The Second Amendment will not ever be shot down

Few things bore me as much as golf, guns, and fishing. To sit all day and whack a ball, shoot a target, or try to catch a cod that is actually a sneaker with a funny shaped stick is colossally dull to me.

Nevertheless, I absolutely defend the right of individuals to own guns, fishing rods, and even golf clubs. I do not let my personal animus interfere with the liberty of others. It is about freedom.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/26/gun-battle-heller-time/

The Bill of Rights were all individual rights. Those on the left that wish to use contortions to try and apply a collective right to one part of a document while acknowledging the individual right behind the other nine amendments need to stop the intellectual dishonesty. They don’t like guns. Well I detest fishing and golf. Too bad. The issue is one of legality, not social popularity. This is why Paris Hilton exists. The law says she has the right to exist, and normal people do not have the right to prevent this.

The Supreme Court is referred to as the “Conservative Supreme Court” when sensible decisions come down. They only seem to be referred to as the Supreme Court when the decision is boneheaded.

This is why, as Michelle Malkin states, liberal 5-4 rulings are “Landmark,” while, conservative 5-4 rulings are “divisive,” and “controversial.”

Make no mistake about it. Conservatives and liberals understand that the 2008 election will be critical regarding the Supreme Court.

There are four conservatives, four liberals, and one sometimes conservative that sometimes swings towards lunacy.

It was four liberals and one swing that gave us Kelo vs New London, where eminent domain became a curseword.

It was four liberals and one swing that decided recently that child rapists should be considered more important than their victims. By that one swing vote, child rapists no longer get the death penalty.

(Memo to John McCain. Force Barack Obama to uphold this decision with all the compassion of Michael Dukakis. Mention it during every debate. The media won’t. You must.)

Some of the most important decisions did swing towards decency.

The swing vote prevented Al Gore from trying to steal an election from George W. Bush. That allowed President Bush to appoint two more legal giants to the court, while making it more conservative.

For those on the right who are not thrilled with the President, send him a thank you note for Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito. They were hired to interpret the Constitution, not rewrite it according to their own evolving whims.

It is this strict constructionism that allowed the Second Amendment to survive liberal judicial activism.

Gun control advocates have no leg to stand on anymore. The Supreme Court has spoken. Those same people that were cheering for the rights of child rapists to live another day (Life without parole? So what? People escape from jails. There is no recidivism for those that have been administered the death penalty.) will now curse this same court for actually upholding the liberties of law abiding citizens. What a novel concept.

John Roberts is more than one of the finest legal minds on Earth. He is also a minimalist. He wants narrow rulings with consensus. He prefers 9-0 decisions to 5-4 splits. Yet to liberals, consensus means telling conservatives to shut up and agree with liberals. That is their version of compromise. Justice Roberts can want consensus, but when four justices routinely decide to use the Constitution as toilet paper, there is little he can do.

Narrow rulings prevent chaos in the future. One reason Roe vs Wade is so controversial is because it was a broad ruling. Even many people who are pro choice see it as liberal judicial activism. This is why the abortion issue remains unsettled.

Justice Roberts could have tried to engineer a broad ruling. His court could have declared all gun control laws unconstitutional. While that would have been a delightful ruling, it would have been an activist ruling. Justice Roberts focused on the narrow issue before his court. Was the outright ban on handguns in Washington, DC, simply going too far? Yes, it was.

What should be shocking is that four liberal justices were comfortable with an outright ban on guns. The National Rifle Association is constantly claiming that liberals who favor “reasonable” and “sensible” gun control measures are really trying to ban guns outright. Liberals then claim that this is fear mongering.

We now have the evidence. This case was not about gun control. It was about gun abolition. Four justices felt comfortable with an outright ban.

While the NRA has every right to be pleased tonight, there is a deeper issue. All gun control is unconstitutional. Does either side want to bring that to the court?

The liberals will not bring it in front of this court. The conservatives are not ready to rely on Justice Kennedy. The Supreme Court itself is not known for bravery. The conservatives prefer to be evolutionary, not revolutionary. True, the liberals want to change the world, but they prefer to do it under the radar. The Supreme Court is too public a forum. It is more dangerous than slipping one sentence into a 1000 page omnibus bill.

Those against gun control simply feel that the law supports them. Those favoring gun control simply do not like guns, and in many cases, wish they were banned outright. Anybody who thinks that the four liberals on the court are moderates need to be reminded over and over again that this case was not about gun control. It was about a complete and utter abolition of guns.

More people died in Washington, DC, last year, than 30 years ago when the ban was enacted. Liberals do not care. They hate guns.

States with looser gun laws have lower crime rates. Liberals do not care. They hate guns.

Some people have been victims of tragedies, and become gun control activists. Sarah Brady, Carolyn McCarthy, and Dianne Feinstein all owe their political careers to gun crimes. They would rather not have these careers. The suffering they went through was enormous. That does not change the fact that these three people simply, for understandable reasons, hate guns.

Maybe if the liberals on the court spent more time allowing the death penalty for more violent criminals, who by definition do not obey laws, there would be less of these animals eventually obtaining guns.

The left will argue that no rational person needs a gun that can fire 30 or 40 rounds at a rapid clip. This is disingenuous. The Founding Fathers made crystal clear what they wanted. Just because many in America choose to either fail to understand or deliberately misconstrue those words does not mean those people are right.

People who claim that they want guns regulated have voted to confirm justices that want to ban all guns.

The Second Amendment will not ever be shot down. In the words of the late Charlton Heston, let them try and “pry my gun from my cold dead hands.”

This is not about guns. This is about liberty and freedom. Those who cherish the First Amendment had better understand that once the Second Amendment goes, the rest of them rapidly disappear, with nobody left to speak up.

Child Rapists get to live, and homeowners have their property confiscated. This is the world that liberal justices want to inflict upon America. Thankfully today, they did not have the votes. May they never have the votes again.

eric

40 Responses to “The Second Amendment will not ever be shot down”

  1. There is no death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder, in America, save for treason or the most severe punishment meted out by the military. The court acted correctly in the rape-deth penalty. Yes, it’s a typical emotional hot-button issue that gets the Right all up in arms, but a truly minimalist and constructionist court had no option but to decide this case the way they did. The dissenters are niether minimalist nor constructionist – just political ideologues with no care for jurisprudence.

    The DC Gun decision was within the bounds of reasonable jurisprudence and should not have surprised anyone. It’s implications nationally are minimal as no other city or state in the nation has such stringent gun laws.

    As for the states with lax gun laws, you can thank them for piles of dead kids. They do not have lower crime rates, and anyone who says so is either lying or ignorant of the facts.

    And if it weren’t for the Brady Bill we’d all be a lot worse off…

    http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/gunlaws/

    As far as I’m concerned, if you are actively against sensible gun regulations, you may as well just go out and kill some children, because that’s the effect of your actions.

    JMJ

  2. Micky 2 says:

    “As for the states with lax gun laws, you can thank them for piles of dead kids. They do not have lower crime rates, and anyone who says so is either lying or ignorant of the facts.”

    Yea right !
    Tell that to the folks in New Orleans when anarchy broke out and only the thugs had guns.
    We dont kill children Jersey.
    We are all allowed to own things that kill, propane tanks, medicine,cars etc…
    It up to us to operate, own and handle these things.
    And the majority of those “children” you talk about are just a bunch of underaged thugs who would think nothing of blowing your head off for lookin at them the wrong way. So spare me the tear jerker crap.
    I was at another blog and made a stsement that rings true after what you just said.
    Even though a lot of libs are applauding this decision as it stands up for our constitutional rights they will still in the future attempt to take our guns from us.
    And statements like yours make it only obvious, that is the direction you guys are still leaning towards.
    Cuz ya see, theres always those sneaky little words you guys like to use like “sensible”.
    What sensible to us is different from your guys sensibilities.
    Obama and Hillary tried to use that one after realizing Americans didnt want out ofg Iraq at the risk of a blood bath.
    ” I will withdraw from Iraq “sensibly” became the new phrase heard at all the townhall meetings instead of “immediate withdrawl’
    Notice that ? Remember that ?

    Lying or ignorant of the facts ?
    Thers enough evidence out there to make you the one in that category.

  3. Look, as liberal as I am, I do agree that the DC Gun law was over-the-top and I was no surprised to see it go down. If anything, I’m surprised it took so long! You’d think someone would have opposed it sooner. I wonder if perhaps the law had been subjectively applied in the past, thereby negating the need to oppose it, but I digress.

    Okay then, with the DC law set aside, name me a gun regulation or law that you would repeal. Please. I’d love to hear it.

    As for your point about Iraq, I’m afraid you lost me. I don’t get what you’re driving at there.

    JMJ

  4. Micky 2 says:

    “As for your point about Iraq, I’m afraid you lost me. I don’t get what you’re driving at there.”

    Its easy. Whats sensible for a lib is not always sensible for a con.
    Sensibilty is a vague description. It all depends whos saying it.
    They also used the word “responsable” later when they realized pulling out too quick was a stupid idea and not as many libes even wanted to pull out immediatly like they thought.
    Sesinle gun laws to most libs it seems would be to outlaw all private ownership period.
    I’ve had enough debates to know that ther is a huge majority out there that have no use for guns whatsoever.
    For decades now libs have been trying to take our guns from us. What on gods green earth makes anyone thing that with or without this decision they are going to stop now ?
    Repeal ?
    Theres a ton of states that wont allow you to carry unless its concealed.
    I’d like to see those laws repealed. As a matter of fact it should be a crime to conceal it. Because I see it this way. If you’re showing it that must mean its legal, right ?
    Yea right, some dookie head goes postal in my office and I have to run all the way out to my trunk to get my gun ?
    Some nut starts running around the school shooting fish in a barrel and I have to make it to a locker in the office or out to my car in the lot ?
    Or worse yet, wait until the man shows up ?

  5. “Sesinle gun laws to most libs it seems would be to outlaw all private ownership period.”

    Nonsense. Completely wrong. Stupid. Insane. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You couldn’t be more wrong. There is a small minority of outlying individuals who would be rid of all guns. They are so unrealistic as to be in need of medication. “Most libs?” Absolutely a complete misreading of the oppositional view. Silliness. Almost childlike.

    “I’ve had enough debates to know that ther is a huge majority out there that have no use for guns whatsoever.”

    Use? Use? Look, I have a penis, a dog, and a baseball bat. I don’t need a gun. Do some people need them? Sure. Of course. Could I need one someday? Yeah, sure, who knows? MOST LIBS are realistic and understand that guns have a place just like most other things. We are also smart enough to know that such a time is not ALL the time, as ridiculous cons believe.

    “For decades now libs have been trying to take our guns from us.”

    Bull spinkies.

    “What on gods green earth makes anyone thing that with or without this decision they are going to stop now?
    Repeal?”

    ?

    “Theres a ton of states that wont allow you to carry unless its concealed.”

    So, you’d rather people just walk around with guns exposed to the world, huh? And you don’t think some people would act like morons with those those guns exposed at their sides, huh? You know, if you read just a very little bit of the history of the American West, you’d note that there were plenty of towns where no guns were allowed, period. Just as we have Dry Counties or Blue Laws. You ought to catch up with your own national history once in a blue moon.

    “If you’re showing it that must mean its legal, right?”

    What the ………………..???

    “Yea right, some dookie head goes postal in my office and I have to run all the way out to my trunk to get my gun?”

    LOL! Yeah right! LOL!!! What if you had to run to your locker, or your workench, or desk? Just how much difference would it make? It only takes a split second to shoot a man. There’s not much time for anything. Or wait, maybe everyone should just walk around armed all the time! Yeah! That’s the ticket! Lord knows, none of those guns would ever go off! Why not have Mutually Assurered Destruction for everyone! Are you sane?

    Give it a rest guys. You gun nuts are half outta your minds. This is real life, not a shoot-em-up video game.

    JMJ

  6. Micky 2 says:

    You need to learn to stop taking things out of context and then running off at the mouth like you made some great point and call me stupid.

    I said “it seems” And that would be due to the fact that like I said I’ve had enough debates to know that most of you guys would like to do away with them period and always go on to brag about Englands gun laws and hoiw great they are, which is a crock by the way.

    “MOST LIBS are realistic and understand that guns have a place just like most other things. ‘
    I beg to differ. Then why has there been such a huge anti gun movement in this country for decades ?
    Please. dont insult my intelligence.
    As much as your buddy Obama and your ilk pretend to admire this ruling you still would love to see us lose our guns, us “bitter clinging to our guns and bibles” folks.
    You love it only under the false pretense that its because what the constitution is interpreted as today. But we all know you would love to change that interpretaion to the “well regulated militia”. Which means private ownership would be out the window.

    “So, you’d rather people just walk around with guns exposed to the world, huh? And you don’t think some people would act like morons with those those guns exposed at their sides, huh? You know, if you read just a very little bit of the history of the American West, you’d note that there were plenty of towns where no guns were allowed, period. Just as we have Dry Counties or Blue Laws. You ought to catch up with your own national history once in a blue moon.”

    In response to your first question. Hell yea !
    In response to your second question. Less would act like morons and crimnals if they new they were gonna get tagged for doing something stupid.
    Ask the mothers and fathers of all the kids that have been shot in our schools. When they wish to god there was smeone close by that was armed and could of stopped the madness !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    History has little to do with what we are faced with today.
    Its a whole nuther game dude, wake up.

    “LOL! Yeah right! LOL!!! What if you had to run to your locker, or your workench, or desk? Just how much difference would it make? It only takes a split second to shoot a man. ”

    Once again you’re up to your little semantic tricks and deception by omission of the real context.
    This is beggining to anger me.
    If some trench coat maifioso is walking around the school shooting folks a teacher right there with a gun could of very well stopped him before he went on. !!!
    I was speaking A G A I N S T having to walk to your car or locker !
    And talking about wearing the gun right there on your body.
    R E A D !!!!!!!!!
    If you cant read a simple posted opinion and get it right how much of history were you able to soak up accurately ?
    Whatever, you asked me to mention one law I would like to see repealed and I answerd you.

    “Give it a rest guys. You gun nuts are half outta your minds. This is real life, not a shoot-em-up video game.”

    How many guns have you had pointed at you ?
    How many times have you been shot at ?
    How many innocents have you seen with the side of their head blown off ?
    How many situations have you been in where a gun would of come in handy ?
    How many times have you been stabbed ?
    Robbed ?

    Not half as much or many time as me , trust me. I can tell just by your delusion that guns will be going off accidentaly in public and that an armed co worker or teacher could not stop a progressive situation.

    Do you think someone in the wild west could of just walked around shooting people freely for minutes on end without someone finally dropping him before the sheriff showed up ?
    Yea, right. They would last about 5 seconds before some concerned citizen simply took him out.
    Maybe history can teach “you” something.

    Put down the kumbaya comic books man and pick up a book on the stats of how many crimes have been deterred due to a armed presence.
    Ever notice how its the banks without armed guards that get robbed ?

  7. Micky, you really shouldn’t assume who’s been at which end of a gun. It’s not in good taste.

    JMJ

  8. timbudd says:

    5-4 decisions are not a good thing when you are staring down probably two Obama appointments …

  9. Micky 2 says:

    I didnt assume jack.
    Let me tell you why.
    The people who have been at the wrong end of a gun most certainly dont sound like you.
    That is not an assumption.
    Unfortunalty 50% of the time it was law enforcement taking aim at me.
    The other times were with people who had no professional training and actually fired upon me repeatedly.
    I have been held hostage for 12 hours with guns in every orafice ready to go off.
    I’ve seen more innocent people soil themselves because of some punk with a gun than I care to remember
    I’ve been hospitalized enough times to know the difference between evil and stupidity.
    Theres more dude, much more for decorum sake I’ll stop here
    Yes, I’ve been that kind of guy. The kind who noticed that people who do bad things next to large bodys of water dissappear.
    Its not in any more poor taste in assuming a president is nothing but worthless after 7 1/2 years of great service, as you so often do.
    Or that men are somehow not “man enough” because they dont see things your way.
    Had you ever been in half of my situations you would of been glad as hell if just one sane person with a gun was there to help you.

    And then theres the responability factor.
    I’m all for putting guns in the right hands and for sever punishment for those who have posession without the going thru proper channels.
    I have walked in on my best friends wife who was mentally unstable and had gotten ahold of his “legal” piece. She looked at me, said bye and took the top her head off.
    I blame him until this day for his recklessness.
    He should pay just as a reckless parent would have to pay if they left guns accessable to their kids.
    Manslaughter at the least.

  10. You do far too much assuming, Micky, for a man whom ostensibly knows what he’s talking about.

    You gun nuts, you’re the ones who never faced the wrong side of a barrel. You don’t even want to know what I think of that.

    JMJ

  11. Micky 2 says:

    Now you’re going to tell me about my life?
    You “assume” you know ?
    The gradiose snobbery of the left rears its ugly head again.
    There’s no assumption here buddy.
    Anyone whos been on my end doesnt feel the way you do.
    And its not “the ones” it from my personal experience that I know you dont know squat.
    Please Mr. know it all. Dont ever accusse me of assuming as you have professed to knowing for a fact that you have bedded more women than me.
    Sorry about the personal nature of this post Eric.
    But I feel its important for people to know whats out there.
    I used to be one of the bad guys.
    I was just lucky.

  12. parrothead says:

    Jersey,

    You need to read the book “More Guns, Less Crime” written by I htink his name was John Lott. He is a professor at University of Chicago who after receiving some questions on the subject decided ot do some research and found no definitive studies on the question what effect do gun control laws have on crime and especially on violent crime. He leaned slightly in favor of gun control prior to starting out. He then did the statistical research to find an answer. It turns out that in fact more access to guns reduced crime rates and especially violent crime rates. One specific thing I remember is the number of “at-home robberies went down significantly.” Another fact, here is where you are wrong Micky, is that when people are allowed to carry concealed weapons the numbers are more significant. It seems that when weapons can be concealed criminals never know who has a gun and who doesn’t so it makes them more cautious. He goes into detail on the statistical methods he used (as a holder of a BS in Mathematics/statistics I can attest he used a valid method) so it gets dry at points.

    Another important statistic that is routinely ignored by gun control advocates is the large number of crimes that are prevented (according to FBI statistics) by people having hand guns. I believe those numbers are far greater than actual gun related crimes and the number of accidental shooting statistics that are routinely quoted by gun control advocates.

  13. Micky 2 says:

    Parrot.
    I think maybe I got carried away and should of been more descript.
    I’m not for everyone running around brandishing a weapon.
    But I do want it to be known that they’re out there.
    I mean really, common sense would be to take out the guy with the gun first. Things could get really ugly
    Establishments should let it be known that they are armed.
    But yes, if a criminal is aware the odds of someone around him is possesing a weapon instead of it being in his trunk he is less likely to get stupid.

  14. Parrot, I’m familiar with that book. It’s infamously packed full of lies for the consumption of rationhalizing ideologues.

    http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=lott_mglc&menu=pro

    Lott is a liar. Anyone who thinks more guns = less crime is either a liar, or is ignorant of the facts. I’ll assume you guys fall into the latter category.

    JMJ

  15. Micky, I can tell for an absolute fact that I am personally more experienced with these issues than you. how? Because no one I know who has had such experiences has the same opinions on these matters as you.

    JMJ

  16. Micky 2 says:

    You know for absolute fact how people around me feel ?
    You know for absolute fact all of the details of my life ?
    You’re delusional. Heres how I got there.

    “no one I know who has had such experiences”

    You do not know anyone I know who has had such experiences.
    I was talking from my personal experiences and no one elses.
    And my point was that had anyone ever been in my shoes they would not say the things Mr. McJones has said.
    Once again , sorry for the personal nature, this is not Jerseys and Mickys blog. But I must say over time I’ve gotten to know the man, and I’ve said it before.
    Jersey, you’re the last guy in the world I would want to be stuck in a fox hole with.

    Every now and then I say things I must take back.
    This is one of those times.
    I got carried away and more or less was just trying to urk Jersey.
    I honestly dont think everyone should run around brandishing weapons in broad daylight.
    But I am for school teachers and office managers etc.. having some means of self sefense against nut jobs like all the ones we’ve seen who go on these sprees or even in cases of a simple store robbery. And it has to be readily available. Not any less than a couple of seconds away.

    And really, stop calling people liars unless you can prove it.

  17. blacktygrrrr says:

    The following comment is from my dad, who is passionate about the Second Amendment issue. He does not use email. My mom sent this to my email. I knew neither of them would bother to register, so I asked if I could publish his comments. He gave permission, but in the future would prefer that if I put something of his on the net, it should be “unperfected, uncorrected, and more literary.”

    With that, here are my dad’s comments.

    “Overall, it was a very fine article, but you failed to point out that the
    Bill of Rights is a document that is reserved BY the citizens against the
    Federal Government, not conferred ON the citizens by the Federal Government.
    Thomas Jefferson and many of the Founding Fathers, after their experiences
    with England’s King George’s monarchy, did not trust a strong federal
    government, because it could easily turn tyrannical. Unlike Hamilton, who
    favored a strong central government, Jefferson, Madison, etc. wanted more
    power in state’s rights.

    When the analogy is made, “Why shouldn’t guns be regulated since cars are?,”
    what most people fail to grasp is that these are not analogous situations.
    The Constitution does not mention the right to drive. This is a privilege
    conferred on qualified citizens by the state governments. Gun ownership, on
    the other hand, is mentioned explicitly in the Constitution as an inherent
    right, not conferred by the government on its citizenry. In reality, the
    government technically should not even have any right to regulate gun
    ownership, which the phrase, “shall not be infringed”, clearly articulates.

    Although this right has been infringed ad nauseum by uninformed Liberal
    ideologues in the name of reducing crime, and other social ideals, a greater
    point which anti-gunners fail to grasp is that laws are obeyed only by the
    law-abiding. The criminal element disregards gun bans just as it disregards
    laws against rape, robbery, fraud, murder, etc. Also, the bloody scenarios
    that Liberals are always painting of Wild West shootouts by law-abiding
    citizens with guns just aren’t in accordance with the facts, and have not
    come to pass in those states which have liberal gun laws.

    Lastly, when you trample on, or abolish, one right from the Bill of Rights,
    can it be very far off before any and all other rights are subject to
    “judicial interpretation,” and infringed, regulated, or abolished in the
    name of the “Greater Good” for society?

    I disagree with you that a five-four decision is a strong basis for settling
    the matter, although you are on point that this decision is about FREEDOM,
    and strict constructionism.

    Love,

    Dad”

  18. Well, it should come as no surprise to anyone who reads this blog that your father seems quite literate and smart. Two points though: The US Government has long since grown beyond the capacity of the people to take arms against it – and – even if you choose to ignore the possible significance of the qualifier (the “militia” clause) all the other rights in the BoR have limitations.

    You can not shout fire in a crowded theater.

    You can not practice political propaganda as recognized religious ritual.

    You can not print, show or otherwise display pornography to the children.

    None of these exceptions is illegal unto itself and yet when juxtaposed with the rights involved they impose limitations on our liberty.

    So, hows about this:

    You can not walk around with an assault rifle in a nursing home unless you are a duly authorized officer of the peace.

    Or, you can not play with bazookas.

    Or, howitzers should be banned from back yards.

    Of course there are and should be limits on the right to arms. The DC limits perhaps went too far, and so therefore we saw the decision we saw. I’m sure part of the decision was based on DC’s rather unique territorial status (at least that would bee truly constructionist). After all, the states are pretty much free to do as they choose as long as what they choose doesn’t impose on the other states. That’s real federalism and constructionism.

    The court we have now is only subjectively federalist and constructionist when it’s convenient. In Bush v Gore they were completely anti-federalist and anti-constructionist. In Ledbetter, they were blatantly defiant of constitutional law, intent, letter and spirit. It was detestable. In other cases, they rather sleazily used “standing” – against a father because he didn’t have full custody, against victims of whistleblowing retaliation. If that’s constructionist, then the Founding Fathers were cheap snake-oil salesmen.

    I understand the feelings of good folks like your father regarding the sancity and important of freedom and liberty, but freedom and liberty are worth nothing in a lawless, violent, armed-to-the-teeth society. There’s a fine line between liberty and anarchy.

    JMJ

  19. Micky 2 says:

    “The US Government has long since grown beyond the capacity of the people to take arms against it – and – even if you choose to ignore the possible significance of the qualifier (the “militia” clause) all the other rights in the BoR have limitations.”

    That does not mean we should lose our inherent rights, as the court has just reckognized.
    And why would freedom be worth any less in a perfect or lawless society ?

    Yea, lets talk about anarchy and all the supporters of open borders, sanctuary cities, and those who would do away with guns all together in hope that the bad guys would never use theirs.

  20. “That does not mean we should lose our inherent rights, as the court has just reckognized.”

    You haven’t lost any rights, Micky. Waiting periods, criminal background checks, sales records, and typological classifications of arms do not prevent you from owning a gun – only you can do that. Just like you gun nuts always say: It’s not guns that kill people, it’s people that kill people. 😉

    JMJ

  21. Micky 2 says:

    Whats your problem ?
    I never said I lost any rights.

    But like I said before.
    It doesnt mean that the left wont keep trying to take our rights way from us or regulate them to the point that they are useless.

    But you never answerd the question.
    Why would freedom be worth any less in a perfect or lawless society ?

    I dont think you can.
    Freedom and liberty retain their value no matter what.
    That kind of statement makes your perception of gun ownership seem comic bookish and that the slighest deviation from todays regulations would invite or cause anarchy
    The only ened of a gun you were probably ever at was one made of ink and paper.
    Yopu seem to very interested in knowing what laws you would like to see a pro gun guy like me have repealed. As if any more relaxation of the current laws would be too much.
    Another lib I debated this was taking joy in the fact that this ruling still left the possibilty for more regulation open to legislation.
    Which only nakes my point for me. Which is one of the first thinngs I said on this thread;
    Even though a lot of libs are applauding this decision as it stands up for our constitutional rights they will still in the future attempt to take our guns from us by altering the meaning of 2nd so as regulate the hell out of so that all you can really do is own and posses but never actually use the damn thing.
    Statements like yours and others I’ve debated make it only too obvious, that is the direction you guys are still leaning towards.

    And by the way. Since you brought it up. (under false pretenses)
    I was never convicted of any violent crime, no victims whatsoever in any shape or fashion.
    But I still lost my right to own a gun and vote.
    So yes, I have lost my rights.
    I lost my voice

  22. Micky, almost everyplace on earth has rules regarding firearms. Get real. It depends on where you live, who you are, and what you’ve been up to. Sounds fair to me. Sometimes the rules are a little ridiculous, or even dangerous, but we have courts and juries and representatives to deal with that. Don’t pat yourselves too hard on your backs for this decision – it doesn’t apply to most gun laws and regs throughout the nation.

    JMJ

  23. Micky 2 says:

    You see, thats what I mean.
    We shouldnt pat ourselves on the back too hard.
    We most definitley should rub it in liberals faces if you ask me.
    Common sense dictated against the anti gun freaks in this ruling.
    Why should a city be subjected to illegal ownership of firearms ? That illegal ownership being mostly of the criminal element.
    What sounds fair you is only obvious by your line of questioning.

    Ontop of the first question that you have not answerd twice now I will include one more.

    1)What additional regulations would you like to see legislated ?
    2)Why would freedom be worth any less in a perfect or lawless society ?

  24. 1) I’d like to see transferrable titles.

    2) In a lawless society rules doen’t mean anything.

    JMJ

  25. Micky 2 says:

    “In a lawless society rules doen’t mean anything.”

    “but freedom and liberty are worth nothing in a lawless, violent, armed-to-the-teeth society. ”

    That doesnt answer my question.
    We are not talking about the meaning or importance of rules.
    I am asking you why would freedom be worth any less in a lawless or perfect society.

    Transferable to whom ? The government ?

  26. I want titles on guns and some reasonable societal rules. I don’t want to live in a country teaming with loaded man-childs.

    JMJ

  27. Micky 2 says:

    Its only obvious you wont answer my questions.
    That in itself makes my point clear.
    You think there is still more regulation needed to the point that you will determine what is and is not responsable ownership.
    What would reasonable be ?
    Wasnt the DC ruling reasinable ?

  28. parrothead says:

    Jersey you are completely wrong about Lott and his book. Most of the criticism of his book has been debunked and was based on distortions, half truths and fabrications. If less guns = less crime why is it Washington D.C has one of the worst crime rates in the nation. Shouldn’t it be a safer place with those strict gun laws. Of course it isn’t because GUN LAWS do not work.

  29. Micky, I can’t imagine how many times and in how many ways I have to say this in order for you to accept my answer, but yes, Heller decision was reasonable.

    Parrot, the book is a joke, famously full of lies and distortions. I wouldn’t go around quoting in public if you want people to take you seriously. And the “logic” of your last point is specious, spurious, and just plain adolescently silly. It’s likle saying, “Why have medicine? People still die of disease! So, obviously, medicine does not work!” Nonsense. Do you even read what you write?

    JMJ

  30. timbudd says:

    At what point will there be a limit to the two guys posting multiple inane comments?
    Seriously, it’s not even rational discourse after the first two posts degrade to their usual name calling.

  31. Micky 2 says:

    Timbudd, Jersey
    The point here is that no matter how much the left says they applaud this decision they still hold contempt for gun ownership and their owners.
    That is why I presented things the way I did in order to expose that sentiment.

    Obviously anyone who has been at the wrong end of a gun as many times as myself does not feel the way anti gun activist feel.
    For expediency purposes alone they applaud the decision but would still love to have guns regulated to the point that having one would be useless.
    The contempt I speak of is reflected in statements such as:

    ” more reasonable societal rules”.

    This was never explained in detail. But the agenda is clear.

    ” I don’t want to live in a country teaming with loaded man-child’s.”

    The only loaded manchilds are the criminals by an overwhelming margin.

    “ In a lawless society rules don’t mean anything.”

    The lawlessness is active mostly within the criminal element seeing as how legal gun owners are subjected to reasonability at the hands of regulation and background checks etc…
    This just implies that we need more rules or what we have is insufficient.

    “ but freedom and liberty are worth nothing in a lawless, violent, armed-to-the-teeth society. ”

    No one has lost any liberties or freedoms except for those being killed or robbed by criminals. This statement implies that anything more than what we see would result in an armed to the teeth lawless society
    BS

    ” I’d like to see transferable titles.”
    This does nothing to combat illegal ownership.
    It would just create more red tape beurocratic hoop jumping and discourage ownership.

    ” Lott is a liar. Anyone who thinks more guns = less crime is either a liar, or is ignorant of the facts.

    Certainly not the answer you would expect from someone who says they applaud the decision. The decision allows more guns in DC. Does it not ?

    In response to my statement that for decades now lib’s have been trying to take our guns from us I get the answer “Bull spinkies.”

    We all know (reasonable men) that for decades now there has been a huge undertaking by the left to take away or severely hamper ownership. Its no big secret.

    “As for the states with lax gun laws, you can thank them for piles of dead kids. They do not have lower crime rates, and anyone who says so is either lying or ignorant of the facts.”

    Is this why the court ruled on DC the way it did ?
    Will more children die now as a result of private legal ownership ?

    ” name me a gun regulation or law that you would repeal. Please. I’d love to hear it.”

    He would “love to hear it”
    This sarcasm indicates that any repeal of any law no matter what would be asking too much.
    How about the one that does not allow me, a non violent offender to never own a gun ?
    The response I got was “Sounds fair to me.”

    So you see Timbudd,since my very first post it was all a little fishing expedition to expose the fact that no matter what some of the lefties say, the move to limit ownership or stand in the way of it will never end.
    In my first post I mentioned what I thought was true.
    I think I’ve pulled enough quotes to make it obvious.

  32. Micky, why do you keep repeating the same lines? I’m a “liberal,” and I don’t have any “contempt” for gun owners. Why would I? There are lots of good reasons to own a gun – even if it’s just for fun! Some of my fondest memories as a kid were going out with my Ranger Vet uncle and shooting off his 44’s at his buffalo ranch, or my antique gun-restorer friend and his muzzle loaders out in the woods with a refrigerator, or my other gun-restorer friend and the time we got our hands on a bunch of styrofoam mannequins (it was literally snowing in July!), or how when we were kids my one buddy’s father arranged it so four of us kids could get rid of the rats at the local dump (I actually feel little guilty about that memory, buit then the rats were really a serious problem back then). Then, of course, I think about those times when I was mugged with a gun or a knife. but then, had I been armed, I might not be here today (and by “here” I mean dead or in prison).

    The gun issue is not as simple as you guys make it out to be. It’s not just for or against, black and white, right and wrong, rights and restrictions. There’s a huge gray area here. I wish you gun nuts would grow up and realize this.

    JMJ

  33. Micky 2 says:

    I made my case plain and simple. No matter how many ways you try to paint your support for the decision or deny your contempt you still revert back to things that reflect what anti gun enthusiasts are saying everywhere.
    And some of your statements are contemptuos for anyone who feels differently than you.
    The bottom line is this.
    Gun laws dont work. Never have, never will. And yet the lefts answer to all the deaths by guns is to continuously try to limit 2nd amendment rights to lawfull citizens as much as possible or completely do away with guns all together.
    Its not about your right to shoot a mannequin. Its about the right to having the choice to defend yourself.
    You try to hit the pity bone by saying;
    “As for the states with lax gun laws, you can thank them for piles of dead kids. They do not have lower crime rates, and anyone who says so is either lying or ignorant of the facts.”

    Those “dead kids” are the ones creating the problems. Most of them are victims of an environment they create.
    Yet you guys would like to blame it on lax gun laws.
    No law ever stopped me or anyone from getting something they want.
    Has regulating or outlawing dope stopped the drug war ? or rid us of addiction ? Or lowerd our prison population ?
    Hardly, its only made it worse.
    Just as gun laws do absolutly nothing but make it harder for inoccent law abiding citizens to obtain a fire arm.
    You yourself said that guns dont kill people, people kill people.
    So if thats the case then why would more regulation change anything ?

    That is the flip flop contradiction on the left that I am talking about.

  34. “Gun laws dont work.”

    Micky, again, I’m going to assume that you’re not lying, as that would speak very poorly of you, but 1.5 million gun sales have been denied to felons and the mentally ill since the passage of the Brady Bill. If you call that not working, then either you’re lying or again I’ll assume you’re just ignorant of the facts.

    JMJ

  35. Micky 2 says:

    Possesion of a joint at 25 years old did not qualify me to loose my right to vote or own a gun.
    I never said anything about the Brady bill. This law has been on the books for over 200 years.
    And if the Brady bill was responsable , in my case it would be a bad bill.

    I was on the sidewalk in SD on a Sunday morning in front of my office getting ready to go to a movie. I had enough cash for the movie and a nickle bag of weed which I purchased from a friend right there. I started towards the theatre and was arrested for sales to a minor.
    I only had a joint and enough for the movies.
    Does anyone really thnk I was selling anything ?
    Yes ! Because I had been dealing massive amounts of coke out of Mexico for 3 years and the vice squad could never catch me. This was there little “gotcha”
    Now, granted, I did deserve the punishment, but the facts in court did not dictate that. Only that I was being charged with felony sales to a minor.
    I was released on my own reckognisance realizing that I was facing 2 years in jail, thats what my attorney said would be fair.
    I bailed. I flew back to Hawaii and stayed here for 5 years. I met an LA woman, fell in love and moved back to Cal. 10 months later right before the statute of limitations ran out I had a run in with an officer and was quickly returned to SD.
    They could no longer produce any witnesses so they had to drop the case. But they couls still convict me on a felony failure to appear since 5 1/2 years ago I failed to appear on a felony.
    I did 3 months in jail and 3 years probabtion. Lost my right to vote and own a gun.
    On paper, how did it look as if I was a danger to anyone ?
    Of course I had done a lot of horrible things. But the fact is that my conviction was for victimless crimes.

    So please , dont try to tell me that if the Brady bill was responsable for this that its a good law.
    If I so much as touch a bullit I could spend 10 years in jail.
    And once again, lets be rational and realistic here Jersey.
    If you,ve been around so much you know damn well that no law ever stopped anyone from getting a gun if they wanted one.

  36. Micky 2 says:

    Anyone who thinks that the Brady Bill will stop me or some lunatic from driving into town right now and buying a gun is 100% ignorant.
    Anyone who thinks that any gangbanger or criminal in this country gives a rats a$$ about the Brady bill is living in a fantasy world.
    It only stops me in the legal process at the retailer.

  37. I was busted with pot many times when I was young and was charged only with misdemeanors, therefore these busts had no bearing on my right to possess a weapon. Unfortunately, I was busting for distributing coke, like you, but from New York, and that ended my right to carry (also, they put the “gotcha” on me too with a couple of flimsy warrants for unrealted misdemeanor charges.) Personally, I think the drug laws are ridiculously draconian in the first place, gun regs aside. on the other hand, the very drug laws themselves incite a great deal of gun-related violence in the drug world, as I’m sure you know, so I can understand why they’d connect the two issues. People will kill if 10, 20, or 30 years of their life is on the line. maybe not you or I, but some people will – and do.

    All this aside, it’s very hard to argue that the gun laws we do have don’t work. There are piles of examples of success. On the other hand, there are still some 12,000 murders commited with guns every year in America, an astounding number. Certainly we should do something because the status quo is obviously not working. We need more laws, more coherent laws, and more enforcement which means more spending on enforcement. Heck, if we just legalized pot and devoted the erstwhile law enforcement to stoping illegal gun trafficking, we could probably cut that awful number in half with a year or two. It wouldn’t take much – just an automobile-style licensing and registration system would do.

    JMJ

  38. Micky 2 says:

    Its not hard to argue at all.
    You yourself mention the spiraling deaths attributed to illegal ownership.
    So you defeat your own arguement.
    You said it, gun trafficking.
    The Brady bill was just a sham. No one wanted to say no to a bill in Bradys name after him being wheeled up on stage for the whole country to see his disability.
    The pity card got played by the moonbats in establishing a usless bill that would serve more purpose next to my toilet.
    Yea , my criminal history is extensive.
    But in paper and adhering to the potential for violence there is no reason for my injustice especially since I had no violent priors and have never untill this day owned a gun.
    And the whloe not voting thing is as stupid as it gets since the money they take from me every year seems to be good enough voice for them

  39. “You yourself mention the spiraling deaths attributed to illegal ownership.”
    So you defeat your own arguement.
    You said it, gun trafficking.
    The Brady bill was just a sham.”

    You’re defeating your own argument! The shooting deaths have been stable for years! The numbers are still very high, though. But there’s no “spiraling”. And the Brady Bill has averted the sales of 1.5 MILLION guns to dangerous loonies (and yes, even not-so-dengerous loonies like you and I). You can’t deny that gun regs over the past twenty some-odd years have helped to reduce crime in America. You just can’t. You’d be nuts. Crime is way down since the early nineties. Way, way, WAY down.

    JMJ

  40. Micky 2 says:

    The shooting deaths have been stable for years!

    Not in DC.
    http://dcist.com/2008/01/02/violent_crime_u.php

    Which is my point.
    Stinking gun laws dont work.
    DC attributes the drop in gun deaths during the late 90s to cleaning up the crack action.

    “And the Brady Bill has averted the sales of 1.5 MILLION guns to dangerous loonies ”
    It still doesnt stop anyone who wants a gun.

    Most people with violent intentions are not going to give out all that personal info.
    God, please, you’re innocence is killing me.

    Crime itself is down. And you can thank the Bush administration for that.
    That is why the crimes that invole guns is down, simply because crime is down.
    Guns do not commit crimes.
    Gun trafficking is down and the need for them is down. No thanks to the Brady bill.
    Gun regulations do nothing. Its the actual interuption and confiscation by law enforcement that lowers the numbers.
    What would you call an aversion ? Knowing you have to fill out paperwork ?

    Hows that go, LOL ! ?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.