ACLU to Reid: Not so fast on that gun-control bill

posted at 8:41 am on April 4, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

So far, the media has portrayed concerns over civil rights in the Senate’s new gun-control push to be a paranoia among conservatives, and/or an artifact of fear-mongering by the NRA and gun manufacturers.  The Daily Caller provides something of a game-changer for the debate, if other media bother to report it. The ACLU — hardly a shill for conservative thought and corporate lobbying — tells Vince Coglianese in an exclusive interview that they have their own concerns over infringements on civil rights:

In an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller, a top lobbyist for the ACLU announced that the group thinks Reid’s current gun bill could threaten both privacy rights and civil liberties.

The inclusion of universal background checks — the poll-tested lynchpin of most Democratic proposals — “raises two significant concerns,” the ACLU’s Chris Calabrese told TheDC Wednesday.

The ACLU doesn’t oppose background checks, or even universal background checks. However, they do oppose the building of government databases on private citizens not accused of any crimes, which this bill could end up creating.  While it doesn’t include universal registration, it also does not include any of the protections afforded gun buyers in existing background-check law:

“However, we also believe those checks have to be conducted in a way that protects privacy and civil liberties. So, in that regard, we think the current legislation, the current proposal on universal background checks raises two significant concerns,” he went on.

“The first is that it treats the records for private purchases very differently than purchases made through licensed sellers. Under existing law, most information regarding an approved purchase is destroyed within 24 hours when a licensed seller does a [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check now,” Calabrese said, “and almost all of it is destroyed within 90 days.” …

But Calabrese says that Reid’s legislation fails to include those “privacy best practices.”

“Contrast this with what the existing [Reid] legislation says, which is simply that a record has to be kept of a private transfer,” Calabrese highlighted, “and it doesn’t have any of the protections that we have in current law for existing licensees.”

“We think that that kind of record-keeping requirement could result in keeping long-term detailed records of purchases and creation of a new government database.”

“And they come to use databases for all sorts of different purposes,” Calabrese said. “For example, the National Counterterrorism Center recently gave itself the authority to collect all kinds of existing federal databases and performed terrorism related searches regarding those databases. They essentially exempted themselves from a lot of existing Privacy Act protections.”

“So you just worry that you’re going to see searches of the databases and an expansion for purposes that were not intended when the information was collected.”

So, it’s not just paranoia from conservatives or the NRA behind opposition to the proposals for expanded background checks. It’s actually a rational concern over civil liberties, plus a legislative process that is either incompetently or maliciously undermining the existing protections in background-check law.  Given the nature of the effort and the demagogic and dishonest campaign behind it, it’s pretty easy to assume the latter rather than the former.  Either way, it’s bad news.

On occasion, I’ve criticized the ACLU for not defending the Second Amendment in its activism in courts and in politics.  That’s not exactly what they’re doing here, of course; they’re more concerned about the Fourth and Fifth Amendment implications of the Senate’s gun-control bill than in the explicit individual right to bear arms.  Still, give them kudos for speaking up at all; we’ll see how long they’ll commit to fighting Democrats to protect the privacy of gun owners.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Still, give them kudos for speaking up at all; we’ll see how long they’ll commit to fighting Democrats to protect the privacy of gun owners.

I will wait on this for a while.

I will acknowledge what they have done, but want to see something more than a few words.

cozmo on April 4, 2013 at 8:45 AM

Conundrum for the leftists. Now what, parade giant paper-mache heads of the ACLU leadership around and throw shoes at them?

Bishop on April 4, 2013 at 8:47 AM

“We think that that kind of record-keeping requirement could result in keeping long-term detailed records of purchases and creation of a new government database.”

Bank on it.

petefrt on April 4, 2013 at 8:49 AM

I doubt the Anti Christian Litigation Unit of the democrat party is going to push this issue much.

HotAirian on April 4, 2013 at 8:51 AM

Schumer Promises Universal Background Checks Won’t Create A Gun Registry… Then Calls It “Universal Registration”
http://weaselzippers.us/2013/02/25/schumer-promises-universal-background-checks-wont-create-a-gun-registry-then-calls-it-universal-registration/

Well done, Upchuck.

Galt2009 on April 4, 2013 at 8:58 AM

ACLU sends strongly worded letter.

It’s not very effective.

(Kudos if you know what this is).

nobar on April 4, 2013 at 9:01 AM

GAYS / GUNS / AMNESTY!!

Stuck in a rut much Jihadi Media?

PappyD61 on April 4, 2013 at 9:02 AM

Just a note, the “strong” button doesn’t work on the actual think you put inside the “strong” label.

See previous post.

PappyD61 on April 4, 2013 at 9:03 AM

I’m getting the feeling that Reid is now looking for reasons not to advance this stinker. Add the ACLU’s push back as yet one more bump in the road to it’s passage. Democrat senators remember the stink from Obamacare (and Barry himself) that led to the loss of the House and I’d wager pretty high that any bill they vote for will cost them points back home next year; points that they’ll need in tight races. Not to mention that with each passing day the public’s memory fades and hence the need to “do something”. The fact that Barry’s on the trail stumping for this tells me it’s close to being a lost cause. They have flipped a fews states though which may have been their goal all along knowing the any federal restrictions were DOA.

volnation on April 4, 2013 at 9:04 AM

The ACLU is defending second amendment rights now?

In other news, the temperature in hell reaches record lows of 29 degrees F.

UltimateBob on April 4, 2013 at 9:04 AM

Could the media just post all these stories at a website named GAYSGUNSAMNESTY.COM or has the DNC already taken that one?

PappyD61 on April 4, 2013 at 9:04 AM

It’s the old story of the endangered animal found to be eating an endangered plant…

ACLU would like to have it both ways – they want to protect their “protecting your rights” image, but would rather eat broken glass than support something espoused by conservatives. When push comes to shove, I think you know which way they’ll fold.

bofh on April 4, 2013 at 9:06 AM

Crickets from the lsm

cmsinaz on April 4, 2013 at 9:08 AM

Well consider the source. You know just how much those ACLU people are of the black helicopter conspiracy mindset./

Happy Nomad on April 4, 2013 at 9:09 AM

Still, give them kudos for speaking up at all.

No.

They are the American Civil Liberties Union, for god’s sake. There are NO greater civil liberties than those clearly articulated in the United States Constitution. They don’t get a pat on the head for having a luke warm concern that one of those clearly articulated liberties might kinda, sorta, maybe be a teensy weensy bit under threat from the federal government. Their expression of concern should be howling, hysterical. And it should have been immediate. So, no. No kudos. You’re going to be so disappointed when they walk it all back after a phone call from the White House.

Rational Thought on April 4, 2013 at 9:09 AM

Could the media just post all these stories at a website named GAYSGUNSAMNESTY.COM or has the DNC already taken that one?

PappyD61 on April 4, 2013 at 9:04 AM

Just wait until they discover a gay illegal gun-owner.

Happy Nomad on April 4, 2013 at 9:10 AM

ACLU sends strongly worded letter.

It’s not very effective.

(Kudos if you know what this is).

nobar on April 4, 2013 at 9:01 AM

Nobar uses Pokemon reference.

It’s super effective!

dernst2 on April 4, 2013 at 9:10 AM

While it doesn’t include universal registration.

That is untrue

On January 30, 2013, Sen. Chuck Schumer promised that universal background checks wouldn’t create a gun registry. Yet just 13 days later, as Schumer was discussing gun control proposals, he stated, “the one which I’ve been pushing, which is universal registration.” It couldn’t be any clearer — when a politician says “universal background checks,” what they actually mean is “universal registration.”

NRA Stand and Fight: Universal Registration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hKq3967hUgU

Curiously, Schumer says that “universal registration” is ‘Already illegal and repeated as illegal in his bill’, and yet he claims it to be in the bill, is he admitting to trying to violate the law in this regard?

Galt2009 on April 4, 2013 at 9:14 AM

If the ACLU has qualms about any Democrat legislation, something is very wrong with it. I won’t take the ACLU seriously yet, but it would be a grand state of affairs to see them fight this unconstitutional crap in court if it passes. Popcorn is on me!

Liam on April 4, 2013 at 9:16 AM

If it were not all about creating a database why would it include language like this:

`(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person who lawfully possesses or owns a firearm that has been shipped or transported in, or has been possessed in or affecting, interstate or foreign commerce, to fail to report the theft or loss of the firearm, within 24 hours after the person discovers the theft or loss, to the Attorney General and to the appropriate local authorities.’.

S.649 SEC. 123.a LOST AND STOLEN REPORTING

Or do they want to verify that it is not being stolen by criminals.

bob4096 on April 4, 2013 at 9:20 AM

If the ACLU has qualms about any Democrat legislation, something is very wrong with it. I won’t take the ACLU seriously yet, but it would be a grand state of affairs to see them fight this unconstitutional crap in court if it passes. Popcorn is on me!

Liam on April 4, 2013 at 9:16 AM

Believe me, you don’t want this to come to the point of having to fight it in court (Cough! Looking at you, Justice Roberts…)

bofh on April 4, 2013 at 9:21 AM

I trust the ACLU about as far as I can toss an 18 wheeler.

docflash on April 4, 2013 at 9:25 AM

Circus Carney…

“As you know, and as everyone who is an expert on this issue can attest, there is not a single thing that the President has proposed that would take a single firearm away from a single law-abiding citizen in America,” Carney told reporters, according to a transcript provided by the White House. “This President supports our Second Amendment rights. The proposals he put forward — like banning military-style assault weapons, like limiting high-capacity ammunition clips — these are proposals that in no way infringe upon Second Amendment rights…”

Got that? President Obama has not proposed a single thing that will take a single firearm away from a single law-abiding citizen in America…except for proposals like banning ‘military-style assault weapons and limiting high-capacity ammunition clips…none of which would infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of any law-abiding citizen.

Old & Busted: “If you like your plan, you can keep it…unless you cannot because it is one of those like major medical that is banned under Obamacare or is too expensive.”

New Hotness: “If you like your gun, you can keep it…you might not be able to get any ammunition for it, but, hey!, no one is infringing in the slightest on your Second Amendment rights! President Obama fully supports those rights and would NEVER take away or infringe upon them. Anyone, who believes otherwise, is just a conspiracy theorist. Plus, banning ‘military-style assault weapons’ doesn’t take a gun away from anyone, but if your current one breaks, sucks to be you!”

To quote SWalker:

“o_O” …. eL3vEnTy!1!111!!!111

Next up on Baghdad Jay’s asininity:

“…and, again, would not take any firearm away from any law enforcement — law-abiding citizen.”

Phew! For a minute there, I thought that Obama might disarm my PMS-ing, emotional, “never know when [they] might go off” sisters in LEO.

He added:

“When it comes to straw purchases — I mean, again, this is about enforcing the law. If you have individuals who are routinely buying weapons as straw purchasers on behalf of criminals who cannot buy weapons themselves because of their criminal record, that’s a violation of the law, and we ought to take action to ensure that the law is enforced. That seems like a very common-sense, conservative principle to me…”

Got that? We need NEW gun control laws to enforce the ones that already on the books even though:

1. Gun crime prosecutions under the Obama administration has decreased by 45% from the Bush administration; and,

2. Only 71 of the 71,000 people, who lied on their background checks in 2009, were prosecuted by the Obama administration; and,

3. In 2010, 72,142 were denied the right to buy a gun. 33,907 (47%) of those were denied because they lied about a felony indictment or conviction on their background check; yet, only 44 were prosecuted and 13 convicted of lying; and,

4. Even though people, who had been adjudicated mentally ill, are not allowed to own firearms under Federal law, 23 states and the District of Columbia had submitted fewer than 100 mental health records to the federal database, 17 states had submitted fewer than 10 mental health records, and 4 states had not submitted any; and

5. As Vice-President Joe Biden said:

“We don’t have time to prosecute everybody who lies on background checks.”

6. Straw purchases are already illegal. Such laws did not prevent Columbine because they only apply retroactively, naturally.

Sooooo, let’s pass MORE gun control laws for the government NOT to enforce!

Without LibLogic®, life would be utterly boring…

Carry on, Carney…

“…[A]s does the idea that the background check system that already exists should be improved so that loopholes are closed that make sure that it does what it was intended to do, and that is ensure that those with criminal records and others who by law should not be allowed to, or are not allowed to purchase weapons cannot circumvent the law because of the loopholes in the system.”

This loophole argument is such BS.

1. There is no “gun show loophole,” per se. Most sales at gun shows are accompanied by a background check because authorised dealers MUST conduct them.

2. You CANNOT, legally, purchase a gun online without a background check. If you want to purchase a gun online, the sale will be done pursuant to a background check and you will have to pick up the weapon at a local, authorised gun dealer. Obviously, if Criminal A wants to sell a gun to Criminal B online, NO LAW IS GOING TO PREVENT THAT. NONE. By definition, criminals do NOT obey laws.

3. What the Feds really want is to mandate background checks for private, not dealer sales, which is akin to demanding you determine whether a buyer has liability insurance before you sell him your car. They want to prohibit the transfer of guns from family members to gifts, legacies, loans, etc. Theoretically, leaving your weapon at the home of your friend could result in the prosecution of the latter under the kinds of laws the Dems are demanding. Finally, they want a national registry. Well, we know how popular that is and where it leads.

Anyhoo, as Reagan would say, “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.” Nevertheless, I’m sticking with ignorant.

Jay, shut up, you ignorant slvt!

Resist We Much on April 4, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Jay, shut up, you ignorant slvt!

Resist We Much on April 4, 2013 at 9:30 AM

What did I do now?

cozmo on April 4, 2013 at 9:37 AM

What did I do now?

cozmo on April 4, 2013 at 9:37 AM

Baghdad Jay, is that you?

:-)

Resist We Much on April 4, 2013 at 9:39 AM

The first is that it treats the records for private purchases very differently than purchases made through licensed sellers.

Yes, I’m sure it does. I’m expecting BATFE to begin treating anyone who dares to transfer a weapon to another person privately as the equivalent of someone dealing in arms retail without an FFL.

Remember, BATFE never needs a valid violation; just an excuse. If you own a firearm, to them, that is the violation.

Under existing law, most information regarding an approved purchase is destroyed within 24 hours when a licensed seller does a [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check now

Translation; Except for the copies kept by BATFE.

and almost all of it is destroyed within 90 days.

Translation; See above translation.

These people cannot be trusted. Period.

clear ether

eon

eon on April 4, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Way back before ‘District of Columbia v. Heller,’ the ACLUs web site cited earlier Supreme Court decisions as their basis for opposing the private ownership of firearms. Post Heller, when this asinine interpretation was rightfully dumped on its ear, the ACLU performed the necessary liberal jiu-jitsu to STILL be against the private ownership of firearms, pending ‘further review…’

Check it out; it’s a hilarious example of Lib-Think:

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

CaptFlood on April 4, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Still, give them kudos for speaking up at all; we’ll see how long they’ll commit to fighting Democrats to protect the privacy of gun owners.

ACLU: Mr Reid, how do we know these databases won’t be used for other purposes in the future?

Harry Reid: I promise! Cross my heart and hope to die, stick a needle in my eye.

ACLU: Well, that’s good enough for us, need help pushing that bill through?

ButterflyDragon on April 4, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Under existing law, most information regarding an approved purchase is destroyed within 24 hours when a licensed seller does a [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check now

Under existing law, those TSA scanners were not supposed to be able to keep any record of the images of people scanned. Turned out that the scanners were so equipped and records were kept. But don’t worry, that was just for training purposes…. It’s crazy talk to think you can’t trust your government.

Under the Constitution, an enumerated right is freedom to worship as we please. But let’s force religious institutions to provide contraception against the tenets of their faith to the point that these organizations must choose between committing an eternal sin or obeying the rat-eared devil and his partisan biotch HHS secretary. But any suggestion that the government would force churches to recognize sodomites and marry them or face punitive actions from the government is just crazy talk.

Under the law, illegals should be deported but the administration not only releases thousands of illegal alien criminals into society as part of their sequestration hype but they specifically will not enforce immigration laws and have an executive order bypassing Congress on the DREAM act and have rewarded a portion of these illegals with de facto citizenship even though the act harms young people here by birth. But it’s just crazy talk that the administration is doing anything harmful.

I’ve hit on three areas in the rat-eared devil’s trifecta of guns, gays, and illegals where the government can not and should not be trusted.

Happy Nomad on April 4, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Resist We Much on April 4, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Take look into this issue:

On January 30, 2013, Sen. Chuck Schumer promised that universal background checks wouldn’t create a gun registry. Yet just 13 days later, as Schumer was discussing gun control proposals, he stated, “the one which I’ve been pushing, which is universal registration.” It couldn’t be any clearer — when a politician says “universal background checks,” what they actually mean is “universal registration.”

NRA Stand and Fight: Universal Registration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hKq3967hUgU

We have the author of the bill admitting that he’s pushing for “universal registration” i.e. everyone needing the government’s permission to exercise a basic civil right.

Permission that can and will be withdrawn at some future date just as was done elsewhere.

Why doesn’t everyone see this as a BIG PROBLEM?

Could you imagine the uproar if a Senator admitted to wanting the government in control of the right of free-speech or any of the other rights that constraint the Feral government’s power?

Galt2009 on April 4, 2013 at 9:57 AM

I Never in this world would have thought the ACLU might apply the same principles to gun rights as they have in every liberal sense.

Speakup on April 4, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Meh. The Potomoc Pravda will never report it – doesn’t fit the agenda.

ghostwalker1 on April 4, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Under existing law, most information regarding an approved purchase is destroyed within 24 hours when a licensed seller does a [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check now,” Calabrese said, “and almost all of it is destroyed within 90 days.”

I will never believe that. No government bureaucracy would discard information. That’s not in the nature of a government bureaucracy.

I expect that eventually information on whether you own guns will be available to the Obamacare death panels, and that information will be used to determine your value to the community. You have a carry-card? Sorry, no kidney donors available this week.

slickwillie2001 on April 4, 2013 at 10:50 AM

The ACLU doesn’t oppose background checks, or even universal background checks.

What part of “not infringed” does the ACLU fail to understand? Are there other constitutional rights that the ACLU feels we should need permission from the federal government to exercise or just this one?

They are not operating on principle so they are a discredited joke pushing so-called penumbras that suit their leftist agenda.

The interesting thing is that one could make an argument that since the Constitution spells out in specific language that the government can’t infringe on the 2nd Amendment that they can infringe and require registration for every other right except the 2nd. It would be a specious argument, but not as absurd as the idea of getting government permission to exercise the 2nd Amendment.

Buddahpundit on April 4, 2013 at 10:50 AM

We have the author of the bill admitting that he’s pushing for “universal registration” i.e. everyone needing the government’s permission to exercise a basic civil right.

Permission that can and will be withdrawn at some future date just as was done elsewhere.

Why doesn’t everyone see this as a BIG PROBLEM?

Could you imagine the uproar if a Senator admitted to wanting the government in control of the right of free-speech or any of the other rights that constraint the Feral government’s power?

Galt2009 on April 4, 2013 at 9:57 AM

This is about “Fundamentally transforming” a Constitutionally guaranteed right into a Federally granted privilege.

First of all, the 2nd amendment does not guarantee your right to own a firearm. We need to be 100 percent perfectly clear about this. It guarantees that neither the federal, state nor local government will abridge, transgress against or infringe upon your “Natural Right” to own and bear a firearm.

The difference between a Natural Right, or a Constitutionally guaranteed right and a privilege is that, you need no permission, no license, no registration, no federal, state or local government certificate of any kind to exercise a natural or constitutionally guaranteed right.

SWalker on April 4, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Why doesn’t everyone see this as a BIG PROBLEM?

Galt2009 on April 4, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Because guns are different, doncha know?

Could you imagine the uproar if a Senator admitted to wanting the government in control of the right of free-speech or any of the other rights that constraint the Feral government’s power?

THAT.WOULD.NEVER.HAPPEN.SILLY. The Second Amendment, specifically, states that the right that it recognises can be burdened by regulations. Since the term ‘well-regulated’ modified the word militia, but not the phrase ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,’ that means, obviously, that the Founding Fathers meant that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms CAN be infringed’ can be ‘well-regulated.’

I bet that you flunked all of your grammar tests in school. Dintcha?

lol

Resist We Much on April 4, 2013 at 11:09 AM

A Daily Kooks Writer Argues: Why Liberals Should Love The Second Amendment??? You Betcha!

M2RB: Kay Kyser

It’s a miracle! We, finally, agree!! Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!!!

Resist We Much on April 4, 2013 at 11:12 AM

We have the author of the bill admitting that he’s pushing for “universal registration” i.e. everyone needing the government’s permission to exercise a basic civil right.

Permission that can and will be withdrawn at some future date just as was done elsewhere.

Why doesn’t everyone see this as a BIG PROBLEM?

Could you imagine the uproar if a Senator admitted to wanting the government in control of the right of free-speech or any of the other rights that constraint the Feral government’s power?

Galt2009 on April 4, 2013 at 9:57 AM

This is about “Fundamentally transforming” a Constitutionally guaranteed right into a Federally granted privilege.

First of all, the 2nd amendment does not guarantee your right to own a firearm. We need to be 100 percent perfectly clear about this. It guarantees that neither the federal, state nor local government will abridge, transgress against or infringe upon your “Natural Right” to own and bear a firearm.

The difference between a Natural Right, or a Constitutionally guaranteed right and a privilege is that, you need no permission, no license, no registration, no federal, state or local government certificate of any kind to exercise a natural or constitutionally guaranteed right.

SWalker on April 4, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Yes, I agree.

The second amendment only affirms a Preexisting and God-given right of self-defense.

That is an inalienable right that cannot be given away at the whim of popular opinion.

If they can do that with one right, what’s to stop them from doing that to all the others?

Galt2009 on April 4, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Resist We Much on April 4, 2013 at 11:09 AM

The sad thing is that there are Low-information Proppressives who would see that as perfectly reasonable.

Galt2009 on April 4, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Just a note, the “strong” button doesn’t work on the actual think you put inside the “strong” label.

See previous post.

PappyD61 on April 4, 2013 at 9:03 AM

Works for me.

timberline on April 4, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Doesn’t say much for the myriad of gun registration programs already in place either.

Speakup on April 4, 2013 at 11:40 AM

‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,’ that means, obviously, that the Founding Fathers meant that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms CAN be infringed’ can be ‘well-regulated.’

I bet that you flunked all of your grammar tests in school. Dintcha?

lol

Resist We Much on April 4, 2013 at 11:09 AM

I know that you are snarking here, ever the less. The phrase ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,’ was not a hastily or lackadaisically chosen phrase. Each segment of that phrase has a well established etymological meaning.

The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly ruled that the phrase “The people” specifically refers to the individual citizens of the United States.

“Shall not” likewise has a very long and well established etymological meaning. “Shall” derives from the Old English “sceal” meaning “must”. Thus rendering the meaning of “Shall not” to under no circumstances will x be allowed.

“Infringed” is a very old word referring to property rights.

Etymology

From Latin infringere (“to break off, break, bruise, weaken, destroy”), from in (“in”) + frangere (“to break”).

It’s meaning is literally to cross a property boundary. Once you have crossed that boundary even by a single millimeter you have infringed upon the property of someone else.

The Founding Fathers were 100 percent aware of the meanings of the words employed in this phrase when they included them in the United States Constitution. The extent to which they were aware of the meaning of what they wrote can be plainly seen in their own personal writings on the subject.

Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

John Adams: “Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
defense.” (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people’s liberty teeth (and) keystone… the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable… more than 99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes,
we need them every hour.” (Address to 1st session of Congress)

George Mason: “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.” (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe.” (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: “A free people ought to be armed.” (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent Chronicle.)

Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

James Madison: “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms.” (Federalist Paper #46)

SWalker on April 4, 2013 at 11:45 AM

SWalker on April 4, 2013 at 11:45 AM

I know.

Resist We Much on April 4, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Resist We Much,

Great site –
Keep up the good work!

that is all….

nchammer on April 4, 2013 at 11:54 AM

A pro-gun Newtown parent, ssshhh! Just ignore him and maybe he’ll go away. Liberal media: DO NOT REPORT!

Why Hasn’t The Media Been Reporting On Or Booking Pro-Gun Newtown Parent Mark Mattioli?

slickwillie2001 on April 4, 2013 at 11:59 AM

SWalker on April 4, 2013 at 11:45 AM

I know.

Resist We Much on April 4, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Sigh…. Once again my attempts to impress you with my super troglodyte intellect fails miserably… :(

SWalker on April 4, 2013 at 12:06 PM

THAT.WOULD.NEVER.HAPPEN.SILLY. The Second Amendment, specifically, states that the right that it recognises can be burdened by regulations. Since the term ‘well-regulated’ modified the word militia, but not the phrase ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,’ that means, obviously, that the Founding Fathers meant that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms CAN be infringed’ BECAUSE IT CAN BE ‘well-regulated.’

I bet that you flunked all of your grammar tests in school. Dintcha?

/

lol

Resist We Much on April 4, 2013 at 11:09 AM

And, yes, I continue to EPICALLY FAIL proofreading, which I ONLY seem to do AFTER I hit “Enter.”

nchammer on April 4, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Thank you very much. :-)

Resist We Much on April 4, 2013 at 12:08 PM

Sigh…. Once again my attempts to impress you with my super troglodyte intellect fails miserably… :(

SWalker on April 4, 2013 at 12:06 PM

You always impress me. So much, in fact, I even quoted you last night and this morning. I mean, where else can I turn to get deep profoundness such as this?

“o_O”

So little, but says so much. lol

In all actuality, it summed up EXACTLY what I wanted to convey.

{{hugs}}

Resist We Much on April 4, 2013 at 12:18 PM

{{hugs}}

Resist We Much on April 4, 2013 at 12:18 PM

{{hugs back}} opps, sorry didn’t mean to hug your butt like that, some old Rock Star habits die harder then others… ;P

SWalker on April 4, 2013 at 12:31 PM

{{hugs back}} opps, sorry didn’t mean to hug your butt like that, some old Rock Star habits die harder then others… ;P

SWalker on April 4, 2013 at 12:31 PM

Well, at least, you didn’t eat it. Wait, what? What’s that, you say?

Resist We Much on April 4, 2013 at 12:34 PM

A Daily Kooks Writer Argues: Why Liberals Should Love The Second Amendment??? You Betcha!

Resist We Much on April 4, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Brilliant.

AesopFan on April 4, 2013 at 12:38 PM

SWalker on April 4, 2013 at 12:31 PM

Well, at least, you didn’t eat it. Wait, what? What’s that, you say?

Resist We Much on April 4, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Well, the day is still young… <—– insert old lecherous grin here… ;P

SWalker on April 4, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Resist We Much on April 4, 2013 at 12:34 PM

I’m really sorry to bother you on this, but is it okay if we copy and re-post some of your blog excerpts?

And perhaps kinda sorta write some “Reader’s digest” versions of them for that purpose…. You don’t have to or anything, it was just an idea on my part…

(You can tell be to bugger off on that second part of the request, I’ll understand.)

Galt2009 on April 4, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Galt2009 on April 4, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Sure,

Resist We Much on April 4, 2013 at 1:01 PM

Resist We Much on April 4, 2013 at 1:01 PM

Thanks.

Galt2009 on April 4, 2013 at 1:08 PM

That Kelly woman on Fox is really stupid.

Schadenfreude on April 4, 2013 at 1:18 PM

O/T

Obama: Newtown Shooter Gunned Down 20 Children With ‘Fully Automatic Weapon’

Who wants to ratify my proposed 28th Amendment, also to be known as “The ‘So Stupid It Makes My Hair Hurt’ Amendment”?

No member of the Federal government may opine or draft legislation on a subject on which s/he cannot pass a basic competency test on the fundamentals of the issues involved provided by the Congressional Research Service, Government Accountability Office and independent organisations. To the extent that this amendment conflicts with the First Amendment, this article shall control.

Did you know that collapsible stocks make guns “fully-automatic”? According to DiFi, they do…

“These are weapons that are made to kill large numbers of people in close combat, and what we have found that now with the AR 15, they have a slide stock which you put in. It’s legal, and it makes the gun act fully automatic.”

- Senator Dianne Feinstein, Face the Nation, 27 January 2013

“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now, they’re going to shoot them. So if you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time, because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”

- Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO), lead sponsor of legislation banning high-capacity magazines

The stupid is strong with this one.

“The congresswoman has been working on a high-capacity assault magazine ban for years and has been deeply involved in the issue; she simply misspoke in referring to ‘magazines’ when she should have referred to ‘clips,’ which cannot be reused because they don’t have a feeding mechanism.”

- Congresswoman DeGette’s spokeswoman, Juliet Johnson, who wanted to make sure that, if you missed the stupidity of her boss the first time, you wouldn’t a second and would get the added ‘feature’ of knowing that her office spreads the stupid around for the purposes of fairness.

Er, yes, they can.

These people are just too stupid to be writing laws telling the rest of us what we can do. Go ‘tip-over and capsize’ Guam, idjits.

Resist We Much on April 4, 2013 at 2:06 PM

However, they do oppose the building of government databases on private citizens not accused of any crimes, which this bill could end up creating.

Which is the point of the whole exercise – more government control and interference. It’s not like the democrats/liberals actually care about children.

kim roy on April 4, 2013 at 3:16 PM

The federal branch can not regulate private sales.

Its not legal, impossible to enforce and is a violation of DC HELLER under the “UN-damn-resonable” ruling.

TX-96 on April 4, 2013 at 8:38 PM