Hill Blackett Jr.: 2nd Amendment

Advertisement

When the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment, they were thinking about one-shot muskets or pistols, not automatic and semi-automatic weapons capable of killing scores of people. If such weapons had been in existence, the amendment might have been written differently, or not at all.

Hill Blackett Jr.

Steamboat Springs

Comments

David Carrick 1 year, 6 months ago

Weak, Mr. Blackett. Of course, it truly would make sense to apply your same reasoning sense to both the "abortion rights" and "gay rights" issues...but, of course, you won't see that happening any time soon!

1

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 6 months ago

When the Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment, they were thinking about the moveable type printing press - not 24 hour cable & satellite television, radio, the internet, or even the telegraph in mind. If such implements of mass-dissemination had been in existence, the amendment might have been written differently, or not at all.

1

mark hartless 1 year, 6 months ago

If the founding fathers were thinking about only one-shot muskets or pistols, then they were thinking about only those type arms for GOVERNMENT TOO, Mr Blackett.

Anyone who knows ANYTHING about that period of history knows that "the people" back then possesed arms which were nearly equal to or, in many cases, even MORE advanced than those which were likely to be pointed at them by their government.

Since then, it is the gubbamint, Mr Blackett, which has engaged in the "arms race" against its citizens and which now has a fire-power advantage almost infinitely greater than when the 2nd ammendment was written.

Get Uncle Scam to give up the tanks and helicopters, grenade launchers and FLIR devices like the ones it used on US Citizens at Waco, along with todays Aireal Drones, and I'll think about considering to maybe contemplate possibly someday thinking about giving up my AK-47.

Until then, Mr Blackett, I think David was being generous when he said you have a "weak" argument.

1

Pat West 1 year, 6 months ago

Mark is right that modern pundants cannot and should not infer what the Founding Fathers would have done in the case of modern weapons. That said, Background checks are not an infringement onto your rights to own guns unless you are in the small subset of felons and mentally unstable for which gun ownership has been revoked. Gun ownership is a right that carries considerable responsibility, and if gun owners cannot regulate themselves, i feel the government must act to protect the masses from those who use them irresponsibly. Had the 2nd Amendment been followed to the word, and gun ownership was confined to "well regulated militia" we would not have a problem with rampaging shooters, nor would we be having this discussion.

1

Don Thayer 1 year, 6 months ago

Pat, you're allowing the government to make the decision about who gets to own a gun. Currently the system works well, banning felons, etc, but where will we be in 50 years, or 100? Only government supporters can own guns?

0

John St Pierre 1 year, 6 months ago

When the founding fathers wrote the constituttion they were on the "cutting edge"..they had just defeated the greatest super power of its time..... Except for the Greeks, the concept of Democracy ...never mind an entire Government had yet to really exist.

The constitution was a framework, a " Living" document that was envisioned to guide a nation which had just been given birth thru a bloody and terrible war. Its whole "basis" was those experiences, the individual's writing background and their knowledge of THAT time ...being governed by a King and British law.

As time has passed from that eventful time..."admendments have been added to reflect changes in the nations attitude and wants and needs. Who would disagree now with the addition of the 13th (Slavery) or 19th (women's right to vote)??? Changes were made to reflect the times.... some have even been removed... the 18th barred alcohol the 21 st repealed it. In their wisdom mechanism's were set in place so that this document could be changed, admended and repealed.... it has since its adoption 224 yrs ago grown to be one of the greatest documents ever crafted by man and never cease's to amaze me how many Americans had no idea how it came to be or what it really represents.....

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 6 months ago

It seems that our Founding Fathers expected that the Constitution would last a while and then be periodically rewritten. They added provisions for holding future constitutional conventions to handle the issue of rewriting the constitution. At the time they believed that they were compromising on current issues like slaves and thus it wasn't written to last forever.

So asking the Founding Fathers what they think would probably get an answer of "You still using that old thing?"

1

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 6 months ago

We "...cannot and should not infer what the Founding Fathers would have done..."

Only because we don't have to. James Madison (author of the 2nd amendment) makes explicitly clear in Federalist 46 his motives, intent, and rationale. Insisting that we "should not infer" is nothing more than an attempt to remove any discussion of the framers from the debate and dictate terms of the conversation to those with whom one disagrees.

1

Scott Wedel 1 year, 6 months ago

But the question of "What would the Founding Fathers have done?" is not typically asked to learn what they said and wrote, but to specific situations which they never expressed an opinion.

With the Second Amendment and letters written by the Founding Fathers, we know that they wanted citizens to be able to protect themselves when they are not being protected by the Federal or local government.

So what does that mean in the context of the gun control debate? Does it mean that anyone can own any weapon so an individual can own 30 inch battleship guns? Does it mean the only guaranteed right to guns is as a member of a state regulated militia?

The reason we still are using the original Constitution and not a new one rewritten for current times is because we are willing to infer what the Constitution and amendments mean given modern circumstances.

What the Supreme Court has inferred is that individuals have a right to be armed for self protection which government can regulate to protect general public safety. So felons and mentally ill can certainly be prohibited from owning guns. And dangerous or unusual guns can be prohibited.

0

mark hartless 1 year, 6 months ago

And if the people want the constitution ammended there is a process for that already. And it's not the "finger in the wind" policy.

The process is clearly spelled out, and if the lie were true that "90% of Americans favor gun control...bla bla bla..." then it would be relatively easy to use the ammendment process the founders installed to accomplish that.

Instead, the gun grabbers know that they DO NOT have the support for anything of the sort. Hence the BS and rhetoric and posturing which, in the end, last month, couldn't even get enough support (even from democrats) to pass either legislative body.

In other words: even most leftist/statist politicians know this issue is NOT anywhere near asfavorable as the lies we hear and would get them thrown out of office.

1

Harvey Lyon 1 year, 6 months ago

Nobody can make a logical argument against background checks for gun purchase if they omit the argument that they just don't trust the government.

Its the same with taxes and tax raises. Most folks would gladly pay taxes if they felt the money was being used efficiently and for the public good. Absent that then one dollar in taxes is too much.

And in my final thought for the day, most of the time, having the Legislative Government do nothing, staying out of folks way, works out just fine.

0

Joe Meglen 1 year, 6 months ago

Hill,

The Founders understood that government is the single greatest threat to individual liberty. When they codified the 2nd Amendment, they were not …”thinking about one-shot muskets or pistols,"... The Constitution was written just a few years after the Founders had fought a war that was triggered when King George III sent British troops to seize the arms of the colonists. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to keep the government in check. Therefore the individual is to have the freedom, the right, to be armed with any and all manner of weapons necessary to defend against the threat of a tyrannical government.

When uninformed citizens, no matter how good their intentions, side with the ruling class to support gun control laws, they unknowingly undermine the freedom that our ancestors fought and died for. Supporting gun control legislation is an assault on the 2nd Amendment, which is an assault on the Constitution and the principles upon which the United States were founded.

As James Madison, the father of the Constitution, wrote, “The advantage that Americans have over every other nation is that they are armed.”

George Mason, another Founder from Virginia said, “To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.”

1

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 6 months ago

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." ~ Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition, Pg. 425-426.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 6 months ago

And Hitler was also in favor of industrial production, corporations and military power. So then you advocate the opposite which would be pacifist agrarian communes?

0

Harvey Lyon 1 year, 6 months ago

Scott,

That's wrong.

While Hitler did favor those areas you mentioned, he did so only with his government being in control and it is truly spelled out in "Mein Kampft" or however you spell it.

A healthy distrust of the Government is good for society.

Government will respect peoples opinions only as long as they can do something other than opine.

The 60's showed what happens when the Government tries to use the National Guard to control the populance with force, meaning guns. And I can tell you no member of the US Armed Forces would attack American Citizens.

The possibilty of the owner having guns in the house makes the Police more respectful when they come to your door. They are more respectful when they pull you over on the highway. The fact that this guy may have a gun is in the back of all Police minds when they do a "stop and frisk".

That said, I'm all for the "local beat" cops where you get to know them and they you. Locally I like, very much like the local policy of cops hanging out at 7th and Yampa on Friday and Saturday nights. It does a world of good. Regretably, we spend a lot more on hot police cars than beat patrols. Cars are cooler.

I'm thinking this gun debate will only drive more folks to wear sidearms into the local grocery store to get folks back used to it. The US Navy does "freedom of navigation" patrols all the time where we sail into places we don't normally sail but do so because international law allows us to. We don't care if people get pissed. Its necessary to affirm long held principles in international law. And when we did it we were "locked and cocked".

Like wearing a side arm into the local grocery store.

Its necessary.

Harv Lyon

0

mark hartless 1 year, 6 months ago

No Scott, even Hitler's stopped clock was right twice/ day.

Is it your position that anyone you disagree with about ONE issue must be wrong about ALL issues? If Hitler had said "2+2 is 4" would he have been wrong just because he was Hitler?

I asked someone whom I respect a great deal what their argument would be against Hill's rather naieve statement.

Their response was, in my opinion, absolutely brilliant and flawless.

They said "The founders were not listing rights because of what they envisioned weapons to look like in the future, or even what weapons looked like in their day. The founders were not "giving" us rights. They were listing the rights that they saw as comming from God Almighty which they wanted to place the government on notice were irrevocable".

In other words, they did not see it as an option since those rights came from God, not government.

Harvey makes a good point about driving people to wear guns. Obama has sold more guns for Colt than all the advertising they have EVER done.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 6 months ago

I was responding to a post that included a quote from Hitler as if any idea proposed by Hitler is automatically wrong.

0

Joe Meglen 1 year, 6 months ago

Hitler also said: "What luck for the rulers that men do not think."

0

Bob Smith 1 year, 4 months ago

hitler said a lot of crap. so.....this applies to....(?)

0

Harvey Lyon 1 year, 6 months ago

And the Author of this Opinion clearly has a difficulty in understanding "Shall Not Be Infringed".......the stongest language, and most direct of any of the Amendments that made the US possible!

Trust is earned, not given. If you earn my trust you have no worries about my guns.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 6 months ago

So what part of "well regulated: do you not understand? And the need for the Supreme Court to infer what was meant.

Since you quoted the Second Amendment without quoting most of the text, I'll include what you left off:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms ...

0

Don Thayer 1 year, 6 months ago

Scott, you're still wrong. There was no NEED for the Supreme Court to infer meaning, they simply decided to butt in. The 2nd Amendment is simple and clear. The "well regulated militia" required ownership of MILITARY guns, as enacted in the Militia Act of May 8, 1792.

0

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 6 months ago

Wedel doesn't argue from conviction. He just argues. Devil's advocate can be interesting on occasion. But when it's the only song on the playlist, the most productive course is to tune out.

1

Harvey Lyon 1 year, 6 months ago

Scott,

You seem intelligent. and at least in command of your English, in the late 1700's.

"A REGULATED MILITIA" means a need for a militia or the potential need for a militia as read in those days when folks weren't certain how this "imagined" Government was going to turn out." Militia", in those days, means a group of folks that show up with guns and know how to use them.

Those that drafted it were among the most educated of educated in the world at the time. They had studied history. They had studied "the great books" that still educate people today. They knew Descartes, Kant, etc. and they were not distracted by the 24/7 big tit news of MSNBC, FOX etc. They read books, discussed them, and debated ideas. They knew history unlike 99% of the population today. I'm betting, Scott, you've nevr read these books and you'd not know Samuel Elliot Morrison if he kiched your back side.

They knew exactly what they ment when they said "shall not be infringed"....the most direct language in the Constitution. They knew what over 2000 yrs of recorded history had brung.....and we're just 200 years past that.

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is pretty damn near clear to me and all except the ignorant or evil.

Scott, give it up....you'll be glad you did.

Harv

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 6 months ago

Your logic rejects what the conservative Supreme Court said in their decision overturning Washington DC's and Chicago ban on handguns.

The Supreme Court decisions that upheld rights of citizens to own guns for personal protection also specifically mentioned that the right to regulate remained.

0

Don Thayer 1 year, 6 months ago

The Supreme Court doesn't change the writing of the U S Constitution. It still says what it says.

0

mark hartless 1 year, 6 months ago

It is clear to the evil as well, Harvey. Hitler knew he was evil. He knew he was burning the Reichstag.

The fact that the evil know damned well what it means and yet still attempt to "define" their way around it is precisely what makes them evil.

Anyone who knows history also knows that back then the "militia" was basically any man over 15 years of age and that "well regulated" meant well prepared or well stocked-up in todays language.

Lest we waste time debating whether or not language and definitions change I would refer them to the word "gay", which has a totally different meaning than it did even 60 years ago.

The funny thing is that these yahoos love to talk about the Constitution as a "living document" as if its meaning was and is fluid. Yet they somehow expect us to believe that phrases like "well regulted" or Militia" absolutely MUST have meant the same thing back then as they mean today.

0

Steve Lewis 1 year, 6 months ago

"I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy."

0

Steve Lewis 1 year, 6 months ago

"... it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants."

Federalist No. 1, Alexander Hamilton

0

Steve Lewis 1 year, 6 months ago

I think the above is a fair argument for humility, both in our self-judgment, and our judgment of others. At best, this website is an opportunity to understand the spectrum of thinking around us.

I will never understand the dismissals I see, of any writer, regardless of their view. If you do not enjoy encountering the full spectrum of intelligence, including the ideas that oppose your own, what is the point?

0

Steve Lewis 1 year, 6 months ago

The presence of states and their use of armed citizen militias against federal tyranny is prominent in the Federalist Papers. At least in my readings to understand the framer's intent of the Second Amendment.

Colorado is nowhere near such a use of your arms.

If that is the case, at what lesser level and how small a group can these rights of armed resistance be ascribed to? And how does that armed resistance claim these rights within a state whose legislature just passed the gun laws you would rebel against?

0

mark hartless 1 year, 6 months ago

I think the above is a description of a "community organizer", and a solemn warning of what kind of monsters they might (and have) become.

Do you think wolves come in their own clothing?

Do you think tyrants do not set about to direct the laws and courts in their direction, and then to use them at every opportunity?

And not just to use them, but to have many of the most naieve among the people point to those laws and courts as justification and acceptance of all manner of evil?

Did not King George and the tyrants who preceeded him justify their tyranny by examples of LAW more than, and prior to their ultimate show of FORCE???

Did not those you quote also eventually take up arms against what was by definition "the law of the land"??? You, Steve, must think me a fool.

And while there are instances of "honest errors of minds led astray" the present-day occurrances are far too numerous and the consequences farr too grave for unintended consequences to repeat... over and over and over again.

In other words, Steve:

YOU CANT SCREW THINGS UP THIS BAD BY ACCIDENT.

0

Don Thayer 1 year, 6 months ago

The Bill of Rights was ratified Dec 15, 1791. On May 8, 1792, the Militia act of May 8,1792 was enacted. It stated:

"every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder"

A bayonet is a MILITARY component, it has no use in civilian life. The founders would likely have required the citizen militia to be armed with various military weapons.

See the full argument here: www.americanusconstitution.com/gunrig...

Also, here are some quotes from the founders:

Thomas Jefferson: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

George Washington: "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

George Mason: "What is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

James Madison: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country. "

0

Don Thayer 1 year, 6 months ago

No. Did you work on the excavating at Red Rover Resort? I laid the block for the building.

0

mark hartless 1 year, 6 months ago

For Carrol's place? Yes I did. That's been a few years now...

0

Steve Lewis 1 year, 6 months ago

Don,

In the Military Act, you raise a useful nexus of governing by our founders and similar decisions today. Of your founders' quotes, it would be James Madison's that accurately parallels the Military Act of 1792. There were two, actually, one passed May 2 and one passed May 8. You have quoted the latter. Here is text from the former:

"Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act,... it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary….

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That every officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia, who shall fail to obey the orders of the President of the United States in any of the cases before recited, shall forfeit a sum not exceeding one year’s pay, and not less than one month’s pay, to be determined and adjudged by a court martial…"

My point remains: Short of the action of a whole state, at what lesser level, and how small of a group, are rights of armed resistance to be considered Constitutional rights against tyranny? I argue that states, and only states, are the legitimate constitutional actors against tyranny. It seems the founders had similar convictions. What are your thoughts?

0

Don Thayer 1 year, 6 months ago

I'm simply arguing the right of gun ownership. I quoted the May 8 Militia Act because it defines the militia. The Act of May 2 defines its use. Gun control advocates argue the "regulated militia" clause allows government to restrict or control some types of arms. I'm simply saying the clause requires just the opposite, it requires militia members to own military arms, not just hunting arms. The Act of May 8 also defines militia membership, basically male citizens 18-44 years old. Therefore, even if the clause does allow restriction of arms(which I don't believe), it doesn't apply to women, teenagers, or men over 44 years old. Therefore, arms of any kind can't be restricted for those people. I believe the current law regarding the militia is the Militia Act of 1903, with later amendments, which includes male citizens 18-44, female military officers, and former military men up to 64 years old. This Act requires the government to issue weapons to militia members when they're called to serve, but it doesn't restrict civilian ownership, and if it did, it doesn't overwrite the U S Constitution.

0

Don Thayer 1 year, 6 months ago

My point on these forums is that currently, the 2nd Amendment stands AS WRITTEN. It's obsolete and should be amended, but state laws, common sense laws, DON'T overwrite the 2nd Amendment. Do you agree?

0

Steve Lewis 1 year, 6 months ago

I agree, state laws cannot overwrite any U.S. Amendment. I do not believe Colorado's new gun laws do that. It is appropriate for the Colorado Sheriffs, or anyone else, to take their disagreement to the courts, but I have not heard anything lately about that moving forward.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 6 months ago

Don,

What part of "well regulated" does Colorado's recent gun laws overwrite? A modestly trained civilian militia to not be excessively dangerous to the general public might want to put in modest firepower limits and make sure the mentally ill and criminals are not allowed to purchase guns.

Nonlethal flash and bang grenades used by civilian police are not legally sold to the public. So why would a 30 round magazine be a protected right? If that is a protected right then why not machine guns and fragmentation grenades which are commonly issued to soldiers.

0

Don Thayer 1 year, 6 months ago

It doesn't violate "well regulated", it violates "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". I haven't said I disagree with limits, I've said the 2nd Amendment stands AS WRITTEN. Amend it.

0

mark hartless 1 year, 6 months ago

Machine guns ARE legal today, Scott. You just have to jump through some hoops.

They used to be as available as semi-autos are today until June 26th, 1934. That's when the National Firearms Act was passed.

Even today, Scott, FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS are perfectly legal, one simply must have (purchase from Uncle Scam) a $200 Tax Stamp for each and every weapon one wishes to posses.

The way it works is simple, though often misunderstood.

First you make a deal with someone who already owns such a weapon. Then you fill out an ATF Form 4 (I think) which includes a place for the local sheriff to fingerprint you, do a background check, and sign off something to the effect that "I see no reason why Mr. Wedell can not own this weapon bla bla bla..."

That form then gets sent to ATF and they review it.

Then, when in comes back approved in a couple months, you go back to the person you negotiated with for the purchase and pick up your machine gun.

Simple as that.

Such transactions happen EVERY DAY... even as you are saying they are "illegal".

I know all this because I used to collect machine guns back in the day. I once owned a total of about 8 or 10 of them, INCLUDING a belt-fed .50 cal (manufactured by AC Delco believe it or not), an M-16 with an M-203 Grenade Launcher under it, an M-11-9mm with a silencer (not very effective as the sound escapes from the chamber as the bolt blows back), and several others.

I got out of that hobby before I left VA. I'm really not all that "into" guns anymore and machine guns are one heck-of-a liability, even though few, if any, are ever used in crimes. Still, can you imagine if some punk got a hold of your machine gun and rolled up in the local savings and loan??? I don't need that...

0

john bailey 1 year, 6 months ago

oh legal machine guns. good thing barry didn't have one of them.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 6 months ago

Okay, I stand corrected, machine guns are legal, but highly regulated. My point still remains that much is said that Second Amendment is an absolute right and yet machine guns are highly regulated and other standard issue police and military equipment is not legal for civilians to own.

So apparently you accept that the Second Amendment allows machine guns to be regulated since you didn't argue that was illegal government overreach. And you even stated that a punk with a machine gun would be a menace. (Not sure why punks with semi-automatic weapons is not an issue).

So would it be acceptable if the ownership and sale of large capacity magazines were not banned, but regulated like machine guns?

0

Don Thayer 1 year, 6 months ago

Scott, you're dishonest. Mark didn't say the 2nd Amendment allows that regulation. It doesn't. And it's the punk that is the problem, not the gun. The 2nd Amendment IS an absolute right until it's amended. Do you really accept the government being better-armed than civilians? Apparently you do. Why, so they can keep us in line? Isn't that a police state?

0

Steve Lewis 1 year, 6 months ago

Don,

I protested a decade ago as conservatives installed the Patriot Act during the Bush years. My protests met an administration response that I was "aiding and abetting the enemy". Otherwise known in U.S. statutes as the definition of a traitor. I watched with concern as a conservative agenda gave government large surveillance powers and intrusive rights of information gathering. It's technological ability in that area, plus it's DHS firepower, means today it is probably 10x more potent than any civilian group armed with assault weapons.

Excuse my frustration and confusion - You guys now worried about a police state are the "new" conservatives?

0

mark hartless 1 year, 6 months ago

No, they are not "highly regulated".

Once you own one, you can shoot the hell out of it, make all your neighbors think you run a terrorist training camp.

When I owned mine, I and friends shot 100,000 rounds/ yr.

That's not very "regulated" if you ask me.

And BTW... Punks are a menace whether they have machine guns, baseball bats, or just a vote.

And I never said I "accept" any of the many intrusions into my (our) personal liberties. I merely pointed out one of your many incorrect assumptions.

One of the hardest things I have struggled with over the past few years is acceptance. Not of ME BEING accepted, but of me accepting things as they are. I have gotten some peace with that by realizing that this world's fate is sealed. It has been since Eden.

Your "acceptance" ditty caused me to harken back to a prayer I learned as a child.

It goes like this:

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I can not change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

0

Pat West 1 year, 6 months ago

Mark, the guns usage isn't "highly regulated" but a $200 fee and background checks to allow the sale sounds like the SALE of machine guns is. Maybe this is the type of regulation and taxation we need in the US for more kinds of weapons.

0

mark hartless 1 year, 6 months ago

maybe it's they type of scrutiny we need to use at the ballot box, too.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 year, 6 months ago

Steve, You said the following in your previous post "I protested a decade ago as conservatives installed the Patriot Act during the Bush years."

Here is the result of the roll call vote from October 2001. I wasn't aware the senate was packed with "conservatives" back then. Your political bias is showing. October 27, 2006

98 U.S. senators voted in favor of the US Patriot Act of 2001 (Senator Landrieu (D-LA) did not vote) Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin was the only senator who voted against the Patriot Act on October 24, of 2001

Did you protest again in May 2011 when 31 Democratic Senators voted to preserve the Patriot Act? Cheers, Dan

0

Steve Lewis 1 year, 6 months ago

Dan,

Regardless of the 2001 vote, the Patriot Act was a conservative creation. Att General John Ashcroft was the force behind the extent of law. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050900961_3.html

Since 2001 I decided it was smarter to be engaged before a vote, so I've participated in each Routt and Colorado Dem platform. These seek repeal of the Patriot Act. The 2010 Colorado Dem Platform: "We support the affirmation of the importance of civil liberties contained in our Bill of Rights and demand repeal of the USA Patriot Act and subsequent enhancements thereto which permit non-judicial abrogation of Constitutional rights of citizens or non-citizens of the United States." Senator Udall seems to have heard us.

I could only find the 2012 for Routt Dems, but our other years say roughly the same: "We support repeal of the U.S. Patriot Act, particularly invasions of privacy such as warrantless searches and seizures, roving wiretaps and searches of business and library records. Similarly, we support revisions to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), which would delete the destructive detainee provisions contained in that law."

I tried, but could not find any County or State Republican party positions or platforms related to the Patriot Act or NDAA. The extensions of the Patriot Act have far more support from Republican congressmen, but it seems worth noting that Rand Paul opposes it. Democrats are moving away from it.

What is your view of the Patriot Act?

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 year, 6 months ago

Hey Steve, Lots of laws, bills etc are proposed. So Ashcroft was the force behind the bill. So what. That makes it a conservative bill. Please stop spinning. I am getting dizzy. If every Democrat senator but 2 voted for it your party has to accept culpability. Apparently that is not your perspective. The Dems had a chance again in 2011 but again a majority of Dems voted for it. No surprise that the Routt County Dems support repeal of the patriot act as that is the way this county currently rolls. What is my view of the patriot act. It is the same as my view on global warming. They are not in my wheelhouse of things to worry about. I am not doing any thing that I worry the Feds may find out about. I am more concerned about the direction this country appears to be headed at least from my perspective. Disability claims sky rocketing, food stamp usage on the rise, unemployment dropping as more and more people stop looking for work (interesting way to push unemployment down - if enough people quit looking for work and stay get on the dole we will have zero unemployment). Employers cutting already part timers hours to below 30. Small business reluctant to hire until they can measure the impact of ACA. Corporations keeping huge amounts of profits overseas to avoid punative taxes paid if they repatriated the money. I could go on but my post would get too long. Cheers, Dan

1

Harvey Lyon 1 year, 6 months ago

Here's a verypparently germane article just published by the Washington Post. The Justice Department reports a reduction in homocides of 39% and a reduction in gun related violance of 69% over the last decade.

Perhaps the programs geared towards changing society's views on how to deal with conflict are much more effective than reducing a citizen's ability to own guns.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/report-sharp-drop-in-gun-violence-but-most-killings-still-involve-firearms/2013/05/07/28f96904-b694-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html?hpid=z3

1

Steve Lewis 1 year, 6 months ago

Dan,

It's true. The gun legislation in Congress is not our largest concern. I do have an interest in how civilian guns respond to tyranny - I don't understand that. Some comment about Hitler and a police state in America. For that end of the gun argument, the Patriot Act and strong Republican support for it, should matter. One might hope.

I keep reading Federalist Papers that consistently see states acting against tyranny. I've yet to read a founder describing the right of 100 men to armed revolt against our government. Maybe someone can provide such writing from a participant to our constitution.

0

mark hartless 1 year, 6 months ago

There is a very strong tendency of people with a statist viewpoint to see all men as part of some group, some collective, rather than see men as individuals. If you are not part of some group (gay, black, hispanic, women, poor, etc) which needs "championing" then, to the statist you are of little or no value.

"The first truth to be learned about human action is that it can be undertaken only by INDIVIDUAL actors. Only individuals have ends and can act to attain them. There ARE NO SUCH THINGS as ends of or actions by "groups", "collectives", or "states", except which take place as actions by various specific individuals. "Societies" or "groups" have no independent existence aside from the actions of their individual members. Thus, to say that "governments" act is merely a metaphor; actually, certain individuals are in certain relationship with other individuals and act in a way that they and other individuals recognize as "governmental". "

-Murray N. Rothbard, -- Man, Economy, and State

With that in mind, Steve has skipped right over one of the most compelling documents from the "founders" pertaining to this issue.

It reads like this:

"When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the pollitical bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the seperate but equal station which the Laws of Nature and of Natures God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the seperation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are Life, Liberty, and the persuit of Happiness..."

(Now read this next part really slow, Steve)

"...That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER, OR TO ABOLISH IT..." They went on to sign the document INDIVIDUALLY, and closed by pledging their INDIVIDUAL Lives, their INDIVIDUAL Fortunes, and INDIVIDUAL sacred Honor"... INDIVIDUALLY. This document, which has become rather unfamilliar to the 21st century statist, is known as The Declaration of Independence.

1

Steve Lewis 1 year, 6 months ago

There are only individuals? "There ARE NO SUCH THINGS as ends of or actions by groups, collectives, or states"?

Except for example, the Declaration of Independence, which begins, "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America"

Wherein the signors oft describe themselves and our new country as "We", choosing to emphasize We as a proper noun by capitalizing it: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Mark, that sentence presents Americans as part of some group, some collective, very much committed to each other rather than seeing men as individuals.

0

Steve Lewis 1 year, 6 months ago

You omit some words that make a difference. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Can you agree that government is necessary to deliver safety and happiness?

I do not read the Declaration as support for 100 men to rebel. "it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another". Again, through the Federalist Papers the founders consistently queue a state, at a minimum, as the proper resistor to tyranny. The treatment of the Shays Rebellion in 1786, seems emblematic of that position.

0

Steve Lewis 1 year, 6 months ago

Mark, respect for government allows room to respect the individual.

0

jerry carlton 1 year, 6 months ago

Steve When a government deserves respect, it recieves respect. When a Senate and House decides that the most important thing is to be re-elected so they can continue to line their own pockets at the expense of the taxpayers, they lose any right to respect. Institute a one term limit. Do away with professional politicians. Check out the latest approval ratings on the Senate and House.

1

Steve Lewis 1 year, 6 months ago

Jerry, I'm not trying to defend our elected officials. But as I posted above, our Declaration of Independence clearly points to government as a foundation for liberties and freedoms.

0

mark hartless 1 year, 6 months ago

"Respect for government allows room to respect the individual."

I completely disagree. With the position this government takes toward individual rights I simply do not believe that at all.

The Patriot Act, Drones over my house, IRS reading your e-mails without a warrant, entry into homes without warrant OR probable cause, robbing the individual with confiscatory taxes AND by inflating the individuals currency, etc, etc... No Sir, no respect is to be afforded an entity that positions itself thusly against the individual.

In the military they teach you that respect is EARNED. Perhaps if the government was constrained to its proper role, and sized accordingly at a maximum of about 1/3 of its present mass, then it might be respected by more Americans.

Respect for THIS government is not something I am capable of. It is my FIRM opinion that this government we have today is in no way, shape, or form, worthy of one damned speck of respect. Do I fear it? Yes. Do I obey it? Pretty much. Do I respect it? NO WAY IN HELL.

Furthermore, I believe that anyone who deems todays government respectable has highly questionable motives, or extremely low intelligence.

I believe that life, liberty and property do not exist because men have come together and made laws (ie formed government)> I believe that life, liberty, and property existed BEFORE government and THAT FACT is what caused men to form government.

I further believe that the law only has the authority to do collectively what the individual had the right to do on his own. For example: You do not have the right to put a gun to your neighbors head and take his property and give it to another. Therefore, government, being NOTHING MORE than a collection of individuals, also DOES NOT have the right to do this.

Yet it does. It does that and much more.

0

Steve Lewis 1 year, 6 months ago

Mark, your last post says you will not respect THIS government. Your post just before that says you will not respect government period. I'll take that as progress. The Declaration of Independence does respect both people and government.

I above posted that Routt County and Colorado platforms of Democrats have called for repeal of the Patriot Act. Their platforms have done this for many years. I cannot find any Republican platform that even mentions it.

Senator Udall, a Democrat, voted against it. 17 other Dem Senators voted against it. 4 Republicans voted against it.

Maybe someday you'll stop lumping people into the bad box and the good box. In some cases liberals are the ones fighting to maintain your liberties.

0

mark hartless 1 year, 6 months ago

I agree, Steve. In some cases liberals ARE on my side. And far too often there are so-called "conservatives" who are all too willing to use government as a club for THEIR interests just like many on the left.

Frankly, that's why I'm a libertarian.

But far too often the lions share of the state that's being shoved down my throat is championed by statists of a far LEFT leaning variety.

So, pardon the hell outta me if I tend to do a bit too much "lumping" but if it quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck...

0

Steve Lewis 1 year, 6 months ago

Libertarian. That explains your ongoing statist complaint. Statism is the polar opposite of libertarianism. You should spend less time labeling people. Presumption is no argument.

I think early on most Americans, and the founders, were statists. It certainly was more called for then - they were building a nation. Important examples of our early politics have already been brought up in this thread: Shays rebellion of 1786 and it's quashing. Also the creation of the Military Acts of 1792, one passed May 2 and one passed May 8. These seem to be examples of statism.

We have different needs today.

0

mark hartless 1 year, 6 months ago

I should spend less time labeling people?

Probably true.

And I'm sure the "spades" would appreciate the break too.

The founders were statists? Really? You mean the same kind of statists I'm talking about ?

Now, let's see... Statism is the OPPOSITE of Libertarianism; and what was it that Patrick Henry,one of our founders said?? Was it "Give me STATISM or give me death."??

Did Ben Franklin say, "Any people that would give up STATISm for a little temporary safety deserve niether."??

"If you love wealth more than STATISM, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of STATISM, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." ???

- Samuel Adams


"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our STATISM than standing armies..."- Thomas Jefferson


Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of STATISM."???? - Thomas Jefferson


These are the times that try men's souls.... and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as STATISM should not be highly rated." ???? - Thomas Paine *****

Did they say that??? NO! They did not.

They said THIS: If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy. - Thomas Jefferson To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. -Thomas Jefferson I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. -Thomas Jefferson,

With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. - James Madison


"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

1

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 6 months ago

The windy city celebrates the holiday weekend with 6 dead & 22 wounded (so far). Clearly, authorities need to fund a public information campaign - the perpetrators appear curiously unaware that guns are banned in Chicago. Once apprised of the law, these illegal weapons will be abandoned and the violence will stop.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 year, 6 months ago

Shocking, the bad guys don't obey the gun laws, any gun laws, even Colorado's new gun laws. We don't need new stinking gun laws until we can figure out how to enforce the existing gun laws. But I guess when the current administration thinks its OK to give guns to the bad guys (Fast and Furious) why would other bad guys worry about existing gun laws being enforced.

0

Robert Dippold 1 year, 6 months ago

It is a sad day when a Mom goes out to buy a gun to kill her son. Just sad. I wish it was an isolated case. My biggest concern about guns is that the majority of homicides are people killing family members and people they know. Even in sleepy little Steamboat.

0

mark hartless 1 year, 6 months ago

I suppose it would make some people feel better if she had pushed the poor kid over a cliff, or drowned them in the tub.

I personally think "it is a sad day when a mom" KILLS her child by ANY means... gun or otherwise.

And it is a HEART problem, not a mechanical one.

Making it about the method in order to backstop weak arguments about gun rights is a weak, petty argument.

0

Robert Dippold 1 year, 6 months ago

Mark,

I agree with you. It is a sad day in any case. I think guns make it easier, "cleaner" to kill a person, than choking them, holding them under water, stabbing them (horrible to put these things in print). Would 1% less people die if the killer had to do more "dirty work", 10% , 90% less? I don't know. I think it would be less though. She bought the gun the day before. Obviously, she was in a bad state. I wish she could have had someone to help her get through the next couple dark days until the clouds lifted for awhile. As I said, just sad.

0

mark hartless 1 year, 6 months ago

One indication of our society's need to blame everything and everyone BUT the guilty and it's in-ability to deal with FACTS, is how the Pilot restricted comment on this subject. More than ironic, it's hypocritical, since a newspaper, the very EXISTENCE of which, after all, is BUILT around the first ammendment.

The first ammendment being the protection of UNPOPULAR, and at times INSENSITIVE speech.

Nobody wants to think we are a society that kills kids, so not talking about it makes it go away.

One need only step back in time a few days to the Gosnell Murder trial to see the press at-large using the same tactics of ignoring and obscuring the grim realities of our societies own dark side.

0

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 6 months ago

I'd like to see Robert furnish some data in support of his assertion, but

a) I suspect he has none and is merely parroting a popular and erroneous talking point, and
b) I believe I may know from whence that talking point was derived.

As the NYT regurgitated again this year: “But there is a more fundamental problem with the idea that guns actually protect the hearth and home. Guns rarely get used that way. In the 1990s, a team headed by Arthur Kellermann of Emory University looked at all injuries involving guns kept in the home in Memphis, Seattle and Galveston, Tex. They found that these weapons were fired far more often in accidents, criminal assaults, homicides or suicide attempts than in self-defense. For every instance in which a gun in the home was shot in self-defense, there were seven criminal assaults or homicides, four accidental shootings, and 11 attempted or successful suicides. ”

The Kellerman study is so admired by the left that its very questionable methodology is never mentioned (but was nonetheless pointed out by the New England Journal Of Medicine a year after Kellerman released his “findings”). Here's how they arrived at that particular conclusion: whenever someone was shot to death in or near their home, Kellerman & Co would ask family members if a gun had been kept in the home. If the answer was yes, it was assumed that very same gun was the murder weapon - whether it was or not. Of the 444 cases cited in the study, there were only 8 in which “the investigating officer specifically noted that the gun involved had been kept in the home.” 8 out of 444. .018%. But one should never let the facts corrupt an agenda.

0

Robert Dippold 1 year, 6 months ago

Brian,

Sorry I didn't state my facts. I thought it was pretty much common knowledge that the majority of people that have been killed know their killer. I have just been reading the paper a long time. Attached is an article which states that 80% of victims of homicides know their attacker. It doesn't mean they were family members (a lot were), and doesn't mean they liked each other. This is a pro-gun ownership article. They basically say that the victims deserve to get shot because they are not model citizens and typically had drug/alcohol problems and a previous record.

I don't really want to debate this on this forum. I'm an open minded guy. I'm a gun owner. All I know is there is a problem and if people are going to be so rigid in their beliefs and hold onto some archaic belief about what a bunch of guys in wigs thought 200+ years ago then we deserve the fate of the dinosaurs.

Bob http://arcofcc.freeservers.com/Documents/murder.html

0

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 6 months ago

Robert

I've seen the summary you've linked to and there's nothing in it with which I disagree. But citing it in conjunction with the Stagecoach tragedy absent any context seems a little disingenuous.

You don't want to debate, yet here you are deriding the Founders (& presumably the 2nd amendment) as anachronisms. Whatever. More to the point, the Supreme Court agrees with me, and not with you and Mr. Blackett Jr:

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

0

Robert Dippold 1 year, 6 months ago

Brian, Sorry you interpreted my post as disingenuous. I'm glad you agreed with the content. I certainly don't, but I wanted to cite data that you felt was more believable to you. I'll connect the dots a little more. Sorry I wasn't clear. In my opinion, the pro gun crowd hangs onto the 2nd amendment as if it is a real threat that "the British are coming" or "Obama is coming". That argument doesn't hold water at all and has been discussed to death on this forum. The other issue is that a law abiding citizen has the right to defend themselves. What this data shows is that 80% of the people that are killed know their killer. According to the author these 80% are low lifes and not law abiding citizens. So, what do the law abiding people need guns in their house for? I believe that people especially women are much more likely to be killed by a family member (man) than they ever would be an intruder.

0

jerry carlton 1 year, 6 months ago

Robert It makes no difference in this tragic situation, but the newspaper article states she bought ".22 caliber ammunition" the day before, not a gun.

0

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 6 months ago

Robert – addressing your points, in no particular order:

You used the horrific event in Stagecoach to assert, in very knee-jerk fashion, that "...the majority of homicides are people killing family members..." That's what's disingenuous because it's simply not true. Given that those on your side of the issue have been pushing that canard based on nothing more than Kellerman's deeply flawed survey, it's impossible not to view those espousing the argument as disingenuous at worst and ignorant at best.

As far as assailants knowing their victims, so what? In the vast majority of gang killings, the killers are known to their victims. Andrea Yates was known to all 5 of her kids. The DC snipers, on the other hand, were unknown to their 13 targets. It's a meaningless metric.

You write: “I believe that people especially women are much more likely to be killed by a family member (man) than they ever would be an intruder. ”

Your belief (and mine) is irrelevant absent anything to back it up. Let's look at women: The most relevant data I'm able to find comes from the FBI and the Justice Dept's National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The FBI (from which the NCVS seems to derive its information on this particular subset) doesn't break down girlfriends killed by boyfriends, but does collate wives killed by husbands. 4.6% of all murders in 2010, or .0009% of all women in America. The FBI does not disclose the murder weapons used in that 4.6%.

Attacks on women overall: the NCVS finds that the probability of serious injury or death via aggravated assault is 2.5x greater for women who offer no resistance v. those who resist with a gun. From which I arrive at the following perspective: while both men & women benefit from gun ownership, the advantage for women is especially pronounced. Given that the vast majority of assailants are men, the physical advantage weighs heavily in favor of the attacker. Having a gun therefore makes a bigger relative difference for a woman than a man. So: Women, arm yourselves!

Continued...

0

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 6 months ago

Continuing...

You write: “...the pro gun crowd hangs onto the 2nd amendment as if it is a real threat that "the British are coming" or "Obama is coming". That argument doesn't hold water at all...” Another ridiculous canard. It's clear you believe in some of the principles enshrined in the Bill of Rights, but not all of them. More power to you. But painting people like me as right wing militia whackjobs only underscores how ignorant you are of (or how little you regard) the values spelled out in the Second Amendment and Federalist 46 – which explains, I suppose, your derisive characterization of people like me.

You write: “So, what do the law abiding people need guns in their house for?” You can find that answer in the Bill of Rights; specifically the Second Amendment. Further, your assertion that “...80% of the people that are killed know their killer...” is misleading in terms of self/home defense. As Wiki points out: “”Few statistics are available on the crime of home invasion as such, because it is not defined as a crime in its own right in most jurisdictions. Statistics about home invasion found on the Internet are often false or misleading. Persons arrested for what the police or media may refer to as "home invasion" are actually charged with crimes such as robbery, kidnapping, homicide, rape, or assault.”

Additionally, there are no reliable stats available on defensive gun use (DGU) in general. The estimates range from 100,000 annually (according to the NCVS) to 2.5 million (according to researcher John Lott). Lott asserts that 98% of DGU are instances in which the gun is brandished but not fired, and no one is injured as a result (I have been personally involved in 2 such episodes). Those instances are frequently not reported, are not included in official statistical analyses, & receive no media coverage. But let's assume the low-end NCVS number is accurate. Would you have preferred that the victims (including me) in those 100,000 incidents had been been unarmed? If so, why?

0

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 6 months ago

Given Robert's belief in who women are likely to be vulnerable to, and his rhetorical “So, what do the law abiding people need guns in their house for?”, one wonders which of these two women he believes behaved inappropriately.

911 caller unarmed

911 caller armed

Worth noting that Mrs. Jackson (caller #2) is on the phone for 10 minutes pleading with the dispatcher to send help so she wouldn't have to do the unthinkable. But when seconds count, the police are minutes away. In the end, the authorities couldn't help. Her son the cop was powerless. Her big protective dogs didn't deter the intruder. If you & yours choose to live as prey, knock yourselves out. If you wish to impose that choice upon me, I have a two-syllable reply which decorum prevents me from disclosing to you here. And if this demonstration doesn't answer Robert's rhetorical, it cannot be explained.

0

mark hartless 1 year, 6 months ago

I actually agree with Robert's assertion that a measurable number of people would not commit murder if they didn't have access to a gun, an instrument which does make the act "cleaner and neater" (I can't believe I'm saying "cleaner and neater" about murder).

However, once you contrast that with the number of people who use guns to prevent killing, to prevent theft, to prevent rape, assault, etc, I would expect the numbers to even right back out.

It is far easier for a population which lacks imagination (see mirror) to see what DID happen than for them to understand what MIGHT HAVE happened, or what was PREVENTED from happening.

This is especially true in economics, but also in the arena of crime.

You see Robert, in the space of time it took the individual in question to plan and commit her crime, there were many, many people who used a firearm to protect the life, liberty and property of themselves and their family.

Although not seen, not on the news, not making headlines, those lives, those hearts which go on beating because of the protection afforded them by the second ammendment, are too often dismissed, unacknowledged, or often omitted entirely.

There is another way to employ the logic Robert submits: I could also make the argument that if the penalty for the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony were CERTAIN and SWIFT DEATH that the numbers mught also be tweaked down 10%-20%-90%...

Furthermore, the burden of that method of crime reduction would fall on the perpetrator, rather than the rest of gun-owning society.

Zat make sense, Robert?? There are two ways to lie:

(1) To tell untruths (lies of commission).

(2) To withhold truth that you know (lies of omission).

Both are wrong.

0

mark hartless 1 year, 6 months ago

And I didn't hear anything yet about any "assault" rifle...

0

mark hartless 1 year, 6 months ago

It is amazing to me that those who rail the loudest about the impact of "gun violence" are generally the same ones who fight the hardest to prevent gun-using criminals from swiftly and certainly meeting their maker.

0

mark hartless 1 year, 6 months ago

Bring a just conviction and then guess what...

Sit her in the chair... I'll flip the switch.

But "noooo" .

"She needs "help"...

"Two wrongs don't make a right"... "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"...bla bla bla.

Wonder why people are not affraid to kill? Cause there ain't no freakin consequences anymore, that's why. And that's thanks by-and large to the same folks who claim to abhor the violence the most.

0

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 6 months ago

Mark -

As a DP proponent, it has no deterrent value for those the media lavishes the most attention on: DC snipers, marathon bombers, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Ft Hood, Va Tech shooters, etc. Whackjobs and zealots are gonna to what they do. All the more reason for the rest of us to armed.

0

mark hartless 1 year, 6 months ago

I just think that is a far too simplistic way of looking at it.

How many people the death penalty detered is impossible to quantify, since only God can know the human heart.

However, if one is to argue that the ease of using a modern firearm allows people to kill who otherwise might not have quite crossed that threshhold, then the almost identical argument for the death penalty's deterring effects must also be acknowledged.

Not only do I favor the death penalty, I am certain that in the all-to-rare cases where iut is administered that it is far too merciful and "civilized".

If lots and lots of heads rolled... literally... then the deterrent effects would achieve an "economy of scale" which would be undeniable.

Frankly, I can not understand how anyone could think that someone who commits pre-meditated murder of an innocent person should be allowed to live one moment beyond the sound of the words "guilty" being read by the jury.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 year, 5 months ago

and more from our Colorado legislators. We wrote here about an astonishing moment of insensitivity on the part of a Democratic member of Colorado’s legislature:

A young woman named Amanda Collins mustered the courage to testify before a Colorado legislative committee on that state’s proposed gun ban legislation. Ms. Collins testified in opposition to a blanket ban on guns on college campuses, and described her own rape. She had a permit to carry a pistol but was unarmed when she was attacked. Ms. Collins was treated sensitively by Republicans on the panel, but when the questioning turned to Democratic Sen. Evie Hudak, the Democrats’ war on women was unleashed. Ms. Collins talked about her experience with the Democrats in Colorado’s legislature:

After giving the most graphic and emotionally draining testimony since confronting my attacker in court, I was met with Sen. Evie Hudak’s patronizing response:

“Actually, statistics are not on your side, even if you had a gun,” she publicly chided me. “Chances are that if you had had a gun, then he would have been able to get that from you and possibly use it against you.”

My response still remains, “Respectfully, senator, you weren’t there.”

1

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 5 months ago

72 yr-old grandmother squeezes off a round from her .357 to chase off an intruder trying to break in, despite the noisy Rottweiler trying to convince him otherwise. But there's no reason for a law-abiding citizen (especially a woman) to be armed, according to Robert.

0

john bailey 1 year, 5 months ago

now who is up for recall in the Colorado springs?

0

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 5 months ago

Given all the caterwauling from those who are "outraged" at the lawsuit, one would expect these sheriffs to be recall targets. Evidently 'outrage' ≠ putting one's money where one's mouth is.

1

john bailey 1 year, 5 months ago

far from a sheriff, Brian,hum lets see. senate president John Morse, C. Springs oh and from Pueblo sen. Angela Giron, why , I wonder why the good people on the lower front range are targeting these 2?

0

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 5 months ago

A better link to the 72 yr-old Mrs. Cooper, including an interview & excerpts from the 911 call. Heartwarming.

1

Bob Smith 1 year, 5 months ago

its funny, but you guys really are small town hicks!! funny stuff. now go hunt or something, eh...you're a little too noisy!

0

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 5 months ago

Fed up with rising crime, grandma organizes "Glock Block." Leave it to the tv reporter to get it wrong. Whilst reporting that this woman & her neighbors are talking about how to get trained & equipped, he says: "Not the kind of conversation friendly neighbors should be having." Wrong, dipstick. It's exactly the conversation.

1

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 4 months ago

The Illinois Gov just got his head handed to him. The Prairie State is now a shall-issue state, which means that virtually any law abiding resident 21 or older will be able to carry concealed pursuant to the relevant regulatory mandates. So Illinois residents now have the option of defending themselves using the same weapons that Rosie O'Donnell's bodyguards use to defend her.

1

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.