Third Party & Independents Archives

Law Enforcement, Gun Control, and How to Help Others

Listening to many proponents of more gun control often suggest that law enforcement officers would like to see stricter gun control laws in place to combat the violence in our country caused, as they think, by people owning guns.  Or that they support actions to limit magazine sizes.  Since proponents think that it will make law enforcement easier and promote less violence, they are sure that most law enforcement officers agree with their position.  However, as we now see, that is decidedly not the case.

Policeone.com took the question to law enforcement personnel in a recent survey and asked them several questions.  The results of this poll may surprise anyone who thinks that they are acting in the best interests of law enforcement by supporting increased gun control laws. 

They surveyed "more than 15,000 verified law enforcement professionals".  Some of their results are:

1.) Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.

2.) The majority of respondents -- 71 percent -- say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect. 

3.) About 85 percent of officers say the passage of the White House's currently proposed legislation would have a zero or negative effect on their safety, with just over 10 percent saying it would have a moderate or significantly positive effect.

4.) Seventy percent of respondents say they have a favorable or very favorable opinion of some law enforcement leaders' public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions. Similarly, more than 61 percent said they would refuse to enforce such laws if they themselves were Chief or Sheriff.

5.) More than 28 percent of officers say having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public, followed by more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons (about 19 percent) and more armed guards/paid security personnel (about 15 percent).

6.) The overwhelming majority (almost 90 percent) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident.

7.) More than 80 percent of respondents support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one in the course of the job.

8.) More than four in five respondents (81 percent) say that gun-buyback programs are ineffective in reducing gun violence.

As Doug Wyllie, the editor of policeone.com, states:

Quite clearly, the majority of officers polled oppose the theories brought forth by gun-control advocates who claim that proposed restrictions on weapon capabilities and production would reduce crime.

In fact, many officers responding to this survey seem to feel that those controls will negatively affect their ability to fight violent criminals.

Contrary to what the mainstream media and certain politicians would have us believe, police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people, and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility.

The officers patrolling America's streets have a deeply-vested interest -- and perhaps the most relevant interest -- in making sure that decisions related to controlling, monitoring, restricting, as well as supporting and/or prohibiting an armed populace are wise and effective. With this survey, their voice has been heard.

The sad thing is that the efforts in place now are obviously attempts by people who have longed for more gun control and are trying to exploit the country's revulsion of Sandy Hook as a means to an end.  This can be shown in the following ways:

1) The main effort is to limit magazine capacity to 10 shells.  This limitation would have played NO part at Sandy Hook.  The shooter had been training for such an event for several years and reloaded his weapon several times while going through the school.

2) Limiting cosmetic changes on weapons does not make them less lethal or a potential tool of someone intent on causing bodily harm to others.  For example, the gun used by the Sandy Hook shooter was legal under the old federal weapons ban and was legal under the Connecticut ban.  It has been called out specifically in the proposed federal gun ban, but others that are identical to the gun are in the approved category. 

3) In order to push their agenda, they bring out emotionally distraught victims.  This is the most heinous of actions, IMO, to use these people to push your proposed changes.  If you can't sell the law on logical or factual means, making people cry is the most manipulative method.  The parent's sorrow is being used. 

4) Purposefully trying to state that the gun that was used at Sandy Hook was a 'fully automatic' weapon, even when knowing better.  President Obama himself is guilty of this, stating the following in a speech:

I just came from Denver, where the issue of gun violence is something that has haunted families for way too long, and it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don't have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon--by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.

You can tell by the speech that it was not a 'slip of the tongue', he originally called it a semiautomatic weapon, and then changed it to fully.  Not only was it NOT a fully automatic weapon since those are illegal to own, this purposeful use of the term is meant to evoke an emotional response.

5) There is then, of course, the obvious complete misunderstandings of how guns operate, why they are a necessary tool for self-defense by the weaker in our society to even the playing field, and the true feelings of our founding fathers on the issue.  For some examples:

a) Lawmakers who sponsor legislation on gun control now knowing how they work.

Dianna DeGette, Congresswoman from Colorado, made the stunningly ignorant statement that once the bullets are fired from a high-capacity magazine, the magazine becomes useless, and is discarded.  What's really amazing is that DeGette is the primary sponsor of the House bill proposing outlawing high capacity magazines, so one would assume she would have an authoritative knowledge on the topic.  After all, if your job is to write legislation on a specific subject, legislation all...

b) Necessary tool of self defense

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)
In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.
In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.
In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.
In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)
In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

c) Understanding the true feelings of the founding fathers

For years, we are told that 'single shot weapons like the type our founding fathers had' makes the 2nd amendment outdated or that the term 'well regulated militia' means something other than what the founders meant it to mean.  However, the facts show a different mindset.  First, the idea was that the weapons kept by the citizens would be those of military grade.  We were supposed to be able to be called upon to defend the country against outside forces AND be able to defend ourselves against aggression from evildoers and our own government when necessary.  Further, had they thought it was just small hand weapons that we were allowed to keep, why did they not ban the ownership of cannons?  These objects are designed to kill multiple people from range, yet private citizens were free to (and did) own these weapons.  Because the government trusted us to use our common sense and be responsible with the means in which we chose to defend ourselves. 

Some quotes for reference:

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

"...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888))

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in 'Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym 'A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646)

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

"The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894])

"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775])

"Men that are above all Fear, soon grow above all Shame." (John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato's Letters: Or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects [London, 1755])

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

What gun control proponents don't realize is that the problem is not that guns exist or are accessible, it is that there are people who feel, for some reason, that it is decidedly ok to use these weapons in an offensive manner. 

If they really wanted to end violence, they would do what would actually make a difference. 

1) End prohibition.  Prohibition laws, like those against marijuana, are directly responsible for creating a powerful incentive for gangs and organized crime to violate laws and have to defend themselves against the police, as well as establish 'territories' of power.  This was seen during the original prohibition era as gangs and organized crime violence increased to an alarming level during this time.  Once the experiment of prohibition was ended, the violence subsided as well. 

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nylawyer/iid.htm

2) Rebuild the expectation of responsible action in the citizenry.  Policies for the past several generations have caused society to try to blame other people, usually political opponents, when citizens are no longer acting responsibly.  Instead of holding them responsible for their actions, we try to find other reasons why they committed the actions that they did.  We give a sense of entitlement to many who should be held in less regard, not because we dislike them as human beings or because we see them as less than humans, but because only by expecting more of people do you see them rise to that occasion.  Be compassionate, but be vocal in your expectations. 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/cosby.asp

3) Mentoring.  As a society, we are too free to throw other people's money at situations that we see instead of getting personally involved ourselves.  If every person who was doing well would mentor one single person who was not, we would have at least one mentor for everyone who needed the help.  Giving people the tools that they need for them individually, instead of trying to fit everyone into a single one size fits all education.  Our education system should be just the bare basics of what people need.  It would be ideal for each parent to mentor their own children AND a child that is unfortunately without a similar mentor, but we should also be mentoring adults who have fallen through that educational crack and our floundering in our society today because they didn't get that support when they were children. 

http://www.helpusa.org/media_center/details/2012-09-mentoring-usa-helps-americas-youth-succeed-in-new-sch

http://www.rupertskids.org/

The answer is in our hands, we can do this without force or law or government.  We can take back our liberty and our society by expecting more and taking less.  Every single person who is helped by these efforts is one less potential frustrated, angry, desperate human being that could choose to take up arms in the future as a outlet for that rage.

Posted by Rhinehold at April 9, 2013 3:00 PM
Comments
Comment #363953

I wonder what those who propose stricter gun laws are saying about the 14 students stabbed at a Texas college today. This just goes to show you don’t need a gun to cause harm to multiple victims if a person so desires.

Posted by: KAP at April 9, 2013 3:06 PM
Comment #363954

KAP, there will be a greater attempt to search students and prevent knives from being allowed on campus. It’s the only solution that some people can come up with, the authoritarian one.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 9, 2013 3:12 PM
Comment #363955

Excellent as always Rhinehold.

Posted by: kctim at April 9, 2013 3:26 PM
Comment #363956

Probably Rhinehold, but in turn are they going to prevent pencils, pens, and most writing utensils also? They to can be used as weapons. Like I said if a person wants to cause harm a gun is not always needed, 14+ people in Texas can attest to that.

Posted by: KAP at April 9, 2013 3:31 PM
Comment #363957
in turn are they going to prevent pencils, pens, and most writing utensils also?

Following their rhetoric, perhaps. After all, it’s about saving kids, right?

They’ll have to make Nerf(tm) pencils for everyone to use, no sharp objects.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 9, 2013 3:44 PM
Comment #363959

Some quote from 2nd amendment court decisions:

“To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm … is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.” [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]

” ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.” [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

“The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.” [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]

“The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions.” [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]

“The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and ‘is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 9, 2013 4:09 PM
Comment #363960

IMO, the most deplorable actions of this latest attack on the 2nd Amendment are the grave dancing and the attempt to convince the people that the 2nd Amendment is a priviledge to be controlled, not a Constitutional right.
Unjustifiable fear and willful ignorance.

Posted by: kctim at April 9, 2013 4:14 PM
Comment #363961

It’s the politics of the time. How far of a stretch is it to say we can limit the 2nd amendment to saying we can limit the 1st? Look at the outrage against the Citizens United case that only re-affirmed the citizen’s right to free speech. Further look at this 7 minute video, Tortured for Testimony: Anarchists Get Solitary Confinement for Not Snitching

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 9, 2013 4:23 PM
Comment #363962

More details about the specifics of that video…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah-Lynn_Plante

The Seattle grand jury originally issued subpoenas for Plante and two others (Matthew Duran and Katherine “KteeO” Olejnik) in July, when the FBI and the Joint Terrorist Task Force broke down the door to Plante’s home with warrants seeking computers, phones, black clothing and “anarchist literature.”

The FBI has stated only that the grand jury pertains to “violent crime.” Plante had immunity granted to her, against her will and thus the grand jury could imprison her for failing to testify, because the immunity status stripped her of her 5th amendment protection from self incrimination and the right to remain silent.

Plante was one of three activists who have been imprisoned as part of these raids. The others once imprisoned have been placed in solitary confinement, been denied contact with their lawyers, have been denied visitor request forms and denied sunlight and fresh air. All three faced up to 18 months in prison if they refused to testify.

This is America…

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 9, 2013 4:33 PM
Comment #363966

Good article, Rhinehold. Any gun control should start with those powerful folks who pay for armed security 24/7.

Some 2000 long guns a day make there way from the US to Mexico. Mexico doesn’t allow a citizen to own a gun. Total legally registered guns in Mexico, 6000. Therefore, cartels are in complete control of whatever they want to control.

And, the border? It’s nothing more than a line on some cartographer’s map. What keeps the border open? Corpocracy, it’s good business, something like $100M annually. One may call it NAFTA, NAU, free trade, etc. but it’s generic name is Corpocracy.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 9, 2013 4:51 PM
Comment #363967

And this:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/09/fbi-phone-tracking-tool-more-intrusive-t

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/04/verizon-rigmaiden-aircard/

We learned recently that the feds use “stingray” phone-tracking technology — devices that mimic cellphone towers to ping mobile devices and so locate them — without informing judges of what they’re doing. Instead, when they bother seeking judicial permission, they generally conceal requests for permission to track mobile devices as paperwork for old-fashioned, less-intrusive pen registers. The practice is so common that higher-ups have no idea how often stingray technology is actually used in the field.

Now, courtesy of legal proceedings involving the technology, we find out that stingray phone tracking is even more intrusive than suspected. At least in this case, Verizon was persuaded to remotely reprogramm an air card to make it more responsive to the FBI’s tracking efforts — without a warrant or the full knowledge of a judge as to what was being done.

Local police departments often play “follow the leader” with federal agencies, especially the FBI, when it comes to legal standards and behavior — including surveillance. The Los Angeles Police Department has already been caught using stingray technology as a routine tool, describing it in court papers as “pen register/trap and trace” just like their friends in D.C. If the FBI gets away with its actions in the Rigmaiden case, expect indiscriminate phone tracking to become a common practice.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 9, 2013 4:53 PM
Comment #363968

And of course, don’t forget about the Hakken family which, as it looks now, have had to flee the US to Cuba for their freedom…

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 9, 2013 4:57 PM
Comment #363969

Yeahsuuuh - - $100B.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 9, 2013 4:57 PM
Comment #363970

http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/09/josh-hakken-man-who-kidnapped-kids-after

Since the family disappeared, media outlets and law enforcement have suggested the Hakkens meant to harm their children and possibly themselves. It looks more and more like they simply wanted their children back.

They’re death cultists/anarchists, etc… In fact, they are atheists with libertarian leanings. It’s the actions of a police state, make all manner of activity illegal and then harass the citizens to make them comply. Or just take their kids from them…

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 9, 2013 5:07 PM
Comment #363972

Oh dear, I appear now to be a ‘conspiracy theorists’, part of the black helicopter crowd! People wonder why I don’t post under my real name, after seeing what has already happened to people the government think are ‘conspiracy theorists’ or ‘anarchists’ or ‘anti-government’ simply by speaking up for their rights (as I have noted already in the comments here), is it any wonder?

Disagreeing with the policies of the current Presidential Administration makes you an insane conspiracy theorist, at least according to Vice President Joe Biden.

“Kinda scary man, the black helicopter crowd is really upset,” Biden said of people opposed to universal background checks during an anti-gun speech at the White House.

The Vice President went on to suggest that it is idiotic to believe that governments would oppress their people.

“No way that Uncle Sam can go find out whether you own a gun because we’re about to really take away all your rights and you’re not going to be able to defend yourself and we’re going to swoop down with Special Forces folks and gather up every gun in America,” Biden mocked. “It’s bizarre. But that’s what’s being sold out there.”

http://washingtonexaminer.com/biden-mocks-gun-skeptics-were-going-to-swoop-down-with-special-forces-folks-and-gather-up-every-gun-in-america/article/2526679?custom_click=rss

Apparently the ACLU is now part of the ‘black helicopter crowd’. Here is what he’s spewing about here:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/04/aclu-unhappy-with-aspects-of-potential-r

a top lobbyist for the ACLU announced that the group thinks Reid’s current gun bill could threaten both privacy rights and civil liberties.

The inclusion of universal background checks — the poll-tested lynchpin of most Democratic proposals — “raises two significant concerns,” the ACLU’s Chris Calabrese told TheDC Wednesday.

While not against background checks in all cases, Calabrese says:

“However, we also believe those checks have to be conducted in a way that protects privacy and civil liberties. So, in that regard, we think the current legislation, the current proposal on universal background checks raises two significant concerns,” he went on.

“The first is that it treats the records for private purchases very differently than purchases made through licensed sellers. Under existing law, most information regarding an approved purchase is destroyed within 24 hours when a licensed seller does a [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check now,” Calabrese said, “and almost all of it is destroyed within 90 days.”

Calabrese wouldn’t characterize the current legislation’s record-keeping provision as a “national gun registry” — which the White House has denied pursuing — but he did say that such a registry could be “a second step.”

He notes that government databases sometimes stretch in use beyond their original intent.

Calabrese says that [Nevada Democratic Senate leader Harry] Reid’s legislation fails to include…“privacy best practices.”

“Contrast this with what the existing [Reid] legislation says, which is simply that a record has to be kept of a private transfer,” Calabrese highlighted, “and it doesn’t have any of the protections that we have in current law for existing licensees.”

“We think that that kind of record-keeping requirement could result in keeping long-term detailed records of purchases and creation of a new government database.”

“And they come to use databases for all sorts of different purposes,” Calabrese said. “For example, the National Counterterrorism Center recently gave itself the authority to collect all kinds of existing federal databases and performed terrorism related searches regarding those databases. They essentially exempted themselves from a lot of existing Privacy Act protections.”….

Reid’s legislation is hauntingly vague about who would physically keep information about American gun purchases, but it’s crystal clear that records will be kept.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 9, 2013 5:34 PM
Comment #363973

The policeman on the street never supported gun control. It has always been the big city police chiefs (receivers of federal funds) who supported gun control.

Very good points and great post Rhinehold. I am sure we will not hear much in the MSM about the stabbings in TX. But could you imagine if the perpetrator had used a gun instead of a knife?

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 9, 2013 6:29 PM
Comment #363974

Rhinehold, we are all indebted to you for your massive research about our Second Amendment rights. There is little anyone can add to your excellent posts.

I think it is despicable to use the survivors of violence done with a gun to persuade Americans to give up their Constitutional Right to bear arms.

It is even more despicable for the president, vice president and Senate majority leader to espouse language that will diminish our rights.

The sheriff in my county in Texas has publicly stated that he will defend the citizens of our county from any government attempt to limit our rights to be armed.

Liberals seem to believe that restricting our Second Amendment rights is a winning position. It isn’t; and God willing, will never be.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 9, 2013 7:09 PM
Comment #363995

My neighbor makes a great point in her Opinion today.

Posted by: George in SC at April 10, 2013 1:08 PM
Comment #363998

“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.”“

The first phrase calls for regulation. It cites the need for states to maintain militias, confirmed by the second phrase. The third phrase refers to “the people,” not individuals. Finally, the first phrase and the last phrase actually contradict one another- at least if one considers the regulation of a state’s militia as itself a form of infringement.

How about this? If we go just back to everyone having flintlocks, then maybe we can find something useful in 18th century opinions about weapons.

“Liberals seem to believe that restricting our Second Amendment rights is a winning position. It isn’t; and God willing, will never be.”

Yes, because if Jesus tells us anything in the Sermon on the Mount, it’s the paramount importance of packing heat.

Two recent events:

“A 6-year-old New Jersey boy has died after being shot in the head by a 4-year-old playmate as their parents stood in the yard nearby…”

Does anyone believe the police thought keeping guns in the house was a good idea?

“Josephine Fanning had gone into a bedroom, along with the boy, where her husband — Wilson County Sheriff’s Deputy Daniel Fanning — was showing a relative some of the lawman’s guns… The boy picked up a loaded pistol from a bed and shot Josephine Fanning dead…”

Hey, let’s call Deputy Daniel Fanning and ask him how he feels about those guns now!

Finally- 14 people were stabbed at a TX school, YET NO ONE DIED. Thank goodness the maniac did not have a gun.

You violent people are overwhelmingly unpopular with most Americans. But keep it up. 3,300 Americans have died from gun violence since Sandy Hook. Go ahead, keep pretending and talking to each other and ignoring the violence. Go ahead, have those 14 Republican Senators filibuster and prevent debate. Keep it up.

Good people know you for what you are. We’ll win at the ballot box eventually. It may not be this time around, but it will happen.


Posted by: phx8 at April 10, 2013 4:05 PM
Comment #363999

” We’ll win at the ballot box eventually.”

What a victory that would be! The first step in eliminating the entire bill of rights.

phx8, your analysis of the 2nd Amendment defies all the references cited by Rhinehold as to what our founders believed about, and meant by, what they wrote.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 10, 2013 4:21 PM
Comment #364000

RF,
The Founding Fathers also approved of slavery. They were hardly infallible. We don’t even have “well regulated militias” anymore, unless one counts the National Guard, and that undermines the argument for individual ownership anyway. Like I said, if we could go back to flintlocks & “well regulated” militias, then maybe what the Founding Fathers said would apply; but the amendment is hopelessly antiquated, and it results in discussions resembling debates about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Or perhaps you want to demand- DEMAND!- the formation of “well regulated militias” in accordance with the Second Amendment? After all, the Constitution says they are “necessary” for self-defense. But while forming militias for self-defense would fulfill the point of the 2nd Amendment, it still renders the question of individual ownership pointless.

Posted by: phx8 at April 10, 2013 5:06 PM
Comment #364001

Obviously phx8 reads those writings of the founders quoted by Rhinehold with disdain. There is no sense arguing with an anti-Constitutionalist whose arguments fly in the face of what was clearly intended.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 10, 2013 5:14 PM
Comment #364002

Perhaps phx8 can share with us the slavery prohibition language he would have used in the Constitution that would have resulted in all the colonies ratifying it? Or perhaps, he would prefer a collection of colonies today without a Constitution that has been amended to outlaw slavery.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 10, 2013 5:27 PM
Comment #364003

Phx8

Convince the Supreme Court that your OPINION is right, that previous ruling were wrong and that the founders were wrong, and THEN you can repeal the 2nd Amendment and get rid of all the scary guns you live in fear of. Of course violence, deaths and suicides won’t go down, but at least you will FEEL better.
You know, it’s almost like you guys actually desire the violence you know will come from taking away our 2nd Amendment right.

“Finally- 14 people were stabbed at a TX school, YET NO ONE DIED. Thank goodness the maniac did not have a gun.”

Yes, in TEXAS, where the anti rights crowd basically tells people they can buy ARs in vending machines without any background checks at all, some nut STILL attacked people. So, using leftist logic, we must now get rid of knives.

“You violent people are overwhelmingly unpopular with most Americans.”

Pretty sick BS, especially surprising coming from you Phx8. How about instead of lumping ALL Americans who respect our Constitution in with the criminals, why don’t we talk about the actual criminals? You know, the ones who are responsible for most of those 3300 gun deaths that aren’t due to suicide? The ones who live in liberal zones with strict gun control laws?

“Go ahead, have those 14 Republican Senators filibuster and prevent debate. Keep it up.”

If they don’t do their job and prevent the trampling of our rights, they WILL lose their next re-election bid.

“Good people know you for what you are. We’ll win at the ballot box eventually.”

And you know that will only be the beginning of it all, not the end.
I am absolutely shocked that YOU of all people on here would be promoting and encouraging such things.

Posted by: kctim at April 10, 2013 5:59 PM
Comment #364004

Yes phx8 good thing he didn’t have a gun yet he did cause alot of bodily harm in a short time. It goes to show you don’t need a gun to cause harm. What do we do now ban knives, bic ball point pen, pencils and the such when a nut goes around stabbing people with them? People will always find a way to kill if they really want to and no amount of laws will prevent it from happening.

Posted by: KAP at April 10, 2013 6:34 PM
Comment #364005

“Good people know you for what you are.”

A person who owns firearms can’t be counted among “good people”?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 10, 2013 6:44 PM
Comment #364006

I wonder if some of the folks who wish to disarm Americans are really criminals in disguise.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 10, 2013 6:47 PM
Comment #364008
The first phrase calls for regulation.

Actually, no it doesn’t. I’ve shown you in the article what they meant when they wrote that phrase, but you dismiss it out of hand. You can’t say that we should ignore what the ‘fuddy duddy old founders said’ and then invent new, modern meanings of words and apply them to old phrases as proof of anything. That’s not how things work. Thomas Jefferson warned everyone about people like you.

“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” - Thomas Jefferson

So, on THIS question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted and glean what they MEANT when they wrote those words.

It cites the need for states to maintain militias, confirmed by the second phrase.

Again, no it does not. It cites the need for militias. These militias were NOT to be maintained by the state.

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” - James Madison

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” - George Mason

“The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms” - Samuel Adams

The third phrase refers to “the people,” not individuals.

This defies logic so much its amazing that you actually wrote it. First, the other 10 amendments are about INDIVIDUAL rights. But, somehow, the founders changed it up on the 2nd one and gave that power to the state? These amendments were dictates of rights that individuals kept. Second, the Supreme Court has REPEATEDLY disagreed with that argument, including just a couple of years ago.

Finally, the first phrase and the last phrase actually contradict one another- at least if one considers the regulation of a state’s militia as itself a form of infringement.

Actually, they only contradict themselves when you change the meanings of the words, as you have attempted to do.

How about this? If we go just back to everyone having flintlocks, then maybe we can find something useful in 18th century opinions about weapons.

Great, so I can get a cannon and own it then, right? I suppose you skimmed that part of the article that I wrote that called out the inanity of that argument. Why did the country allow, for decades, the citizens to own these weapons of mass destruction?

Yes, because if Jesus tells us anything in the Sermon on the Mount, it’s the paramount importance of packing heat.

As an atheist, I could care less what Jesus said as it pertains to anything, especially legislatively. But, having studied the Bible pretty extensively I can note several times when Jesus was very much for self-protection and violence, even in provocation. Do you think it was violent and provocative when the turned over the money changer’s tables in the temple? And what were his disciples doing with swords in their possession?

If you want to try to make that argument, make it a good one. Not the half-assed attempt above.

Does anyone believe the police thought keeping guns in the house was a good idea?

Yes, I do. I believe that they thought having loaded weapons out in front of children was a stupid and criminal thing to do. Those are two different things, phx8. I know you don’t seem to accept that fact, based on your hysteria and illogical accusations.

Hey, let’s call Deputy Daniel Fanning and ask him how he feels about those guns now!

Yes, do so. I bet that it wasn’t the first time he has seen someone be stupid with a dangerous object (gun, knife, fireworks, car, etc) and someone innocent died as a result. I also bet he realizes it wasn’t the fault of the gun, the tool used, but the fault of the parents in the case.

Finally- 14 people were stabbed at a TX school, YET NO ONE DIED. Thank goodness the maniac did not have a gun.

He wouldn’t have had a gun because his intent was not to kill anyone. Otherwise, he would not have used an EXACTO knife. His intent was to harm others and cause terror at the school, which he succeeded at brilliantly. If he wanted to kill someone, he would have chosen a blade a little longer than an inch (like 4 to 6 inches) or a katana, or a gun, or any number of other deadly objects that he could have chosen.

You violent people are overwhelmingly unpopular with most Americans.

I’m a little confused here who you are calling ‘violent’. As a Libertarian, I subscribe to the non-aggression principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle) and am more of the like of Gandhi and the Dalai Lama. Gandhi (and the Dalai Lama who was influenced by Gandhi) were pretty peaceful guys and would never, ever have initiated violence against anyone. But how did they feel about using a gun in self defense?

“When violence is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission.” - Gandhi

“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” — Dalai Lama

I guess your emotive rhetoric applies to them as well? When you are calling Gandhi and the Dalai Lama violent, don’t you think that you might perhaps be a little bit off kilter?

But keep it up. 3,300 Americans have died from gun violence since Sandy Hook.

And as noted, the vast majority of those Americans who have died from gun violence have been a result of the violence associated directly with the Drug War. The number of peaceful responsible individuals who have killed other individuals is pretty miniscule.

Go ahead, keep pretending and talking to each other and ignoring the violence.

No one is ignoring the violence. The problem is that people like YOU are ignoring the CAUSE of the violence. Until we recognize the cause, we will get nowhere in stopping it. Grandstanding ‘feel good’ legislation does nothing but take away from the real issues, ones that this administration is refusing to address (He has been silent on how he is going to deal with the flaunting of federal drug laws by Washington and Colorado, but if any history is valid, he will ramp up raids there as he did in California).

Good people know you for what you are.

The amount of smug self-worth displayed in this comment is beyond egregious. It is also a sign that you can’t win the debate on facts and logic so you have to resort to emotive rhetoric, name calling and subterfuge to ‘win’ is a good sign that you are never, ever, going to accomplish the goals you think you are fighting for. You’ve lost before you have even started, IMO.

And this is Obama’s 47% moment, calling the majority of citizens of the United States bad violent people is going to do him, and his cause, as much good as Romney’s 47% remark did to his.

But let’s say, for a second, that you really are interested in stopping what happened at Sandy Hook. I doubt you are, but hey, I’ll play along.

If that is the case, if you aren’t after something else, then you should be opposing this bill as well since it provide NOTHING that would have prevented Sandy Hook. ZERO, ZIP, NADA. The shooter’s mother obtained the weapon legally, it was a legal semi-automatic weapon even under the lapsed assault weapons bill and his mother passed a background check. As would have the shooter had he attempted to purchase one himself.

If you want the ability to infringe upon the right of the people to bear arms, you will have to pass an amendment to the constitution that rescinds the 2nd amendment AND adds the power to regulate weapons into the constitution (where it doesn’t exist now) so as not to be in violation of the 9th and 10th amendments.

Please, since you think you will eventually prevail, you should be going this route. It will end the debate completely.

And, I am guessing you don’t have guns in your house or own a weapons? If so, are you following through with your convictions and putting a sign in your yard declaring this to everyone who can see it?

If no, why not?

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 10, 2013 7:45 PM
Comment #364009

BTW, I’m guessing you missed this quote from Madison?

“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…”

The ‘body of the people’, means? Everyone. Every single person who is capable is a member of the ‘militia’. The regulation in the amendment is about making sure that everyone is trained in their use so that they are the most effective at defending the country and themselves with those weapons. Not letting the state regulate it, or the federal government, or any other body.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 10, 2013 7:50 PM
Comment #364010

BTW, saying the right to bear arms only meant muskets is like saying your right to free speech was only meant to include Olde English as it was spoken in the late 1700s.

The Founding Fathers also approved of slavery. They were hardly infallible.

I guess that explains this administration’s pesky determination to violate the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments of the Constitution, after all they are just meaningless words of the ‘old days’ that we can just ignore…

Hell, I can’t figure out why progressives were so upset about Bush saying that the Constitution was just a ‘goddam piece of paper’ when they see it exactly the same way?

Toilet paper seems to be the agreed upon type of paper by the Republicans and Democrats…

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 10, 2013 8:02 PM
Comment #364012

Oh, and the Founding Fathers did not ‘approve’ of slavery, they tolerated it being left up to the states to decide in order to get the country formed.. Are you suggesting that Benjamin Franklin was ‘approving’ of slavery?

Do you even understand US History at all?

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 10, 2013 8:04 PM
Comment #364013

The Constitution was a product of its time. It was written within a historical context. At times, the document transcended the limits of its context. At other times, it did not. Not only is the 2nd Amendment poorly written- I think we’d all agree on that- the 2nd Amendment is a good example of a failure to extend beyond the limits of its context.

In the 18th century, Americans participated in militias as a means of self-defense against the British, French, Indians, and others. The country was disorganized, weak, and isolated. Americans defended themselves with relatively primitive rifles that required as much as a minute simply to reload. Even when they attacked and waged war, the weapons were ineffective, and casualties relatively low. Disease was a far greater threat than the bullets of a foe. It was a different time, and the document was written to reflect the needs of that time- the need for a “well regulated militia” as being necessary for self-defense.

And while various Founding Fathers may have provided their own takes on this issue and others, at the end of the day, what we have are the words in the Constitution; no more, no less.

The authors were fallible, and the Constitution was fallible. Fortunately, the authors were wise enough to include processes for change through interpretation- namely, the Supreme Court- and amendment.

We’re at a point where the process of interpretation allows us to consider the 2nd amendment in light of our current circumstances, and interpret it to our best advantage. We no longer need militias. Militias are not necessary for self-defense. They have not been necessary for a very long time. Weapons have changed. Technological advances have improved ordinary hunting rifles by orders of magnitude over the guns of the late 18th century, never mind the phenomenal lethality of military-grade hardware.

Some interesting trivia:

The most important battle of the Revolutionary War in the South occurred at Cowpens. 1150 British troops killed 25 Americans. In five minutes, a shooter at Sandy Hook killed 26 people.

During the War of 1812, at the Battle of Detroit, 2500 Americans engaged British and Indian forces. The British forces killed a total of 7 people. At the Aurora movie theater, one person killed 12 in a matter of minutes.

There are many, many examples like this.

The 2nd amendment was obviously a product of its time; a poorly written product, at that. Now, it’s time to act in our own self-interest. The right of our citizens to their life supercedes the rights of others to own weapons of extreme lethality.


Posted by: phx8 at April 11, 2013 1:45 AM
Comment #364017

ph if you’re suggesting to change the Constitution then I’ve got no problem with your position. Most people who desire more gun legislation try to deny the 2nd Amendment exists, deny what it says, or believe that the 14th Amendment extended the Bill of Rights to the States except for “that one”.

Posted by: George in SC at April 11, 2013 6:48 AM
Comment #364018

George in SC,
Amendments can be passed, but in the case of the 2nd, that seems highly unlikely.

“Arms” are currently interpreted in such a way that an individual cannot own weapons such as howitzers and tanks. It makes more sense to apply that definition towards military-style weaponry and high capacity clips, and to restrict ownership through background checks in cases where other recognized rights eclipse “the right to bear arms;” mental illness or felony convictions would be examples of other rights taking precedence.

Posted by: phx8 at April 11, 2013 11:21 AM
Comment #364019

Phx8, that definition is already applied to military weaponary, what you want is to add weapons that you think should also fall under that umbrella. So tell us, what weapons do you think should be classified as military weapons and why?

We already have background checks, but if you think a little tweaking of them is needed, you should be able to do it without further infringing on the 2nd Amendment.

Posted by: kctim at April 11, 2013 12:07 PM
Comment #364020

ph, makes sense, but right now I don’t own a howitzer or a tank. Nobody does.

Your position would have to be to ban the manfacture, sell, and possession of military style weapons and high capacity magazines. You would provide a definition for what constitutes military “style” and what constitutes “high capacity.” You would have to confiscate the 4m assault weapons (if you use Sen. Feinstein’s number) plus the 100m high capacity magazines (if you use the Brady Bill’s 10 rounds)already in country. Anything less than that and you’re stuck with the Brady Bill’s AWB; it did nothing except popularize the AR type firemans and breed a new generation of non-sporting gun buyers that value the AR much like a kid values a pair of Air Jordans. You don’t need Air Jordans either by the way.

And unlike a howitzer or a tank, I can make a AR lower on common CNC equipment and I can stamp a magazine extension out of pot metal. It’s easier to build an AR than it is to make meth, and lots of folks are out there making meth.

Like the war on drugs, the war on “assault weapons” isn’t going to work. Better to admit that they exist and figure out better ways to keep bad folks from getting them than to try a make them disappear. There’s common ground there.

Posted by: George at April 11, 2013 1:59 PM
Comment #364021

I have a small paper back book on my desk that measures 3.5 by 6.5 inches and in 37 pages it contains the entire Constitution of the United States.

Some writers continue to diminish the importance of this document and insist that only some of the “rights” found within it should still be confirmed.

I have no doubt that should the peoples rights found in the 2nd Amendment be discarded it will not be long before other “rights” follow suit.

This is their intention. To abolish the very document that gives them the freedom to be critical.

I find it disgusting when the small liberal minds writing here arrogantly proclaim that our founders were not up to the job of writing a document applicable for today.

Unlike our founders who established the purpose and intent of our government in so few words, today’s government requires thousands of pages to describe the latest effort to divert public money to fund some pork barrel project or describe some new “group right”.

Not content with the individual liberties and freedom enshrined in our Constitution, liberals demand less of each as their socialized goals can tolerate neither.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 11, 2013 2:35 PM
Comment #364022

Royal, the left absolutely hates the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They believe they are outdated documents, written by a bunch of ignorant backwoods illiterates. Stephen Daugherty and others believe it is an evolving document, that, if renegotiated today by the elitist left, they would be able to correct all the mistakes. phx8 and others do not believe the 2nd amendment gives private citizens the right to own arms. Whatever they say, their goal is still to disarm America. They have a hatred for the Constitution and the framers. When it is brought out that America and the Constitution was formed on Christian principles, they begin to foam at the mouth like rabid dogs. Their hatred for the framers and the Constitution is only surpassed by their hatred for Christianity. Sad, isn’t it???

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 11, 2013 4:09 PM
Comment #364023

Finally, a Republican who is not afraid to tell the truth to blacks:

“Asked if he identified more with the Republican party of Lincoln or that of Ronald Reagan, Paul insisted, to audible groans, that they were one and the same.

‘We haven’t changed,’ he insisted. ‘We don’t talk about it. I’m either going to convince you or not.’

‘Racism, Jim Crow,’ and other injustices, he bellowed. ‘It was all Democrats.’


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2307094/Protestor-white-supremecy-sets-tone-Rand-Pauls-gutsy-speech-majority-black-audience-Howard-University.html#ixzz2QBkRv4Ws
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 11, 2013 4:29 PM
Comment #364024

There does seem to be a link between hatred for our founding documents and God-based religion. Since our founders speak of a “Creator” and define our inalienable rights as being granted by Him, I guess it is logical to expect hatred for both.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 11, 2013 4:32 PM
Comment #364025

DSP, with prominent conservative Republicans such as Rand Paul a new message is reaching black youth. He speaks of creating opportunity for them and all Americans, not more handouts that lead to dependence.

The Democrats are one-trick pony’s. If they can’t hand out money or favors they have nothing left to offer.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 11, 2013 5:09 PM
Comment #364026

Oh, come on. I served in the military & I swore an oath to support & defend the Constitution. I put my life on the line for that. I knew people who died fulfilling that oath. They died in training, but nevertheless, they died. Many liberals have died defending this country, conservatives too. While we obviously disagree on many things, there’s no reason to pretend one side or the other owns the Constitution.

Having said that, let us remember that the Constitution is literally just a piece of parchment containing many fine words. The world’s dumpster is full of fine Constitutions that closely resemebled ours, yet failed. Why did we succeed when others failed?

And just how successful have we actually been? The Constitution was written by old, rich white guys. At the time of its implementation, blacks were consideredto be less than human, mere property; women had no rights; and American Indians were treated even worse. Well over half of the country was NOT protected by the Constitution.

Soon after the country was founded, the Supreme Court decision ‘Marbury v Madison’ fundamentally changed the role of the Supreme Court, and its relationship to the Legislative & Executive branches as originally envisioned by the founders.

Long after most of the rest of the western world rejected slavery, we continued its practice, and fought one of the bloodiest civil wars in the history of the world to bring it to an end. Again, that war changed the fundamental relationship of states and federal government as originally envisioned. It shifted power from the states, to the central government. That was good. That was as it should be. The original vision of the founders proved faulty.

So why did we succeed when so many other nations have failed? How did we overcome so many horrendous mistakes?
We weren’t any smarter. We weren’t any wiser. God didn’t favor us any more than any other country; in fact, our history with slavery might suggest just the opposite, for those who believe.

Part of the answer rests in our ability to adjust, and change, and amend, and re-interpret the Constitution as times changed.

We’re threatened right now by the influence of money over our political system. The House and the Senate are bought and paid for, and Citizens United may have delivered a critical blow to the Republic. In the case of gun control, we see a small number of people stalling the will of the vast majority of Americans, even as more people are murdered every year than in the entire Revolutionary War.

Just a ramble… Make of it what you will.

Posted by: phx8 at April 11, 2013 6:06 PM
Comment #364027

phx8, my comment about you was, “phx8 and others do not believe the 2nd amendment gives private citizens the right to own arms.”

Let’s stick to the subject and get your answer. Do you believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees Americans the right to own firearms or not?

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 11, 2013 6:21 PM
Comment #364028

DSP

“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.”

It’s poorly written, but that is what the 2nd says.

In answer to your question: No.

The 2nd guarantees “the people” participating in “well regulated” militias the right to bear arms. That is NOT the same as guaranteeing all Americans the right to keep and bear arms. Personally, I read it as more of a guarantee to states, rather than to individuals, but that can also reasonably be interpreted differently.

Posted by: phx8 at April 11, 2013 6:33 PM
Comment #364037

Militia is an army of NON PROFESSIONAL people that is not trained military that can be called upon to fight.

Posted by: KAPO at April 11, 2013 7:07 PM
Comment #364040

phx8, since the SCOTUS has determined a “well regulated militia” to mean the individual’s right to bear arms and since the SCOTUS has upheld the 2nd Amendment; then I guess the oath you took to defend the Constitution means nothing to you.

Hence, I was correct in my original assessment of you.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 11, 2013 7:37 PM
Comment #364041

Royal, it would appear that everything I said was true:

“Stephen Daugherty and others believe it is an evolving document, that, if renegotiated today by the elitist left, they would be able to correct all the mistakes. phx8 and others do not believe the 2nd amendment gives private citizens the right to own arms. Whatever they say, their goal is still to disarm America. They have a hatred for the Constitution and the framers. When it is brought out that America and the Constitution was formed on Christian principles, they begin to foam at the mouth like rabid dogs. Their hatred for the framers and the Constitution is only surpassed by their hatred for Christianity. Sad, isn’t it???

I can’t see what phx8 is doing, but it sounds as if he is foaming at the mouth. Isn’t phx8 one of those on WB that likes to spout the rules and also one who defends Doughboy when he is slandered, LOL.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 11, 2013 7:44 PM
Comment #364042

What do we do with this:

“Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together…” —William Bradford (The Mayflower Compact)

Posted by: D at April 11, 2013 7:47 PM
Comment #364043

Or this:

“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.” —John Adams

Or this:

“Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?” “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity”? —John Quincy Adams

Or this:

“God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel”—Benjamin Franklin

Or this:

“For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.” —Alexander Hamilton

Or perhaps even the statements of Thomas Paine, who had no love for Christianity, but recognized the truths of it:

“ The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal.” —Thomas Paine

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 11, 2013 7:52 PM
Comment #364044

Well DSP, I can’t really say much about phx8 except that I despise what he is advocating with regard to our unalienable rights. Hypocrisy seems to his long suit.

I do find it interesting…and revealing…that those who would not defend our Constitutional rights seem to the the first and loudest in defending the murder of the unborn.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 11, 2013 7:54 PM
Comment #364045

Ok, that will be enough of that, we will abide by the rules for participation on my articles.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 11, 2013 7:55 PM
Comment #364046

Thanks for the quotes DSP.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 11, 2013 7:59 PM
Comment #364047
There does seem to be a link between hatred for our founding documents and God-based religion. Since our founders speak of a “Creator” and define our inalienable rights as being granted by Him, I guess it is logical to expect hatred for both.

Odd, considering I am an atheist and one of the staunchest defenders of the Constitution. It pretty much shoots holes in this ignorant argument.

Let’s stick on the subject of the article, shall we?

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 11, 2013 8:04 PM
Comment #364048

I find this link to be very interesting:

http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/04/11222-leaked-armydhs-email-labels-christians-as-hate-groups/

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 11, 2013 8:07 PM
Comment #381221

louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
coach factory
coach outlet
coach factory
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
coach outlet store online
michael kors
coach outlet
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton black Friday sale 2014
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory online
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton stores
michael kors factory outlet
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton online store
louis vuitton outlet online
kate spade
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
authentic louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin sale
cheap christian louboutin
michael kors outlet online
coach factory outlet
coach factory store
coach handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton
coach factory outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet
cheap red bottom shoes
www.coachfactory.com
coach factory
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet store online
lululemon warehouse
red bottom shoes
louis vuitton handbags
true religion outlet
coach factory outlet
coach factory
coach factory outlet
coach factory
louis vuitton handbags outlet
montblanc pens
louis vuitton handbags 2014
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton sale
michael kors
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
red bottom heels
michael kors
michael kors sale
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
louisvuitton.com
michael kors handbags
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton black Friday
cheap michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton outlet stores
red bottom shoes
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
cheap red bottoms
www.louisvuitton.com
coach factory
montblanc pen
coach black Friday deals
michael kors
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton usa
coach outlet stores
red bottom shoes
coach outlet
christian louboutin shoes
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
louis vuitton outlet store online
coach black Friday
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet online
louis vuitton cheap
coach handbags new 2014
michael kors sale
coach handbags
coach handbags
cheap ray ban sunglasses
coach factory outlet
red bottom shoes
louis vuitton
cheap lululemon
michael kors black Friday
coach outlet
oakley outlet
michael kors factory online
coach factory outlet online
coach handbags
louis vuitton
michael kors factory outlet
louis vuitton online shop
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton 2014
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory
lululemon pants
coach outlet
michael kors outlet online
coachfactory.com
michael kors handbags 2014
louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin discount
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
coach outlet
coach factory
michael kors outlet online
cheap michael kors handbags
michael kors factory
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet
ray ban sunglasses
coach outlet
oakley sunglaase cheap
michael kors handbags outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
coach handbags
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
louisvuitton.com
coachfactory.com
michael kors factory outlet
louis vuitton
louis vuitton
michael kors
louis vuitton handbags
true religion
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton
michael kors outlet
coach factory outlet
tory burch outlet online
kate spade handbags
michael kors handbags outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
oakley sunglasses outlet
louis vuitton handbags sale
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors
coach factory
coach handbags new 2014
michael kors outlet
michael kors handbags outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
cheap christian louboutin
coach outlet store online
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors purses
michael kors factory outlet
michael kors handbags 2014
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach factory
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet online
coach factory outlet store
louis vuitton
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
coach factory
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
chrsitian louboutin outlet online
coach factory outlet
www.coachfactory.com
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet online
louis vuitton
cheap coach purses
louis vuitton outlet stores
coach factory
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin shoes sale
coach outlet store
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
cheap oakleys
cheap coach purses
michaelkors.com
coach factory online
michael kors outlet online
tory burch handbags
coach factory outlet
christian louboutin discount
louis vuitton outlet
www.michaelkors.com
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach black Friday sale 2014
coach factory
tory burch shoes
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet online
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory store
coach factory online
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton outlet
christian louboutin heels
lululemon clothing
louis vuitton sale
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet store
coachfactory.com
mont blanc pens
christian louboutin
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet online
louis vuitton purses
louis vuitton
louis vuitton outlet
christian louboutin sale
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
michael kors purses
michael kors handbags
coach outlet store online
coach factory
michael kors black Friday sale 2014
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
www.coachfactory.com
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton handbags
tory burch outlet
red bottom shoes
mont blanc pens
coach factory outlet
coach outlet
christian louboutin
lululemon outlet
coach handbags
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
michael kors
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton outlet online
christian louboutin sale
michael kors factory online
christian louboutin
louis vuitton
louis vuitton handbags outlet
michael kors handbags online
coach factory online
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
michael kors
coach.com
christian louboutin sale
cheap christian louboutin
coach factory online
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
coach handbags new 2014
coach factory online
christian louboutin shoes
coach handbags
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton online sale
michael kors outlet
red bottom shoes outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton handbags
true religion jeans
louis vuitton outlet online
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
michael kors factory
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton shop online
michael kors bags
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet online
michael kors handbags
oakley sunglasses
coach handbags new 2014
louis vuitton handbags outlet
michael kors
cheap raybans
kate spade outlet
coach factory outlet
coach outlet store online

Posted by: haokeai at July 21, 2014 4:34 AM
Post a comment