Home > The Barr Code > Archives > 2008 > February > 12 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USHigh court ruling expected on right to possess a firearm
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
For the first time in the 217 years since the Second Amendment to our Constitution was adopted as part of the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court is likely to rule this spring or summer that the amendment does indeed protect the right of an individual citizen to possess a firearm.
Yes, you heard that right; even though there have been numerous Supreme Court rulings over the years that interpret or touch on the Second Amendment, the high court has never addressed that threshold question clearly and directly. Gun control advocates argue that the amendment merely guarantees the rights of citizens participating in state militias to possess firearms for that purpose.
Many states, cities and the District of Columbia have enacted strict, even prohibitory limitations on firearms possession. In fact, it is the 30-year old District of Columbia gun ban that triggered the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to rule almost a year ago that the Second Amendment clearly guarantees an individual right and that D.C.’s ban is so restrictive as to be unconstitutional.
I and many other observers and participants (I filed a friend-of-the-court brief this week in support of the lower court decision) expect the Supreme Court to agree with the Court of Appeals that the right is in fact an individual one, and that the D.C. ban is impermissibly broad.
While the high court may leave open the ultimate question of exactly what sort of limits governments may reasonably place on the exercise of the right guaranteed under the Second Amendment, if a majority at least rules that it does reflect an individual right and that a state or local government cannot simply ban firearms possession outright, that will be welcome news to all Americans who believe in common sense, the primacy of individual rather than government power, and in the right to defend one self.
A majority of House of Representatives and Senate members, Democrats and Republicans, have joined friend-of-the-court briefs in support of the Second Amendment and against the District of Columbia.
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By the truth
February 12, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this
If the government EVER tries to take guns away from law abiding citizens you will see a war in this country like never before. If all law abiding citizens carried a firearm then crime would go down. I lived in Memphis, TN where crime is very high. Most people I know in Memphis carry a gun. I and every law abiding citizen has the right to defend themselves. It’s natural to want to defend yourself from criminals. Look at Virginia Tech. If that idiotic school hadn’t banned firearms then lives would have been saved.
By wadhesay?
February 12, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this
Let’s see…”truth” says “If all law abiding citizens carried a firearm then crive would go down”. Then he says “I live in Memphis TN where crime is very high”. And finally,”Most people I know in Memphis carry a gun”. Boy, that’s the kind of thinking that made this country great!
By copdawg
February 12, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this
the one thing i have never seen are the statistics showing the number of crimes committed by those citizens who are ccp holders. in my twelve years as a law enforcement officer i NEVER had the occasion to arrest a ccp holder. i stopped a few but is was on routine checks and those stops were always cordial. remember, our guns protect us not only from criminals but also from lawmakers who attempt to take our rights from us.
By confused
February 12, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this
truth’s arguments are a little off-balance. “Most people in TN carry a gun” -> “…Memphis, TN where crime is very high”??? How does he justify his argument that carrying a gun will lower crime rates when the example he states supports the opposite?
By copdawg
February 12, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this
NO!, what he is saying is he at least has a chance to protect himself and his family, wake up.
By RUChinadoll
February 12, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this
the truth VT was idiotic??? You’re a moron. Don’t talk about something that you don’t know. It’s a*******h*les like you that make me sick. People lost thier lives and you’re making snide comments to further your own agenda.
VA state law prohibits handguns on campuses. Not school policy.
By the truth
February 12, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this
Let me clarify what I was saying. I moved to Memphis 2 years ago. Crime was bad and the the good people of New Orleans showed up and crime went up. The mayor encouraged people to carry a fire arm for protection. People did and started defending themselves. Crime has gone down a bit. And, I never said MOST people. Please learn to read carefully. I said MOST PEOPLE I KNOW. Big difference. Confused, are you clear now?
Found this article about Michigan gun laws.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008801060602
By AmericanConstitutionalist
February 12, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this
There’s a definite agenda of the “Ruling Elite” to do away with our Constitutional Rights…and the 2nd Amendment is on the top of their “hit list”. Sellout puppets like Hildabeast ClinTAX, Obuma & McAmnesty would make the 2nd Amendment one of their top targets upon taking office. The Bill of Rights continues to be in serious jeopardy!
http://www.gunowners.org/
By the truth
February 12, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this
Chinadoll, You in the red army? With a name like that you must be. Yeah, people lost their lives to a NUTCASE who should not have been allowed on campus. The PC police of VT let him remain. If someone had a permit to carry a firearm the outcome might be different. It’s people like you that allow crazy people on the street to kill innocent people. You are the moron!
By Bruce
February 12, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this
COPDAWG is right, where I live the majority of folks have guns, legally, this is a still wild area plenty of hunting and fishing. Our crime rate doesn’t even rate. Any criminal stupid enough to try to rob a store or an individual is very likely to get shot. Knowing that I believe is what keeps those that would try at bay. My father always told me to never let the gov’t take our guns, under any circumstance. He was against registering guns because he said then they know right where to go to collect the guns. He felt it was not the Governments business to even know who had guns and who didn’t. Convicted criminals excepted.
By the truth
February 12, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this
wadhesay, What is your point? If people were not allowed to carry firearms then we’d have militias running all over the country. Look at Africa! Hello DARFUR! Law abiding citizens DO NOT go around shooting people at will. You can not find an article against law abiding citizens.
By The Explainer
February 12, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this
How does he justify his argument that carrying a gun will lower crime rates when the example he states supports the opposite?
This is one source that provides an answer: “More Guns, Less Crime” by economist John Lott. In the book, Lott uses regression analysis applied to government crime statistics and shows that increasing the number of civilians with guns reduces crime rates.
The book is described as “the largest and most comprehensive study of the effects of gun control to date.”
“More Guns Less Crime” is not an opinion piece but rather a statistical and econometric analysis of the available data.
Objective-minded people will find his writings interesting, but the gun grabbers will never be satisfied.
As the police officer stated in his entry: “In my twelve years as a law enforcement officer I NEVER had the occasion to arrest a ccp [Concealed Carry Permit] holder. I stopped a few but [it] was on routine checks and those stops were always cordial.”
Law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms. Lawless citizens ignore the law—any law—regardless of how “well intended” it may be. We have the right to protect our families from the lawless.
You can order the book here: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636
By Ron
February 12, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this
I would like to see the right to own firearms affirmed by the Supreme Court.As far as I am concerned that right now exists.Affirmation would be nice.I don’t hold out the hope that you do though,Mr. Barr.Strange things happen with Supreme court decisions.They may simply kick it back to the lower courts to decide.It’s a pretty hot potato.
By the truth
February 12, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this
I love it when liberals tell people how to live their lives. They seem to know everything about guns. I will defend myself to the end and would encourage all law abiding citizens to do the same. Liberals blame everyone but the criminal.
By grasspress
February 12, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this
i think everyone has to realize that if the supreme court declares individuals have the right to arm themselves (as opposed to a state-regulated militia having that right) then the next argument will be, what is an ‘arm’. sure, we’re thinking handguns and rifles now. but do you think this will be the end of the argument. you can bet there are plenty out there who will want recoiless rifles (to shoot down criminals fleeing in their escalades), stinger missles (to shoot down criminals escaping by helicopter after home invasions), and…well, you get the picture.
when will any reason come to this question?
By Bruce
February 12, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this
Explainer, you hit the nail on the head, “Law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms. Lawless citizens ignore the law—any law—regardless of how “well intended” it may be. We have the right to protect our families from the lawless.” If it ever happens that the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns is abolished, there will likely be a revolution.
By Rick
February 12, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this
Grasspress, I believe you are right. I would support anybody who wanted a rocket launcher or stinger missle. As long as they committed no crime with it and did not hurt anyone or anyone’s property with it, they have the right to own it. what I do or what anyone does is nobody’s damn business unless they or I break the law.If bill gates wants to buy an old plane and soot with his stinger missles, thats his business .
By Mark
February 12, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
As long as porch monkeys are running loose, I will carry a firearm. And I will put a bullet in a coconut if I have to.
By the truth
February 12, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
grasspress, I totally agree with what kinds of guns that should be allowed. I own a hand gun, shot gun and a rifle. I hope that missiles are never an issue we have to face. Automatic weapons should be for heavy duty law enforcement and military ONLY. I read a recent article about airline companies arming themselves with anti-missile equipment. Makes me never want to fly again.
By Rational Texan
February 12, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this
Humans only have 2 ways to deal with one another; reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me under threat of force. When I carry my gun, you can not deal with me by force. You must use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. A gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-lbs woman on equal footing with a 220 lbs mugger, a 75-year-old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year-old gang banger. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. Written by Major L. Caudill USMC (Ret) Well said sir!!
By AmericanConstitutionalist
February 12, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this
Mark, sounds like you’re an agent provacatuer trying to paint the image of that those of us wishing to defend the 2nd Amendment (& Bill of Rights) are racists. This is a 101 tactic of the Globalist Elite “police state” goons trying to de-rail legitimate American causes like defense of the 2nd Amendment.
By the truth
February 12, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this
Mark is the example of what liberals think of everyone who doesn’t agree with them. Yes, liberals think that gun owners are nazis and that they are in the KKK. Nice. Anyway, here is an article of another school shooting by kids who get their hands on guns. Teachers are not allowed to carry guns and therefore innocent kids get shot.
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/feb/11/student-shot-mitchell-high-school-lockdown/
By RUChinadoll
February 12, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this
Truth Are you calling me a commie? Actually, I am a 25 yo white female, from of all places, Virginia, who grew up and went to college 15 minutes from VT. I lost two friends that day. I also have a ccp and a 32 & 9 mm. But I understand that it is disrespectful to the dead to place malicious blame. What I’m telling you is to get your facts straight before you open your virtual mouth. The cops have no say on if he stayed or not. That’s the administration’s choice. And should we kick everyone with a mental illness out of college? And the cops have no say if students or faculty can have guns, that’s the state’s law. The system failed, I won’t argue that, but don’t make a fool out of yourself by talking out of your a$$.
And the name stands for the fact that I studied abroad in China through Radford University. What the hell does the truth mean? Because obviously you’re one-sided, ill-educated and wouldn’t know what the truth was if it hit you upside the head while you sit in front of your computer cleaning your rifle, the only action you’ll ever see.
By Bruce
February 12, 2008 11:14 AM | Link to this
Guys like Mark are very few and honestly if he really felt that way and acted inline with how he spoke, he would be one of the criminals that has no right to own a gun.
By Shout It!!!
February 12, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this
Remember, you also have the right NOT to carry a gun. You don’t have to own one and you don’t have to have one in your house. If you feel strongly about this I suggest you put a sign in your yard stating your feelings and letting everyone know they can trust you because you refuse to participate in anything gun related. A little chlorine for the gene pool?
By the truth
February 12, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this
chinadoll, So, according to you I am not educated. If I don’t agree with you then I’m not educated. You have made my point that liberals are all the same. IF someone doesn’t agree with you then they are uneducated, dumb and one-sided. This blog is for people to give THEIR opinions. This is also called FREEDOM OF SPEECH. It is you who should take your head out of your arse. So, in your mind, I can not put the blame where blame is due. The criminal nutbag who shot up a bunch of kids. Kick everyone out with a mental illness, no. Put them under the of authorities, yes. I also love that you try to play the victim card. I’m sorry that your friends died but that does not stop me from saying that someone could have stopped that idiot if they had a gun. My observation and my opinion. Get over it!
By gunfree
February 12, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this
I have this sign in my front yard “This house is gun-free”
By lol
February 12, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this
Yes Shout It, let’s put a sign in the yard that says, “No Guns Here”. You might as well paint a bullzeye in your front yard and invite robbers in. I’m still chuckling at your absurd comment.
By jabster
February 12, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this
Anybody want to go steal a plasma screen out of a Kennesaw McMansion? Don’t worry, it’s probably owned by some damyankee who “doesn’t believe in guns” like they don’t believe in the Easter Bunny.
Then again, I might be WRONG. Do you feel lucky?
Didn’t think anyone would be interested.
By Jonesy
February 12, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this
Bottom line is this: the right to defend ourselves was not granted by anyone therefore it can’t be taken away. The government would like to tell us the means with which we can defend ourselves (‘cause we don’t whats best for ourselves), or worse, they want us to rely on them to protect us.
The 2nd amendment deserves the same respect as all the other rights in the Bill of Rights. “outdated…etc etc”. We’ve heard it all. Just because as technology and life’s conveniences have advanced, some people (liberals) feel that guns are no longer necessary in today’s society. So they chip away at our rights…regulating them into nothingness. Well guess what, criminals still use guns to get what they want. Why should we not use them to defend ourselves against that element?
Gun control is a farce. Ad nauseum, the logic is laid out that criminals are not deterred by yet another law. By definition they don’t follow the law. Blah Blah…..the next time some politician proposes a new gun control law, ask yourself 2 questions: Do you feel safe? Are you actually safer with this law?
By Shout It!!!
February 12, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this
Gunfree, I thank you. And I promise never to lobby our government to infringe upon your rights not to own a gun. It’s your choice and I respect that!
By the truth
February 12, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this
Chinadoll, Remember, it was you who started name calling in the first place. A classic liberal attack. Maybe you should go menstruate on some other blog. No, I’m not a sexist pig either. I’m happily married.
By RUChinadoll
February 12, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this
What I’m saying is that you’re illiterate. Did you read what I said? It was nothing about your opinions, it was that your “facts” were wrong. You were basing your case on something that you don’t know anything about. In your 9:42 post you said the “idiotic school” banned guns. In your 10:30 post you said the VTPD let him remain. Neither of these statements are true. And it’s outlandish extremists like you that make average gun carrying citizens look like rednecks looking for the first chance to shoot someone. I’m sorry, but I take offense to people who don’t know the facts taking a horrible situation and manipulating it for thier own personal gain.
By jk
February 12, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this
I agree wth truth, that probably more lives could have been saved if guns were allowed. 30 people died. How many could be alive right now if at least the professors were allowed? Some people only understand a gun to their head unfortunately. There is no disrespect when you are trying to find a solution to the problem so a tragedy doesn’t repeat itself. Disrespect is when other college students dressed up like the dead victims with fake blood and VT jerseys to make a joke. That really did happen.
By RUChinadoll
February 12, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this
Definition of moron: someone lacking good judgement. Seems like a pretty fair observation.
By LOLx2!
February 12, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this
Gunfree, you make me laugh! I have two pitbulls and a “Protected by AK47” sign in my front yard. Lets assume for a moment that we live next to one another and a robber/theif/mugger/etc. comes along. Take a wild guess who WONT be getting robbed! Hint: It wont be me!
By the truth
February 12, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this
Chinadoll, Thank you for categorizing me as a moron, illiterate and a gun freak. I guess I can call you a communist, feminist and mean. Just my observation of you. Now go buy some Midol and cam down.
By Puzzled one
February 12, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this
I am curious exactly what this means: “If the government EVER tries to take guns away from law abiding citizens you will see a war in this country like never before.”
Go to war with who? Your fellow citizens? The government? Are you guys going to storm Congress with your hunting rifles? How exactly would you wage a war in America, who is the enemy??
By copdawg
February 12, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this
i have a suspicion chinadoll is no liberal. she grew up in a very beautiful area of the country that is also very conservative and the big “clue” is the ownership of, not one but two handguns. i for one would be very comfortable around her. chinadoll, sounds like you can take care of yourself.
By the truth
February 12, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this
Chinadoll, By the way, I have accomplished quite a bit in my life. I may have not studied in a communist country but studying in America in private schools really helped me in life. I’m happily married to a smart young woman and we both hold a masters. Maybe you should spend more time studying the dictionary and less time urinating over another persons opinion on guns. By the way, remember to take the safety off at the gun range.
By RUChinadoll
February 12, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this
You’re right, I shouldn’t have gotten so nasty, but free speech or not, I take offense to your anger. No good arguement comes from attacking something you know nothing about. Idiotic Virgina Tech? I have pride in my community and that school and sorrow for that event and you treat it like a bunch of fools for your own personal gain.
By the truth
February 12, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this
Puzzled one, If elected government officials tried to take away guns from law abiding citizens then gun owners would be forced to go to war with them. Not to shoot them but fight it out in court. That is what I meant. The enemy being the majority of the democrats in this country. We fight our wars at the ballot box and not with firing our guns.
By RUChinadoll
February 12, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this
I’m not a communist, nor a liberal (copdawg is right), I too have a masters degree from the fine state of VA, I’m not on my period and feel great, thanks for asking, and my guns don’t have safetys. I prefer an eight pound trigger pull, thank you.
By the truth
February 12, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this
Chinadoll, I’m glad that you take pride in your community. I should have clarified that the lawmakers who outlawed guns on campus were the idiots. Not VT. It’s also not for my personal gain. I’ve had it with gun control freaks who blame guns instead of the criminals.
By copdawg
February 12, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this
“truth”, it sound to me you are the intolerant one, either agree with you or go live in a communist country! what is all that about. how about if a long time ago you were in the majority would the east coast be speaking german and the west cost japanese? the greatest generation consisted folks who knew what the stakes were. hopefully there are still enough folks around who will fight and die for the right for some of us to be jerks
By RUChinadoll
February 12, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this
Copdawg - Hey thanks! :)
By the truth
February 12, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this
copydawg, I’m intolerant to people who want to impose government on me. I tried to make a point at the beginning of the blog and was immediately called a moron and illiterate by chinadoll. That kind of rhetoric and intimidation is usually brought about by liberals. My point about communism is that most liberals agree with Mao and Marx. I don’t believe that I was being a jerk defending my comments.
By Bruce
February 12, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this
Chinadoll and Truth, chill out. I think that if it came to it you both would protect the other with whatever means you had at the time. Very interesting comments on this. I do not think that our government will ever be able to take our guns away although the liberals have been trying for a very long time. I would not put up a sign in my yard broadcasting anything like what has been said, I figure let them wonder.
By the truth
February 12, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this
Chinadoll, My bad about the pms and communist comments. I do get defensive when someone immediately calls me names.
By the truth
February 12, 2008 12:23 PM | Link to this
Bruce, Agreed. We should chill out. I would caution you on your comment about government never being able to take our guns away. I don’t trust either party right now. Democrats are closer to socialists and Republicans are flat out wimps.
By Char
February 12, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this
OK, for all you guys who are so confused: There are areas of higher crime rates and the variables that contribute to this are many and measureable. If guns are taken away from law abiding citizens in areas that have a “high” crime rate, the crime rate in these areas will go up. Get the picture? My two cents on the 2nd Amendment: the right to create a militia AND the right to bears arms.
By Char
February 12, 2008 12:28 PM | Link to this
OK, for all you guys who are so confused: There are areas of higher crime rates and the variables that contribute to this are many and measureable. If guns are taken away from law abiding citizens in areas that have a “high” crime rate, the crime rate in these areas will go up. Get the picture? My two cents on the 2nd Amendment: the right to create a militia AND the right to bears arms.
By Agreeable
February 12, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this
The ironic thing is, nearly everyone engaged in this blog is exactly who the 2nd Amendment is designed to protect. We’re the folks who care and who have roots in the community. I may have different political beliefs than some, but I know that if I or my family are threatened, I will not hesitate to repel that threat with the maximum force necessary. That’s not liberal or conservative, that’s just me protecting my own. If I can’t do it legally, then unfortunately I’ll be forced to do it illegally. And I will never deny anyone’s right to not own a firearm.
By Char
February 12, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this
OK, for all you guys who are so confused: There are areas of higher crime rates and the variables that contribute to this are many and measureable. If guns are taken away from law abiding citizens in areas that have a “high” crime rate, the crime rate in these areas will go up. Get the picture? My two cents on the 2nd Amendment: the right to create a militia AND the right to bears arms.
By Troglodyke
February 12, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this
A gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-lbs woman on equal footing with a 220 lbs mugger, a 75-year-old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year-old gang banger.
I agree with this to a point. If the 100lb woman or the 75-year-old retiree are not trained in the use of those guns, then they WILL be overpowered by the criminals, who will take their guns and shoot them.
A gun only equalizes the playing field when it is wielded by a competent individual who knows what he or she is doing. A skilled criminal can get a gun away from a frightened victim pretty easily. That crap you see in the movies where a potential victim points a gun at “the bad guy” to “hold him” for the cops, or has a gun pointed at a bad guy and hesitates is ridiculous.
NEVER point a gun at someone you do not intent to shoot. NEVER acquire a gun to “threaten” someone. If you own a gun, you better be able and willing to stop the threat with force if it escalates to that. If you aren’t sure if you could “really shoot someone,” you have no business owning a firearm.
By the way, I own handguns. I have a CCP and I carry proudly. I also vote Democratic, only because there are no good Libertarian candidates, and the Republicans are too married to the Religious Reich.
By copdawg
February 12, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this
“truth”,now you are beginning to make some valid points on your argument. been a republican all my life but have voted for many democrats whom i thought would be good for our country, ie; richard russell, sam nunn, you get the idea. there are no statesman left in our government, just a bunch of folks seeking to keep themselves in power with no thought whatsoever about what is good for the country,oh god for the good old days.
By RUChinadoll
February 12, 2008 12:40 PM | Link to this
I’m chillin. Like a villan.
By Puzzled one
February 12, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this
Thank you for the clarification Truth.
I don’t think you guys have much to worry about, the Gun Lobby is pretty powerful, and when it comes to our government, money talks.
However, blaming everything on the Democrat’s, is just plain silly, as both Dems and Reps have taken positions for more control.
“During the 2000 Presidential campaign, President Bush indicated his support for a trigger lock requirement, raising the age limit, and requiring background checks at gun shows.”
By RUChinadoll
February 12, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this
truce?
By David M. Bennett
February 12, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this
“VA state law prohibits handguns on campuses. Not school policy.” ChinaDoll, sorry but Virgina State law does not say that concealed weapons permit holders cannot carry on campus. This is a fact. It IS the schools themselves that are allowed, by state law, to prohibit students and faculty from carrying. If the school in question allowed carry then Virginia law does not stand in the way. Sorry that you got it wrong. I’m not trying to nit-pick but please note that this is a very common misperception that even the media gets wrong. So you may be excused for relying on some misguided information.
By copdawg
February 12, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this
truce
By copdawg
February 12, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this
hey chinadoll, do you live in the blacksburg area? was there in october for the vt/fl state game. my first time in the area. have been to most of the college campuses in the east and many in the west va tech has the most beautiful i have ever been on, including va and uga.
By the truth
February 12, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this
Truce. Copdawg, thanks.
Troglodyke, pretty funny name. As far as Republicans selling out to the religious right. I don’t want to get in to that argument because it’s never ending. I am a christian and don’t like being categorized in to one party or another. I have sided with libertarians more now than in the past. This country needs bigger parties other than dems and the gop. This country was founded by common people and not the elite.
By copdawg
February 12, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this
well said truth
By Senior
February 12, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this
Correct me if i’m wrong, i have not seen anything about the 5 women murdered at the Lane Bryant store in Chicgo,saturday Feb 2nd. ‘IF’ only one had a pistol they might still be here, thats the reason for…… CONCEALED CARRY
By Honest
February 12, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this
Check out the world and all the places that don’t allow guns and see how much activity is due to guns, A VERY LOW AMOUNT. It’s just facts. If you look at Canada, they have a ton of guns and don’t have the problems we have. Maybe we should start taking a lesson from our neighbors from above…uuummmm
By the truth
February 12, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this
Senior, True, and the cops still don’t have a clue as to who did it. No surveillance cameras were in the store, either. Criminals mock the laws and should be dealt with harshly. I wish Batman was around to beat the crap out that guy.
By John D
February 12, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this
Maybe RUChinadoll should check her own facts before calling others a moron or telling them to check their facts. VT has a policy against having weapons on campus (http://www.policies.vt.edu/5616.pdf). In 2006, prior to the shootings, legislator Todd Gilbert had introduced a related bill into the Virginia House of Delegates. The bill, HB 1572 was intended to forbid public universities in Virginia from preventing students from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun on campus. The university opposed the bill, which died in subcommittee in January 2006.
Truth apologized, Chinadoll owes him one as well.
By Johnny
February 12, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this
Wow LOLx2!, with all that stuff in the yard to make you seem like a big man, you must have a little wee-wee…poor thing…tsk..tsk…
By kay
February 12, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this
I have carried a handgun since I was 18 years old, I am now 42 and have never had to use my gun, except on working on my marksmanship skills!!
By the truth
February 12, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this
John D., Chinadoll apologized for calling me names.
By John D
February 12, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this
No she didn’t. She said she should not of gotten angry, agreed to a truce and said she was chillin. She never said she was sorry or that she should not have made the comments.
By the truth
February 12, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this
John D., At this point who cares? I took it as a pseudo apology and left it at that. Move on!
By Troglodyke
February 12, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this
As far as Republicans selling out to the religious right. I don’t want to get in to that argument because it’s never ending. I am a christian and don’t like being categorized in to one party or another. I have sided with libertarians more now than in the past. This country needs bigger parties other than dems and the gop. This country was founded by common people and not the elite.
Very true. I am just sensitive to the amount of power the fundamentalists have gained in the last 8 years, seeing as many of them want to limit my rights. Sure, most Repubs value the Second Amendment, but many religious folks do not seem to realize that the First Amendment is just as important.
Gun rights are important, but my right to live as I choose is more important.
It is absolutely time for a third party. Everyone needs to be held accountable, especially the people we as voters place into power.
By John D
February 12, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this
I care. I don’t believe that anyone, you or her, should be allowed to make comments like those that were made, to accuse others of having their facts wrong, when in fact they are the one that was wrong, to say that others are illiterate (her comment saying that you said the police allowed him on campus versus your actual comment that the PC police allowed it or other ill mannered behaviour. Also, her initial post accused you of not checking your facts, but the central fact that she was disputing (the policy of VT to ban guns) was in error. At some point people have to be accountable for what they say and do. I’m not a believer in the “I’m sorry you were offended” apology as there is no personal accountability in such a non-apology.
National debates have devolved into name calling contests. Note how quickly the word “moron” was used by both of you and it went downhill from there. Name calling is a childish way of avoiding the actual debate and issue. If we stick to talking about the facts then maybe we can find a common ground, and eventually a solution. Or we can stand around sounding like a group of five year olds, pointing fingers and calling each other names.
By Norm
February 12, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this
Jabster,
Not all of us “damnyankees” are liberals. My Glock, with a Crimson Trace, is my constant companion. Ain’t had to use it yet, but if it’s them or me…….
By Didn't shoot the deputy
February 12, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this
Earlier a cop said he knew of no cases where a person with a license to carry a gun has committed a crime with a gun.
The Duluth police officer that shot a Fulton County Sheriff last week is one example of one that has.
He just admitted to drinking alcohol before he shot the sheriff.
By John D
February 12, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this
Troglodyke, what rights are you referring to? Conservatives and evangelicals are traditionally not behind any restriction of gun ownership, that comes from the left. Evangelicals have not made any serious effort to overturn Roe V. Wade, and up until the most recent president and republic congress, tried to limit the reach of government. And the change in the republican party over the last decade is not due to an increase in evangelical activism, but an abandonment of the principles that the party was founded on. Not only that, but if you do some research, evangelicals, as a percent of the congress versus the percentage of the total population of the United States, are actually underrepresented.
By copdawg
February 12, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this
john d, just a iittle advice, do not take up other peoples offenses. truth can take care of himself without outside assistance. now, if it were to get physical that would be a different matter!
By Amazed
February 12, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this
It amazes me to think the gun control group can have a voice after what has happened in D.C - some of the most strict gun control laws in the country yet the highest per capita murder rates and violent crime…. Criminals don’t care what laws you enact, because they are going to commit the crime no matter what your feel good law reads. One day, someone with a brain in the legal system will catch on to this.
By the truth
February 12, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this
John D., Fine, then ORDER her to apologize. There were several people calling me names before I got in to it with her. No one has come up with an alternative to my articles about law abiding citizens lowering crime by carrying guns. I posted one or two of them. No more blogs from those guys. They knew that they were wrong. I didn’t name call until Chinadoll called me an ahole, moron and illiterate. Actually, please just shut up about it and move on. I know what you’re trying to do. Bug off!
By the truth
February 12, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this
I have an idea. Let’s all get rid of the life long senators like Ted Kennedy. These guys have made a career out of a position that the founding fathers never intended. Politicians are there to serve the people and not control them.
Amazed, DC is exactly what New Orleans was. A liberal bastion of garbage. Everything about Louisiana is run by liberals. Crime is insane and nothing gets done. Politicians fill their pockets with taxpayer money. Look at William Jefferson! Caught with 90 grand from the fridge.
By John D
February 12, 2008 3:13 PM | Link to this
copdawg, to me it’s not necessarily taking up his being offended. It’s an issue of personal accountability and the recognition that what was said was wrong, both in tone and in fact. I don’t believe that people should be allowed to eshibit poor manners and then be excused. That’s a huge part of what has gotten this country into the mess that it’s in today. People are allowed to say and do whatever they please and no one says anything about it. Politicians waste billions of dollars and nothing happens. We lie, cheat, steal and it’s excused. It’s gotten to the point that teachers can’t mark tests in red ink because that might hurt the students feelings.
Maybe if we went back to the basics of personal accountability then we would have fewer school shootings because people would realize that there are serious consequences to bad behaviour. Maybe if we actually taught and enforced manners things would be different. Maybe people need to stand up and say that some things are not right.
And if you want to say who appointed me to do this, it would be nobody. But my response would be that no one should have to be appointed, that it’s something everyone should be doing.
By the truth
February 12, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this
This is great. I read an article that Chelsea Clinton is saying that her mom is fiscally conservative! IF this doesn’t tell everyone that conservative principals are great then I don’t know what will. Democrats win when they act like conservatives.
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/clintoncampaignmanagerhrci.php
By Henry
February 12, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this
Honest:
Check out the world and all the places that don’t allow guns and see how much activity is due to guns, A VERY LOW AMOUNT. It’s just facts.
That’s what you get for answering the wrong question. If banning guns triples your chances of being murdered, are you better off because you aren’t being murdered with a gun?
Since England virtually banned all guns, their violent crime rate has risen so fast that it is now higher than that of the United States! But, hey, it’s not all due to guns (though a lot of it still is) so you’re willing to overlook that, right?
By John D
February 12, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this
I can’t order anyone to do anything, and I haven’t made any subsequent requests for her to do so. What I have done is to respond to comments made giving my reasons for taking the position that I have. That’s a reasoned response.
Second, you don’t like that I say she owes an apology, but you feel free to tell me to shut up (bug off actually). This from someone that is trying to defend the second amendment, but I guess forgot the first.
Third, if you go back and look at the posts, she was the first, and only one to insult you. The others questioned your views and copdawg said it sounded like you might be the intolerant one, but no one else was name calling.
By the truth
February 12, 2008 3:40 PM | Link to this
John D., Bug off means STAY OUT OF MY AFFAIRS. Meaning, don’t impose yourself on me. Got it? I’m a grownup that can take care of myself. You’re trying to open up a can of worms. I’m intolerant of people like you prying in to my business. Also, I never said I was tolerant of anyone. Tolerance is for people who can’t solve problems. They tolerate idiocy. Please, I thank you for posting the correct info about VT but please don’t start another argument. I’ve had my fill for the day.
By John D
February 12, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this
A couple of things to add to Henry’s comments. First, the cause or type of death is not typically broken out in the statistics on guns. How many were used in suicides (if I decide to kill myself I probably will regardless of whether I have a gun or not), how many involve law enforcement or other lawful uses? Second, how many crimes are prevented by lawful gun ownership? If someone breaks into your house and then realizes that you have a gun how likely are they to leave without further violence?
By the truth
February 12, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this
Can anyone explain why Bob Barr looks like a metrosexual?
By John D
February 12, 2008 3:55 PM | Link to this
Truth, at what point did I impose myself on you? I have not made any demands or requests of you. Indeed, you are the one demanding that I behave in a particular manner. As to it being “your” business, it’s a public forum and I’m unaware of your ownership of it.
By John D
February 12, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this
Because he’s so much more relaxed since he left Congress? Because he figured out that tying a noose around your neck first thing every day might not be the best start to the day?
Or, on the cynical side, he knows that dressing stylishly, but less conservatively, makes a better impression on people that read his blog?
By the truth
February 12, 2008 4:07 PM | Link to this
John D., Enough. I like Bobs glasses. They look a lot like mine. The hairstyle beats the powdered wigs look hands down. Good day to you.
By Troglodyke
February 12, 2008 4:45 PM | Link to this
Troglodyke, what rights are you referring to?
My right to adopt a child, to have that child learn about safe and effective birth control in school, and to enter into a civil union with my partner, for starters. Marriage for gays is completely off the table in GA, thanks to an overwhelming effort by Sadie Fields and the rest of her fearmongering cohorts a few years ago.
It was already illegal, but the evangelicals made it into a huge issue, and scared a lot of people into voting against something that was already against the law. That’s power.
Conservatives and evangelicals are traditionally not behind any restriction of gun ownership, that comes from the left.
Oh, I know that. I said most Repubs in my last post because I didn’t know for sure if all Repubs uphold gun laws.
Evangelicals have not made any serious effort to overturn Roe V. Wade,
Oh, they’ve made efforts, but they haven’t made headway. It’s a huge wedge issue for them, though, and always will be. Every year at the start of the legislative session, some Republican introduces a bill to ban all abortion (even in the case of rape or incest) in the state of GA. They are not giving up.
and up until the most recent president and republic congress, tried to limit the reach of government.
As a rule, this is true.
And the change in the republican party over the last decade is not due to an increase in evangelical activism, but an abandonment of the principles that the party was founded on.
Actually, I think it’s a bit of both. Politicians today simply will not be elected without “statements of faith.” The “religious test for office” is alive and well, and we have Xtian fundamentalists to thank for it.
Not only that, but if you do some research, evangelicals, as a percent of the congress versus the percentage of the total population of the United States, are actually underrepresented.
You don’t have to be an evangelical to want to see “Xtian principles” at work in the laws of our nation. Millions of people claim to be Xtian in this country, and many fall right in with the fundamentalists because of fear.
The bottom line is this: America is a secular nation, with secular laws. You have every right to be as Xtian as you want to be, but not to impose your beliefs on others. Changing laws to reflect your religious beliefs is imposing them.
By Charles
February 12, 2008 4:49 PM | Link to this
The second amendment of the United States Constitution: 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.
Americans must not forget about tyrants and fools in every generation. They are not easy for the average person to detect because the media has the power to transform devils into angles… But some hold the highest offices in the land, many high profile positions, and some hewers of wood, drawers of water…
I can assure you of two things that can keep men and women free; a fervent faith in the promises of Jesus, the Christ, and the possession of firearms for violent self defense.
The founding fathers clearly understood that by having each, the rights of citizens given by God and documented by the United States Constitution, would be secured for us and preserved for posterity…
By Charles
February 12, 2008 4:49 PM | Link to this
The second amendment of the United States Constitution: 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.
Americans must not forget about tyrants and fools in every generation. They are not easy for the average person to detect because the media has the power to transform devils into angles… But some hold the highest offices in the land, many high profile positions, and some hewers of wood, drawers of water…
I can assure you of two things that can keep men and women free; a fervent faith in the promises of Jesus, the Christ, and the possession of firearms for violent self defense.
The founding fathers clearly understood that by having each, the rights of citizens given by God and documented by the United States Constitution, would be secured for us and preserved for posterity…
By John D
February 12, 2008 5:06 PM | Link to this
Troglodyke, most of the things that you refer to in your first paragraph are not new, but have been around for years. Gay marriage has never been accepted in the US, it isn’t a result of some shift to fundamentalism. The same with adoption rights. And you don’t have to be a Christian to believe that the best family for a child is a two parent male / female household. As to the birth control issue, that sounds as much like you forcing your beliefs on others as others forcing them on you. Birth control is not a school related issue. Children should be taught this by their parents and not have it pushed by the school. Would you say that I have a right to have my religious beliefs taught in schools? No, but then again, I don’t want any religious belief taught in school: that’s not where it belongs.
As to Roe v. Wade, there is always going to be a fringe component that opposes it, but frankly, I think most Christians view the issue as settled law. You will see news reports on protestors and government officials that make noise about it, but it’s not going to change.
As to statements of faith, I think that’s just pandering to the masses just like promising more welfare or benefits to illegal aliens. You take a position to attract voters, but many of the stories that I’ve seen in the press for the last couple of years say that religion plays a smaller role in politics now than it had been.
As to America being a secular nation, I kind of have to disagree with you. If you go back and read what Washington, Jefferson, Madison and almost all of the founding fathers wrote, it is clear that they did not foresee any division between religion and government. And in case you want to bring up the Establishment clause, remember that it says that government shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. People with religious beliefs have every right to petition the government based on those beliefs and they can be acted on as long as it does not extend to establishing a national religion.
By John D
February 12, 2008 5:11 PM | Link to this
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” - Thomas Jefferson Commonsense 1774 (I think)
By Troglodyke
February 13, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this
Birth control is not a school related issue. Children should be taught this by their parents and not have it pushed by the school.
Actually, I agree with this. So why are schools so invested in abstinence education? That’s birth control. That’s the problem; they want to teach abstinence, but won’t give kids honest facts about sex and its consequences.
There’s nothing wrong with abstinence; just don’t lie about sex as you are teaching it. A lot of abstinence teachings tell outright falsehoods about the failure rate of condoms. Schools shouldn’t be lying to kids to push an agenda.
And yes, the whole “abstinence-only” movement is due to Bush and the evangelicals pushing to end BC info in school unless it’s the info they want to teach.
As to America being a secular nation, I kind of have to disagree with you. If you go back and read what Washington, Jefferson, Madison and almost all of the founding fathers wrote, it is clear that they did not foresee any division between religion and government.
Huh? Did you learn that in church? It’s amazing to me how religious people read the words of the FF and see something completely opposite to what is really there.
Madison, especially, was very leery of religion and state alliances:
Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov’ & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov’ of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together; [James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt]
An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against……Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance……..religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government. [James Madison in a letter to Livingston, 1822, from Leonard W. Levy- The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,pg 124]
There are more here: http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm
None of the FF advocated a republic without religion, but most of them were very much for church-state separation.
America is a secular country with a majority Xtian population. There’s nothing wrong with that as long as everyone realizes that we are governed by a secular document, and not the bible.
You see Xtians as not having much power, and I see them as having too much, especially in Bush’s administration. It’s time for the pendulum to swing back, for science to be brought to the forefront, so we can remain a superpower.
By Wendy weinbaum
February 13, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this
As a Jewess in the US, I want to remind all that America wasn’t won with a registered gun, and that criminals are stopped not by talk, but by FIREARMS. That is why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!!
By Hugh White
February 14, 2008 5:49 PM | Link to this
My anxiety level over this issue has increased since the Solicitor General of the United States filed a Friend of the Court Brief essentially favoring the D.C. Ban by opening the door for Second Amendment Rights to be overridden by the Government under special circumstances. So much for George Bush supporting the Second Amendment!
By songbird
February 18, 2008 4:55 PM | Link to this
The continuation of Blue Laws in the state of GA, i.e., sale of alcohol on Sundays in grocery stores, is certainly a violation of the separation of church and state.
When the bill was put forth last year to allow the voters to vote on this issue, it was quickly squashed by people who mentioned the Sabbath as their reason. This is clearly certain Christians forcing their religious beliefs down others throats. And, Sunday isn’t the Sabbath for everyone in this State.
By songbird
February 18, 2008 4:56 PM | Link to this
The continuation of Blue Laws in the state of GA, i.e., sale of alcohol on Sundays in grocery stores, is certainly a violation of the separation of church and state.
When the bill was put forth last year to allow the voters to vote on this issue, it was quickly squashed by people who mentioned the Sabbath as their reason. This is clearly certain Christians forcing their religious beliefs down others throats. And, Sunday isn’t the Sabbath for everyone in this State.