I know plenty of friends on the Right who also think gun control should be more strict. I applaud these 15 states. Listen to the parents of the victims. I guarantee not all of them lean to the Left. They just know how devastating it is to lose children. And, some common sense laws can be adopted to help prevent that devastation.
What laws that were being considered would you consider common sense? Gun violence/deaths cause by AR-15 style rifles are a fraction of a percent yet that was still the #1 rallying cry of the gun-control movement. Or what about banning types of guns based purely on cosmetics (pistol grips etc.)?
And that is essentially the problem with the gun-control movement that is so glaringly apparent to gun-rights advocates and ludicrously dismissed by the gun-control movement. What it comes down to is that the gun-control movement will never stop clawing at the 2nd amendment until it’s been pulverized. Picking away at it slowly and gradually in any way they can.
That’s why you see (or don’t see) Obama doing whatever he can, like the M1 Garand ban and the ban of imports of military surplus weapons 50 years or older. Actions like that literally do nothing to stop gun violence/crime. It only hurts collectors and very slightly erodes gun ownership.
A poll can always be worded in such a way as to give the desired result, sometimes with huge margins. The poll on universal background checks is a great example of that. This is just another push to go after gun rights by the intolerant, anti-liberty bigots at Johns Hopkins.
Gun violence, damages and exposures to various costs (do you think Sandy Hook School will get sued and does its policy cover the costs?)are significant issues to be covered by an insurance publication.
Rather than assert Left Wing Bias, facts, data or evidence to refute the ones offered would be appreciated.
My Daddy always said, if you have the facts in your favor, argue the facts. If you don’t have the facts in your favor, argue the law. If you don’t have the facts or the law, attack your opponent.
Fact, This article as much as you would like it to, is not related to the school being sued or related in any way to the coverage being denied. Those are facts just read the article. This was written by left wing nuts who do not really understand that the solution they want. I will give you this, Your Dad was right and you are wrong! With regards to the arguing the law, The 2nd amendment, is definitely the law of the land. You might also want to research the definition of a “Right” to bear arms as opposed to a “Priviledge” to bear arms. WE HAVE A “RIGHT” TO BEAR ARMS AND SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON! Those are the laws and the facts.
If you are going to quote a law, quote the entire law:
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.
Please tell me with what well-regulated militia are you a member? Then you have the right to bear arms.
Before you try to attack me for being an anti-gun, freedom hating Liberal, I am for the 2nd amendment and believe all law abiding adult citizens have the right to own guns, within reason. I am just making a point about interpreting the law as it was written.
In modern English punctuation and usage, the 2nd amendment should be understood as “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.”
The part before the comma explains the second part but does not change its meaning. It could say “Because King George is a doodyhead, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” and the impact on the law would not change.
And per the Militia acts of 1792 and 1872, every able-bodied male citizen between the ages of 18 and 54 is a member of the unorganized militia of the United States.
The Militia Act of 1792 provided for the organization of the state militias and provided for the President of the United States to take command of the state militias in times of imminent invasion or insurrection.
The Militia Act of 1862 allowed blacks to participate as soldiers for the first time.
The 4th Amendment and these subsequent acts were put in place before the country had an organized military. It has nothing to do with the redneck down the street owing an assault weapon or high capacity clip.
March 12, 2014 at 12:25 pm
txmouthbreatherboogereatertx says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ron,
This sounds like a quote from the Delta Delta Delta Sorority handbook.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, must include AK-47’s, AR-15”s, Red Rider BB Guns complete with a compass in the stock and thing which tells time. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
I think everyone should have the right to bare their arms anytime they want – winter or summer!
March 12, 2014 at 6:30 pm
Don't Call Me Shirley says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I have a pair of bear arms mounted on the wall.
March 12, 2014 at 4:15 pm
CW says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Remember what the Bill of Rights (and subsequent amendments) defines. They define our CIVILIAN Liberties. Trying to argue that Militia pertains to the military is an incorrect evaluation. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it describe what our rights are in the service of our country.
the 2nd amendment was written the way it was because the armed civilians of the time were integral in our eventual freedom.
The Bill of Rights defines our CIVIL liberties. The second amendment states:
“Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to national security, the right of the people to keep and bear arms may not be infringed.”
Just what do you think a militia is?
“A militia generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time soldiers.”
It was indeed the military of the day and the only reason for the second amendment. Our forefathers did not forsee it’s unintended consequences with assault rifles and other weapons and I doubt they would stand idly by and do nothing about it.
March 13, 2014 at 11:36 am
jfh1945 says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The points you argue here, and in subsequent replies are contrary to settled law.
See the USSC 2008 Heller and 2009 Macdonald decisions identifying the right to bear arms as an individual right apart from any militia requirements, and the incorporation of that finding in a DC case against all states.
That may be the case, but it doesn’t mean I agree with that decision. And case law can be challenged.
March 12, 2014 at 8:55 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“My Daddy always said, if you have the facts in your favor, argue the facts. If you don’t have the facts in your favor, argue the law. If you don’t have the facts or the law, attack your opponent.
If you look at the source of this supposed report you can see how biased it is. Johns Hopkins Center and Bloomberg never supported the reduction of violence, only the reduction of gun ownership.
If this were really “common sense” there would be little debate about it. Unless you feel that only those who agree with your opinion have said “common sense”. The fact that about half the country disagrees with you either means that half the country has no sense, or that the issue is more complex than you would care to admit.
March 14, 2014 at 9:21 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You mean to tell me that you argue a reduction in guns would NOT result in a reduction in violence?
If that’s the case, then yes, I would say you have no common sense.
March 14, 2014 at 11:58 am
DanDan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby,
I argue that an improperly focused reduction in firearms will not reduce firearm violence. For one clear example, you can reduce the number of “guns in circulation” by removing all police guns. That would reduce the number of guns, yet would likely increase violence, not reduce it. Removing guns from those that will not use them for violence in the first place will not significantly affect violence rates. This one example serves to clarify the fact that this is not as simple an equation as you would like us all to believe. In order to reduce violence, laws must focus on removing guns from violent people. That is much more difficult to achieve. So I repeat my assertion that the issue is more complex than you care to admit. Your assertion that I, and others who look for more rational and thoughtful solutions, have no common sense is baseless.
March 14, 2014 at 12:11 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
That was not my statement. I know guns will never be eradicated, but IF THEY WERE, there would definitely be a reduction in violence.
Argue that and you’re just plum crazy.
March 17, 2014 at 10:54 am
Destro says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Great Britain has effectively banned guns but they have a much higher per capita rate of assault and hot burglary (meaning they break into your home while you’re there.)
Common sense would dictate that if a criminal is certain that nobody is carrying a deadly weapon, they can more or less act with impunity from civilian retribution.
March 17, 2014 at 12:42 pm
WeNotYou says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
SCOTUS ruled…
“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
and
“The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”
US CODE defines militia as…
“(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”
March 14, 2014 at 12:45 pm
DanDan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Since you agree that guns can’t be eradicated, and you seem to agree that a partial reduction in guns will not necessarily reduce violence (depending on who the guns are taken from), then what exactly are you advocating?
I will go one step further and posit that a total eradication of guns would not necessarily reduce violence. We live in a relatively peaceful time in history. There were much more violent periods on this earth in the past before guns existed. Guns are used to enforce laws. They are used to protect against violence. Much of our current civilization is due to the power that guns confer on people. The key is to keep the balance of power in the hands of the just. Guns in the hands of the legitimate authority and in the hand of the responsible citizen are a net gain for civil society. Do you disagree?
No. I just don’t like guns and wish they were never invented. Now that they are, I’m not advocating anything. Just a eutopia where they didn’t exist.
March 14, 2014 at 4:22 pm
DanDan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Fair enough. Although I think that the utopia you seek would require a change in human nature. We’re working on it, but it takes a long time. Until then we do the best with what we’ve got. Thanks for the discussion.
March 12, 2014 at 12:46 pm
Gun Owner says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, I would argue the opposite correlation. Do you have facts to support your statement?
I do not believe that a reduction of guns would result in a reduction of violence. Even if it did, I would be negligible in my option. People who choose to be violent can and will be violent regardless of having a gun or not. They will just choose a different tool and/or method to perpetuate said violence if a gun is not available.
“Source: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health”
Money can purchase whatever you want it to say. Even “Science” can be bought. All propaganda purchased by a billionaire with an agenda.
“Philanthropist and New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has committed $350 million to Johns Hopkins University, anchoring a major initiative aimed at bringing significant innovation to U.S. higher education. The total commitment – the largest ever to the university – lifts Bloomberg’s lifetime giving to Johns Hopkins beyond $1 billion.”
It’s interesting that they comment on Illinois strengthening their background check law, but fail to mention the court ordered carry permit system. And they went right from no permits at all to a shall issue permit.
Looks like every entity providing input to this article have an anti-gun slant.
It is doubtful that most of the new anti gun laws would have prevented what happened in CT!
It is interesting that this is a political issue with divisions falling primarily along party lines and yet nobody has released their study of the political affiliations of the criminals using guns. I’m sure one has been done because it would be great to point to the right-wing gun nuts and say they are responsible for gun violence. The silence on this aspect of the problem speaks volumes to me.
I wish I could remember the source but read somewhere recently that the vast majority of the young school shooters were in fact card carrying liberal democrats. Guess that is why the media never reports on this aspect of the story.
It has been rarely reported and very downplayed if it ever does. And the phrase “card carrying” is more so meant to mean obviously outspoken or provably something (usually party affiliation).
And it is true that all of the recent school shooters (irresponsibly)given all this media attention have been shown through their social media sites to either be avowed socialists/liberals or to have been espousing socialist beliefs and views.
Um, how can a person not old enough to vote be a “card carrying liberal”?
I’m thinking of the kids who are middle school and high school student who shoot their classmates. I think there have been more of those types of shootings than the Sandy Hook shooter who was neither a student nor an employee. I don’t have facts to site, just trying to go by memory.
Their social media (facebook, etc.) have all shown to have been either identifying themselves as “socialist,” “left-wing,” or “liberal” and many of their posts were espousing socialist/liberal views.
I’m not trying to be partisan, but those are the facts. I’m not saying every single one, but at least upwards of 94%+ of them
“Well Regulated” at the time meant well equipped
“Shall Not Be Infringed” means exactly that and the US Constitution is The Law Of The Land, get used to it.
If you dig into this web site’s ownership you will find links to Obama Department of Propaganda
Just a little online Wiki research could shed some doubt on the source used in this article:
[QUOTE] Originally named the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, the school was founded in 1916 by William H. Welch with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. The school was renamed the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health on April 20, 2001 in honor of Michael Bloomberg (founder of the eponymous media company) for his financial support and commitment to the school and Johns Hopkins University. Bloomberg has donated a total of $1.1 billion to Johns Hopkins University over a period of several decades. [/QUOTE]
Media magnet and [former] New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is the face of unrepentant gun control in America. Certainly his $1.1 billion ‘contribution’ was meant to further his life long quest to outlaw all guns among all law abiding and responsible citizens, just as he did in New York City. This article, perhaps well intended, should be looked at with extreme objectivity.
The insurance industry can better aid the industry cause and the safety of clients by promoting safe and secure gun storage at home, personal safety and security training in public, and promoting greater funding for mental health at the community level.
But even more states have loosened gun laws. Despite what Johns Hopkins (aka Bloomberg’s latest PR wing) says, gun rights are winning in this country. Keep up the good work America, protect our freedoms!
Why is the constitutional phrase “keep and bear arms” routinely interpreted to mean “keep and bear guns”?
Shouldn’t I have the right to own any military grade weaponry, including artillary, military aircraft, armored vehicles, smart bombs, land and underwater mines, nuclear weapons, etc?
If not, what exactly is the purpose of the second amendment?
As far as I know, only Michigan outlaws the personal ownership of vehicles designed for “defense or attack”. (1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 CL 1948, 750.421. Check your local laws, but I think you can buy one if you have the money.
At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)).
Even Ginsburg in her Heller v. DC dissenting opinion defined it correctly.
You don’t “bear” or “carry” any vehicles etc. Facetious much?
I don’t recognize your name, Ricebrnr, so I guess you’re new. Said in jest without serious intent is the norm here. Especially when people get so uptight. It diffuses the tension.
However, I really would like an armored vehicle, but I don’t have the $$. Too bad.
Ive heard this shop worn stuff for so long. You and your ilk are wrong. Google the facts. With the exception of nukes, all of the above weapons CAN be legally owned. They cost a lot and are regulated. But you have a right to own them as long as they have no live ordnance. I know people who legally own artillery, military aircraft, armored vehicles, smart bombs, land and underwater mines. It’s their right.
Bottom line here folks…they will NEVER get guns out of the hands of criminals. What is so difficult to understand here? These types of heinous crimes are not committed by law-abiding gun owners. You do the math—how many shootings have occurred since 12/14/12 by law-abiding gun owners? How many have occurred by nut-case criminals? I’d say the latter is a much higher number. And, I grew up in Newtown, CT. It is the absolute best town that anyone can ever hope to have grown up in and to have a family of their own in. When the EFF are people going to stop defining my beautiful hometown by the nut-job a-hole who did this (I refuse to even say his name)??
Ralph Nader began blaming the car in 1965. That’s actually gone on quite a while and cars are safer, I guess.
But just wait about 5 years — and we’ll blame the drivers again–so much so that all of us won’t be able to drive our own cars –the government will do it for us and silicon valley investors will make billions on “self-driving” technology. (You didn’t think Google was messing with this technology for fun, did you?).
But first must come the demonization of “analog” driven cars. Look what they’ve done with “second-hand smoke”.
Good god. Knee-jerk reactions from individuals anesthetized by Fox News [sic]. “Them thar libruls at the university are makin’ stuff up ‘gin. Maggie, make me a sammich!” Cognitive dissonance much? What is particularly liberal about the following conclusion, based on the data? ““In fact, a key takeaway of this publication is that a data-driven approach to firearms policy whereby individuals with a history of violence or other seriously dangerous behavior should be disqualified, even temporarily, from owning or purchasing firearms will reduce gun violence.” This is an empirical statement: preventing people with a history of violence from acquiring guns will reduce violence. Are you people seriously disputing this?
No one is disputing that, gun owners are all for it.
It’s when the “libruls” keep lumping those of us who don’t have such histories in with those that do, when y’all keep pushing fer laws that don’t make no sense and only work on them that were followin the laws in the first place,then we have problems with it, damn right.
If you don’t object to background checks, then you are in opposition to the NRA. That’s really all we are asking for. Some also want to prohibit certain rapid fire weapons. We currently ban machine guns. Do you favor that?
“..Background checks…that’s really all we’re asking for.”
If only that were true. The problem people have with the gun-control agenda is that there isn’t a “really all we’re asking for” approach. It’s a “really all we’re asking for right now” approach as they are constantly trying to do everything they can to disarm the average citizen.
That’s why during the last gun control push you saw Ted Cruz illustrate the absurdity of the reactionary proposed laws. Laws proposed that would illegalize weapons based purely on cosmetic factors, such as a pistol-grip or other accessory that makes the gun look “scary” as well as guns in general that had a look to them (AK-47 rifles among a litany of other semi-automatic weapons.)
“Some also want to prohibit certain rapid fire weapons.”
Loosely throwing around the term rapid fire is problematic, by that logic all semi-automatic weapons could be considered rapid fire weapons. Why not ban all pistols? They are the cause of the majority of gun deaths. And if you’re going that route why not just go for a blanket gun ban? After all, isn’t that what the gun-control movement really wants?
Riiiight…that’s “all” gun control advocates want…if that’s the case why is whenever they “win” one they always say “it’s a good start”?
The end game is always no guns in the hands of law abiding citizens (not criminals mind you). Why are we so hard line?
WE ARE TIRED OF ALL OF THE “GOOD STARTS”. We’ve done compromise, we’ve done give them what they want. But as with all criminals, the more you give the more they take. This far and no further.
Why do Republicans make such silly comments as to lose all credibility?
“The end game is always no guns in the hands of law abiding citizens (not criminals mind you).”
Do you really think ANYONE is advocating for removing guns from all but the criminals? That we WANT criminals to have guns, but not law-abiding citizens?
This sums up the gay for pay that gun owners commit. Want to put an end to this dispute, don’t allow Wayne “Bill Lumbergh” LaPierre lobby for you and for those of us that aren’t Dooms Day Preppers. Weapons owners should want strict gun control if they want to be taken seriously. We have grocery stores that sell food, and gyms that you can get stronger and tougher all while losing your dicky do. There’s no need for a gun culture anymore, it’s 2014. You talk about a revolution because you want a revolution, there’s a black man in office remember. The 2nd amendment was partially created to keep slaves “in line”. Back then, small wanked WASPS would have no way to defend themselves for treating human beings like shit in South ‘Murrica.
So Um Yeah, Peter, I going to need you to come in on Saturday, and um yeah, have your TPS reports ready, you’ll be shooting a few scenes in the name of blocking gun control, yeahhhhh.
God bless these United States and God Bless the 3rd Amendment!!!!
The 3rd Amendment — as in “there will be no quartering of troops in private homes in time of war?” I think you meant the 2nd Amendment — between the 1st and the 3rd …
No I meant the 3rd amendment. Just another amendment to celebrate, maybe we should have rallies too. Maybe we should look deeper into the meaning of what No Quarter is not only a Zeppelin song, but it may also mean that we do not have to live in a militarized industrial complex nation or then have a ridiculous number of bases worldwide at the expense of the taxpayer. In turn, the tax payer is quartering by allowing this cash cow so that defense contractors can rake in the bucks. Just like the constitution specifically states that thou shall have AR’s and tanks, right?
“In fact, a key takeaway of this publication is that a data-driven approach to firearms policy whereby individuals with a history of violence or other seriously dangerous behavior should be disqualified, even temporarily, from owning or purchasing firearms will reduce gun violence.”
“temporary restrictions of up to five years on the purchase and possession of firearms by individuals convicted of violent misdemeanors, domestic violence, or more than one drug or alcohol conviction within a certain period.”
Its already illegal for any one who has committed domestic violence, aggravated assault, or has a drug problem to own a firearm. Simple assault will not bar ownership but you can get charged with simple assault for pushing someone or telling them you will do them harm.
Current federal law.
Those who can’t own a firearm. Not all of the reasons but those that apply here.
Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year;
Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders; and
Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance;
I think we can reduce the number of arson-related crimes by regulating and banning matches and lighters. Make them less easy to tear out a match from the4 rest of the book, or make the lighters harder to light and then when they create flames, they only stay lit for a couple of seconds. THESE are the ideas we need to reduce arson folks. Come on, it’s common sense, right?
Oooh, more ideas to reduce arson … let’s limit the number of matches each matchbook can hold to only 5 or 10 matches. How about limiting the amount of butane in a lighter? Or limiting the amount of lighter fluid one person can buy? These and other reasonable steps should collectively reduce arson, right? Guns cause crime the same way matches and lighters cause arson, right?
With the exception of nukes, all of the above weapons CAN be legally owned. They cost a lot and are regulated. But you have a right to own them as long as they have no live ordnance. I know people who legally own artillery, military aircraft, armored vehicles, smart bombs, land and underwater mines.
quote:
“..extend to the way we think about mental illness and gun violence,”
this points the direction of gun-control. eventually, gun owners
will be ‘suspected’ of being mentally ill, because only sick people
would want to own one; a medical work-around the Constitution.
IJ just can not help showing its left wing bias. How about sticking to Insurance instead of politics!
I know plenty of friends on the Right who also think gun control should be more strict. I applaud these 15 states. Listen to the parents of the victims. I guarantee not all of them lean to the Left. They just know how devastating it is to lose children. And, some common sense laws can be adopted to help prevent that devastation.
What laws that were being considered would you consider common sense? Gun violence/deaths cause by AR-15 style rifles are a fraction of a percent yet that was still the #1 rallying cry of the gun-control movement. Or what about banning types of guns based purely on cosmetics (pistol grips etc.)?
And that is essentially the problem with the gun-control movement that is so glaringly apparent to gun-rights advocates and ludicrously dismissed by the gun-control movement. What it comes down to is that the gun-control movement will never stop clawing at the 2nd amendment until it’s been pulverized. Picking away at it slowly and gradually in any way they can.
That’s why you see (or don’t see) Obama doing whatever he can, like the M1 Garand ban and the ban of imports of military surplus weapons 50 years or older. Actions like that literally do nothing to stop gun violence/crime. It only hurts collectors and very slightly erodes gun ownership.
A poll can always be worded in such a way as to give the desired result, sometimes with huge margins. The poll on universal background checks is a great example of that. This is just another push to go after gun rights by the intolerant, anti-liberty bigots at Johns Hopkins.
Gun violence, damages and exposures to various costs (do you think Sandy Hook School will get sued and does its policy cover the costs?)are significant issues to be covered by an insurance publication.
Rather than assert Left Wing Bias, facts, data or evidence to refute the ones offered would be appreciated.
My Daddy always said, if you have the facts in your favor, argue the facts. If you don’t have the facts in your favor, argue the law. If you don’t have the facts or the law, attack your opponent.
And you Sarah, are attacking your opponent.
Fact, This article as much as you would like it to, is not related to the school being sued or related in any way to the coverage being denied. Those are facts just read the article. This was written by left wing nuts who do not really understand that the solution they want. I will give you this, Your Dad was right and you are wrong! With regards to the arguing the law, The 2nd amendment, is definitely the law of the land. You might also want to research the definition of a “Right” to bear arms as opposed to a “Priviledge” to bear arms. WE HAVE A “RIGHT” TO BEAR ARMS AND SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON! Those are the laws and the facts.
Sarah,
If you are going to quote a law, quote the entire law:
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.
Please tell me with what well-regulated militia are you a member? Then you have the right to bear arms.
Before you try to attack me for being an anti-gun, freedom hating Liberal, I am for the 2nd amendment and believe all law abiding adult citizens have the right to own guns, within reason. I am just making a point about interpreting the law as it was written.
In modern English punctuation and usage, the 2nd amendment should be understood as “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.”
The part before the comma explains the second part but does not change its meaning. It could say “Because King George is a doodyhead, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” and the impact on the law would not change.
And per the Militia acts of 1792 and 1872, every able-bodied male citizen between the ages of 18 and 54 is a member of the unorganized militia of the United States.
Ratemaker,
How does unorganized equate to well regulated?
The Militia Act of 1792 provided for the organization of the state militias and provided for the President of the United States to take command of the state militias in times of imminent invasion or insurrection.
The Militia Act of 1862 allowed blacks to participate as soldiers for the first time.
The 4th Amendment and these subsequent acts were put in place before the country had an organized military. It has nothing to do with the redneck down the street owing an assault weapon or high capacity clip.
Ron,
This sounds like a quote from the Delta Delta Delta Sorority handbook.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, must include AK-47’s, AR-15”s, Red Rider BB Guns complete with a compass in the stock and thing which tells time. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
I think everyone should have the right to bare their arms anytime they want – winter or summer!
I have a pair of bear arms mounted on the wall.
Remember what the Bill of Rights (and subsequent amendments) defines. They define our CIVILIAN Liberties. Trying to argue that Militia pertains to the military is an incorrect evaluation. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it describe what our rights are in the service of our country.
the 2nd amendment was written the way it was because the armed civilians of the time were integral in our eventual freedom.
The Bill of Rights defines our CIVIL liberties. The second amendment states:
“Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to national security, the right of the people to keep and bear arms may not be infringed.”
Just what do you think a militia is?
“A militia generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time soldiers.”
It was indeed the military of the day and the only reason for the second amendment. Our forefathers did not forsee it’s unintended consequences with assault rifles and other weapons and I doubt they would stand idly by and do nothing about it.
The points you argue here, and in subsequent replies are contrary to settled law.
See the USSC 2008 Heller and 2009 Macdonald decisions identifying the right to bear arms as an individual right apart from any militia requirements, and the incorporation of that finding in a DC case against all states.
That may be the case, but it doesn’t mean I agree with that decision. And case law can be challenged.
“My Daddy always said, if you have the facts in your favor, argue the facts. If you don’t have the facts in your favor, argue the law. If you don’t have the facts or the law, attack your opponent.
And you Sarah, are attacking your opponent.”
Oh SNAP!
If you look at the source of this supposed report you can see how biased it is. Johns Hopkins Center and Bloomberg never supported the reduction of violence, only the reduction of gun ownership.
They go hand in hand, Eric.
I’d argue the opposite correlation. Do you have a source to support your statement?
A SOURCE that says a reduction in gun ownership would reduce violence??? How about common sense?
If this were really “common sense” there would be little debate about it. Unless you feel that only those who agree with your opinion have said “common sense”. The fact that about half the country disagrees with you either means that half the country has no sense, or that the issue is more complex than you would care to admit.
You mean to tell me that you argue a reduction in guns would NOT result in a reduction in violence?
If that’s the case, then yes, I would say you have no common sense.
Libby,
I argue that an improperly focused reduction in firearms will not reduce firearm violence. For one clear example, you can reduce the number of “guns in circulation” by removing all police guns. That would reduce the number of guns, yet would likely increase violence, not reduce it. Removing guns from those that will not use them for violence in the first place will not significantly affect violence rates. This one example serves to clarify the fact that this is not as simple an equation as you would like us all to believe. In order to reduce violence, laws must focus on removing guns from violent people. That is much more difficult to achieve. So I repeat my assertion that the issue is more complex than you care to admit. Your assertion that I, and others who look for more rational and thoughtful solutions, have no common sense is baseless.
That was not my statement. I know guns will never be eradicated, but IF THEY WERE, there would definitely be a reduction in violence.
Argue that and you’re just plum crazy.
Great Britain has effectively banned guns but they have a much higher per capita rate of assault and hot burglary (meaning they break into your home while you’re there.)
Common sense would dictate that if a criminal is certain that nobody is carrying a deadly weapon, they can more or less act with impunity from civilian retribution.
SCOTUS ruled…
“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
and
“The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”
US CODE defines militia as…
“(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”
Since you agree that guns can’t be eradicated, and you seem to agree that a partial reduction in guns will not necessarily reduce violence (depending on who the guns are taken from), then what exactly are you advocating?
I will go one step further and posit that a total eradication of guns would not necessarily reduce violence. We live in a relatively peaceful time in history. There were much more violent periods on this earth in the past before guns existed. Guns are used to enforce laws. They are used to protect against violence. Much of our current civilization is due to the power that guns confer on people. The key is to keep the balance of power in the hands of the just. Guns in the hands of the legitimate authority and in the hand of the responsible citizen are a net gain for civil society. Do you disagree?
No. I just don’t like guns and wish they were never invented. Now that they are, I’m not advocating anything. Just a eutopia where they didn’t exist.
Fair enough. Although I think that the utopia you seek would require a change in human nature. We’re working on it, but it takes a long time. Until then we do the best with what we’ve got. Thanks for the discussion.
Libby, I would argue the opposite correlation. Do you have facts to support your statement?
See above.
I do not believe that a reduction of guns would result in a reduction of violence. Even if it did, I would be negligible in my option. People who choose to be violent can and will be violent regardless of having a gun or not. They will just choose a different tool and/or method to perpetuate said violence if a gun is not available.
True, but it would be easier to defend yourself against a club or a knife than a gun. Just my opinion.
Since Libby cannot produce any credible data, allow me to present some that support why we are pro-gun.
Here was a study at Harvard. It concluded that gun control does not help reduce crime.
http://www.gunnews.com/harvard-study-gun-bans-dont-work/
A history of any kind? None of these steps would have stopped the mass shooting.
“Source: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health”
Money can purchase whatever you want it to say. Even “Science” can be bought. All propaganda purchased by a billionaire with an agenda.
“Philanthropist and New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has committed $350 million to Johns Hopkins University, anchoring a major initiative aimed at bringing significant innovation to U.S. higher education. The total commitment – the largest ever to the university – lifts Bloomberg’s lifetime giving to Johns Hopkins beyond $1 billion.”
It’s interesting that they comment on Illinois strengthening their background check law, but fail to mention the court ordered carry permit system. And they went right from no permits at all to a shall issue permit.
Looks like every entity providing input to this article have an anti-gun slant.
It is doubtful that most of the new anti gun laws would have prevented what happened in CT!
It is interesting that this is a political issue with divisions falling primarily along party lines and yet nobody has released their study of the political affiliations of the criminals using guns. I’m sure one has been done because it would be great to point to the right-wing gun nuts and say they are responsible for gun violence. The silence on this aspect of the problem speaks volumes to me.
No need for a study, soon BO & EH will give felons their vote back.
It will be easy to see what the party affiliation of choice for criminals will be then.
I wonder if these job creating frat boys will get their voting rights back.
http://www.badrepublicans.com/republican-hobbies.html
I wish I could remember the source but read somewhere recently that the vast majority of the young school shooters were in fact card carrying liberal democrats. Guess that is why the media never reports on this aspect of the story.
Sure,
If you do not have a source, do not state a fact. You just look like another right-wing tool.
Maybe it wasn’t reported because it isn’t true. Ever think of that?
It has been rarely reported and very downplayed if it ever does. And the phrase “card carrying” is more so meant to mean obviously outspoken or provably something (usually party affiliation).
And it is true that all of the recent school shooters (irresponsibly)given all this media attention have been shown through their social media sites to either be avowed socialists/liberals or to have been espousing socialist beliefs and views.
Um, how can a person not old enough to vote be a “card carrying liberal”?
I’m thinking of the kids who are middle school and high school student who shoot their classmates. I think there have been more of those types of shootings than the Sandy Hook shooter who was neither a student nor an employee. I don’t have facts to site, just trying to go by memory.
Their social media (facebook, etc.) have all shown to have been either identifying themselves as “socialist,” “left-wing,” or “liberal” and many of their posts were espousing socialist/liberal views.
I’m not trying to be partisan, but those are the facts. I’m not saying every single one, but at least upwards of 94%+ of them
Are you sure about that? Do you really want to go there?
“Well Regulated” at the time meant well equipped
“Shall Not Be Infringed” means exactly that and the US Constitution is The Law Of The Land, get used to it.
If you dig into this web site’s ownership you will find links to Obama Department of Propaganda
Obama Department of Propaganda? Are you serious? Time to take off the tin foil hat ensitue.
Libby, put down the Kool-Aid.
So how about we look at the WHOLE story instead of just cherry picking data to serve an anti-gun bias.
While “some” states became more restrictive, far more states became chose to strengthen peoples’ right to self defense. As reported in this article.
http://www.guns.com/2014/03/12/15-states-stricter-gun-control-since-newtown-even-loosened-restrictions/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=15-states-stricter-gun-control-since-newtown-even-loosened-restrictions
Just a little online Wiki research could shed some doubt on the source used in this article:
[QUOTE] Originally named the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, the school was founded in 1916 by William H. Welch with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. The school was renamed the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health on April 20, 2001 in honor of Michael Bloomberg (founder of the eponymous media company) for his financial support and commitment to the school and Johns Hopkins University. Bloomberg has donated a total of $1.1 billion to Johns Hopkins University over a period of several decades. [/QUOTE]
Media magnet and [former] New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is the face of unrepentant gun control in America. Certainly his $1.1 billion ‘contribution’ was meant to further his life long quest to outlaw all guns among all law abiding and responsible citizens, just as he did in New York City. This article, perhaps well intended, should be looked at with extreme objectivity.
The insurance industry can better aid the industry cause and the safety of clients by promoting safe and secure gun storage at home, personal safety and security training in public, and promoting greater funding for mental health at the community level.
these studies are liberal puke written by mentally ill academics…..funded by our tax dollars…imko
But even more states have loosened gun laws. Despite what Johns Hopkins (aka Bloomberg’s latest PR wing) says, gun rights are winning in this country. Keep up the good work America, protect our freedoms!
http://www.guns.com/2014/03/12/15-states-stricter-gun-control-since-newtown-even-loosened-restrictions/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=15-states-stricter-gun-control-since-newtown-even-loosened-restrictions
HAHAHAHAHA!!! How about “15 states have stricter gun control since Newtown, even more have loosened restrictions”?
Why is the constitutional phrase “keep and bear arms” routinely interpreted to mean “keep and bear guns”?
Shouldn’t I have the right to own any military grade weaponry, including artillary, military aircraft, armored vehicles, smart bombs, land and underwater mines, nuclear weapons, etc?
If not, what exactly is the purpose of the second amendment?
I want an armored vehicle.
As far as I know, only Michigan outlaws the personal ownership of vehicles designed for “defense or attack”. (1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 CL 1948, 750.421. Check your local laws, but I think you can buy one if you have the money.
At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)).
Even Ginsburg in her Heller v. DC dissenting opinion defined it correctly.
You don’t “bear” or “carry” any vehicles etc. Facetious much?
I don’t recognize your name, Ricebrnr, so I guess you’re new. Said in jest without serious intent is the norm here. Especially when people get so uptight. It diffuses the tension.
However, I really would like an armored vehicle, but I don’t have the $$. Too bad.
Ive heard this shop worn stuff for so long. You and your ilk are wrong. Google the facts. With the exception of nukes, all of the above weapons CAN be legally owned. They cost a lot and are regulated. But you have a right to own them as long as they have no live ordnance. I know people who legally own artillery, military aircraft, armored vehicles, smart bombs, land and underwater mines. It’s their right.
Bottom line here folks…they will NEVER get guns out of the hands of criminals. What is so difficult to understand here? These types of heinous crimes are not committed by law-abiding gun owners. You do the math—how many shootings have occurred since 12/14/12 by law-abiding gun owners? How many have occurred by nut-case criminals? I’d say the latter is a much higher number. And, I grew up in Newtown, CT. It is the absolute best town that anyone can ever hope to have grown up in and to have a family of their own in. When the EFF are people going to stop defining my beautiful hometown by the nut-job a-hole who did this (I refuse to even say his name)??
Newtown, is that you? Fairfield County, right? How are you doing these days?
My secret is out..!! Yes–Hi Libby! I am doing very well, thanks! And, you? How goes the battle?
Rats are winning! I got married in August, so that was a good thing! Glad to have you back. I’ll go easier on you now that I know it’s you!
Ditto!! Happy weekend!! Couldn’t get here soon enough that’s for sure…
Drunk driver kills someone…blame the driver.
Bomber blows up a building… blame the bomber.
Gun-man shoots someone… blame the gun.
I know it’s simplistic but it’s interesting.
Ralph Nader began blaming the car in 1965. That’s actually gone on quite a while and cars are safer, I guess.
But just wait about 5 years — and we’ll blame the drivers again–so much so that all of us won’t be able to drive our own cars –the government will do it for us and silicon valley investors will make billions on “self-driving” technology. (You didn’t think Google was messing with this technology for fun, did you?).
But first must come the demonization of “analog” driven cars. Look what they’ve done with “second-hand smoke”.
Good god. Knee-jerk reactions from individuals anesthetized by Fox News [sic]. “Them thar libruls at the university are makin’ stuff up ‘gin. Maggie, make me a sammich!” Cognitive dissonance much? What is particularly liberal about the following conclusion, based on the data? ““In fact, a key takeaway of this publication is that a data-driven approach to firearms policy whereby individuals with a history of violence or other seriously dangerous behavior should be disqualified, even temporarily, from owning or purchasing firearms will reduce gun violence.” This is an empirical statement: preventing people with a history of violence from acquiring guns will reduce violence. Are you people seriously disputing this?
No one is disputing that, gun owners are all for it.
It’s when the “libruls” keep lumping those of us who don’t have such histories in with those that do, when y’all keep pushing fer laws that don’t make no sense and only work on them that were followin the laws in the first place,then we have problems with it, damn right.
– from a former New York City yokel
If you don’t object to background checks, then you are in opposition to the NRA. That’s really all we are asking for. Some also want to prohibit certain rapid fire weapons. We currently ban machine guns. Do you favor that?
“..Background checks…that’s really all we’re asking for.”
If only that were true. The problem people have with the gun-control agenda is that there isn’t a “really all we’re asking for” approach. It’s a “really all we’re asking for right now” approach as they are constantly trying to do everything they can to disarm the average citizen.
That’s why during the last gun control push you saw Ted Cruz illustrate the absurdity of the reactionary proposed laws. Laws proposed that would illegalize weapons based purely on cosmetic factors, such as a pistol-grip or other accessory that makes the gun look “scary” as well as guns in general that had a look to them (AK-47 rifles among a litany of other semi-automatic weapons.)
“Some also want to prohibit certain rapid fire weapons.”
Loosely throwing around the term rapid fire is problematic, by that logic all semi-automatic weapons could be considered rapid fire weapons. Why not ban all pistols? They are the cause of the majority of gun deaths. And if you’re going that route why not just go for a blanket gun ban? After all, isn’t that what the gun-control movement really wants?
Riiiight…that’s “all” gun control advocates want…if that’s the case why is whenever they “win” one they always say “it’s a good start”?
The end game is always no guns in the hands of law abiding citizens (not criminals mind you). Why are we so hard line?
WE ARE TIRED OF ALL OF THE “GOOD STARTS”. We’ve done compromise, we’ve done give them what they want. But as with all criminals, the more you give the more they take. This far and no further.
Why do Republicans make such silly comments as to lose all credibility?
“The end game is always no guns in the hands of law abiding citizens (not criminals mind you).”
Do you really think ANYONE is advocating for removing guns from all but the criminals? That we WANT criminals to have guns, but not law-abiding citizens?
It’s just too stupid to be taken seriously.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRHU3suf-MA
This sums up the gay for pay that gun owners commit. Want to put an end to this dispute, don’t allow Wayne “Bill Lumbergh” LaPierre lobby for you and for those of us that aren’t Dooms Day Preppers. Weapons owners should want strict gun control if they want to be taken seriously. We have grocery stores that sell food, and gyms that you can get stronger and tougher all while losing your dicky do. There’s no need for a gun culture anymore, it’s 2014. You talk about a revolution because you want a revolution, there’s a black man in office remember. The 2nd amendment was partially created to keep slaves “in line”. Back then, small wanked WASPS would have no way to defend themselves for treating human beings like shit in South ‘Murrica.
So Um Yeah, Peter, I going to need you to come in on Saturday, and um yeah, have your TPS reports ready, you’ll be shooting a few scenes in the name of blocking gun control, yeahhhhh.
God bless these United States and God Bless the 3rd Amendment!!!!
The 3rd Amendment — as in “there will be no quartering of troops in private homes in time of war?” I think you meant the 2nd Amendment — between the 1st and the 3rd …
No I meant the 3rd amendment. Just another amendment to celebrate, maybe we should have rallies too. Maybe we should look deeper into the meaning of what No Quarter is not only a Zeppelin song, but it may also mean that we do not have to live in a militarized industrial complex nation or then have a ridiculous number of bases worldwide at the expense of the taxpayer. In turn, the tax payer is quartering by allowing this cash cow so that defense contractors can rake in the bucks. Just like the constitution specifically states that thou shall have AR’s and tanks, right?
That was probably the stupidest thing that I’ve read, next to your interpretation of the 3rd amendment.
“In fact, a key takeaway of this publication is that a data-driven approach to firearms policy whereby individuals with a history of violence or other seriously dangerous behavior should be disqualified, even temporarily, from owning or purchasing firearms will reduce gun violence.”
“temporary restrictions of up to five years on the purchase and possession of firearms by individuals convicted of violent misdemeanors, domestic violence, or more than one drug or alcohol conviction within a certain period.”
Its already illegal for any one who has committed domestic violence, aggravated assault, or has a drug problem to own a firearm. Simple assault will not bar ownership but you can get charged with simple assault for pushing someone or telling them you will do them harm.
Current federal law.
Those who can’t own a firearm. Not all of the reasons but those that apply here.
Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year;
Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders; and
Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance;
I think we can reduce the number of arson-related crimes by regulating and banning matches and lighters. Make them less easy to tear out a match from the4 rest of the book, or make the lighters harder to light and then when they create flames, they only stay lit for a couple of seconds. THESE are the ideas we need to reduce arson folks. Come on, it’s common sense, right?
Oooh, more ideas to reduce arson … let’s limit the number of matches each matchbook can hold to only 5 or 10 matches. How about limiting the amount of butane in a lighter? Or limiting the amount of lighter fluid one person can buy? These and other reasonable steps should collectively reduce arson, right? Guns cause crime the same way matches and lighters cause arson, right?
who is the author of this article??
who’s the author of this article??
With the exception of nukes, all of the above weapons CAN be legally owned. They cost a lot and are regulated. But you have a right to own them as long as they have no live ordnance. I know people who legally own artillery, military aircraft, armored vehicles, smart bombs, land and underwater mines.
quote:
“..extend to the way we think about mental illness and gun violence,”
this points the direction of gun-control. eventually, gun owners
will be ‘suspected’ of being mentally ill, because only sick people
would want to own one; a medical work-around the Constitution.