We should address why those people are criminals, and why they’re committing crimes, instead of just trying to ban the tools they use to do the crimes.

Sounds awfully liberal to me. Root causes of crime? Surely it’s just “because they’re evil!”

Sounds awfully liberal to me.

It does, doesn’t it? It depends on what he thinks the root causes are. “Just because they’re evil/black/brown” may be what he has in mind, while I’d be tempted to look into bleeding-heart crap like poverty.

“Rob Port conducts an experiment to see if wearing his baseball cap backwards will make him look smarter.”

College Republicans everywhere anxiously await the results of this study.

He’s absolutely right. Ban guns, and gangs will just start carrying axes.

And golf clubs.

And salad bowls. You know, the ones with the big plastic fork and spoon that snap together to use like scissors?

We call those “full auto”….

mikey

If you have a very large toothpaste tube, like two feet across at the nozzle, you can put the toothpaste back in all day, blindfolded.

Until we cure cancer, it would be stupid to regulate the sale of cigarettes to kindergarten age children.

Until scientists discover why I like running up the score by 46 points, it would be silly to impose any restrictions on my right to do so.

Wankers.

Shouldn’t the tagline be: “If you outlaw stupid people, then stupid people will be outlaws”?

Oh, how I wish that were true.

You know, for that matter, why ban murder? People will just find other ways to die.

We should address why those people are criminals, and why they’re committing crimes, instead of just trying to ban the tools they use to do the crimes. Tools that could be replaced with something else.

Why was there no link to tools? Do people go to PJMedia only for toothpaste advice?

To be fair , toothpaste is a ten letter word. Maybe he was just trying to spare his readers the drudgery of consulting a dictionary.

Ohh…. toothpaste

I should point out that the only arms the Founders knew about when they wrote the Second Amendment were single-shot muzzleloaders.

Sadly, no:

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/hh/22/hh22m.htm

We should be able to enforce laws that keep guns off the streets in inner cities because some unscrupulous gun dealer is, you know, letting somebody load up a van with a bunch of cheap handguns or sawed-off shotguns and dumping them and selling them for a profit in the streets.

And of course we’ve already established that the vans full of cheap guns are coming out of the state of Idaho.

Mikey, I’ve had someone stick a salad bowl in my ribs and it’s frightening. I gave them everything I had.

Salad tongs? Don’t get me started on salad tongs! I’m still trying to find my silverplated ones from Thanksgiving dinner. My brother’s new son-in-law has tattoos up and down his arms and one of those stud things in his eyebrow, so I bet he took ’em. Probably used ’em over the weekend in a holdup. Now it all makes sense.

Rea: Only 200 of those rifles were made. They were all made for one rifle corps. It is only known to have been used in one battle. And almost all of these rifles have disappeared for reasons unknown. There’s nothing in your link to suggest that the Founders knew about this gun and the rarity of the rifle seems to suggest it was unlikely that Founders knew about it Maybe you can supply a cite from The Federalist Papers?

And even if they did know about it, we would simply have to add screw-plug breech loaders to the list of guns protected by the Second Amendment.

I believe you can still buy screw-plug breach loaders at the Fantasy World store in Minneapolis.

oops, breech

We should be able to enforce laws that keep guns off the streets in inner cities because some unscrupulous gun dealer is, you know, letting somebody load up a van with a bunch of cheap handguns or sawed-off shotguns and dumping them and selling them for a profit in the streets.

And this doesn’t make sense to you? Fuck you, Bizarro Kevin Smith.

Hold on jes’ a cotton-pickin’ second here!

Let’s ignore the gun control angle for a moment:

This wingnut just endorsed the “root-causes” theory of crime.

So yeah, let’s legalize drugs, erase criminal record for non-violent drug offenses, remove federally-imposed barriers to other convicts getting good blue collar jobs, step up civil rights enforcement, pour lots of money into inner city education and early intervention, institute a negative income tax to provide a baseline sustenance for poor people, put universal health care in place, give amnesty to the current illegals and make it easier for new immigrants to come in legally, regulate gambling and prostitution, and generally stop being dicks to poor and/or black and/or porto rican people.

That should knock out most of the “reasons those people become criminals in the first place”. After that if he wants to put cheap pistols and sawed-offs all over the streets, it’s fine by me.

If we can’t keep well-stocked home arsenals, what will happen when there’s an insurrection and we’re summoned to form the militia? We’d look mighty foolish standing around unarmed while the insurrectiofascists laid waste to our homeland. The Constitution is clear on these things. Just like the Bible is clear about not eating shrimp.

The fact is, your biased solution to crime does not undress the fact that some racial minorites are geneticly inferior, which increases the liklyhood of crime and burdens our social welfare system, especially prisons, which are full of them, and don’t say the system is rasisct, they did the crimes they are doing times, I will not let race and inferiror breeding be the cause of failure, take responsibility for your own actions.

Why was there no link to tools? Do people go to PJMedia only for toothpaste advice?

To be fair, anyone who goes to PJMedia is already facing an impressive array of tools.

Tools that could be replaced with something else.

Speaking of replacing tools, is there a way to replace Mr. Port[ly] with something less deadly stoopid?

I wonder what weapon Mr. Port thinks the friendly neighborhood drive-by shooter would use if he didn’t have a .22.

Is there any point in Fake Gary anymore?

Once more into the breech loader, my friends, and fill the walls with moonbat dead.

Ah, we few. We happy few.

(Can toothpaste be used to cure a moose bite?)

I should point out that the only arms the Founders knew about when they wrote the Second Amendment were single-shot muzzleloaders.

And the only means of communication they knew about were letters. Does that mean that there are no constitutional limitations on the monitoring of phone calls or e-mails.

And I guess, freedom of the “press” does not necessarily include television, radio and the internets, either.

We should be able to enforce laws that keep guns off the streets in inner cities because some unscrupulous gun dealer is, you know, letting somebody load up a van with a bunch of cheap handguns or sawed-off shotguns and dumping them and selling them for a profit in the streets.

We should be able to enforce the existing laws regulating the sale of guns, yes. As in, if some “unscrupulous gun dealer” is in fact selling out of the back of a van and not doing the required checks and paperwork, then the dealer should lose his license. If it’s not an actual dealer, what are the state’s laws on person-to-person sales?

But restricting sales isn’t going to stop gun crime. And there’s certainly a suggestion (from the increasing knife crime in the U.K.) that restricting gun ownership does in fact simply lead to criminals using other weapons.

Personally, as a law-abiding citizen, I want to be able to protect myself, so I don’t like someone deciding that it’s easier to order me to hand over my weapon than it is to actually do something about the (alleged) guy selling weapons out of the back of a van.

I see that r78 has discovered the dark underbelly of intentionalism

Hehehe. Ahhhh, Gary al Ruppert. “The fact is black people commit crimes because of genetics, but it’s still their own fault of choosing to commit crimes.”

Robert M. wins the first round of comments.

Tools that could be replaced with something else.

Here’s what I don’t get: wingnuts are always saying stuff like this, “guns don’t matter, guns don’t kill people, if we banned guns people would just get killed by other stuff, etc.”

Well, if guns don’t matter, if there’s no difference between a gun and a sword or a gun and a board with a nail through it, then why do you need your guns? Just get a sword or something instead.

If I buy Toilet Paper A, but they stop making it, I wouldn’t be upset if I found out Toilet Paper B is pretty much exactly the same. If they are interchangeable, why worry?

Watch out! You’re messing with Rob Port, the guy who is the self-proclaimed “Big Man on Campus” of the North Dakota blogosphere!

And I guess, freedom of the “press” does not necessarily include television, radio and the internets, either.

Fortunately, it does include panini.

Rampage on stage
My crew’s in a rage
Searched my posse, found the Elmex but missed the Colgate
Maniac, I’m a rhyme braniac, living on the edge of a razor
Remember that
Cold rolling thick as a shake, I’m rocking hard as a quake
I can clean off bread and water, or lobster and steak
My mind’s a water gun, all the tartar I waste
About to unload the plaque control
E, squeeze the toothpaste

From Ice T’s “Squeeze the Toothpaste”

Say what you will about Mr. Port but at least he maintains a conservative blog with a lively comment section allowed to run freely without fear of the hair trigger delete button so sadly common to right wing blogs.

He’s wrong on gun control of course but that wrongness is part of his charm.

If the possession of firearms helps keep law-abiding citizens safer from violent crimes, and the overwhelming victims of violent crime are inner city minorities, why is it none of the gun rights lobby types seem to advocate the training & provision of firearms to poor and inner-city minority residents?

I subscribe to an Ewokian view of the Second Amendment. Spears, rocks and tree trunks (for smashing) are all we need for a well-regulated (and furry) militia. Yub nub!

Thanks for pointing that out, Notorious P (makes you sound OG, no?). I’ve always wondered about that myself.

As for the Second Amendment to the Constitution (properly capitalized): Is it not painfully obvious that it is NOT referring to INDIVIDUAL ownership of guns?

Seriously. If you are unfamiliar with it, here’s the full text:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Notice that all nouns relating to persons (militia, people, arms) are either collective or plural. There is absolutely NOTHING in this one-sentence amendment that makes any reference, stated or implied, to the rights of any INDIVIDUAL person to bear arms. And it is not because the Founding Fathers were averse to individual nouns. The 3rd Amendment, for instance, refers specifically to “the Owner”.

In fact, one could argue that it also says nothing about OWNERSHIP of guns, only about the right of the militia to bear them.

But, of course, if you’re a wingnut, things like “original intent” and/or “strict construction” only apply when they support your position.

>Home of Economy store in rural North Dakota.

Ahem.
Minot is as urban and ND gets.

Ahem.
Minot is as urban as ND gets.

Apologies for the typo.

Notice that all nouns relating to persons (militia, people, arms) are either collective or plural.

DC is taking the “No individual right” argument to the Supreme Court this summer in order to support the city’s gun ban. Should be interesting.

For the record, I’d have no problem with people forming militias. It would do some fat slobs good to get out every weekend and conduct drills in Rock Creek Park. Short of that, some sort of certification process to make sure people know how to use the damn things and won’t blow their own feet off when the cat knocks over the trash can would be nice.

David: In other words, “Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I take that to mean that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms because infringing that right might make it impossible to convene the militia at a moment’s notice (“well-regulated” meaning something like “well-equipped” or “responsive”).

The Second Amendment seems to envision an oppressive government disarming the people and hence making it impossible for them to fight against rebels and insurrectionists. It’s like a built-in defense: Hey, you can’t take my gun, because I might need it for counter-insurgency actions — not just hunting, not just vigilantism.

Even if the whole slippery “militia” concept has gone the way of the dodo — it’s not the same as the national guard, because it includes all able-bodied men (I forget the source of that — I think it’s from the Militia Act of 1793) — it’s still there in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

It’s like a built-in defense: Hey, you can’t take my gun, because I might need it for counter-insurgency actions — not just hunting, not just vigilantism.

It’s also something of a pipe-dream, as Jefferson found out while fleeing Virginia.

So yeah, let’s legalize drugs, erase criminal record for non-violent drug offenses . . .

Alkman ’08!

Is there any point in Fake Gary anymore?

Who else will undress the facts?

“We should address why those people are criminals, and why they’re committing crimes, instead of just trying to ban the tools they use to do the crimes. Tools that could be replaced with something else.”

Something tells me he won’t apply this same logic to Iran having nukes. I doubt we’ll be reading an article from him about how if we prevent Iran from having nukes, they’ll just replace those nukes with other weapons. When it comes to Iran, the wingnut logic is exactly the opposite. Ban the tools at all costs and never think about what motivates their anti-US stance!

Wait. David Corn is on the editorial board at Pajamas Media?

I should point out that the only arms the Founders knew about when they wrote the Second Amendment were single-shot muzzleloaders.

No way! As this Revolutionary War photo clearly shows this weapon was commonly used by Continental troops. And the beleaguered farmers at Lexington were equipped with several of these.

Wait. Pajamas Media has an editorial board?

And we know how hard it is to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
We have all had plenty of practice, from pushing pasta.

Dude looks like a toothpaste eater.

The problem with your stance, David in the Apple, is it is not at ALL as clear as you make it out to be. Certainly your interpretation is one POSSIBLE interpretation, but there are others that can be arrived at just as honestly.

Now, if you start tinkering with Constitutional guarantees based upon a particular interpretation rather than protecting ALL reasonable interpretations, you are merely sending an engraved invitation to authoritarians everywhere to begin “re-interpreting” other guarantees in other amendments, and since I’m partial to most of those guarantees, I’d say we end up losers in that game.

The best way to protect ourselves from the wingnuts in power is to insist that ALL provisions of the Constitution be sacrosanct, and accept the fact that we can’t change the ones we don’t like, so that they can’t change the ones they don’t like.

Just seems like the safest path…

mikey

“And there’s certainly a suggestion (from the increasing knife crime in the U.K.) that restricting gun ownership does in fact simply lead to criminals using other weapons.”

I’d rather take my chances with a knife-wielding maniac than a gun toting-cretin. I have a far better chance of defending myself or even disarming the knife guy with my mad martial arts skillz (tai-chi for five years now, I’m almost dangerous in slow motion). The point is not to eliminate crime, but to reduce gun crime which is endemic.

We should address why those people are criminals

Rob Port is using liberal “code”, meaning that Rob Port wants us to surrender in Iraq and let the terrorists win.

Why does Rob Port hate America?

Tools that could be replaced with something else.
Tools are by-and-large interchangeable, after all. In my experience, a single crescent wrench can be used to hammer practically any size of screw.

And Rob certainly does seem like the type to be truly interested in why we have gangs, and poverty, and social violence.

Well, if guns don’t matter, if there’s no difference between a gun and a sword or a gun and a board with a nail through it, then why do you need your guns? Just get a sword or something instead.
A criminal with a knife can be very dangerous. Me with a knife? Not so much.

I’d rather take my chances with a knife-wielding maniac than a gun toting-cretin. I have a far better chance of defending myself or even disarming the knife guy with my mad martial arts skillz (tai-chi for five years now, I’m almost dangerous in slow motion). The point is not to eliminate crime, but to reduce gun crime which is endemic.
You would prefer to defend yourself against a knife than against a gun; I would prefer to have something with which to defend myself, if the need arose. And while I am “gun-toting,” I hardly think I qualify as a “cretin.”

Don’t get me wrong – I’m all for enforcing laws that prohibit convicted criminals from possessing or carrying a weapon. Someone who’s already been convicted of violent crimes should not have the right to carry. Those laws should be enforced.

But why should MY right to carry something with which to defend myself be taken away? I’m not going to be attacking you . . . .

My humble opinion:

A well regulated milita (being regularly drilled and tested)
being necessary to the security of a free State (while non-free states with standing armies invariably turn into empires)
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Since members of the milita are regular citizens, and not professional mercenaries (soldiers), they need to take their arms home with them).

As an extreme leftist, or Rational Socialist, I feel that firearms should be regulated by the State according to common sense.

Regulation should be formed using two criteria:
Use
Location

Why do you need a gun: Just for fun? Going hunting? Store proprieter?
Where do you live: Crowded city? Dense suburb? Middle of nowhere?

Common sense regulation would be:
If you live in a city and don’t own a store or something like that, then no, you shouldn’t have a gun.
If you live in the middle of nowhere and your neighbor lives 10 miles away, then long-arms for hunting is fine.

I lived in NYC for almost 20 years and NEVER wanted to own a gun. I was never mugged, and only sometimes harrassed on the street. And I NEVER wanted ANYONE else to have a gun either. 20 year old cops fresh from the academy made me far more nervous than (presumably armed) homeboys on my street corner. I made acquaintces among the homeboys, they knew who I was and was no threat to them, the cops didn’t know me and would easily have shot me if I reached for my house keys…

Now I live in the Middle of Nowhere in Vermont and commonly see hunters on the road in front of my house. I have no problem with hunting IF they eat what they kill. Since we humans have eliminated the predators that used to keep the deer population in check, that population will explode to the point of starvation if we humans don’t ‘thin’ them out.

As a Liberal, I disapprove of killing. I feel no need to go out and kill animals. As a Liberal, I feel that others should be free to go hunting if they want to. As long as the deer population is not too much, or too little (endagnered), by all means, hunt them.

A bumper sticker here says: Gut Deer?

But why should MY right to carry something with which to defend myself be taken away?

It’s presumed that a society with less guns means more survivors.

Let’s remember that a gun is a fetish item as well as a handy tool: there are knives, sprays, batons, tasers, flash devices, atomic weapons etc. Whenever anyone talks about the Second Amendment they’re talking about a gun instead of IEDs, which points out a peculiar and American mania.

“that population will explode to the point of starvation if we humans don’t ‘thin’ them out.”

I always get a chuckle out of that. Hehe.
We HAVE to kill them! Otherwise, they’d just die!

Thing is: criminals don’t know if you have a gun or not. It doesn’t stop crime; there’s still plenty of crime in states that have little to no gun control laws. Hell, just last week there was the thing in Texas where the guy shot and killed two people who were robbing his neighbor’s house.
And getting mugged? I dunno, I’ve never been mugged (wood knocked) so I’m not familiar with the procedure, so maybe there is a point where the mugger gives you a 10 second window to pull out and ready your firearm for use. But it seems to me that if a dude comes in with a gun out, ready, and pointed at you, that Glock in your purse will do little good.
There seems to be precious few instances where owning a gun would actually prevent something bad from happening to you. And having a gun drastically increases the likely hood (one could say it impossibly, as the chance would go from 0% to whatever the percent is) of hurting or killing yourself or a loved one in an accident.

The best way to protect ourselves from the wingnuts in power is to insist that ALL provisions of the Constitution be sacrosanct, and accept the fact that we can’t change the ones we don’t like, so that they can’t change the ones they don’t like.

mikey — I agree with you whole-heartedly. Which is why I am opposed to loose interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. I also am a literalist with regard to the 1st Amendment, i.e., “no law” means, well, no law.

Comrade — I agree with you up to your parenthetical (Since members of the milita are regular citizens, and not professional mercenaries (soldiers), they need to take their arms home with them).

Since we no longer have militia (discounting Aryan Nation et al.), the closest thing we have is the states’ National Guards. To the best of my knowledge, National Guardsmen do not take their arms home with them at the end of the day.

I am not saying that this means that nobody should have a gun at any time under any circumstances. To take the obvious example, peace officers should be allowed to carry firearms under appropriate circumstances. In more civilian-type activities, to the extent firearm ownership is allowed, it should be strictly regulated. I AM saying that the 2nd Amendment does not allow carte blanche ownership, nor does it imply that such ownership is an “inalienable” right.

And as a fellow NYC resident, I have to agree with you 100% about the relative threat posed by “undesirables” and rookie cops carrying loaded weapons, esp. when said cops are often loaded themselves, or at least act like they are. I worked next door to the Stock Exchange during the immediate aftermath of 9-11, and I found the presence on every corner and in every doorway of 20-year-olds carrying loaded AK-47s much more frightening than any midnight stroll I have ever taken in any part of the city.

Righteous Bubba sey:
“Whenever anyone talks about the Second Amendment they’re talking about a gun instead of IEDs, which points out a peculiar and American mania.”

Technically, since the point of the 2nd is to allow the citizens a means to make sure the government stays in check, regular citizens SHOULD be allowed IEDs, HEAT rounds, and any other assortment of high-end military grade hardware with which to combat the government. I, for one, look forward to the soccer moms driving M1 Abrams and drunk college kids crashing dad’s Harrier into a shopping mall.

Can we agree, though, that’s a really bad idea?

Half-Life proved the need to ban crow bars.

that population will explode to the point of starvation if we humans don’t ‘thin’ them out.

Half-Life proved the need to ban crow bars.

I have to agree with that. There is nothing more intimidating or scary than a large group of drunken crows, especially when their team (Baltimore, of course) wins the Super Bowl!

Whaddaya mean MY team? I hate those fuckers thinkin’ their so big with their mid-air somersaults and their nevermores.

hic.

You know what kills me? You know what reaaaally pisses me off? Ravens don’t even give a shit about Baltimore. I made that town and aiiighh…. can bust a cap in any raven that shows his ugly maw so yoooo… yoo jes tell him to go fu’ caw.

@ Comrade Rutherford, David in NYC: I think you’re misreading the word “militia” in the text of the amendment.

The Oxford English Dictionary helps: “4. spec. The name of various military units and forces, raised locally (and usually for the purpose of local defence) from the civilian population of an area, and distinguished from professional standing armies as the latter developed. With sing. or pl. concord. In the U.S.: the body of able-bodied citizens eligible by law for military service. Now hist.”

Adam Smith in _Wealth of Nations_ says “It [sc. the state] may..oblige either all the citizens of the military age, or a certain number of them, to join in some measure the trade of a soldier to whatever other trade or profession they may happen to carry on… Its military force is [then] said to consist in a militia. ”

Article I Section 8 of the Constitution says that among Congress’s duties are “To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions” and “To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

What I get from that is the idea that the “militia” being referred to in the Second Amendment is the fighting force that could be assembled just-in-time, anytime. In order to make sure that when called forth, that “militia” is ready to report, its members need to have guns in their houses. To flip it around, infringing the right to keep and bear arms would mean hindering the government’s ability to call forth the “militia” (which could be all able-bodied men) to combat insurrections (or Native Americans). So the Amendment is putting a public-safety frame around the issue of keeping private arms.

I never saw it this way until I got curious about the word “militia,” which has changed quite a lot over time. YMMV.

What I get from that is the idea that the “militia” being referred to in the Second Amendment is the fighting force that could be assembled just-in-time, anytime.

Paul Revere in the 21st Century:

“Wake up, the Red Coats are com -!” [Blam!]
[Thud]

Me, I like that original intent, too, except I think the founders should’ve used more expressive fonts, in order to compensate for wingnuts’ poor reading skills, like so:

“a WELL-REGULATED Militia”

Understand that, wingnuts? WELL-REGULATED

And just who would be doin’ that regulatin’?

Why the guvment, of course.

You don’t like that? Too fuckin’ bad!

jenl1625 says: But why should MY right to carry something with which to defend myself be taken away? I’m not going to be attacking you . . . .

We don’t know you’re not going to be attacking us. Sure, you may not intend to, but we might push just the right buttons (“Your mother is so…”) & set you off. And the problem w/ your having a gun in that case is that a gun is so much easier to use than a knife, baseball bat, whatever, ’cause you don’t have to get close to your target. The gun doesn’t require the committment that other weapons, even fists, do.

Check the stats on domestic atguments that escalate to murder simply because there’s a gun in the house, & somebody decides to use it.

No way! As this Revolutionary War photo clearly shows this weapon was commonly used by Continental troops.

Ahhh, shades of the Gatling gun, those hand-cranked masterpieces chugging out the pokka-pokka-pokka of death.

From an Antipodean perspective, I’ll never understand the American obsession with guns. It seems kind of creepy to me, that so many folks get so het up about their ‘right’ to own as many lethal weapons as they can carry.

In fact (ugh, shades of Gary), it seems as though the passionate urge to own guns is of a piece with the passionate urge to annihilate people in other countries. That is, it’s all about fear. People insisting that they ‘need’ guns to defend themselves either live in the middle of a war zone, or watch too much telly. Because, let’s face it, there are damned few occasions when one is called upon to defend oneself in that fashion, despite the many contrived scenarios gun nuts talk about (very like the contrived scenarios Iran-haters or torture enthusiasts talk about).

And statistically, holding a gun in one of those scenarios makes you more likely to get shot. After all, an armed intruder will feel less threatened, and thus less likely to fire his own weapon, if the householder is unarmed. Threats make people jumpy, and jumpy people go off at the slightest noise.

Not to mention the fact that most gun injuries aren’t inflicted by strangers but by family or friends. When some nutcase gets pissed off at his wife or girlfriend, a gun just makes it more likely that he’ll kill her.

And the argument about ‘if they don’t have guns they’ll just use other tools’ is fine with me: if I’m running like buggery from a mugger, the odds for me are better if he’s armed with a knife, because he has to get close enough to wave it about.

Let’s be honest: we’ll never totally eradicate burglars, muggers, rapists, and other nutcases, no matter what we do. So can’t we at least try not to give them the power to kill dozens of people? I mean, how many could a high school shooter dispatch if all he had was a club with a nail in it?

Aside from that, if these dudes want to get all exercised about keeping safe from every possible harm, perhaps we could convince them of the necessity of extending that precautionary principle to, say, environmental matters? ‘Cos that’d make life a whole lot nicer. And as Knob Port points out, we could even (horror!) address root causes, maybe?

Uh, “domestic arguments,” obviously.

Good stuff from FlipYrWhig. Interesting that the militia of 230 yrs. ago was essentially seen as a tool of the gov’t. to stop the kind of people who, today, feel they need their guns to protect themselves from the gov’t. (Mostly, it seems, to protect their guns from the gov’t.)

Qetesh, non-resident that she is, has the perspective we need. American Culture is hideously violent. It seems we’re all still scared that the people who used to live here will be coming back to get us.

We might also notice the example of Switzerland. If I’m not mistaken (& I seldom am) their Army consists of every able-bodied male (pigs!) citizen between 18 & 45 (just like our militia of the Militia Act of 179?) & they all have gov’t. issued H&K assault rifles & uniforms in their closets, yet we hear very little about the Swiss murder rate. (Could be a Right Wing media conspiracy, of course.)

I dunno.

I’m FOR: Waiting periods, background checks, mandatory training and certification, dealer oversight and enhanced punishment for gun crimes.

But I’m AGAINST: Magazine capacity limitations, banning one rifle because it’s scary looking while another of equal or greater capacity to inflict mass harm is allowed to be sold because it just looks less like a weapon of war, blanket handgun bans and mandatory gun locks.

I own guns. I like to own guns. And since I’ve seen what damage can be inflicted with guns, particularly on unarmed individuals, I am more than willing to accept outlaw status, but I WILL keep my firearms.

Most are just for fun, and I find my time at the range to be enjoyable and fulfilling. But the core of my “arsenal” is built around five very special weapons, selected and modified to serve particular purposes. And one of those purposes, should it come to pass, would be to stand against, harass and interdict and escape from jackbooted thugs in uniform.

Anybody’s uniform…

mikey

I’m late to this party but just want to add that I grew up in Grand Forks, ND and have shopped at Home of Economy.

The place is a total throwback. They have everything from clothing (picture ducks on chamois) to furniture to farm implements. They still have charge accounts where you tell the clerk your name and they write it up by hand on a charge slip. I love that place.

Our friend Mr. Port is quite typical of what I (somewhat) affectionately refer to as a “Spud Boy.” He most likely gets his hard news from Paul Harvey and Howard Stern. He probably has a hat that says “Git-er-done.”

There’s a reason I moved away from there as soon as I was humanly able.

I would just add, that there are progressives in ND, hell the state was practically socialist at one point (if you like obscure political history check out ND’s Non-Partisan League-a bunch of radical rabble rousers that led to the State Mill and the ND State Bank, a rather interesting story.) North Dakota is also home to Gordon Kahl, member of Posse Comitatus killed in a gun battle.

Is it really true that you can’t put toothpaste back into the tube?

Sadly, No!

You’re right about his gravitas, clearly. Looks to me like he weighs in somewhere in the 280-310 lb. category.

If I wanted to start trouble, I would go through Mikey’s latest comment and replace every occurrence of the word ‘gun’ with the word ‘shoe’.

Or ‘Mango’…

mikey

“Enhanced punishment for shoe crimes” sounds really …

Head hurtz.

You’ll want your own jackboots, for camouflage purposes.

Jackbooted thugs in uniform [bursting down door]: Mikey, we arrest you…
Mikey [wearing jackboots & blending in]: Dammit, he must have seen us coming and escaped out the window!
J.t.i.u.: After him, everyone!

[Exit Mikey, stage left, taking advantage of the confusion to change into running shoes].

Shit. Do they even make brownshirts in my size?

mikey

yet we hear very little about the Swiss murder rate.

That’s not because there isn’t one, it’s because we hear little of anything that happens outside our borders. In fact, in Switzerland, a place I have been to oodles of times, the fact that there is a gun in almost every house does mean that there are lots more family-squabble-turns-to-shooting incidents than in other, less gun-friendly countries. Which is hardly surprising, when you think about it.

People don’t own guns so they can admire them. Most guns go off from time to time.

Rob Port conducts an experiment to see if wearing his baseball cap backwards will make him look smarter

I once met a dumbass who bought faux eyeglasses hoping they would make her look smart.

The Second Amendment seems to envision an oppressive government disarming the people and hence making it impossible for them to fight against rebels and insurrectionists. It’s like a built-in defense: Hey, you can’t take my gun, because I might need it for counter-insurgency actions — not just hunting, not just vigilantism.

Well, there’s also the vision of an oppressive government disarming the people and hence making it impossible for them to oppose the oppressive government, i.e., limiting insurgency (not just counter-insurgency) actions.

I was discussing this with a non-rightwing libertarian friend this weekend (who agrees with the above point that the 2nd Amendment is necessary to permit the populace to overthrow the government if need be). He took the position that, even if you regard the 2nd Amendment as limiting the right to keep and bear arms to purposes of maintaining a militia, it is not necessarily a logical conclusion that arms-keepers and -bearers must be active members of a militia. In other words, you can justify gun keeping-and-bearing on the grounds that if a militia is ever necessary, you will be ready.

Upthread, someone said that “well regulated” requires government to be the regulator. I’m not sure I agree. I don’t think “regulated” here means “subject to regulations,” but rather “orderly,” particularly in the context of “well regulated.” The idea being that the founders wanted a populace that could form an effective fighting force as needed.

Here’s a thought on the language of “keep and bear” versus “own”: How about if the government offered weapons to the populace — anybody over 18 who wants one can have one, just sign up and you get a government-issued gun, registered to you and owned by the government (which would keep on file the results of ballistic testing so it could be identified and traced if used in a crime). Would that not be in keeping with the literal meaning of the 2nd Amendment, allowing the people to keep and bear arms? I’m always thinking….

Actually, I think the proper approach to take to guns is to analogize to free speech under the First Amendment, regarding which the Supreme Court has found some “time, place and manner” restrictions to be constitutionally acceptable. For instance, the government can require you to get a permit to stage a protest march, but it can’t deny you such a permit based on the content or subject matter of your protest. So instead of bans, governments should be trying to impose reasonable TPM restrictions on keeping and bearing arms — and maybe gun proponents should be willing to accept such restrictions the way we all have to accept TPM restrictions on free speech, freedom of religion, etc.

Bah, enough blathering. Back to work.

Actually, the Founders knew other sorts of “arms.” They knew about pikes, and swords, and all the other weapons to which the term “keep and bear arms” referred back in the Middle Ages when the phrase was first used at common law, in referring to various obligations/rights of a military nature. It always meant, to be capable of a military response. The phrase never meant guns or firearms specifically That is why the Second Amendment never mentions guns at all– though of course it does talk about a “free State’s” need for a “well regulated Militia.” The meaning of the Second Amendment is rather odd and anachronistic and even uncomfortable to contemplate, but it is not about guns.
Of course, when I made this common sense observation in a law review article I wrote a few years ago, innocently believing that my simple academic efforts were below the radar, I discovered how extensive the NRA’s reach can be. Wow, do they have well-organized email response teams! Presidential candidates could learn a trick or two from them.

I’m actually thinking we may need some well regulated Militias these days now that the Imperial Presidency is a reality.

Shorter Rob?
How are the negros going to kill each other off if we take away their guns? Everybody that lives in a city is a negro, right?

All I need to protect myself is a salad shooter with a full clip.

Actually in other countries where guns are banned namely the UK violent crimes are perpetrated with knives. They do not have school shootings they have school stabbings. This is so problematic that school uniforms are available with a kevlar lining.

Banning guns does not prevent crime or violence. Guns are just the Tivo of crime they allow you to skip the preliminries of being in close quarters and having to deal with the messiness of your homicidal insanity and get right to the super fun Tarantino-esque ultraviolence.

In the case of this writer I think either an axiom about stopped clocks or a dog’s butt seems appropriate.

I came here because I find the topic of gun control interesting and I congratulate those mature enough here to actually stay on the Second Amendment issue in this post. Those of you who find the subject of other blog sites interesting enough to comment on, should maybe comment on that site or maybe even write your own post on the Second Amendment.
Last I checked, one’s personal appearance has little or nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Just from reading all the comments here, it seems whenever the subject stayed on gun control someone would throw in a personal insult towards the other sites owner/author … almost as if, the insults were from the same ip but, sadly changing the name.
Sad little man you are Clif (if you are one that is), that you can’t write up your own post on gun control so, you take someone else’s and use it to personally attack the author just to get people to comment on something you put on this site. At the very least, you could have at least said your opinion on the originating site. No guts Clif?
Even though I came to comment on the Amendment issue, I now see it wasn’t your intent at all .. and, I will not take part in your arrogant and immature site.

If you really were to outlaw the stupid people they would probably go underground and form illegal gangs of retards.

In Britain they banned guns so bad that the Olympic team had to apply for a waiver to compete. And they experienced an INCREASE in illegal gun ownership and gun crime.