Archive for political apathy

Colorado is Pissed

Posted in Colorado, Concealed Carry, Firearms, Gun Control Debate, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on May 19, 2013 by blackshepherd

Right up front I need to say that I am trying as hard as I can to keep this blog apolitical. I want it to be welcoming to people of any and all political stripes. I truly believe that if I can get people to go to the range with someone competent then they will become responsible gun owners, at the very least responsible gun understanders. When it comes to the questions of politics, I default to the side of liberty, no matter which political party is on one side or the other. As a result, some of this post may seem to bash one political party. As one of my associates used to say after doing some business, “They brought that shit on themselves.”

I love Colorado. The weather is fantastic, the mountains are beautiful and the people here have a libertarian streak a mile-wide. They do not want anyone, especially the government, telling them how to live their lives whether that is prohibitions on marijuana or on firearms. Many citizens of Colorado feel betrayed by the recent passage of anti-gun legislation in the Colorado State House. Many long-time residents of the state are thoroughly confused about how such a thing could have even been proposed in Colorado, much less passed. The answer is demographics, political apathy, and underhanded political tactics.

I am going to eventually write a much longer post related to the demographics of Colorado. As in many states that are mostly rural, the politics of the state are dominated by the major metropolitan areas. The Denver area, especially when one includes Aurora, Boulder, and Ft. Collins, is experiencing some of the fastest population growth in the country. It votes towards the left wing. It is dragging a state that was thoroughly libertarian towards authoritarianism. When the recently passed gun-control legislation came before the state Senate only 90 minutes of testimony were allowed for each side of the debate. You see, the outcome was a foregone conclusion and those that had already made their decisions had other parts of an agenda to work on. A total of three hours was allowed to discuss limitations on a freedom named in the Bill of Rights. A freedom that Americans have died for since America was an idea and not a country. That is disgusting.

This sorry state of affairs came about because of political apathy. Normal citizens have lives to lead. They are busy trying to make a living, take care of their homes and feed their children. In Colorado the libertarian streak I wrote about plays a large part in how people relate to each other and the government. The typical attitude is, “Hey man, you don’t mess with me and I won’t mess with you, I might not even pay you that much attention.” Well, the state government has messed with people and they are furious. One of the best ways to get Americans to do something is to tell them they cannot (See Prohibition for historical reference). Anything that looks like an AR pattern rifle flies off of the shelves of gun stores. One has not been able to buy ammunition at normal cost for months. Most ammunition can be had but at double its normal price, and people are still buying it. The only thing in stock at most stores is 20 gauge target rounds and .270. Average people are stockpiling magazines whenever and wherever they can find them. This is indicative of a population that is distrustful of not just the government but what the future holds. I have never seen anything like it in my whole life.

In response to this widespread dissatisfaction with the recent gun legislation 54 of 64 Colorado county sheriffs have signed onto a federal lawsuit against the state of Colorado. The sheriffs are arguing that the new laws are in violation of the 2nd and 14th Amendments, as well as being nearly impossible to enforce.

“We each took an oath. The line in the sand has been drawn, and we will stand united,” said El Paso Sheriff, Terry Maketa

Hell yeah…

Sheriff’s lawsuit   Sheriff’s Lawsuit 2

Also in response to the nature of these laws, and the manner in which they were passed, efforts are underway to recall three state senators and one state representative who were integral to the process. True grass-roots efforts, started by folks that have no political experience, are underway to recall Colorado Senate President John Morse, State Senators Evie Hudak and Angela Giron, and State Representative Mike McLachlan. Efforts may also be in the offing to recall State Representative Rhonda Fields, who sponsored two of the recent gun bills. In order to recall a Colorado politician, the recall effort must get a number of valid signatures (real people of voting age that actually live in the district in question) to 25 percent of the total number of ballots cast in the election of the politician being recalled.

Senator Morse says he’s not worried:

“What they’re accusing us all of is passing sensible gun legislation that 90 percent of the public supports, so how does that work to get 50 percent to [vote for a] recall?” Morse asked.

I’ll tell you how it works Senator Morse, claiming that you had 90 percent of the public behind your proposals makes you a liar. I have personally met NO ONE that supports this gun control legislation. I live in a slightly more rural part of the state but it is it possible that I am only surrounded by the very small minority that is opposed to to this legislation? Conversely, everyone I engage in conversation on the topic is irate. Senator Morse, you knew that your claimed numbers of supporters was vastly exaggerated. You also knew that what support you did have was waning as the emotions from the Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings died down. That is why you rushed these laws through the process before the average citizen of Colorado knew what was happening. Prepare to reap what you have sown.

Senator Morse can claim that he is not worried but he should be. Yesterday I walked into a local gun shop in Colorado Springs. There was a very nice lady meeting people in the doorway and asking them to sign the recall petition. She was doing a booming business. I questioned her about the process and the issues. She was articulate and well-informed about all of the issues and the political process. She also said that the recall effort already has the requisite number of signatures. Now they are trying to collect extras to ensure a buffer in case any signatures are disallowed.  I explained that I do not live in the correct district to sign the petition but thanked her profusely for what she was doing. If this is the caliber of volunteer that is working on the recall, then Senator Morse should be very worried indeed. The recall efforts website is available here: Basic Freedom Defense Fund

Some of the other recall targets may be a little more concerned. Apparently Senator Evie Hudak had a conniption-fit about people collecting petition signatures outside of the grocery store where she shops. She complained to the store management, referring to the store as “my store.” Why should she understand the implications of the 1st Amendment when she certainly does not understand those of the 2nd Amendment?

State Representative Mike McLachlan is not a student of the US Constitution either. On his recall website he is quoted as saying:

“…the right of the First Amendment is not absolute. It is like every right in that in the proper circumstances the government may infringe, take away, or completely reduce that right.”

We discussed legitimate governmental restriction of rights in “Gun Debate Parts One and Two.” Legitimate restrictions are not what he was referring to. How the hell do these people get elected? Mostly political apathy. Hopefully that is a situation that is about to be rectified.

Colorado Recalls     Colorado Recalls 2

Advertisements

Gun Control Debate Part Three: The police are here to protect us.

Posted in Firearms, Gun Control Debate, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 9, 2013 by blackshepherd

Why do you need to own guns when there are police officers that are paid, trained and equipped to protect us?

Firstly, there is no legal duty for law enforcement to protect individuals. In the Supreme Court decision Castle Rock v. Gonzales (www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2004/3mer/…/2004-0278.mer.ami.pdf) the court ruled that police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm. Let me write that one more time. The police DO NOT have any duty to protect you, as an individual, from injury or death.

Does that mean that they will not? No, the vast majority of law enforcement officers are upstanding and decent members of the community who take their role within society very seriously.  I firmly believe that if a police officer is able to respond to a situation where a citizen is in danger, the majority will do everything in their power, up to and including sacrificing their own life, to aid that citizen. However, one cannot keep a police officer on their belt; they can keep a pistol there. One cannot keep a police officer in their home while they sleep, but they can keep a rifle or shotgun in the bedroom.

Unlike many movie depictions of violence, in the real world it happens suddenly, often with very little warning, and typically ends very quickly. Movie fights, where two men square off and pummel each other for minutes, very rarely happen in the real world. Movie fights in which one man prevails against multiple opponents are also very rare, there are simply too many tactical variables. Real world fights are typically over in a matter of seconds, with at least one of the combatants injured. If they involve any manner of weapons, it is possible to sustain debilitating and life threatening injuries very quickly. Therefore, if one is attacked a series of choices must be made very quickly. Producing a cell-phone and attempting to call the police will be very low on the priority list. If one is able to do so, how long will it take the police to get to your location? A few minutes? Certainly. More than ten minutes? Very probably.  Possibly even longer. It is likely that any violence will be over before law enforcement can respond. The police will arrive to investigate the crime scene, interview witnesses, and write reports. They will likely arrest the person who attacked you. The justice system will likely prosecute the perpetrators, they may even convict them. However, that is poor solace to you or your family if you are the victim of a debilitating injury or dead.

If you are not prepared to defend your life and your family are you worth defending? Are you willing to depend on the capricious mercies of someone who is willing to threaten others with injury or death? Please do not take this to mean that I believe we live in some manner of dystopian society where everyone is in grave danger at any time. However, criminals do walk among us. It is often hard for right-thinking citizens to understand that people who are willing to injure, rob, and kill others for trifles are out there, but they are. This is not paranoia or fear but a simple fact of existence for human beings that live amongst other human beings. If you do not believe me, go to your local police department and ask to read the last three months’ worth of police reports covering violent crimes.

Yet another presupposition inherent to this argument is that police are somehow more qualified to protect citizens than citizens are to protect themselves. Are the police trained to use firearms? Yes they are. However, many police officers are not shooters. They carry weapons on a daily basis but often only shoot required departmental qualifications once or twice a year, if that. Funding for additional training and ammunition often comes out of their own pocket and many are just not interested. There are many diverse skills required of a good police officer and shooting is not high on the list. For the average police officer the ability to read and deal with people without resorting to violence is more important than anything else. For the average citizen the decision to arm themselves is a life changing one, especially for those that choose to legally carry a concealed firearm. Many shoot recreationally and often choose to pay for their own training. This is not to say that every armed citizen is an Army Ranger but many are equally proficient in the defensive use of firearms, or more proficient, than your average law enforcement officer.  I do not believe that just because everyone has the right to carry a gun that they should carry a gun.  Carrying a deadly weapon is, and should be, a serious commitment in time and training. People that carry guns should invest the time to become proficient in their use and more importantly understand their personal abilities and limitations.

Another consideration between the armed citizen and the police is variations within tactical training. The armed civilian can limit their anticipated use of a firearm to immediate defense of themselves and those around them, anything else would be unlawful. This means that the armed civilian can focus their tactical training to a very narrow range of scenarios. Given that limited focus of training it becomes easier for the average person to become proficient with their weapon in a given set of scenarios. The police officer must be trained on a much wider variety of potential scenarios and legal use of force. Law enforcement officers must train for immediate defensive usage of a firearm as well as their other issued weapons. They must also be prepared for encounters outside of the purview of the average citizen such as official encounter that become suddenly violent, or the pursuit of suspects known to be dangerous or armed. This means that a police officer’s training time is varied amongst multiple scenarios and the correct responses to each.

                Many people who believe that police officers are there to protect them have never spoken with an actual police officer, other than receiving a traffic ticket. These people cannot see past the uniform, the badge, and the gun belt; the overt symbols of authority and force.  I guarantee that there is a cop bar in your town. Go there, buy a police officer a drink or two and get them to talk about their job. You will learn more about the world you live in and you will show some respect for the people that are doing their best to guard the flock. Keep in mind that certain questions along the vein of; “have you ever killed/shot/tasered/pepper-sprayed-anyone?” are not acceptable queries for someone you just met. That kind of question will likely result in two courses of action. If the police officer is a nice guy he will tell you increasing outlandish stories to see how much you will believe. Since you have already proven yourself a rube by asking a ridiculous question this will likely go on some time. If the officer is more like my cop buddies, he will likely launch into a sarcasm and profanity laced dressing-down that will ruin your self esteem. If you have never been cussed out by a master this may be worth the price of admission but the long-term damage to your feelings may be too much to bear. This idea is not limited to bars.  Find the local police officer at church, at the gym, at the local firing range, anywhere that you can. Be friendly, be polite, try to learn something. Hey, you might even get yourself out of that next traffic ticket…

For a well-written and insightful view of police work, please see chris hernandez’s series “What Police Work is Really Like” here: http://chrishernandezauthor.com/

So we let you keep your measly “assault rifles, “and “assault magazines.” What are you going to do with a few rifles against a government that has trained soldiers and police armed with automatic weapons, grenades, mortars, rockets, missiles, tanks, fighter aircraft, bombers, drones, battleships, aircraft carriers, and nuclear weapons?

I need to state right up front that I am in no way advocating the violent overthrow of the US Government. One of the quicker ways someone to aggravate me is to discuss such a thing lightly. What we have in America is too good and the idea of war within America too terrible for anything but the most sober of contemplation. Anything less is to do a disservice to all of the generations past and present that have spent their lives in the service of keeping America free. It also makes one sound more than a little detached from reality. However, the respectful discussion surrounding the hypothetical of a tyrannical government is central to the express purpose of the Second Amendment.

There is another side of detachment from reality. Over and over again professors, politicians, news people, and entertainment personalities attempt to throw cold water on the idea that Americans could ever again be forced to take up arms to ensure liberty. Their key arguments seem to revolve around ones very much like the one outlined above, “the government is far too powerful and any armed dissent will be crushed.” The other vein of argument is, “we are far too civilized for those war kinds of things.”

I am going to start with the last argument first; the suggestion that Americans are too well-educated, too aspirational, too well fed and entertained to ever again take up arms in rejection of oppression or tyranny. What wonderful times we live in. Days at the end of history where man has given up greed, jealousy, avarice, and the lust for power. When no man will ever again use his position for gain but only for the good of others. Operation Enduring Freedom must have been the war to end all wars. Once we wrap that one up, we can melt all of our weapons down to make playground equipment and put the military to work in the national parks.

                Wait, where have I read about this pinnacle of civilization before? Oh yeah, history! Right before World War II, right after World War I, before the American Civil War kicked off, after the French and Indian War, probably right before the Mayan and Aztec empires almost disappeared; we are not really sure though, they did not leave many records. Certainly before the Roman Empire fell apart; hell, there was probably some ancient Greek saying that war was over forever right after the Peace of Nicias. That is, until Alcibiades kicked it off again. History is replete with hundreds of examples but I trust that you take my point.

                The idea that mankind has developed to the point that we have overcome the nature of man is naked hubris. As long as people exist, there will be those who will do whatever it takes to be in charge, to have authority, to take more power. To ignore this fact is to ignore the nature of man and the institutions made by man. To pretend otherwise only proves that Americans have been so well protected, that as a population we have disengaged from both history and reality. Because of the effectiveness of both our military and police most citizens never have to worry about protecting themselves from danger. Our society has contracted violence to others. As a result, people are free to hold ridiculous opinions such as: “America is too modern and civilized to ever have a government that would have anything but the citizen’s best interest at heart.” They are also free to talk about how much they support the military and police, just don’t let them get close enough so that we can see the blood on their clothes. If you hold these opinions I hope you never speak them out loud around any of my associates. They will not hurt you on principle but they are going to take your lunch money just to show you where you stand.

                To quote a fiction writer:

“Most civilization is based on cowardice. It’s so easy to civilize by teaching cowardice. You water down the standards which would lead to bravery. You restrain the will. You regulate the appetites. You fence in the horizons. You make a law for every movement. You deny the existence of chaos. You teach even the children to breathe slowly. You tame.”
― Frank Herbert

I don’t really believe that Americans have become so “civilized,” that we would not take up arms to right serious wrongs. Personally, I hope that I will never become so civilized that I would hesitate to do justified violence in order to defend myself, my family, my friends, and my country. If America as a totality ever does reach that point of “civilization,” then a culture less civilized will come here, hit us in the head with rocks, and we can go to our deaths knowing that we were more civilized than they. The idea that we as people have become so advanced that tyranny can never again take hold is ludicrous.

The more commonly invoked argument involves the federal or state governments using overwhelming force and weaponry to crush any revolution. This is not a new argument. Prior to the American Revolution many were afraid, rightly so, of the might of the British Empire.  To them Patrick Henry said:

“Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Beside, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of Nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.”

There are a few pre-suppositions inherent to the idea of overwhelming governmental force. The first is that it would be necessary for an armed citizenry to actively revolt against the government in order to act as a brake on tyranny. Second, that if such a revolt did occur, that the majority of government security forces i.e the military and police, would use lethal force against it. Thirdly, that if security forces did elect to oppose a revolt, that they would be willing or able to use the full force of available weaponry against other Americans.

                Firstly, the knowledge that a citizenry is armed poses a problem for any that would dictate to them. History is replete with examples of sovereigns and governments disarming the populace in furtherance of expanding power over that populace. Politicians moderate their decisions with the full knowledge that if the populace is armed there is a final safety valve for freedom. An old saying goes that freedoms exist in the ballot box, the soap box, and the gun box. The gun box is last for good reason. In the United States a citizen has the opportunity to exercise all of their rights, until they cannot. In his dissent to the Silveria v. Locker decision Ninth Circuit Court Judge Alex Kozinski wrote:

“The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.”

I cannot state it any more eloquently than that.

 No right thinking person wants to engage in a war on their own soil, against their own government. Only those who have never seen war can even discuss it without feeling a portion of the profound sadness at the actions that such events would necessitate. No loyal citizen US citizen would even consider such a thing unless they had exhausted all other legal and Constitutional remedies in the pursuit of freedom. However, our forefathers adopted the entire Bill of Rights as an acknowledgement that men are not angels and tyranny does exist in the world. The Bill of Rights must be exercised and preserved as a whole. Each freedom defends the others. However, in extremes sometimes violence is the answer; when it is the answer, there is no other. If the state controls the tools of legitimate violence, firearms, then there is no method of redress.

                                Secondly, to imagine that the military and police would actively deploy force against the American populace is a bold assumption. Even if your average armchair anarchist does not understand the horrors of war, the security infrastructure does. Those in service to the country take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. It is their duty to disobey orders that are immoral or un-Constitutional. Many take that oath very seriously and are unlikely to break it.

                There is a worldview that believes the government to be nearly omnipotent. People that hold to this view believe that the military is able to destroy any opponent at will. They believe that the CIA and the NSA are omniscient. Anything that we write on the internet or talk about on the phone is recorded, analyzed, and data-mined. Many times these same people believe that the government will be there to take care of them when the worst happens. What these people fail to understand is that governments, at the molecular level, are made of people. People that make mistakes, people that are bad at their job, people that really want the best for everyone but do not know what that is or how to make it happen. In our example, all of these people are American. Do you really believe that all government employees, or even a majority of government employees are going to engage in repression of the general population? If you do, you are no student of history.

89-63_tank_man_-_web

Finally, assume that the majority of the security infrastructure does believe that it is necessary, for the preservation of the union, to take up arms against their countrymen. Military doctrine would dictate using the minimum force necessary to effect an end to the revolt. It is ineffective to kill or injure non-combatants, especially in your own country. It is not wise to destroy agricultural or urban infrastructure. Reconciliation would be the ultimate goal. All of these points indicate that the use of heavy weapons would be limited to named individuals and limited targets. Without wide usage of heavy weapons, military and police operations would be counter-insurgency similar to what has taken place in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and in Iraq. How did those wars work out for us?

If this sorry state of affairs did come to pass then the security forces of the United States would be dealing with an insurgency that is better armed, and better educated than in any of the three previous examples. History has proven over and over again that American citizens make great soldiers. Check out every American war prior to the institution of the all-volunteer force. Americans naturally take to soldiering. The reason that insurgency was and is the doctrine of choice for our enemies in recent wars is because it is effective. An insurgency negates many of the advantages of high-tech, well trained militaries. All of the weapons and gadgets in the world are worthless if they cannot be directed to the right target. You cannot convince me that the average American is less capable, resourceful, and determined than others that have stymied the full might of the United States.

I don’t want any part of that war, on either side. I don’t think anyone else does either and that is kind of the point.

Gun Control Debate Part One: Where is your militia?

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 28, 2013 by blackshepherd

In the following posts I have highlighted typical arguments from gun-control advocates in green text. I did not make these up, they are verbatim from personal conversations or cut and pasted from internet comments.What I believe to be reasonable responses to these arguments are below them. In light of what I have written so far this will probably become at least a five part series.

Please feel free to point out errors in my logic or disagreements with my conclusions. I want to emphasize throughout that education is the cure to ignorance. The only evil in ignorance is not rectifying it. If anything that I write strikes up some cognitive dissonance please look inward and find the source of discomfort. These are your birthrights people, learn what they mean.

 

So you’ve got “Second Amendment” rights? Where’s the rest of your militia?

The right to bear arms is predicated on the necessity of a well-regulated militia.  We keep arms in a well-regulated militia i.e. law enforcement, and the National Guard.

Let’s start with the actual text of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

“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.”

Much debate about the meaning of the amendment seems to derive from the comma following the first clause. I will refer to the Supreme Court decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller available here: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf 

“The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederal-ists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

If you would like to argue the academic faculties and research capabilities of the Supreme Court that is your prerogative. However, I think it is fairly straightforward. The 2008 Heller v. Washington DC decision reaffirmed that the right to bear arms was an individual right. The 2010 McDonald v. Chicago decision reaffirmed that decision and made clear that it applies to every state, every city and every town in the United States. The militia refers to every citizen of the United States of America. Not the National Guard, not the Reserves, not any federal, state, or local law enforcement agency.

So there you go, fairly straightforward.

When the Constitution was written there were only one-shot guns and rifles with a three-minute time to reload.

The authors of the Constitution had no inkling of the possibilities of advanced weaponry such as automatic weapons and multiple round magazines.

To limit the Second Amendment to muzzle-loading weapons would be the equivalent of limiting the First Amendment to writings produced by quill pens and hand-cranked printing presses. No internet, television, newspapers, radio or any other form of mass communication would be protected. By all means neo-Luddites, pull your soapbox out onto the street corner and start spreading the word.  It is clear that the Bill of Rights applies to modern technologies.

In addition the premises of this argument are faulty. The great majority of volunteers involved in the American Revolution were armed with weapons which were the cutting edge of technology. The guns were often superior to what the British regulars were armed with. They were desperately short of bayonets which did turn the tide in several battles, especially early in the revolution. However, if you think it took a man whose livelihood or life depended on his weapons three minutes to load his rifle then you need to do some additional research.

I suggest starting here: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=searchalias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=paul%20revere%27s%20ride&sprefix=paul+revere%27s+%2Cstripbooks&rh=i%3Astripbooks%2Ck%3Apaul%20revere%27s%20ride

Anyway, since when is the Constitution written in stone? The Constitution has been changed dozens of times since 1787. They call those things at the end “amendments” for a reason. We’ve made changes in the right to vote, the right to own slaves, the right to buy and sell alcohol.

If, as gun control advocates claim, gun control laws really do control guns and save lives, there is nothing to prevent repealing the Second Amendment, any more than there was anything to prevent repealing the Eighteenth Amendment that created Prohibition.

If one truly believes that gun ownership is evil, your only ethical course of action is to remove the 2nd amendment altogether. And there is a reason that altering amendments is very, very difficult to do. But hey, if the vast majority of Americans believe as you claim then you should have no problem voting out the 2nd amendment. Good luck! In the meantime stop trying to legislate away the rights you don’t care for in a piecemeal manner.

You can’t shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater.

 You have the right to practice your religion, but not if your religion involves human sacrifice. You have the right to free speech, but you can still be prosecuted for incitement or conspiracy, and you can be sued for libel.

What they are trying to say is: All rights come with responsibilities and limitations.

They are correct, every right is subject to limitation when it begins to threaten others, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that even though there is an individual right to gun ownership, the government can put reasonable restrictions on that right.

Again from Heller:

“(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpre­tation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

        Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con­cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire­arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

So, the argument begins to become, “what are reasonable restrictions on arms?”

To be explored in the next section.

 

 

Common Sense

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 24, 2013 by blackshepherd

I don’t know who writes the talking points in Washington D. C. but they must be getting paid well. One cannot open a newspaper, traverse the internet, or turn on a television without hearing a politician or lobbyist using the phrase “common sense,” in reference to some aspect of proposed gun control legislation.

Well, as my grandmother always says, “Common sense ain’t that common.” Here are a few things that common sense dictates to me:

Criminals don’t do background checks; neither do crazy people.

Criminals and crazy people don’t care if they are breaking the law because they are either criminals or crazy.

The law-abiding are just that, law-abiding, leave us alone.

If you think that peaceful citizen’s guns are dangerous to you- you are either a criminal, crazy, or possibly a politician.

If you are a criminal, crazy, or a politician, we hope citizen’s guns do give you pause.

If you work in the entertainment industry no one cares what you think. Shut up and make us laugh clown. Seriously, I don’t take life advice from court jesters.

If someone is broke from buying guns and ammo then they are not the ones that criminals want to rob.

Your opinion has no effect on natural rights, take it elsewhere.

Your emotions have no effect on natural rights; tell it to someone who gets paid to hear it.

A decision based on emotion is not a decision; it is a reaction.

If you are old, disabled, or a woman you do not win physical fights with the people that commit crimes; get a gun and learn how to use it.

If you are a man, you are responsible for all of the people listed above; get a gun and learn how to use it.

Politicians and lobbyist that have never fired a gun have no business telling us about guns.

Politicians and lobbyist that have never had to defend themselves with a gun have no business telling us how to do so.

People with paid security, who have guns, have no business telling us about guns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg

If you have a concealed carry permit for personal protection but do not believe that the great unwashed should http://www.mrctv.org/videos/feinstein-1995-her-concealed-carry-permit-i-know-urge-arm-yourself-because-thats-what-i-did, move to Europe.

If you claim to be a firearms expert but don’t know that magazines can be re-used; http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_22971620/inaccurate-remarks-gun-magazines-put-rep-diana-degetteor  Or think that a barrel shroud is the “shoulder thing that goes up;” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zptNB4tkqDY you have no business calling yourself an expert.

If you don’t know the difference between semi-automatic and automatic weapons it is time to educate yourself.

If you think that a “clip” is any part of a modern firearm; educate yourself first, then consider having an opinion, or not.

If you think pissing yourself is rape avoidance, I pray that you never have to test the theory. http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/20/justice/colorado-rape-prevention-guidelines

If you think that the “AR” in AR-15 stands for “assault rifle,” do some research.

If you think that an AR-15 is a bullet spraying, demon possessed, instant death machine; get thee to the range.

If you think you understand guns because you have seen a lot of movies you probably also think you can ride a horse, win a fist fight or fly an airplane for the same reason; go pay someone to train you.

If you think that they were called “Minutemen” because that is how long it took to them to load their rifles; go read a goddamn book. http://www.amazon.com/Paul-Reveres-David-Hackett-Fischer/dp/0195098315/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1366586304&sr=1-1&keywords=paul+revere%27s+ride

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. The American Revolutionaries and framers of the Constitution had just defeated the might of the British Empire; they were not worried about being tyrannized by herds of whitetail deer.

If you think that the government has your best interest at heart; go talk to a combat veteran

In fact, if you have never talked to a combat veteran; talk to a combat veteran

If you think that the government cannot break down in an instant; talk to someone that was in New Orleans when Katrina hit.

If you think that the US government will not tyrannize citizens, talk to the ancestors of the Five Civilized Tribes, or the Bonus Army; talk to the Nisei, or the Freedom Marchers.

http://www.nps.gov/trte/index.htm http://www.ushistory.org/us/48c.asp http://caamedia.org/jainternment/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches

Other people are keeping you safe; they have guns.

If you have never been involved in a physical assault; hug the nearest police officer, buy the nearest veteran a drink, and then shut the fuck up.

Anti-gun proponents seem to be either stupid or lying, the last time that I checked the Ivy League was not graduating a lot of stupid people; draw your own conclusions.

Politicians of any stripe have no business telling us what we do or do not “need” in relation to anything; fuck off!