The Nation's Pulse
The Second Amendment Shuffle
The Bill of Rights is above Barack’s pay grade.
Less than a week ago, before my nine-year-old daughter scampered down a school hallway and into her classroom, I passed a BB rifle to her through my car window. Neither one of us was accosted by security guards, reported to emergency system operators, or met with fearful stares from the teachers helping children open car doors that morning.
I’d like to think that the handful of people who witnessed our exchange know the difference between a BB gun and a so-called “assault rifle,” but I must admit that their collective poise had more to do with remembering an assignment to re-enact the Battle of the Alamo on the playground than anything else.
An intrepid fourth-grade teacher trying to make the last exploits of Jim Bowie, Davey Crockett, and William Travis more vivid for children with few ties to Texas had asked her students to bring toy weapons to school. As a “teachable moment,” the re-enactment was a rousing success. Jane couldn’t wait to tell me afterward that she was “the last American alive, even though we all had to die.” She also reported that 200 Alamo defenders had fought 6,000 attackers, and when she switched to the Mexican side and got “shot,” she died exclaiming “Ay, caramba!” That she learned that expression from Bart Simpson rather than from her Mexican uncles, and that the re-enactment lacked the solemnity of a Ken Burns documentary, are trifles I’m willing to overlook.
He who has minions to run background checks on plumbers who question his tax policy would not be as sanguine about playacting military history. Worse, in the opinion of those coastal Democrats who think the world of Barack Obama, I accelerated a slide into redneck culture that same night, by taking my ten-year-old son to a Scout troop meeting where boys just a little older than he were excitedly planning a trip to a shooting range.
LIKE THE TEENS and ‘tweens who have anchored American literature from The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn up through Bertrand R. Brinley’s Mad Scientists’ Club, Richard Bradford’s Red Sky at Morning, and Homer Hickam’s Rocket Boys (October Sky), these Boy Scouts were dazzled by the chance to earn merit badges for demonstrating proficiency with rifles and shotguns.
There are good reasons to believe that the Second Amendment does not get a comparable welcome from anyone in the Obama household. Say what you want about the virtues of the NRA or the Appleseed Project, but a lawyer irritated by the free speech provisions in the First Amendment cannot be expected to embrace the “shall not be infringed” language of the Second Amendment, either.
Certainly Obama made a point of saying that “if you have a gun in your house, I’m not taking it.” He also let it be known that he agreed with the Supreme Court’s finding in District of Columbia et al. v. Heller. Like a majority of the justices in that case, Obama now affirms that the right to bear arms applies to individuals.
Yet those head fakes toward the political center remain unconvincing. Obama still leaves the impression that he thinks of the Second Amendment as an embarrassment, rather than as the earthly linchpin of everything else in the Bill of Rights. His gun views are closer to those of folk singer Cheryl Wheeler than to the gun views of Joe the Plumber, Todd the Snow Machine Racer, and Charlton the late Actor.
Wheeler, long a staple of the acoustic music scene in the northeast, smacks gun culture around in ways that would amuse even “seven Spanish angels at the altar of the Son, who were praying for the lovers in the Valley of the Gun.” She can often be counted on to shift gears in her live sets by launching into a look at how bitter gun-clingers prepare for a road trip.
The Wheeler song I’m thinking of depends on the image of a family vehicle idling in some driveway while a matriarch offers sage advice to relatives taking a last look around their property. When the song was written, the matriarch was probably modeled on Irene “Granny Clampett” Ryan of The Beverly Hillbillies. These days, the lyrics fit Sarah Palin. The advice that Wheeler belts out with all the toe-tapping sarcasm she can muster? “Don’t forget the guns; you know exactly what I mean. Bring the pistol; bring the Uzi, and the old AR-15. We don’t look for trouble, but, by golly, if we’re in it, it’s nice to know we’re free to blow nine hundred rounds a minute!”
SAY ONE THING for songwriter Wheeler: even being satirical, she understands the concept of defensive gun use. The same cannot be said for Barack Obama, whose “Obama for America” website confines discussion of gun issues to a “Plan to Support the Rights and Traditions of Sportsmen.” The plan evinces a desire to “protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns,” but ignores substantive Second Amendment discussion to focus on things like the conserving wetlands and providing unspecified tax incentives for conservation easements on private land.
Attempts to paint Obama as a groupie for a band called Bill Ayers and the Unrepentant Socialists have educated conservatives to some of what this particular community organizer did for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Foundation, but his eight-year affiliation with the Joyce Foundation remains relatively unknown. In an open letter released October 15, gun rights lobbyist and Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson writes that “in all my years in the Capitol I have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt for the law-abiding firearm owner than does Barack Obama.”
As a board member of the Joyce Foundation between 1994 and 2002, Pearson writes, “Barack Obama wrote checks for tens of millions of dollars to extremist gun control organizations such as the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and the Violence Policy Center.”
A story by reporter Kenneth P. Vogel supports Pearson’s claims, confirming that recipients of Joyce Foundation “gun violence” grants totaling $21 million in the Obama years included groups that “funded legal scholarship advancing the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners’ rights,” as well as “two groups that advocated handgun bans.”
Combine that history with Obama’s ill-considered fondness for judges who demonstrate empathy above all else, and his cockamamie idea that strict adherence to limited government is a flaw in the Constitution, and what you have might be the perfect rebuttal to any campaign operatives trying to waste your time with last-minute canvassing for the Democratic ticket, namely, “this conversation isn’t helping my kids.”
If you’re feeling puckish, you might also voice support for concealed-carry laws, or ask why so much of the Bill of Rights seems to be above Barack Obama’s pay grade.
About the Author
Patrick O’Hannigan is a writer in North Carolina.
Jeremy Jester| 10.31.08 @ 11:53AM
The retail and wholesale levels of the firearms industry are seeing sales levels the past two weeks that are on par with the massive sales in the run up and aftermath of the 1994 "Crime Bill". Americans have lived through one major assault on there 2nd Amendment rights are seem determined not to be disenfranchised under a potential Obama regime. Citizens are hedging their bets here in the real world.
It is somewhat of a perfect storm, on the one hand we are near electing the biggest bunch of socialists and Marxists since Wilson and on the other we have economic turmoil. Both of those factors drive consumers to buy firearms. What the national news is often leaving out of their stories on the surge in firearms sales is the fear of an Obama assault on their rights, but that would be typical.
Bud| 10.31.08 @ 1:58PM
Mr. Jester's comment squares with what I'm hearing from friends in the gun business.
Gustav| 10.31.08 @ 2:13PM
A couple of weeks ago the run on guns was mentioned on CNBC. This was due to our economic "meltdown," not due to Obama paranoia. There was, by the way, a run on safes, too. People are afraid Republicans will try to steal more money.
Tom Paine| 10.31.08 @ 2:47PM
O'Hannigan --
Obama knows the Constitution better than you do, I'm sure.
But all you need to do is listen to the many, many times he's said (to the outrage of many on the left) that the 2nd amendment delineates an individual right. That means he's on your side.
I think he's wrong about this, but that's only because I'm interested in how English grammar works.
The 2nd amendment clearly correlates bearing of arms with the formation of state militias, an issue that was hotly contested in the 1790s. It sounds to me like the amendment intends to prevent the federal government from abrogating the rights of the states to hold arms and impress men into military service.
But that's just reading. Who reads anymore nowadays, anyway? If you want to know what the Constitution says, just tune in to Rush Limbaugh, and he'll explain it all to you.
Patriot Fred | 10.31.08 @ 3:04PM
Tom Paine sure has changed in the last 200 years.
Now he believes anything a Democratic candidate for office says - and believes that the second article in The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with individuals, and everything to do with state rights.
I bet the founders would be shocked at their stupid mistake... :-)
BTW, Mr. O'Hannigan, thanks for mentioning the Appleseed program, run by volunteers and dedicated to bringing Americans back in touch with the foundations of their heritage... We need more people to be aware of this program, and to help us put our fellow Americans back in touch with their history.
Tom Paine| 10.31.08 @ 3:14PM
Patriot Fred --
Perhaps you can explain to me why the 2nd amendment does NOT read in the following way:
"Congress shall pass no law infringing upon the right of individuals to bear arms."
Ed Blake| 10.31.08 @ 3:41PM
Mr. Paine: Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment concludes that it is the only amendment within the Bill of Rights that does not address individual rights, which is inconsistent with the intent of the document: the protection of individual rights. Furthermore, the "militia" in traditional terms was every able-bodied person capable of bearing arms, not the National Guard. I suggest you invest $35 in an NRA membership and they will gladly send you a little publication called the Second Amendment Primer. You can read it for yourself, so Rush Limbaugh won't have to explain it to you. Cheers.
Tom Paine| 10.31.08 @ 3:48PM
The Bill of Rights constrains federal power. I'm not sure it categorically applies to individuals. Certainly the 10th amendment does not.
The 2nd amendment does not seem to either.
Fred | 10.31.08 @ 4:05PM
Tom: As long as you are telling us what the Constitution means, why not go ahead and finish telling us which amendments apply to "give" us rights and which do not.
However, ultimately it is up to each person to decide, even if in modern America they choose to sit on the couch while folks like you decide for them what rights they have and don't have.
It's the reason for "Project Appleseed", a program designed to wake up Americans to their heritage, to understand the price paid for Liberty by some long-ago fellow Americans - and to make sure that it - their legacy of freedom - does not disappear on their (our) watch.
Check out www.appleseedinfo.org to see what I mean...
megapotamus| 10.31.08 @ 4:06PM
That's an easy one, Thom. "Shall not be infringed" means in any way by any state actor, not just the federal government.
These things are never fully resolved but the anti-gunners are back on their heels, or at least they were until Barry came on the scene. The notion that Al Gore lost TN due to his softness on the 2nd has rightly gained the status of a truism. Barack and Hillary and any rural challenger you could name have soft-pedaled their gun-grabbing aspirations as an electoral necessity. That might not guarantee much once they are in office but it beats the Brady Campaign types the Libs really want.
More importantly though, the very nature of the debate has been radically altered by Heller. Barry is now on the record as recognizing an individual, rather than collective right to self defense. Anyone involved in RKBA issues since the 70s knows that this notion was dismissed utterly by the Liberal side of the ledger. Only a gap-toothed illiterate could conceive such stupidity. That was the line, the hard line, of the anti-gunners since Goldwater days. I think it was Larry Tribe who broke the dam a few years ago with a book length treatment of the subject that was premised on the individual right. That must have been a sock in the jaw for the anti-gun legal community. Well, to Tribe's credit, Heller was unanimous in recognizing the individual right. So for 30 years the entire premise of the anti-gun activists was not only eroneous but so preposterously eroneous that no one with actual skin in the game at the highest levels would even back it theoretically. The "collective right"ists have been proven to be absolutely wrong even in the minds of Liberal jurists once the rubber met the road. So if you are wondering about some declared truth that to you seems utterly illogical, ahistorical or just plain contradictory to the facts you have a vivid precedent on your side. Like catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, the "collective right" is just something that everyone knows. Don't let that claptrap bother you. You just might know better than the self-declared experts. It happens all the time.
Micheal | 10.31.08 @ 5:02PM
I have recently discovered an audio clip of Obama on NPR back in 2004 with him making some scary statements. Statements like he will ban assault weapons and tell the states their citizens cannot carry conceal.
This scares the crap out of me, it also explains why I cling to them. So it makes it harder for the liberals to take them away from me.
Tom Paine| 10.31.08 @ 5:59PM
Look, folks.
Everyone -- and I mean everyone -- is for gun control.
The question is really which arms the state should prevent you from being able to buy.
Most of you probably don't mind the idea of your neighbor owning a pistol or a shotgun.
But how about an automatic grenade launcher?
That's the reductio argument -- but it soons becomes pragmatic to think about it. Exactly how dangerous should legal arms be? A shotgun is one thing, a SAW or M60 is another.
In a sense, I think most Democrats don't see this as a 2nd amendment issue at all.
The founders could not possibly have even imagined the firepower of which some arms are capable. Their "original intent" was for ineffectual squirrel shooters.
(Not that there's anything wrong with squirrel hunting. I'm no elitist.)
Obviously there's a legitimate state interest in denying the sale of some kind of arms.
It seems to me that the debate should be over which weapons should be sold and under what conditions they should be sold.
I see no evidence that Obama or any other Democrat is for "outlawing" or "confiscating" your guns.
Tom Paine| 10.31.08 @ 6:02PM
Wait...I know. Some Democrats are for ridiculously strict gun laws. I meant Obama or any other Democratic candidate for president.
fredbyte| 10.31.08 @ 7:34PM
I doubt that the founding fathers wanted to exclude certain rifle-muskets from citizens' hands. After all, if I remember right, it was the militia that harassed Johnny Burgoyne's British troops through Vermont, preventing him from joining Cornwallis, that helped defeat the British. They were state-of-the-art weapons then. And we need state-of-the-art weapons now for defense of family and home against criminals and tyrants.
If you have a handgun and I have a semiautomatic rifle, who do you think will most likely win at a distance?
You gun controllers cannot distinguish good people from evil people. You and government have nothing to fear from good, law-abiding gun owners, even those who own assault weapons. Instead, you would much rather invite civil strife by attempting to confiscate our guns. We Americans are not like citizens of the U.K. or Australia. We will not lie down and take it.
fr8dog| 10.31.08 @ 8:05PM
Tom Pain doesnt seem to get it.
NO. Everyone does NOT believe in limited gun control. And unless this guy has been asleep for the past 5 months, DC v Heller ruled the 2nd Amd. applies to an INDIVIDUAL right. As to what types of guns we may own, the 2nd Amd. doesnt specify, leaving open the option of ANY weapon normally available for individual carry. I own a submachine gun. But if I want an M60, a SAW or grenade launcher, thats my choice. Dont like it? Fine. Change the 2nd Amd. And lots of luck on that.
damocles| 10.31.08 @ 8:36PM
Answer to Tom Paine -- because it never ocurred to the Great men who wrote the Constitution, living with the memory of British attempts to confiscate American's firearms, that anyone could read this amendment as anything but an individual right. I have practiced a lot more constitutional law than Obama, but don't hold it against me!
Thomas Jackson| 10.31.08 @ 8:37PM
Nice to realize our education system has taught students that there were no militias prior to the Constitutional debates. I guess Concord and Lexington were the result of those irate Boy Scouts who were trying to earn their merit badges. Its sad to see the ignorance that is on display here.
BOb sledd| 10.31.08 @ 8:50PM
1st they took the guns...
Then they took the people....
Patrick O'Hannigan| 11.1.08 @ 12:34AM
Tom Paine,
Obama may know Constitutional Law better than I do, but I know English better than he does, and your long-discredited reading of the Second Amendment turns on a point of grammar, not a point of law-- when you bet the farm on a dependent clause, you're missing the point, and "a well-regulated militia" is secondary to (and dependent on) "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Period. And if you'd rather hear that from somebody with legal bonafides, read Tribe, or Scalia, or Randy Barnett, or any number of other experts.
Tom Paine| 11.1.08 @ 10:28AM
Look, I defer to Scalia on understanding original intent.
Ironically, I think "original intent" is the problem for people who would argue for absolutely no gun restrictions -- an absurd position, anyway.
The founding fathers could only have intended to permit the free possession of a certain range of "arms." (Remember, the Constitution uses the word "arms" and not pistols, rifles, m16s, or whatever.)
Surely you wouldn't claim that you have the right to keep and bear anthrax? Tactical nuclear arms?
The idea that handgrenades or SAWs ought to allowed for sale at Wal-Mart is so absurd I almost feel ungrateful for not enjoying the ludicrousness of it.
The state has a legitimate interest (the test for abrogating personal rights) in denying the sale of some arms. Once that is established, I don't see how the 2nd amendment constrains the state from banning the sale of some weapons .
Castle Doctrine| 11.1.08 @ 12:43PM
When the 2nd is read with a dependence on the preamble, it doesn't make sense that it could be limited by the inclusionary phrase "right of the people" to mean a static subset including only a fixed number of participants in a militia at any one time, but that the inclusionary phrase would instead define the superset "the People of the United States" for whom a pre-existing, fundamental right was hereby recognized and guaranteed.
Where the rubber meets the road, if anyone invades your property to harm your home or other belongings, steal your: tools (including firearms), horse, carriage, bread, gold, son(s) or daughter(s) he/she may be met with substantial resistance. If the invaders continue in their pursuit it will not matter whether I employ an AR-15, an M-16 or a SAW the end result of their lawlessness will be the same, forfeiture of their life and/or liberty.
The historical intent of the 2nd amendment to our constitution is to include organized resistance WITH SUFFICIENT POWER to the tyranny of a federal government. In the mean time, you want to pussy foot around with which weapons the federal government should be allowed to ban from private ownership while they continue to issue them freely to civilian members of law enforcement (locally and internationally) and to soldiers in our standing army (for which the founding fathers also held great contempt).
"Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state" Noah Webster
Tom Paine| 11.1.08 @ 12:57PM
Just so long as we're clear --
Every time he has been asked, Obama has essentially agreed with the people angrily denouncing me in this thread.
Obama has stated pretty unambiguously that he believes that the 2nd amendment refers to an individual's right to bear arms.
I know many of you suspect absolutely everything about Obama and don't believe a word he says. That's fine, but don't be surprised if people think you are drifting into irrational territory of suspicion and fear.
Tom Paine| 11.1.08 @ 12:58PM
Just so long as we're clear --
Every time he has been asked, Obama has essentially agreed with the people angrily denouncing me in this thread.
Obama has stated pretty unambiguously that he believes that the 2nd amendment refers to an individual's right to bear arms.
I know many of you suspect absolutely everything about Obama and don't believe a word he says. That's fine, but don't be surprised if people think you are drifting into irrational territory of suspicion and fear.
M. Tobias| 11.1.08 @ 12:58PM
I'll not get into the debate concerning the meaning of the Second Amendment, as that has been very well clarified here. A point of interest though is that it is legal in the United States for a a private citizen to own most military armaments. This includes full automatic weapons, explosives artillery and fighting vehicles. Most of these are restricted due to their extreme destructive potential, but they are available. Certain restrictions have evolved on who can possess firearms and where they can be carried. Most of these evolved do to the transition from a largely rural population to one that is significantly urban. In this regard, several trade-offs have occurred in an effort to balance individual constitutional rights against a modicum of public safety. Though when a provision to ban any weapon system or any of its components is put forth, the test should always be one of common sense. Are 11 rounds any more dangerous than 10?
john luvaro| 11.1.08 @ 1:01PM
Tom Paine writes:
"I don't see how the 2nd amendment constrains the state from banning the sale of some weapons."
So just what part of "Shall not be infringed” do you Not understand? As stated in a previous post, I own a sub machine gun. And weather you approve or not, I have a Legal right to own it and ad a SAW, a grenade launcher, or even more destructive to my collection. All thats needed, in most States, is a federal class 3 permit, which in itself I interpret as a form of infringement, but obtainable by most adults for a fee. You may not approve of this limited freedom to own such weapons. So its your right to petition government to amend the Constitution to reflect your disapproval. See Article 5 of the Constitution. Lotsa luck.
Tom Paine| 11.1.08 @ 1:37PM
Mr. Luvaro,
So you admit it is a "limited freedom." That would put you at odds with fellow posters who suggest there can be no limit whatsoever placed on an individual's right to "bear arms."
Warren Buffet could probably afford to purchase a tactical nuclear weapon.
Do you think he ought to be allowed to?
At this point I would be satisfied if someone would concede that the term "arms" is historically contingent and that "original intent" cannot fully establish Constitutional limits on the government's legitimate interest in maintaining order.
You all make these arguments while safely ensconced in a society that is relatively orderly and free from anarchistic violence. It seems relatively easy for you to scoff at the benefits, since there are no real consequences either way.
Castle Doctrine| 11.1.08 @ 1:42PM
Obamafan T.P. writes
"Obama has stated pretty unambiguously that he believes that the 2nd amendment refers to an individual's right to bear arms. "
Mr. Barak "I don't think people should own guns" Obama ONLY said that AFTER the Heller decision, he radically changed his public position to make it appear to the weak minded that the unanimous SCOTUS decision on individual vs. collective rights "agrees" with him. He continues to be in opposition to the 5-4 ruling that handgun bans are unconstitutional.
Castle Doctrine| 11.1.08 @ 1:45PM
I realizer in my previous post that I misspelled Barack Hussein Obama. Please accept my appoligies, I still have a problem with some Muslim names.
Michael Moore| 11.1.08 @ 1:56PM
Tom Paine- the major question is not in regards to grenades or squad-type weapons like heavy machine guns, or even full-auto firearms which have long been strictly federally regulated. The question goes more towards semi-automatic weapons, often in the same caliber as many popular hunting rifles, which are "individual arms." None of the proposed assualt weapons bans are targetting full-auto weapons or grenades, they're instead targetting weapons that are semi-automatic and simply have a military appearance.
These weapons being targeted are used in
Michael Moore| 11.1.08 @ 1:58PM
Post was cut off:
Continued: These weapons are only used in less then 1% of crimes, so I fail to see the grave need for a ban on something that is hardly a major crime issue, especially given our continually falling crime rate.
john luvaro| 11.1.08 @ 2:18PM
Tom Paine writes:
{“So you admit it is a "limited freedom. That would put you at odds with fellow posters who suggest there can be no limit whatsoever placed on an individual's right to "bear arms.”}
Yes. I admit to the “Obvious”: (which you seem to have a keen ability to grasp): that said freedom has been “limited”; contrary to the intent of the Constitution, by both States and Federal govt. But nowhere did I say or imply such limitations were “legal” within strict interpretation of the 2nd Amd. In fact, I clearly stated they constitute “Infringement”. Learn to read constructively. And again I ask: what part of “infringe: do you still fail to understand? I acknowledge that if someone who can afford nuclear material, builds a bomb, it jeopardizes public safety. However, the 2nd Amd allows freedoms unanticipated by our founders; as well it should. But it is what it is. Either live with it, or as previously suggested, try to change it.
Tom Paine| 11.1.08 @ 2:21PM
Michael Moore --
Nor do I. I do not see the reason to ban any "light arms" so long as they do not present an unreasonable threat to public safety.
I still see determining that threat and public safety as legitimate Constitutionally acceptable factors in how the law ought to be shaped. But I believe your point is reasonable and I accept it.
My point is that the original intent of "arms" can only go so far. If original intent is the desired aim, there is a proscribed set of possible referents of "arms," none of which include -- I feel safe saying -- automatic grenade launchers or shoulder mounted missiles that could bring down commercial airliners.
If an arm is held by reasonable, knowledgeable people to be useful or necessary to protect life or property, to hunt, or to engage in lawful sport, I see no reason to ban it in most situations.
Generally I think that people for the widest latitude in gun laws do not live in cities. They actually don't ever see the effects of gun violence.
A 17 year old boy was shot in front of my apartment at 3 in the afternoon for looking wrong at another boy's girlfriend. Believe me, when you run outside to watch a kid take his last blood gurgling breaths do to gunshot wounds, you rethink guns.
Tom Paine| 11.1.08 @ 2:25PM
Do any of you believe Justice Scalia would be anxious to allow people to bring weapons into his court room based on their Constitutional rights.
I think Scalia and the rest are comfortable knowing they work in a gun-free zone. Most Americans are not given the same guarantee.
Harry| 11.1.08 @ 3:50PM
Come on folks...he's lying through his teeth! He wants your guns and your freedom...they don't have either at Harvard. Your right to keep and bear arms has a bulls-eye on it, and Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, etc. are taking aim! Vote McCain/Palin and encourage those around you to do the same...we simply can't afford to lose this one.
Castle Doctrine| 11.1.08 @ 4:10PM
Obamafan T.P.,
It's interesting that you keep stepping back your arguments to seemingly more and more "defensible" positions.
Are you really under the impression that a "gun-free zone" guarantees your safety. Only law abiding citizens who are indisposed to criminal activity, and often the only deterrent to it, voluntarily comply with "gun-free zones". Criminals (and the criminally insane) see them as target rich environments, defenseless and ripe for the taking. Some relevant "gun-free zone" examples would be Virginia Tech, NIU, Columbine H.S., Westroads mall, Washington D.C. and Chicago, the list goes on... . Also, do the "gun-free zone" airliners full of passengers on 9/11 have had any impact on the wisdom of your assumption.
Massacres invariably take place in your "gun-free zones". Does that make you feel safe? Not me, nor the majority of citizens who observe the repercussions of "gun-free zone" impositions.
Make no mistake, every member of SCOTUS is surrounded by supreme firepower at the federal governments expense. Every American citizen has the right to protect themselves, to the best of their ability, from those who would do them harm. That right has been reaffirmed by SCOTUS. ripe for the taking. Some relevant examples would be D.C., Chicago, Virginia Tech, NIU, Columbine H.S., Westroads mall, and the list goes on. Also, do the "gun-free zone" airliners full of passengers on 9/11 have had any impact on the wisdom of your assumption.
As a country our biggest tragedies take place in your "gun-free zones". Does that make you feel safer? Not the majority of citizens who observe the repercussions of a "gun-free zone"'s impositions. So good luck with that.
Make no mistake, every member of SCOTUS is surrounded by supreme firepower at the federal governments expense. Every American citizen has the right to protect themselves to the best of their ability, that right has been reaffirmed by SCOTUS.
Anthony| 11.1.08 @ 8:05PM
Why do we need firearms if Obama intends to have a National Security Civilian Force? Won't these citizens ,that will number the same as our military, keep us safe? Isn't that their roll? Does anybody know what they'll be doing? Obama hasn't told us quite yet. Looks like next years favorite Holloween costumes will be brown shirts and jack boots. And you better have the right candy or they'll kick your door in.
R.R.oPA| 11.1.08 @ 8:07PM
" This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" A quote from 1935 A.Hitler. It worked for him. So what's the problem with the 2nd Admendment???
Tom Paine| 11.1.08 @ 9:42PM
R.R.oPA
I agree, to a point.
When George W Bush toyed with denying habeas corpus rights to American citizens my thinking on gun laws changed radically.
If the government suspends habeas corpus, the conversation's over. It means civil society really no longer exists and the president is the president because he says so and has all the guns.
That said, I do think guns need to be kept out of the hands of the crazy; out of the hands of criminals; and away from children. I also think that automatic weapons should be severely restricted. And I disagree that the 2nd amendment protects individual rights absolutely (i.e. without qualification).
DTMF | 11.1.08 @ 10:40PM
Well Mr Paine, since you "think" guns should be kept out of the hands of "kids"... When I was 11 years old I was learning to shoot and I sure as hell did not go on a school killing spree..
I'm sure you support the '68 GCA written by Senator Chris Dodd's Father Thomas Dodd.
Did you know Thomas Dodd Copied Nazi gun laws of 1938 to come up with the '68? What was the purpose of the '68 GCA? To control blacks!
DTMF | 11.1.08 @ 10:44PM
Another point I'd like to bring up from your story of a kid shot another kid in your apartment complex/building.
Have you ever asked where was this kids parents were at ? I'm venturing into a place no one really wants to venture into and that is holding parents responsible and accountable for their child's actions.
james m| 11.2.08 @ 2:54AM
this tom paine woman needs to stick with crochet!
james m| 11.2.08 @ 3:04AM
hey tom, guns, grenade lauchers, or any sort of "explosive device" dont kill people but frightened, uneducated, control freaks like you do. beside's any kitchen knife you pull out of your draw doesn't have a safety on it! does it? there are several steps to making a firearm lethal, but not that knife so maybe you shouldn't use the kitchen utensil's.
Espresso Logic| 11.2.08 @ 4:47PM
Liberal + Retard = Libtard.
Gustav | 10.31.08 @ 1:13PM
A couple of weeks ago the run on guns was mentioned on CNBC. This was due to our economic "meltdown," not due to Obama paranoia. There was, by the way, a run on safes, too. People are afraid Republicans will try to steal more money.
Espresso Logic| 11.2.08 @ 4:50PM
Liberal + Retard = Libtard
Tom Paine | 11.1.08 @ 9:28AM
Look, I defer to Scalia on understanding original intent.
Espresso Logic| 11.2.08 @ 4:52PM
Why argue with Tom Paine? He is an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Tom Paine| 11.2.08 @ 6:24PM
Why don't any of you believe that obama biden laden will not take your guns when he says he will not? As a lawyer, he is not lying to you.
Can you imagine him personally going door to door, confiscating your guns? Of course not-he will send someone to get it for him.
He said nothing about not pushing for more bans, as he has done while on the board of the joyce foundation-financing gun ban organizations.
Looking for facts? Factcheck.org is financed by the annenberg foundation, which was chaired by obama, so why would they research beyond his web site?
Obama's voting record shows a lifetime of voting for gun bans, while protecting gang member rights.
He is not only for infringing 2nd amendment rights, his campaign is trying to supress the 1st amendment by threatening broadcast stations with FCC license revocation if they air opposing ads exposing obama lies.
What other rights will be infringed if he becomes ruler?
Tom Paine| 11.2.08 @ 7:04PM
Troll at 5:24
If you're going to use my name at least say something witty.
Making jokes about Obama's name is sub-mental.
Liberate yourself from the squalid coils in which you dwell. Come into the light and show yourself a man.
ruth| 11.2.08 @ 10:32PM
That's a good one! A troll calling another poster a troll. What irony, TP.
Leonard| 11.3.08 @ 6:26AM
Tom Paine: Ball point pens did not exist in 1776 either. Does that mean that only letters written with quill pens and parchment paper are coverd by the 1st?
As for atomic bombs, machineguns and grenades-these are indiscriminate weapons not designed for personal self-defense
As for the urban crime red herring-you are looking at the wrong end of the telescope. Compare El Paso, Texas with Mexico. Compare Washington D.C. with Arlington Va. Don't prostitute logic
Pete| 11.3.08 @ 11:24AM
Tom Paine writes "A 17 year old boy was shot in front of my apartment at 3 in the afternoon for looking wrong at another boy's girlfriend. Believe me, when you run outside to watch a kid take his last blood gurgling breaths do to gunshot wounds, you rethink guns. "
You know Tom, you're right... when the 23 year old was shot across from my house and I ran outside, almost shooting his killer, then staying with him while he died DID make me rethink guns.... Now, I ALWAYS carry mine. ....Or when 3 men burst through my door at 5a.m. and I met them at the top of the stairs with a .45, I decided to keep the shotgun closer at hand.
YOU need to realize... the police are not there to protect you, only to clean up the mess and take notes after. (both of my examples were over before the P.D. could answer the phone)
You need to realize, the laws DON'T MATTER TO CRIMINALS
Read that again.... THE LAWS DON'T MATTER TO CRIMINALS.
Raymond Barton| 11.3.08 @ 12:18PM
Obama's " we must have a strong civilian militia" will become the "well regulated militia" with no need for a citizen's individual "right to bear arms".
Sons of Liberty| 11.3.08 @ 1:04PM
Mr. Paine, we do not have to assume what the people of the founding era considered to be arms protected under the 2nd amendment. There are plenty of news paper articles, documents, letters and minuets of meetings in congress and the various state legislatures that survive today from the founding era.
Sons of Liberty| 11.3.08 @ 1:06PM
Perhaps you have heard of Tench Coxe?
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right? The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
-- Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
Sons of Liberty| 11.3.08 @ 1:12PM
"The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." -- Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2
Sons of Liberty| 11.3.08 @ 1:24PM
The final straw that broke the proverbial camel's back was when the British began to disarm the colonists. The purpose of the march on Lexington and Concord was, in part, to retrieve a pair of canon that the colonists had "liberated" from one of the armories.
Sons of Liberty| 11.3.08 @ 1:27PM
And as for Obama's newly found respect for the 2nd Amendment, we should listen to the following advice:
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent . . . the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -- Justice Louis Brandeis -- Olmstead vs. United States, United States Supreme Court, 1928
Trackback| 12.13.09 @ 10:19PM
credit repair vt, on credit repair vt, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: