Good news: Bush’s DOJ files brief arguing against absolute Second Amendment right
posted at 3:15 pm on January 12, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Unsurprising. Not only has Bush never been a movement conservative but his DOJ’s understandably worried about the shock to the system if every gun law in the country simultaneously becomes unenforceable next summer. So they’re arguing for flexibility: Yes, it’s an individual right, yes, the burden on the government to interfere with that right should be high — but it shouldn’t be so high as to prevent the government from interfering altogether. Behold, the dreaded ad hoc balancing test:
Although the court of appeals correctly held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, it did not apply the correct standard for evaluating respondent’s Second Amendment claim. Like other provisions of the Constitution that secure individual rights, the Second Amendment’s protection of individual rights does not render all laws limiting gun ownership automatically invalid. To the contrary, the Second Amendment, properly construed, allows for reasonable regulation of firearms, must be interpreted in light of context and history, and is subject to important exceptions, such as the rule that convicted felons may be denied firearms because those persons have never been understood to be within the Amendment’s protections. Nothing in the Second Amendment properly understood—and certainly no principle necessary to decide this case—calls for invalidation of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms.
When, as here, a law directly limits the private possession of “Arms” in a way that has no grounding in Framing-era practice, the Second Amendment requires that the law be subject to heightened scrutiny that considers (a) the practical impact of the challenged restrictions
on the plaintiff ’s ability to possess firearms for lawful purposes (which depends in turn on the nature and functional adequacy of available alternatives), and (b) the strength of the government’s interest in enforcement of the relevant restriction… Under that intermediate
level of review, the “rigorousness” of the inquiry depends on the degree of the burden on protected conduct, and important regulatory interests are typically sufficient to justify reasonable restrictions.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »
In my Tennessee high school (1983-1986), the parking lot was full of trucks with shotguns and rifles in rear window racks. It was common for guys to hunt a little on their way home from school. We carried pocket knives, had a smoking area, and could keep Tylenol in our lockers if we wanted to. Everyone, including the females, took hunter safety in the 11th grade.
flyfisher on January 12, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Thats absurd to the point of being sick and twisted. First of all people with criminal intent don’t give a rats a$$ what the law does or does not say. They have zero problems getting guns and if they are of the inclination to use them in a crime all the gun laws on earth are not going to stop them. Second of all stripping any individual permanently of any right short of their conviction for murder or treason is so wrong that the founding father would have considered that idea treasonous.
I was convicted of felony illegal drug possession 25 years ago. Other than using drugs I was never a criminal, let alone a violent criminal. I have been clean for 10 years now. Yet according to I should never have the right to own a firearm. Pathetic, truly pathetic. Is my life any less valuable than your? Do I have any less right to protect myself or my property than you or anyone else? If you really think so than there is something very seriously wrong with you.
doriangrey on January 12, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Are you ready for some football?!?!!
Oh sorry, wrong thread.
CABE on January 12, 2008 at 5:21 PM
I still do, particularly as I use a blade often in my work. However, if a cop ever searches me and finds it, it’s considered a concealed weapon. Civil disobedience: It’s such a rush.
MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Ya, so many people are leaping to Bush’s defense here…
I, for one, have no problem with a Fred candidacy. In fact, all of the Republican candidates have at least touched on Federalism. That’s why all of the Republican candidates are far better than either of the Democrat candidates. Even Huckabee has proclaimed himself to be “a 10th Amendment conservative”. I would hapily support any of the five major Republican candidates, though I personally believe that Rudy is the best qualified. And I don’t like McCain but I understand that he’s still better than Obama or Clinton.
JohnJ on January 12, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Me too..my grandfather’s favorite Case knife
flyfisher on January 12, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Yes I know that and agree with you completely.
However once you say it is ok for criminials to purchase firmarms legally you start the same process all over again.
Look what happened with the V-Tech shootings,
Cho purchased his firearms legally, and because of it we have our governor trying to take my rights away.
The real story is that he should not have been able to purchase them legally, however he was able to because V-Tech/VA did not flag him as unstable in one of ten databases I mentioned.
I can see you half way and say no guns with a violent felony conviction or mentally unstable.
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 5:27 PM
The lesson of the Wild West is that when the law is nowhere to be found, firearms are the great equalizer that allow the innocent to defend themselves against those who would prey upon them.
FloatingRock on January 12, 2008 at 5:29 PM
Cold Steel. Few better built.
MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Government property? Don’t you mean “public” property? As in the property of the people?
FloatingRock on January 12, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Uh… excuse me, did I miss somthing in the framers intention?
The Framers put this in so the PEOPLE would have the means to resist a corrupt government…
So of course the “government’s interest in enforcement” should be taken into account…. NOT…
And since when do we speak of “the government” as if its an entity with a life of ITS own? That attitude right there is what truly worries me.
Romeo13 on January 12, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Indythinker,
AZ is another state that allows “open carry”. You want to see the “todays wild west” in pratice, go to the Tombstone AZ area.
Guns are everywhere, rifles mounted on the forks of motorcycles, residents (and visitors from VA) carrying on their hips, however you never hear of a shootout happening in Tombstone today just like you never hear of a shooting at a gun show.
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 5:37 PM
Where have we heard this argument before…oh, I know, gun control advocates, every time a state passes favorable laws for gunowners, particularly with conceal carry laws. Every time a law gets passed that favors gunowners, the Brady Bunch and VPC tell us its gonna become the Wild West, and it never friggin’ happens, if anything, crime stays neutral or drops.
doubleplusundead on January 12, 2008 at 5:37 PM
My cursory review of the Government’s brief leaves me with a feeling of a mixed bag. While the Solicitor General recognizes that the Second Amendment is a protection of an individual’s right to bear arms, and that the “prefacatory” militia language does not preclude an individual from bearing arms, his office makes a technical determination regarding the legal standard the Court should apply. To wit, pages 10-20 of the brief read very much in favor of strong support of the individuals’ rights under the Amendment.
The problem arises with the SG’s argument that the legal standard applied was incorrect. What bothers me most is that, in advocating the Court adopt a lower standard, the Government is almost ensuring that the DC law will stand. For instance, under the alternative rational basis standard, the Petitioners will need only to explain that the law satisfies a rational basis to achieve a goal. In DC, this is is easily argued considering the crime rates. Under the intermediate standard, the Petitioners would have a more difficult argument to make, but it is still entirely possible the law would be upheld.
This brief reminds me very much of the journalistic libel case from several weeks ago. I just hope the Justices here know well enough to reject this argument and agree with the lower court that strict scrutiny was the proper standard to apply.
PS: If there are any attorneys out there, please forgive me for any inaccuracies. This post was based on my best first-year-of-law-school reasoning.
kc2ige on January 12, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Of course. That’s why all amendments of the people apply while on the property of the people.
Oh, wait…
MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 5:41 PM
I’ve been thinking about buying one of those Bush Countdown calendars but I’m concerned that it might have “filler” that I would find objectionable.
thegreatbeast on January 12, 2008 at 5:47 PM
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 5:47 PM
I can understand the brief. I can cede that it is a defensible argument, insofar as it’s arguing that reasonable restrictions should exist.
I just don’t agree that DC’s ban is a reasonable restriction.
The restriction concept is not a new one. The Founders didn’t think the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights were absolute. Check out some of what John Adams got behind, for example.
Bush’s DOJ is on the wrong side of the issue.
JohnTant on January 12, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Doh
Also note that most, if not all, of the shootings in the recent years were in a “gun free zone”.
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 5:48 PM
I always get a giggle from the ignorant making a comment about a supposed lack of gun control meaning that we would “go back to the Wild West”.
The “Wild West” had a lower homicide rate than we do today.
SPQR on January 12, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Sweet!
flyfisher on January 12, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Also…I’m sorry for an incredibly incoherent comment post.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that being on the side of reasonable restrictions isn’t necessarily un-conservative. But thinking the ban IS reasonable is incorrect.
JohnTant on January 12, 2008 at 5:50 PM
When my grandma was a kid she used to take her rifle to school on the bus.
FloatingRock on January 12, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Yes, you are absolutely correct. The reasonable restriction argument when applied to arms has a much more profound impact than if, for instance, we were arguing over reasonable restrictions on other non Constitutionally protected items. It seems like once you give an inch, you give back a foot. That is, we have no assurances that these “reasonable” restrictions won’t be expanded dramatically in the future.
kc2ige on January 12, 2008 at 5:52 PM
Reasonable restrictions on weapons are like poll questions. Pose them one way, they sound perfectly reasonable. Pose them another way, and they paint an unpleasant path.
MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 5:52 PM
I’m gonna laugh when everyone starts doing that when I get quoted.
doubleplusundead on January 12, 2008 at 5:55 PM
If I have a single bullet (but no firearm) in the trunk of my car and if I drive to DC I can get arrested for a carrying a concealed weapon.
Thats right even ammo is considered a weapon based on DC’s current laws.
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 5:55 PM
Hey what can I say you will always be Bad Candy to me.
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 5:58 PM
The problem with “reasonable restrictions” is that reasonable people will disagree about what reasonable restrictions are. That’s a good reason to let the people of DC (and every other state) decide for themselves what they think is reasonable.
kc2ige, I agree that it’s a “mixed bag”. It’s also very irresponsible of AP to present this so one-sidedly. It’s bad enough when Keith Olbermann lies about President Bush.
JohnJ on January 12, 2008 at 6:08 PM
Well duh. All you need is a bullet. It can still hit someone.
MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 6:12 PM
kc2ige Thanks for spending weekend time reading a brief. Or go get help :-).
How are your professors treating you as a conservative student, or do you work incognito in the classroom?
funky chicken on January 12, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Speaking of gun bans
I did not see a post/headline about this but San Frans gun ban was overturned by a CA court for violating state law.
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 6:15 PM
Actually, I found undergrad to be much more hostile. I was the chair of College Republicans in undergrad, and I’ve got plenty of battle stories from those years. So far, law school hasn’t been nearly as bad mostly because the other students there are more mature and, when they do disagree, they are able to make cogent arguments as opposed to the DailyKos material I encountered in undergrad. To make it even better, we are graded anonymously, so I can make my points without worrying too much about how I’ll be treated when it comes time for exams.
And, my alternative to reading the gun brief was to read property law, something I have no interest in doing right now!
kc2ige on January 12, 2008 at 6:19 PM
LOL yes that is why I may/or may not had a bullet in my trunk when I went into DC.
(or maybe some spilled out of my ammo bag, which I discovered a year later, in the spare tire wheel well when I went to sell my car)
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Well, there are some problems that need to be addressed.
1) Criminals are prepared to use a weapon with no regard to others safety.
2) We as responsible citizens ARE concerned if we draw our weapon, fire, miss the bad guy and hit the neighbor.
3) Bad guys who are ready to use weapons have been geared up to do so for perhaps hours AND they live in a culture of weapons and using them as a first resort to solving problems.
4) Citizens, when confronted, have to go from just living their lives to preparing to defend themselves at the drop of a hat. It is that one moment of hesitation that gets people killed.
This isn’t the old west where danger lurked at every corner from man and animal alike. Except for certain areas, our society is very safe. This is why our society has collectively decided to collectively establish law enforcement to handle those issues when they do arise.
Our ability to own guns should not be taken away, but we don’t need bazookas on the streets that criminals will use against us. We are not prepared to deal with that kind of threat, and in the long run, because we are decent folks and they are scum, they will go much further than we will and we will lose. And all we will have accomplished is to make very dangerous weapons available to bad people and put ourselves and our law enforcement personnel in greater danger.
There must be reasonable restrictions on weapons. If there was not, our police stations, jails, prisons and the like would have to be hardened against these heavy weapons because the bad guys will use them to their full potential.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Agree with everything except this quoted part, because it contradicts the basic point that if criminals want them, they’ll find a way to get them.
MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 6:27 PM
By the way, I’m not seriously defending the right to keep and bear bazookas, but I’m saying from a legal standpoint, it’s a very abusable precedent that moves from bazookas to grenade launchers to SAWs to fully automatic AK-47s to 50-round clips to fully automatic submachine guns to .50 caliber weapons to…
MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 6:30 PM
Not bazookas, M2’s and the like. The minute those items are available to law abiding citizen, the bad guys will have them. And just how are you going to defend your home with an M2? A bazooka? They are unnecessary in our current society for home defense. Their only real value is as gun pron. Well, that’s fine, but making those weapons readily available to whackos is a steep price to pay.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 6:56 PM
This forum is so pavlovian
tomas on January 12, 2008 at 6:57 PM
Lets take things one-step at a time,
They took our rights away in 1938 by saying no criminal should have a machine gun…
Fast fwd to today no one should have an “unusually lethal gun” or a scary “barrel shroud” (100 bucks to the first person that can explain to me what “an unusually lethal gun” means and what is scary about a barrel shroud and why should they be banned)
Lets take our rights back the same way.
Anyone that is not a convicted violent felon or mentally unstable is able to own a fully automatic weapon (opposed to the semi automatic ones with a scary barrel shroud).
Simple thing is that anytime any gun restrictions are not enacted society is made a bit safer.
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 7:00 PM
@ csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 6:24 PM
The problem with your notion is this. I own an AK-47 among many other guns. With the purchase of a 15 dollar part online, I can make it fully automatic. To do so will land me in jail for years, with a huge fine and the inability to own a firearm ever again. However, a criminal also has access to these same parts, and can also “modify” their weapons back to their original status as fully automatic. So instead of banning the production of all “machine guns” in the United States and making all automatic weapons NFA, thus limiting them to people who want to spend upwards of 20k on a gun, shouldnt the government be in the business of protecting the people from criminals, not themselves? A criminal can ALWAYS make a weapon automatic. I can modify a Glock 9mm in 20 minutes to make it fully automatic, but it is absolutely illegal for me to do so. Again, the knowledge to do this is fully available on the web, and criminals can easily do this if they want, so why does the government limit MY right to defend myself, when criminals are going to disobey any law they feel like.
muyoso on January 12, 2008 at 7:01 PM
Agreed. We need some sort of minimum and maximum. The problem is that the liberals want to take them all, and the rest of us react by not wanting to give them one single inch because if we do, they WILL take them all.
I have decided that I will be happy with the weapons I have that I can reasonable defend my family and property with. I have a few that I would never use in my community unless we were in some sort of Rodney King type riot. Those I take to the range and blast the crap out of stuff.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 7:03 PM
@ csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 6:56 PM
The minute those items are available, they will be WAY too expensive for your common criminal to get ahold of. Criminals have access to any weapon you can imagine, but the majority of crimes occur with handguns, and a majority of deaths result from a .22 caliber round, one of the smallest made.
muyoso on January 12, 2008 at 7:03 PM
I can own an automatic weapon if I want to shell out the bucks. It should be easier and hopefully one day they will be. barrels and grips are ridiculous restrictions, but they aren’t worth expending energy on. Lets get automatic weapons back and the rest will follow.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 7:06 PM
I’m not talking about automatic weapons. But gun advocates do themselves a disservice when they don’t frame the argument at the limits they feel are reasonable.
I believe .308 cal automatic weapons with no restrictions on magazines, grips, flash suppressors and the like is reasonable. Beyond that, I’d have to take it case by case.
Are those unreasonable or do you think we should be able to own something more lethal?
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 7:10 PM
Exactly, however lets take it one step further and be on our elected officials “but” for baning “scary stuff” like shrouds…or suggesting that “unusually lethal guns” is something to even be considered.
With enough training I expect I can make my 8 shot .32 pocket gun “unusually lethal” for a .32 pocket gun.
The fact that scary barrel shrouds were banned in the first place tells me we have a long way to go.
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 7:16 PM
The reason why those stats are what they are is because those are the weapons available. If criminals had access to fully automatic heavy weapons, they’d dang well be using them. Automatic weapons are used to suppress resistance.
And, like I said, the bad guys are always prepared do use lethal force with no concern for others. Citizens have that one fraction of a second that causes them to hesitate.
Look, I’m as big a gun nut as you’ll find. I have 27 guns. But I also know that a lot of gun talk comes from the loins and not the head. The practical use of a heavy automatic weapon is practically nil in this country and to demand them for self defense is baseless. Demanding them for fun is legitimate, but most people don’t make that argument.
This is the part of the constitution that is outdated. Single shot rifles with a range of 150 yards or so, and single shot cannons that require three guys to use and only fires three to four shots a minute were reasonable to own back in the day. I think we can even own cannons now without a permit. (?)
Times have changed and we as reasonable people need to be reasonable about those changes.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 7:22 PM
I totally agree. the scary shrouds BS is absolutely draconian. BUT, if that’s what it takes to appease the gun grabbers, well, OK, they can have them. My rifle works fine without it.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 7:24 PM
I did not read the entire Clinton gun ban law, but I almost guanteree that “clips” were mentioned at least once, when magazine was meant. Or better yet they used them interchangeably.
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 7:28 PM
That attitude will get you disarmed, you give one inch to the Nanny State, and they’ll take everything.
doubleplusundead on January 12, 2008 at 7:32 PM
I’ve never heard the phrase “gun porn” and the word “only” used in the same sentence…
You beta.
MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 7:34 PM
Wait…APPEASE THE GUN GRABBERS?
You don’t appease them! You block them, outvote them, and vote them out of office first chance you get!
MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 7:35 PM
Just sayin’
doubleplusundead on January 12, 2008 at 7:37 PM
All I need is a shotgun with a pistol grip.
tomas on January 12, 2008 at 7:39 PM
Oh but those people never shot a tommy gun (equipped with a “clip” and/or drum) legaly owned by the person in the next lane over at the range.
Talk about fun.
I still want to test drive a G18 just to say I did.
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 7:40 PM
An unusually lethal gun is one that can kill you without being fired. You know like being scared to death because it’s spooky looking with a pistol grip, barrel shroud and a bipod. If it had a high capacity mag it could probably be classified as a WMD. It’s obvious to any lib that if a gun is scary looking it’s gotta be more lethal…and don’t forget the children.
Oldnuke on January 12, 2008 at 7:41 PM
Too bad if the AWB comes back to life:
But hey, it’s worth it if it will appease the gun grabbers, right?
MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 7:42 PM
@ csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 7:22 PM
I dont want ANY limits on firearms whatsoever. Criminals are NOT going to arm themselves with automatic weapons, they simply don’t have the funds for it. Automatic weapons should be allowed for one reason and one reason only, they are essential to have if you are fighting a corrupt government. By restricting the ownership of these weapons, and intentionally driving up the cost by mandating all manufacture cease, it is limiting the number of people who truly have protection from a heavy handed government. Also, the ban on weapons importation from China, unless in a “sporting” configuration is downright bullshit.
muyoso on January 12, 2008 at 7:42 PM
I’m curious about this because I don’t know much about Warren other then his huge selling book and his megachurch. Recently saw a message by him and nothing in particular struck me as wrong. Besides his rather misguided signing of that letter to Muslims I don’t know what makes him someone leading Christians to liberal ideologies.
This is why Fred appeals to me so because he’s bringing to the forefront the ideology that made modern conservatism. Maybe we should just take the title of Federalists and run with it. Classical Liberal is there too but unfortunately other Liberals have screwed it over. At least that would describe our desire to “change” things.
And this is where I regret being as young as I am. I’m an old soul but everything my old soul desires to have seen has essentially evaporated. I can only imagine what I enjoy now that I might not be able to share with my own future children.
CTDeLude on January 12, 2008 at 7:42 PM
@ MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 7:42 PM
# A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the hip, allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. A pistol grip also helps the shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire and makes it easier to shoot assault rifles one-handed.
# A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the firearm can shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire.
muyoso on January 12, 2008 at 7:45 PM
My girlfriend has depression, which she takes medication for. You can’t tell she has it, and even off her medication it’s barely noticeable and she’s got reasonable control over it. Depression falls under mental illness. Thanks to Mr. Second Amendment Bush, she cannot touch a weapon I own without making me a criminal. How many people are diagnosed with depression every day in this country?
You say reasonable. I say calculated and terrifying.
MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Go back. Linked it to the most gun-loving bunch in America: The Brady Bunch.
MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 7:47 PM
@ MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 7:46 PM
True, but the instant you let ANYONE have control over your NFA weapon, if they are not under your supervision, you have violated federal law. The law sucks, and needs to be changed.
muyoso on January 12, 2008 at 7:48 PM
I am sure everyone has seen this, but it is still hilarious.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo
muyoso on January 12, 2008 at 7:50 PM
LOL
I forgot to mention the really scary flash suppressor.
Having a gun that goes against all laws of physics, by being able to hide its flash from everyone in the world (instead of just helping a single person retain their eyesight) is beyond scary, hell its WW3 scary and therefore the flash suppressor must also be banned.
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 7:56 PM
If she’s at home alone with my piece, and some piece of crap busts in, she can have all the control over it she wants. And if the DA touches her, I’ll show him the meaning of endless litigation.
MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 7:57 PM
I remember that! Heh, I was half-wondering if that was gonna be a Rickroll.
doubleplusundead on January 12, 2008 at 8:07 PM
Like this barrel shroud?
quax1 on January 12, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Heh, muyoso just linked that.
doubleplusundead on January 12, 2008 at 8:12 PM
Gee, I think I agree with Pelosi - time to impeach Bush. Let ‘em deal with Cheney - and he can appoint Fred his VP.
Like yesterday already.
mksmithwriter on January 12, 2008 at 8:13 PM
This was a pretty good video too:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sfKADcfE90U&feature=related
CTDeLude on January 12, 2008 at 8:15 PM
Leave to politicians to find hidden meanings in the 2nd amendment words ’shall not be infringed’. Oh, well, the politicals have trashed every other aspect of the US Constitution for the ‘common good’ of the nation.
docdave on January 12, 2008 at 8:22 PM
MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Uh Oh
tomas on January 12, 2008 at 8:29 PM
This will impact anyone who is not a criminal. Criminals by definition don’t follow laws.
Captain America on January 12, 2008 at 8:29 PM
I think the problem with chipping away and adding more gun law is that is will be used as a way to attack gun owners…I know you have guns, I’m going to haul you in to see if you comply. If you sell these guns…you can go.
tomas on January 12, 2008 at 8:34 PM
That’s not true. DOJ and FBI stats both state that auto weapons (rifles such as the M2/M4/M16) are used in a fraction of one percent of armed crimes. M2/4/16 clones are fully available to the public and (illegally) convertable to auto, but are not used as well. It’s surmised it’s because they are not concealable enough for robbery and to cumbersome for in-vehicle use. You’re believing the Die Hard genre movie reality to think they’re used often in crimes.
I’d venture they’re be great for repelling aggression, too. Organized aggression.
By the way, people can only own automatic weapons made before 1986. Any auto manufactured after that cannot be owned by the general public. THAT needs changed ASAP.
El Cazador on January 12, 2008 at 8:40 PM
No I never said that.
I say you are responsible for your firearm. If she touches it you would not be a criminal, if you even think YOUR firearm may fall into unsafe hands, and your lack of action allows that to occur, ok then yes you have to answer for that.
Back in 2005 I taught my (now ex) girlfriend firearm safety/shooting took her to an NRA class etc.
Later that year my girlfriend had her family visit for X-MAS including 8 to 10 year old children.
I made sure that no untrained family members (which included her entire visiting family) would have no access to the firearms in the house (that did not mean I was unarmed/or my girlfriend did not have access to a unloaded, but “clip” available firearm if she needed it.
First things first owning a firearm is a right and also a responsibility, growing up my parents were not big on guns because one of my uncles was killed when my dad was a child (uncle was killed when a friend was playing Cowboys and Indians and found a loaded shotgun hidden under a bed).
Safety first, if you don’t properly secure your firearm and an “accidental shooting” (negligent discharge is the proper way to describe it) occurs who is responsible?
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 8:49 PM
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.
“Properly construed”?
There’s not much to construe here.
ronsfi on January 12, 2008 at 8:55 PM
This is stupid, Washington wants to limit your rights to own a gun, Ca wants to control your Friggin themrosat now. Where does this security crap end. I was born in a free country, it looks like I will die in a socialist one.
Whatever happened to personal responsibility. It’s like our leaders are still in grade school. We are not children for our government to watch over. This is stupid. And I for one am sick and tired of it. The government in all its offices, from the local, state and federal level can kiss my a**.
unseen on January 12, 2008 at 9:03 PM
No, under the new NICS bill, regardless of whether my girlfriend is a trained target shooter with her CCW, she can’t possess a firearm, period. Hospitalization for any form of mental illness falls under the bill, and the term hospitalization is real vague. That is why I brought up if I were not home, and she was, and someone broke in. If she used that weapon, I would be a criminal for allowing a restricted person access to my firearm, because she has been diagnosed as having depression.
MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 9:03 PM
I’m an Alpha. Beta’s NEED guns to make up for their beta status.
;-)
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 9:05 PM
It’s called give and take. I still have my M14 and they can have the flash suppressor. It doesn’t affect the function of my weapon and they feel like they actually got something out of the deal.
But you keep missing the point. There has to be reasonable limits and unless we 2nd amendment proponents set those limits, the gun grabbers will.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 9:09 PM
try saying something germane to the conversation.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 9:10 PM
I’m sure it wont be too long before someone here says they want no restrictions at all. They act like they need a bazooka to defend themselves. Well, that’s just hyperbole. There is no situation where a bazooka is needed for self defense. So, if they’d argue they want a bazooka because you like blowing crap up, then make that argument. It’s at least rational.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 9:13 PM
Yep, I mean look at all those beta Marines. /sarc
EnochCain on January 12, 2008 at 9:14 PM
I will reserve my right to legally own/obtain a bazooka however.
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 9:16 PM
OK that is a bill I am uninformed on, time for me to look into that one.
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 9:19 PM
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 9:09 PM
No limits. I could care less if by next door neighbor had a tank in his yard. the amendment is there to resist government if needed. You don’t resist a government with a BB gun.
unseen on January 12, 2008 at 9:19 PM
Well, that’s just hyperbole. There is no situation where a bazooka is needed for self defense.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 9:13 PM
The 2nd amendment is not for self defense. It is for the defense of freedom. A bozooka is fine with me.
unseen on January 12, 2008 at 9:21 PM
There is no situation where a bazooka is needed for self defense. So, if they’d argue they want a bazooka because you like blowing crap up, then make that argument. It’s at least rational.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 9:13 PM
Well at least we understand now why you don’t like Fred. You have no problem throwing the 2nd amendment under the bus.
unseen on January 12, 2008 at 9:24 PM
I would say this looks like a situation a bazooka could be used in. lol
EnochCain on January 12, 2008 at 9:24 PM
unseen clearly understands the scope and purpose of the Second Amendment as envisioned by our Government-overthrowing Founders.
csdeven needs a refresher course on the writings and beliefs of our founders! The standard of what is “needed” is what is required to resist the Government.
Have you seen what SWAT teams pack? Yes. A bazooka is very reasonable.
sanantonian on January 12, 2008 at 9:26 PM
EnochCain on January 12, 2008 at 9:24 PM
Now if the avg citizen had their own tank/rpg to fight back. This wacko would have been a big ball of fire in a couple of minutes.
unseen on January 12, 2008 at 9:26 PM
Hyperbole. Criminals already have automatic weapons. Even if they did not, they could easily purchase heavy automatic weapons from unscrupulous citizens when the cost goes down because the market is flooded with them. You don’t think so? Just look how easy it is to get those weapons in third world countries. No restrictions at all. And as someone already said, changing the parts are easy and I’d bet you could find the procedure to convert one on the internet.
Heavy handed government? You really think your .50 cal M2 is gonna protect you from a smart bomb dropped from 10,00 feet? If our government wanted to take us over, they could easily do it and win just through technological superiority alone. The real protection you have from the government is your fellow citizens. Your neighbors are not going to get in their F-15 and blow you to hell. The national guard are not going to drive their Abrams through your house.
The crackpots who are storing hoards of illegal weapons are self fulfilling their prophesy that the government is after them. Yeah they are. YOU’RE HOARDING ILLEGAL WEAPONS.
I don’t want my beta male neighbor owning a M2 so he can accidentally shoot me because he wants to kill the guy with extreme prejudiced who he caught breaking into his home. Now that same beta male wants to blow the guy away with a sawed off 12 gauge, hey go for it.
We have the right to bear arms, but there must be rational limits that take into account the advances in technology.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 9:29 PM
If they’re legal, yeah. But that isn’t gonna happen and the sooner we realize that the less crazy gun owners will appear.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 9:31 PM
Hyperbole.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 9:32 PM
hahaha
Yeah, you go buy a tank and see how long you last against the might of the US military.
Asking to own bazookas and tanks is why gun owners are look on as kooks.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 9:35 PM
More hyperbole.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 9:35 PM
I hope you’re kidding.
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 9:37 PM
If our government wanted to take us over, they could easily do it and win just through technological superiority alone
csdeven on January 12, 2008 at 9:29 PM
Yeah because the Iraqi’s where a real pushover.
Why do other people always want to control what other people do. Is this a human defect or what? It is none of your friggin business what your neiughbor has or is doing. This country is turning into a bunch of nosey busy bodies.
Again no limits. whatsoever on my right to defend myself, my constitution, and my freedoms.
Maybe this country needs a refresher course in what freedom is.
unseen on January 12, 2008 at 9:37 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »