. Gun Control has become a Mantra to the Republicans. Its like Gays being ALL pedophiles. The Republicans NEED to believe Liberals want a total gun ban. Just like they NEED Gays to be evil. Just like they NEED to believe Iraq is a justified war, that we are winning, that we are spreading Freedom and Liberty there.

Republicans NEED the absolute certainly of their cause. Whereas Democrats tend to see both sides of the issue, Republicans are myopic. They NEED to be that way.

On a Personal Note, I just ordered my first .50-caliber rifle that I intend to use for hunting. It can shoot accurately from 1.5 miles away. It can pierce bulletproof glass and even through steel plate. I already have the explosive Raufoss ammunition. I can’t wait till hunting season starts.

“In 2000, nine children a day were killed by a gun.”

If that’s cause enough to violate the First Amendment, then the 3,000+ children murdered daily under the guise of “reproductive rights”, should be enough to abolish abortions, wouldn’t you say?

Kctim,

Okay, let’s take it sloooww, sooo youuu get it. First will be the full Amendment, followed by your question/statement and lastly, ** my reply.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

“or the right of the people peaceably to assemble”
- Does this mean we can only “assemble” in groups and that one person cannot?

** Did you even think before you wrote this one? Look up assemble in the dictionary.**

ASSEMBLE: To bring or call together into a group. syn: Gather, amass, congregate, convene, meet.

** So yes kctim, we can only “ASSEMBLE” in groups and no one person can not assemble.**

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”
- So individuals aren’t secure against these violations but groups of people, the state as you say, are?

**Okay kctim I’m starting to get it, you no read so good. Go back and read what I wrote again. Never did I say “the people are the state”. What I did write was; “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. People as a group, not individual. If it meant individual we would not be able to stop any person from carrying a gun.”

Citizens as a whole retain this right but not every individual. Otherwise laws restricting felons, the mentally ill, etc would be unconstitutional. If “the people” meant “individual” we could not “infringed” any individual from bearing arms.**

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
- OR TO THE PEOPLE. Now why include this part if what they are really saying is that the people = the state?

** Here you go again with “the people” = state. As with the above, I never wrote that.

Lastly,

“It is cool though that you know exactly what James Madison was “thinking” over two hundred years ago”.

** You say this like the man never put his ideas to paper. States rights was a concern of his and many others of that time. I have a pretty good idea what Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc were thinking and that was a couple of thousand years ago.**

Look through the all the previous postings made by the Gun Nuts. I must hand it to the N.R.A.; they’ve got brain washing down. The Gun Nuts all spew the same rhetoric and propaganda, all in step to the music. Like drones. It must be so much easier than giving real sincere thought to the issues.

I give up on you, your to far gone. My work here is done.

Rose-
Guns add distance. Distance makes killing easier and less risky. Guns make the projectiles harder to dodge or outdistance, and take the musclepower of the individual out of the propulsion equation. Guns don’t kill people, they just help people do it more impulsively.

Now if some crook gets pulled over with an illegal or stolen weapon, that’s a jail sentence, and that’s a criminal off the streets. Gun control is typically about simple, common sense safeguards on who can own a gun, what has to go on before the person gets that weapon, and what firepower is permissable to people who won’t be mobilizing for Iwo Jima anytime soon.

People shouldn’t expect absolute freedom of firearms anymore than they should expect absolute freedom of speech. That freedom is limited by issues of privacy, of defamation, public safety, and restrictions of time, place and manner. You can’t use somebody’s image without permission, you can’t give away national security secrets, yell fire in a theatre, or play your protest song on your electric guitar at full volume at one in the morning. There are sensible regulations on Free speech, on of the most dearly valued of all constitutional freedoms- how exactly is it that the Second Amendment should be construed so absolutely, in that case? It’s unrealistic, and in the long run will do more to harm the right to bear arms than moderate regulation.

Why does everybody have to read more into what the authors of the laws intended? The second amendment says we have the right to bear arms. If you want to consider the spirit of the law, consider the way it was handled in the day it was written. Guns were tools used on a daily basis. They were used to hunt, for protection from predatary animals, and, for defense from criminals. In that day, everybody owned guns and all were free to buy them anywhere. If any of you belive that liberals do not want to ban guns completely, (other than for themselves), then try to get a gun in Ca, Ma, or NY. I grew up in Boston, and I wasn’t the law abiding citizen that I am today. Because I didn’t obey the laws, I had unlimited access to guns, and the freedom to use them against citizens who did obey the laws and therefore were defensless. I would’ve never used my gun in a situation where the person I was aiming at could shoot back. The rights given in the second amendment give us the right to defend ourselves with arms as well as to assist the state if needed, not just to use it when the state tells us to. As far as the isssue of misuse, we need to see to it that the person responsible for the gun that is misused is punished for allowing it to happen, knowingly or not. If a child has access to a gun, and uses it in an illeagal way, then the owner of that gun should be punished for enabling it, but we can’t make all guns illeagal to solve the problem.

Hey wise
Nice catch on the assemble thing, that was pretty dumb of me, lol. Oh well.
Your sarcasm and demeaning liberal rhetoric aside, I would still like to discuss why liberals such as yourself fear guns and the obvious meaning of the 2nd. I believe it is an important issue and a large reason why Democrats have been losing elections.

I understand your people as a group thinking I just don’t agree with it. A group consists of individuals and each individual is entitled to all the rights outlined, until they are proven guilty and their rights are legally restricted.
Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
When a person is guilty until proven innocent, their rights are being “infringed” upon.

About our founders, many also said that it is the duty of every able bodied person to be armed, you should have a “pretty good idea” of what that really means also.

The NRA has about 4 million members and there are about 80 to 100 million gun owners in the US. The NRA is a political org that does not really respect the 2nd Amendment, they are about money.
Calling people who believe in the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment gun nuts is also a large contribution to why liberals keep losing elections, it doesn’t help support your agenda.
If Dems wish to start taking control of elections, they must lose the laughable “liberal logic” way of thinking and start respecting the entire Constitution and its true meaning, not just the rights that support their agenda.

“I give up on you, your to far gone. My work here is done.”

As I said to AP, this type of thinking does nothing to support the Democratic party.
This is not a religious issue where religion wins over politics, as proven by the sweeping gay marriage amendments passed by both Dem and Rep voters.
This is a issue that has hurt the Dems at the polls and I believe simply by respecting the 2nd Amendment, Dems could get back many voters.

While I may be just a dumb ole redneck and no read so good, I do vote and there are millions like me. Demean us all you wish and ignore all our beliefs, but as proven by who runs the house, senate and oval office, I think the Dems could use some of our votes.

I would still like to discuss why liberals such as yourself fear guns

Dude, most of us own guns. That’s why this whole thread is so wacked. Nobody’s trying to ban guns.

AP
Then liberals need to convey those idea’s to us and not talk as if we are some crazy “gun nuts.”
Many believe that wiseevil’s “liberal logic” represents the Democratic party view on guns and will never vote for a person or party who is so blatantly against the 2nd Amendment.

Why call us “silly” when we question registration, limitations and banning of guns?Why not work with us on a Constitutional solution?
The NRA excuse doesn’t work either. Out of around 100 million gun owners only about 4 million are members of the NRA.
That leaves an awful lot of gun owner votes out there for the Democratic party to simply just “give up” on.

If nobody is trying to ban guns then why is it that every the liberal media blows a story about guns out of perportion the liberals in congress want moore gun laws?
Why is it that the only laws banning guns are pasted and signed into law when there’s a liberial president?

Wisevil,
Actually I have never picked up a gun in my life, and don’t plan on it anytime soon. That said, I am not an NRA member nor have I read any amount of their literature, so pocket that cookie cutter argument(though you seem incapable, given your responses to other posts of anything but) and save it for someone who is.
And to William Cohen-
If you are not against a total ban and reasonable restrictions, then my quick post was clearly not for you. I would also like to say that I have not once, on this blog or anywhere in life ever called Bush a conservative. He’s conservative like the Backstreet Boys are music.
So while I would ask for examples of Clinton shrinking government before I would believe it, I have no argument for Bush’s anti-conservative increase in size of government. It’s part of why I pray for a genuine conservative 3rd party to arise.
And to all of my liberal friends,
If you don’t support big socialist government, why such enthusiastic support of the UN?

The Lib’s Have tried,Are trying now,
and will keep on trying to ban anything they
can’t make idiot proof. Guns are on that list.
Almost every Lib. I’ve met is pretty short on
common sense, and falsely assumes everyone else
on the planet is too! Stand up and join the
NRA

FYI Lib. is just a media whitewash of
the true description ” socialist ” which
they allways deny. How Come? The media,
with a few exceptions, supports sociaslism.
After the last election it seems a lot of
people have caught on to this. You can’t
fool all the people all the time.

Dale, your last comment is not on topic. That said, it seems the GOP was in favor of the higher cost version of the Rx benefit for the Medicare program, not the Democrats, who wanted competitive pricing for Medicare in the bill.

The GOP favors forcing everyone to pay taxes so the GOP can go off and spend it on wars of their choosing - sounds socialistic to me.

And what about forcing Americans to pay taxes to subsidize those huge transfer payments to the Indonesians and the Florida Hurricane folks. More socialism.

The GOP want to spend tax dollars helping religious organizations in their missions. They want to spend tax dollars promoting marriage counseling. The want to spend tax dollars for transfer payments to corporations who can no longer compete in the global market place. All socialistic programs where everyone is taxed so a few can benefit.

Your last comment is absurd on its face. Both conservatives and liberals believe in socialized programs like the military, space exploration, FEMA, public schools, national highway system, Yucca Mountain, etc. etc. etc, the only difference between conservatives and liberals is who is to benefit from those socialized tax transfer payments.

LOL Lib. BS

Redistribution of wealth is a Lib. concept.

Why call us “silly” when we question registration, limitations and banning of guns?

Nobody is trying to ban guns. As for registration and limitations, if you know a better way to trace a murder weapon or keep firearms out of the hands of wackos and idiots, let’s hear it.

Out of around 100 million gun owners only about 4 million are members of the NRA.

The rest are Democrats. :)

Seriously, there are tens of millions of gun owners like myself in the Democratic Party. The Republican Party and its affiliates, like the NRA, are playing on gun owner’s fears to create a political wedge issue.

For every inconsequential “liberal who fears guns” that they quote, I can show you a “crazy gun nut”. These people are fringe.

While the Democratic Party could do better at communicating our position on firearms, you guys aren’t interested in hearing it anyhow. When Kerry goes out hunting, something he’s done all his life, you guy dismiss it as a political ploy. Your minds are already made up.

So while I would ask for examples of Clinton shrinking government before I would believe it…

One good example is VP Gore’s Reinventing Government program. It reduced the federal bureaucracy by about half a million unnecessary jobs, and greatly increased its efficiency.

Too bad Bush didn’t keep it going. There were several months in the last couple years where the US only gained jobs because Bush hired all the bureaucrats back to their government jobs. That’s what the whole public sector/private sector jobs brewhaha was about during the debates.

And to all of my liberal friends, If you don’t support big socialist government, why such enthusiastic support of the UN?

Umm… Because the UN is neither Socialist, nor a government.

I am sick and tired of hearing school shootings being used as reasons for gun bans. Young people that are disturbed enough to do such a thing would find a way to do that or worse if they had no access to guns, you can go to any of 250+ web sites and learn how to make a bomb out of everyday household items.

Hey I’ve got an idea let’s take responsibility for the decline of our society and instead of blaming things for our problems let’s blame who is truely guilty…. US!! I won’t quote statistics because they can say whatever I or anyone else wants them to say. Let’s look at some facts.

1. The rise of gun violence has escalated the most per capita during the last 15 years.
2. The largest rise has been amoung teens.
3. We have more single parent homes than ever before because of a near 50% divorce rate.
4. Single family homes for the most part are comprised of a mother and the children, therefore the male children have no male role model within the family to teach him how to be a man and our society produces less and less men that are willing to take responsibility for their actions and more and more men that want to blame everything and everyone for their station or situation in life ( I won’t go any farther down this course… you get the point).
5. The schools have (for the most part) quit teaching our children any form of responsibility for thier actions.

I could go on and on, moral decline, tolerance, and all the other things that have been shoved down our throats and have caused the decline of our greatness as a nation. WAKE UP people why didn’t these things happen 30 or 40 years ago to the degree that they are happening today??

What is the difference between me and most people who have THOUGHT about blowing our schoolmates or our bosses or our nieghbors away and those that actually do it. Pure and simple it is restraint I was taught that using restraint and resisting impulses were apart of the natural order of things. Our children are being taught even programmed that if it feels good do it or if you want to do it then do it and you give that kind of license to a young person and you are opening up a society to all kinds of havoc.

Do you think that banning guns will solve that type of behavior set? What is next? If unchecked this type of thinking will allow government to continue chipping away our rights until we are solely dependent upon the government for determining what is right and wrong for us. You may argue John, your being paranoid or a conspiracy theorist am I? Would your grandfather have believed that a child would walk into a school and start blowing people away at will or that children would be killing each other over tennis shoes or sweatshirts maybe he would have if they were isolated incidents but these things happen almost everyday here. No the problem doesn’t lie with guns or knives or any other thing it lies much deeper it lies at our feet for allowing our society to become what it is and if you think we are having problems now let this continue and look at what we are facing 10 or 15 years from now…..

You people could do something you’re not apparently used too. Go out into the real world for a month, year or two and see how all your BS talk works with real folks. You know, the guys that drink “domestic” beer, and have blue collars on their shirts and do things, like hunting, bowling, LIVING! Not a familiar concept to LIB.’s

The NRA is a lot of people like me that write letters, and write CHECKS! We put our money where it needs to go. And you know what? It’s working pretty damn good. Getting the truth out about Lib’s is the worst thing that you can do to them.They have been living behind a firewall of lies for so long, they beleive their own BS! On the 2nd AMD, You guy’s don’t even have a clue why it was put in the bill of rights.

Kctim,

One more example of “the people” not meaning “individual” as you say it does.

The Constitution of the United States of America

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

“We the people” not “I the people”….”We”…..”the people”.

As for me being a liberal, this you assume because of 2 or 3 postings on guns. (ASS out of U and ME……ASSUME). You have created this pyridine in your head that is far from reality.

First, I voted for Ronald Reagan both times, George H.W. Bush the first time, and George W. Bush the first time. Notice I said the first time, I could not vote for them a second time because they both are colossal screw ups. Show me a liberal with this voting record. Second, go back and read what I wrote, please, the first two postings at least. I am a hunter, gun owner, and member of the N.R.A.. Sound like a liberal to you? No, I’m not a Liberal and I am not a Conservative. What I am is a free thinking individual, I am an American. Those of you who allow yourselves to be labeled are making a mistake. Too many people allow their party to do the thinking for them. Republican and Democrat alike, feeling if they break with their parties opinion they weaken their party. I am a Christian but don’t think there aren’t a bunch of “Jesus Freaks” out there who follow the Republicans for only one reason. They fail to fight them on other issues like the environment for fear it might weaken the the party and hurt the only true issue they care about. So instead they stop thinking for themselves and let the party do it for them.

I agree with you on the statement that one of the reasons the Democrats lost was the guns issue. They argue poorly sometimes, unfortunately they have not learned to win the war of words. Not to be confused with the war of ideas. Great ideas still lose when worded poorly.

As for the “gun nuts” comment and the “my work here is done”, my apologies. I am a passionate person who gets pissed off when I feel my points are being ignored or just misunderstood. Some might know I just started this blogging thing a few days ago. And after I wrote “my work here is done”, I wiped all traces of this site from my PC’s favorites and my Yahoo account, planning to never return. After a little over 24 hours I couldn’t take it, this stuff is addictive, I’m back. I will try not to be as rude in the future.

Lastly, hopefully you went back and read my first couple of postings. There is a story in there that unfortunately is true. If you read it you will know where I’m coming from on the guns issue.

.

Very interesting commints from both sides. There are few subjects that are so near and dear to so many and so misunderstood by those with no interest either way. I am a gun owner. Between me and my brother in law we own 15 guns. I own one and well, some of you can figure out how many he owns. One of his is used for hunting. I still like this guy but he scares me. I think that he and lots of others like him lie in wait at night hoping that someone breaks into his house so that he has the “right” to shoot to kill. I don’t know what the answer is but having a problem, as he does, that you are only legally allowed to buy one gun a month is nuts. And I don’t use the term gun nut. I love motorcycles and I don’t want the gov’t telling me I can’t buy more than one 150 mph sportbike a month so on that issue I understand the slippery slope distaste. But 150 mph bikes don’t often kill innocent bystanders. Neither do swimming pools or bicycles. The fact that we can discuss this in this very public forum is what is so great about this country. I like guns and what they can and cannot do but if I’m for a little bit more gun control, Dale, that doesn’t make me a liberal, does it? And kctim, I’ll go to my grave still thinking that you teaching your 4 year old daughter to shoot(another post) is still way too young. I don’t think that someone that age is aware of the ramifications of what can transpire when that projectile is let loose. If my little boy ran into your yard to retrieve his ball, I’d rather she was playing with her Barbie doll at the time than looking down the barrel of a gun. And wisevil, stick around, you won’t believe where this blog can take you.

Sounds like I got you guys thinking, instead
of using your talking points.
That’s a good thing. Discussion, understanding
others point of veiw, and respecting it, are
good ways to come together, for all.

“If that’s cause enough to violate the First Amendment Second Amendment, then the 3,000+ children murdered daily under the guise of “reproductive rights”, should be enough to abolish abortions, wouldn’t you say?”

There, that’s better.

Sounds like I got you guys thinking, instead of using your talking points.

Right back at you, Dale. That’s what this site is all about. :)

John, you have hit it right on the head. Our gun problems are perpetuated by attitude and lack of personal responsibility. If guns were the problem, Canada, which has a larger gun ownership per capita than the US would have large gun problem also. Which it doesn’t. As far as an armed population not being a threat to the Government, apparently you have not heard of the Revolutionary War, The Vietnam War or the Russian War in Afganistan to mention a few. Large organized Army’s beaten by an armed population. By the way, I’m a Liberal and I own several Guns and support National Handgun Registration. Long Guns should not be regulated except to the point that fully automatic weapons and Cannon are now regulated.

Fred,

Where did you get your numbers on Canadian gun ownership?

“If guns were the problem, Canada, which has a larger gun ownership per capita than the US would have large gun problem also”.

Please do the research before making statements like this.

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/wd97-3a-e.html

The survey indicated:

• Canada was in the mid-range of firearms ownership. Nearly 22% of Canadian households possessed at least one firearm. Possession was highest in the United States (48.6%) and lowest in England and Wales, Scotland, and the Netherlands.

• Among the regions of Canada, firearms ownership varied from 14% owning at least one gun in Ontario to 36% owning at least one gun in the Atlantic Provinces. In four regions, gun owners predominately owned rifles (the Atlantic Provinces, British Columbia, Ontario and the Prairie Provinces). In Quebec, gun owners mostly owned shotguns (76.9%). The percentage of gun owners who owned a handgun varied from 6.0% in Quebec to 16.1% in British Columbia.

• Almost all Canadian households with a firearm possessed a long gun (95.1%). These households represented 19.2% of all Canadian households. In contrast, 12% of Canadian gun owning households possessed a handgun and this represented 2.3% of all Canadian households. Only about 2.2% of Canadian households owned both a handgun and a long gun.

I agree with you about long guns though. Of the 22% in Canada who own guns (vs. 49% gun ownership in the U.S.), 95% of those guns are long guns.

Don’t use Canada as an example without mentioning their restrictions on hand guns. If we want to compare Canada to the U.S., we must look at their gun control laws also. Please read:

CANADIAN GUN CONTROL:
SHOULD THE UNITED STATES LOOK NORTH FOR A SOLUTION TO ITS FIREARMS PROBLEM?
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/Canadian_Gun_Control.htm

You want to freak these people out start talking about using Canadian style gun control.

Fred,
One more site to look at.

CANADA “GUN CRAZY?”
http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~williams/rhe306_04/all_girls_stuff/gun_control.htm

Excert from the site:

In order to accurately analyze this question, Michael Moore’s proclamation about Canadian society must first be analyzed. Moore’s first assertion about Canada is that since it is a country with “ 7 million guns,” it must therefore be a “gun crazy country.” While Moore’s statistics are accurate, the actual ratio of people versus guns is quite distinct from the United States. If all 7 million guns were distributed to different individuals in Canada, only 25% of Canadian’s would have a gun in their hand. Whereas, if all the 222 million firearms in the United States were distributed to different individuals, 82% of American’s would have a gun. It seems a gross exaggeration to claim that Canada is the “gun crazy country”. Also, Moore has obviously overlooked the fact that in Canada, guns are concentrated in certain regions such as in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, and multiple guns can be owned by one person or one family. Hence, before making such generalized claims about Canada, Moore should have done more research and thought twice about his quantitative evidence. Therefore, could it not be assumed that fewer Canadians are being killed by guns because there are in fact fewer guns available in Canada?

Wow,

222,000,000 Damn, that’s a lot of guns!

Someone mentioned they felt my response to others was demeaning and sarcastic. I must admit I take my lead from the best in that field; Rush, Hannity and O’Reilly.

I must also admit that I am now too old to pick fights at a bar. Thus, here I am picking fights with you.

And it’s FUN!

Hey wisevil
“I will try not to be as rude in the future.”

Where the hell is the fun in that? LOL!!!
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue.
Individual rights, especially gun ownership, are rights I cherish above all others and am willing to die for.
The Bill of Rights says what it says and it is criminal to alter that just to make people feel better or to suit an agenda.

“Those of you who allow yourselves to be labeled are making a mistake.”

Your take on the word assume fits well here.

And finally, you say you couldn’t vote for either Bush the second time. Thats cool, I couldn’t vote for them the first time either but if you voted for kerry you might as well have voted for Bush, they are basically one in the same, especially on the gun issue.

Thanks and welcome to the board, you may find that we agree more often than not.

I didn’t see this thread untill it grew long and morfed into socialism and hyperbole like that.

Most of the regular posters here have read my views on this issue before so I’ll only make a few comments.
Not all Democrats want to ban guns, HELL not even most of them do, but there are some in the Dem leadership that have said (on the record) that they would ban them all if they could, and guess what folks, they are the ones that get the media coverage!
That has likely cost the Dem party more votes in the past 20 yrs. than anything else. (ask your own leadership off the record, they will admit it)

I have taught hunter safety classes for the Michigan DNR for 25 years, more that 90% of the class time is gun safety.
For the past 10 years close to 40% of the students have been female, both girls and adults. Nearly half of those say they will likely never go hunting but they, or their parents, want them to know about gun safety.

Most of the guns in the US are in rural areas with the least ammount of crime.
Most gun crime is in urban areas with the toughest gun laws.

Mi. is a blue state with lots of guns(over a million hunters)and a new “right to carry law” for concealed weapons for the past few years.

The net result…crime went down, no problems, even our liberal Governor(Jenny Grandstand), that faught the law, admitted she was wrong.

Most of the guns in the US are in rural areas with the least ammount of crime. Most gun crime is in urban areas with the toughest gun laws.

There’s another way to look at that, Beagle. In a city, the only reason to own a gun is to shoot a person.

I like the idea of concealed carry, but the argument you just made falls apart when you consider the different motivation for firearm purchases between rural and urban dwellers.

AP my friend,

“There’s another way to look at that, Beagle. In a city, the only reason to own a gun is to shoot a person.”

Self defence is a valid reason ?

Michigan has some big citys too, Detroit, Flint, and Grandrapids come to mind.

Very few times are guns used in self defence ever fired. Just the fact that the thugs know the someone MAY have a gun makes them think twice.

Now the 100# housewife in the $40k SUV stopped at a traffic light doesn’t look like such a helpless target to a carjacker.

To get a CCW licence you must go through background checks, extencive training both in gun handling and legal training by attorneys that specialize in gun laws, and licensed gun instructors, much like police officers take.

The only real difference is now the average Joe or Jane has the right to defend themselves even if they aren’t rich.

Rossie O’Dumbass that lead the “Million Mutt March” to ban all guns has armed bodyguards everywhere she goes…Hummm..that makes sense, like lugnuts on a birthday cake !

Beagle,

I to live in Michigan, any chance you taught those classes at Multi Lakes? I practically grew up at Multi Lakes and Birmingham gun clubs. Anyways I must respond to something you said.

“”Mi. is a blue state with lots of guns (over a million hunters) and a new “right to carry law” for concealed weapons for the past few years.
The net result…crime went down, no problems, even our liberal Governor (Jenny Grandstand), that fought the law, admitted she was wrong”“.

The CCW (carry concealed weapon) law that you speak of was enacted on July 1, 2003. The crime stats for 2004 have still not been released so the stats we would use would come from 2003. This being the case 6 months is not enough time to really determine CCW’s affect on crime. My guess is that you are making assumptions regarding its effects on crime. I would also mention that crime was declining steadily in the 5 years prior to the CCW law, what do you attribute this to, less donut shops. Even when we do have 2004 stats it will be to early tell, a year and a half is not a true test. Not to mention, how can you say CCW is the reason crime went down. What about more police, less people and more jobs, could these cause crime to decrease?

As for Governor Granholm admitting she was wrong, my research has found no such evidence. After a call to a friend in the Governors office who confirmed this I must ask where you think you might have heard this. Any source would do, Uncle Bob, Jimmy down the block, Sam the barber etc.

As for your work relating to gun safety, keep up the good work.

Michigan has some big citys too, Detroit, Flint, and Grandrapids come to mind.

Maybe I wasn’t clear that I was agreeing with you, but just thought your argument was weak.

What’s difference in crime rate between Detroit, Flint, and Grandrapids, and the rest of the state? I suspect it’s higher in urban areas regardless of the toughness of the gun laws.

Wisevil,

http://www.detnews.com/2002/metro/0203/21/a01-445943.htm

This isn’t the link I wanted, the editorial I read in booth newspapers(covers most of Mi.)only lets you search 14 days back without paying.I read it about 6 weeks ago

I think if you check dates the law passed in July 2001, that should be enough time to tell if bad things would happen because it passed.

You might call your friends at the Governors office and ask if she ever said in an interview with the media; ” I was afraid that if it passed, it would turn the streets into the wild west, I was wrong”.
If you get a flat denyial of that, or anything close to that, please get me something in print stating that, it will make a great ad in 2006!

I havn’t been to a barbershop in over 20 yrs., but you might ask your’s if they ever read the papers or watch the local news?
You might call metro-police and ask someone if they think carjackings have went down since the law passed, you can ask them if they think doughnut shops had anything to do with it, but save that for last, I don’t want them to hang up on you.
As far as the “more jobs” goes, with Michigan tied with Alaska for the highest unemployment rate in the nation, I wouldn’t think that would reduce crime or carjackings, but what the hell, ask your friends in the Gov.’s office if they think high unemployment reduces crime,(again, save that for last) even they will likely hang up on you.

I have never taught a class at multi-lakes.

AP my friend,

“I suspect it’s higher in urban areas regardless of the toughness of the gun laws”

Very perceptive of you AP, Tough gun laws might not reduce crime.

Crime will always be higher in big urban areas, Not because they are more liberal in their views, or tend to vote mostly Dem, Its not because city folks are evil or more inclined to commit crimes, its because there are more “targets” in a smaller area for criminals to choose from.
The thugs and punks that do the muggings, purse snatchings, and carjackings are cowards, they prey on the weak.
Like a bully in school they pick on someone they know they can whip, not the toughest guy around.
Think back when you were in school, was the truely toughest guy in school a bully?
Criminals know that most people in the country own guns, waiting on a lonely crossroad for a 300# redneck with arms bigger than your leg, that might be armed, could lead to a short career as a carjacker.

You’re a clever fellow, you can research the laws and stats wether or not gun- control laws reduce crime and make up your own mind on that.

In my opinion, the CCW law in Mi. has reduced those types of crime, and might work in NYC or LA.

Beagle,

Man time flies, I went with that date from memory, I was wrong, my bad. (I did get July right)

As for crime stats and more jobs, “more jobs” is being used as an example of something that can also affect crime stats, not a statement on the conditions in MI. I never argued that bad things happen because of the CCW law passing. My argument is against your statement that crime went down as a result. That would be your opinion, but can not be considered a fact. How can you prove that CCW is the reason for lower crime rates? There are too many other factors that come into play that also affect crime stats. As for crime rates having gone down prior to CCW passing and attributing this to fewer donut shops……It was a joke! Get it, fewer donut shops equals more police out on the streets. My neighbor is a State Police officer and we joke about the donut shop down the street all the time, it’s just a joke (I once walked in and every seat had a police officer in it, the State, and three local cities were represented). I should mention he also opposed the CCW law along with many other police officers. A lot of my views on this law have been shaped by conversations with him; the last thing cops want is more guns. More guns means as police officers you are more likely to encounter the wrong end of one, that’s his opinion. Even though some training is involved in acquiring a CCW permit, it does not remove the gun or the emotional response involved in domestic violence, a majority of the calls police respond to and face everyday.

As for my friend, the question I asked him was “did the Governor admit she was wrong in opposing the CCW law” as you stated. His answer was “no”. An adamant “no”, so I listen to him instead of some guy on a blog. Now you state she said “I was afraid that if it passed, it would turn the streets into the wild west, I was wrong”. So do you see a difference in the two statements? One says she was wrong about opposing the CCW law the other says she was wrong about one of the reasons for opposing it; the streets turning into the wild west.

Your prior statement was “even our liberal Governor(Jenny Grandstand), that faught the law, admitted she was wrong”. Taken to mean she was wrong for fighting it. According to your second statement she only admits to being wrong about one of the reasons for fighting it. There are many other reasons to oppose these laws and being wrong about one doesn’t make them go away.

Your opinion is CCW law in MI has reduced those types of crimes. My opinion is having large numbers of people packing handguns might not be a good idea. Both are opinions and not facts.

Let’s agree to disagree.

Wisevil,

What kind of “facts” would you require to admit Jenny was wrong in opposing that law??

The only reasons she ever gave for opposing it were the ones that she recanted when she said she was wrong.

I’m sure she had other reasons, like being a liberal canadian ,(they banned all handguns in canada), raised in Calif., educated at Berkley, ect.
I’m sure she likely recieved donations from anti-gun/hunting groups, police unions that want nobody armed but themselves, and just hates the 2nd Amendment in general. That could be a reason?

I have no confessions from her that its a fact, we’ll just have to fall back on “what a reasonable person would believe based on evidence”, Those damn pesky liberal lawyers use that every day in court.

Rather than “agree to disagree”, on this one issue, how about we just disagree? Can you agree with that?

Beagle,

First off, I still have no evidence she ever said what you say she said. Second you say “reasons” and “ones” like you gave multiple reasons and statements, you only gave one. “streets becoming the wild west”, that’s only one! And again, prove it.

“The only reasons she ever gave for opposing it were the ones that she recanted when she said she was wrong.”

Lastly, ha ha ha haaaa (evil laugh). It must kill you from the way you right that my lady is in office. Just so you know, me and most of my friends helped to put her there!!!!!! It’s good to have money, an education, and influence. I love it! Too bad for you.

Beagle,

I forgot to mention, this year I brought home a beautiful 10 point with my Dakota 76 Traveler (30-06), one clean shot. Also a nice size doe with my bow. Happy Hunting!