Home > The Barr Code > Archives > 2008 > March > 24 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USSupreme Court hopefully will strike D.C. gun ban
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Last week, the U. S. Supreme heard oral arguments in a case that last year found the 32-year gun ban in the District of Columbia unconstitutional. Despite the fact that the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the ‘right to keep and bear arms’ has been a part of our Constitution for 217 years and has given rise to innumerable court cases during those many decades, this is the very first time the High Court has directly confronted the meaning and scope of the Amendment.
The lower, federal appeals court found the Amendment does guarantee the right of an individual person to possess a firearm, and that the Washington, D.C. ban on handguns amounted to an impermissibly restrictive limitation of that right. While most Members of the U.S. House and Senate joined in briefs to the Supreme Court asking it to agree with the appeals court on both findings, the Bush Administration strangely asked the Supreme Court justices to send the decision back to the lower court to reconsider precisely how the D. C. ban should be interpreted. The Bush Justice Department took this disappointing stance because it feared a precedent that might make it more difficult for it and future administrations to enforce the wide range of existing federal gun laws.
Despite this waffling by the Administration (with which even Vice President Cheney disagreed on the record), it appears the Court will likely find D.C.gun ban, which disarms the citizenry in one of the country’s most violence-prone cities, unconstitutional because it effectively abrogates an individual’s right to own a firearm for self-defense. If the Court does not do so, we’ll have the Bush Administration to thank.
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By dougmo
March 24, 2008 7:37 AM | Link to this
Good article, now if the Supreme Court would reverse itself on Kilo vs. New London,CT debacle of an opinion, life would be good
By Sooper Jani Man
March 24, 2008 7:40 AM | Link to this
About time a case like this makes its way to the supreme court. This I hope, once and for all will settle what the second amendment means, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. AMEN!
By ron
March 24, 2008 8:36 AM | Link to this
Bob,Wouldn’t it be nice if a clear decision was handed down from The Supreme Court on this issue?Can’t be done though,can it?
By Bill
March 24, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this
The only thing any gun control measure has ever done is disarm and leave vulnerable the law-abiding citizenry. Statistics have shown time and time again that where citizens are alowed to possess and carry firearms freely, crime goes down, and where the restrictions are great, crime goes up. The law only restricts the law abiding. The problem isn’t guns; it’s criminals. The police cannot protect you. The police do little to prevent crime; they investigate crime. Your defense is your responsibility.
In every other place in the Bill of Rights, when it refers to “the people” it means the citizenry, and when it refers to “the state” it means the government. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” means exactly that. The citizenry has the right. That’s you and me folks!
By sane jane
March 24, 2008 8:52 AM | Link to this
Doesn’t DC have a HANDGUN ban only? Nobody is telling you that you can’t have a shotgun or rifle to “protect your castle.”
Handguns are a particular menace, particularly as it relates to violent crimes.
I heard a comedian once say: let’s abolish all gun laws & abide by the second amendment. The only catch is that you can only use the technology that was available at the time the 2nd amendment was written.
Let’s see all these campus shootings take place when your only option is a musket!
NO HANDGUNS!
By teacher man
March 24, 2008 8:54 AM | Link to this
“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.”
Should we be allowed to “keep and bear” any “Arms” that we want? Can I buy RPGs to defend my house and family? Why not short range missles? Maybe some C4 rigged as a defense perimeter around my yard?
The “arms” intended by the author of the amendment clearly involve a big, honkin’ rifle, so that’s what we should have. Handguns are designed as weapons to conceal and kill. The people of DC understand this, which is why the ban was important to them. If we can ban an M-60 or grenades or any other type of weapon, than a state should have the power to legislate what they believe is best for their own citzens. Want to live in a place where everything goes? Move to the Middle East.
By sane jane
March 24, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this
Great point, teacher man. I guess Bill would prefer Gaza? Or Kabul? Or Sadr City?
Where every man must protect himself, and anything goes?
AK-47s for all! A much better alternative, right?
By Don
March 24, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this
“A well regulated Militia” Isn’t it amazing how often this little phrase is completely ignored?
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” means exactly that.” Actually, it doesn’t mean exactly that, since that doesn’t take into account the “well regulated militia”.
By ARMED
March 24, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this
re: To Teacherman:
I have MORE FEAR OF THE GOVERNMENT AND PEOPLE WITH YOUR BELIEFS than I do of criminals … and I fear criminals!
By Burdell
March 24, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this
I would encourage everyone to read the transcript of the oral argument at least, and if you’re really brave, all of the briefs that were filed in the case.
The problem with getting a clear ruling here is that at least three distinct positions were argued last week, and that doesn’t cover the full extent of the issue.
Ideally, a majority of the court would rule that a) it’s an individual right and b) that right is subject to intermediate or strict scrutiny.
a) is likely. What do people think about the odds of getting a majority on b)?
By bubbatech01
March 24, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this
“The “arms” intended by the author of the amendment clearly involve a big, honkin’ rifle, so that’s what we should have.”
Yeah, the authors of the Constitution also envisioned a country in which slavery was legal, so let’s start doing that again, too.
That argument makes no sense, unless you are a member of the KKK.
By MADMOMMY
March 24, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this
Teacher man, I think you are getting a little off point in your posting.
Just a reminder: Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
We all have the right to protect not only our persons, but our poperty as well. The rule might be 217 years old, but it still holds true to this day.
By Jack Stilton
March 24, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this
Liberals like to pick and choose what parts of the constitution they like. The 2nd amendment says the right to bare arms shall not be infringed. It takes a real genius and a lot of lawyers to intemperate what that means!
By sane jane
March 24, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
teacher man exaggerates to make a proper point - are all you gun nuts really advocating that people should be entitled to have M-60s, AR-15s, AK-47s & other assault rifles in their homes?
If not, then where is the line? And if the people of DC drew the lines at handguns… the question is, why are you infringing THEIR rights to decide what’s reasonable?
If you’re not a citizen of The District, then you really don’t have a dog in the fight.
Gun nuts everywhere…
By Bill
March 24, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this
Now the comments are getting downright ridiculous! Handguns were designed and produced for close-range self-defense. You can’t put a shotgun or rifle in your nightstand or glove compartment, and it isn’t practical to carry one on your person.
RPG’s and explosive devices aren’t for civilian self-defense. Neither are fully automatic weapons, and no one is arguing against their regulation. Let’s try and stick to the argument. It’s not all or nothing. In the DC case it’s about handguns. Law abiding people who legally possess handguns typically are not a threat. The ban does not appear to have reduced handgun possession or crimes committed with them. In fact, DC has one of the highest violent crime rates in the nation, so what good has the handgun ban done? It has created a defenseless populace at the mercy of criminals.
By Rob
March 24, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this
To Teacher man:
The Washington D.C. handgun ban has been in place for 32 years, yet they still have one of the highest murder-by-handgun rates in the U.S. Clearly, this ban only infringes on the rights of law abiding citizens.
Maybe Washington D.C. should adopt the same law that Kennesaw, GA did in 1982 where every resident of that city must maintain an operable firearm. Crime rates plummeted after the passing of this law.
Laws that ban guns don’t work. Criminals don’t care about laws, or they wouldn’t be criminals!
By sane jane
March 24, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this
I guess, Jack Stilton, you’ll just have to “intemperate” the amendment for us, huh?
And I don’t begrudge your right to “bare” your arms - they need some sun anyhow.
People with IQs lower than 100 shouldn’t be allowed to vote…
By Jessica
March 24, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this
Sane Jane, they had pistols, aka a type of handgun in 1776. They also had cannons. Does that mean according to what you said, I get to have a cannon to protect my home?
I am okay with background checks for gun ownership, I had one done so I could get my conceal carry permit. A total handgun ban not constitutional. If it weren’t for the fact that the ‘militia’ made up of average citizens armed with their own guns had so many at home they would have never one the revolutionairy war.
Now, I’m not worried about a war, but people who might try to harm me, my family or try to take my things better watch out.
By West Cobb Dad
March 24, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this
I own two handguns, plus have a permit to carry. But where can I carry them? With the strictness of Georgia’s gun control laws, I can pack my Bersa .380 when I take a shower and that is about my limit. Anyone remember the Perimeter Mall shootings around 1990? Sorry, I’m not alound to carry a gun when I go to the mall. How about all of these recent university shootings? Sorry, I wasn’t allowed to carry my gun when I decided to go back to school a couple of years ago. How about the young lady and the old couple killed at our parks? Sorry, not allowed to carry my gun in Federal parks and until recently carry one in county parks (but the gov’t is trying to figure how to put that back into law). If I take Marta because it’s smarter, I have to disarm. Ever catch the train at 5 points at 11 at night? Feel safe? How about the downtown office shootings about 5-7 years ago? Sorry, can’t take my gun to work, much less have it in my car in the parking lot. Proponents say it will turn into the wild west if they ‘relax’ the restrictions. I say, the punks who by that 9m from someone in an alley off of Auburn Ave will think twice before they try to hold someone up. Give the law abiding citizens a chance. I can never understand why gov’t thinks restrictions will cut down crime. It never does. It only empowers the criminals.
By teacher man
March 24, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this
ARMED: fearful of me? Seriously? Guess it’s a good idea for you to hold up in your compound with a bunch of “arms” to be safe from any opposing ideas in the world.
bubbatech01: you are correct, sir! The Constitution evolved to eliminate archaic positions from the past. I think the 2nd Amendment falls under that category.
MADMOMMY: yes, we have the right to defend our people and property, and I fully support an individual’s right to own a gun in that capacity. I just want to know if there are reasonable limits to the “arms” we possess.
By Daedalus
March 24, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this
Under a strict scrutiny constitutional analysis — almost all regulations and restrictions are invalidated (see the affirmative action cases).
If strict scrutiny is applied, then bans on guns on federal workplaces, schools, etc., will fail.
About the only place they will have a chance is to maintain the ban on guns in commercial airline flights —and you know the NRA would like to see the one go as well. No more metal detectors, no more screening — its all unconstitutional according to the NRA.
By zeke
March 24, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this
Hopefully the Supremes will rule that the Constitution guarantees an individual right to own firearms, PERIOD! If you read alll the papers of the founers of our country and writers of the Constitution you understand that they mean to limit the power of the government by allowing an armed citizenry to control the power of that government! Think not. Then look at all the despots in the last 2 centurys! First disarm the general population, then you can do as you will with no opposition! Castro, Stalin and others did just that!Maybe they will go beyond that, ruling such nuts as the Brady bunch are illegal! There are too many laws in effect now that limit the right of non criminal, non mental case citizens to “bear arms”! True, we do not need machine guns or fully automatic weapons in the general population, but, semi automatic rifles, shotguns or handguns should be legal! In the recent cases at Virginia Tech and others, those persons would not have been able to “legally” buy a gun if the socialist liberals in our society did not have limits put on law enforcement and medical institutions to keep them from reporting mental problems or treatment because of “privacy rights” of those nuts! THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE NOW!
By sunshine and thunder
March 24, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this
Read the 2A very carefully. Is the right granted by the amendment or is it assumed to exist? “The right of the people” is assumed to pre exist the writing as were all of the rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights.
The notion that the right belongs only to a state militia is patently absurd. If that were the case, why does the 10th Amendment specifically differentiate between the people and the states?
By Bill
March 24, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this
SaneJane, why do you have to resort to name calling? Why can’t you just present a nacent, cohesive argument as I have tried to do? Give us some statistics to back up your position, and I will gladly listen. And, I prefer to live in the United States where I am free, but thanks for your suggestions.
West Cobb Dad, I too have a GFL (Georgia Firearms License) but I only choose to carry when I believe the situation warrants it. My brother on the other hand open-carries every day. He goes pretty much wherever he wants, except for certain prohibited public places. He has had the police called on him in the Varsity (man with a gun), but it was a waste of their time. He was told to have a nice day. This just illustrates the negative stigma associated with firearms.
Firearms aren’t for everyone, some folks are afraid or disintersted, and that’s ok. But those of us who enjoy shooting (I don’t hunt, but that’s ok too) and are willing to be responsible for our own defense should be allowed. I have no problem with licensing or background checks.
By teacher man
March 24, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this
Bill, you’re a reasonable, intelligent person, and I appreciate your logical viewpoint.
Just so I understand correctly, this is the ideal situation: everyone who is eligible carries licensed, concealed handguns anywhere he/she wants? That might come in handy when people cut in line at Starbuck’s!
By George Mitchell
March 24, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this
The Second Amendment isn’t first about hunting or self-defense. That Amendment was written and placed immediately after protection of Speech because the First holds Government in check through the Press and the Second through guaranteeing the sovereignty of the States against a national (rather than Federal, or limited) government. From their experience with Britain, the Founding Fathers feared the weakening of the States. That’s what the Militia is all about: It is uniquely local; It is to be armed and trained (“well-regulated”) at the State level; It is to be composed of all “able-bodied men between the ages of 16 and 60”; Each member of the Militia is to provide his own firearms and is to undergo periodic training under the auspices and expense of his State. State Militias were intended to keep Government wary — afraid — of The People. These rubrics were not suggestions. They were mandatory, if The People wished to retain their sovereignty. The first Ten Amendments were written as “God-given” — which is to say that the Rights which they enumerate existed before the creation of Government — and were specifically intended to hold in check the power, scope, and reach of Government. In point of fact, Government was to always be afraid of the Press and of the arms which The People possessed.
By GaLiberal
March 24, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this
After getting ripped for his ‘liberal’ position on them nasty illegal immigrants, Bob ‘Impeachment’ Barr returns to his love affair with the far right neocon racist nutjobs. First off, the Constitution says nothing about this being an individual right. In fact, it is very clear in the preamble it is a states right. Therefore, the states (and the Federal government) have a right to set limits on gun ownership. Like no handguns owned or sold. Of course, the gun nut wackos love to misquote this Amendment and point to some obscure ‘papers’ supposedly written by some Revolutionary War patriot as justification. Like the white supremacists use The Turner Diaries (written by a member of the American Nazi Party) to justify their racism.
Secondly, guns for self-defense is a lie. A big lie. You are more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. Like the man in FL who shot and killed his son who forgot his house key and was coming in through a basement door. Or the woman that shot and killed her husband when he arrived home early from a business trip. If you include “accidental” shootings that kills a child, the risk to innocent people goes way up. Homes with guns are inherently dangerous to anyone who enters them. Anyone that believes they are a deterrent also believes in the tooth fairy. Of course, this hasn’t prevented the Rethuglicon-controlled legislature from passing all kinds for stupid laws that allow gun nuts to carry guns into city and county parks, into work, and in their cars.
When you vote Rethuglicon, you vote against your own best interests. And GA gun laws are living proof.
By galotto
March 24, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this
RE: WEST COBB DAD
Actually the GA gun laws are not to strict. I just got my carry an concealed licsence a few weeks ago, and the woman at the police office gave me a rule book… You can carry a pistol in a mall, walmart, bank, and any other store… You can carry it into any restraunt that does not sell Alchohal.. You cannot carry your gun to the mall if there is a public speaker… SO BY ALL MEANS CARRY YOUR GUNS!!!! I Carry mine every where. And right now the ga govt is trying to pass a law that you can carry in a fed building..
By The truth
March 24, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this
GaLiberal, Don’t you have coffee to serve? Get back to work. I’m more likely to kill a family member? Right. Georgia was under democrap control for many years. People got sick of them and threw them out. Democrats are garbage and so is your liberal rants. Law abiding citizens have every right to own guns. Go back to your war protest! Moron.
By Sane Citizen
March 24, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this
To Teacher man, Insane Jane and all the others not too sane. First of all read the constitution and try to understand using logic. Maybe hard for liberals, but try anyway. If you think that guns are responsible for crime, then pls. don’t buy them. Place a sign on your front door that says “NO GUNS HERE” Then you will see what happens. I on the other hand, will keep mine close by to protect myself. Hopefully, I will never have to use it.
By Sam
March 24, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this
The DC law being evaluated requires that rifles and shotguns in the home be unloaded and dis-assembled or locked. In other words, they’re not guns, they’re clubs.
Concealable pistols existed at the time The Bill of Rights was written.
In every state that has CCW, violent crime goes down. The CCW holders are the most law-abiding group in the state, including police officers. (Admittedly, police have more exposure to situations where they might mis-use their firearms, but when’t the last time you heard of two CCWs breaking into a house and shooting a little old lady?)
By Oh my...
March 24, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this
GaLiberal, do you REALLY believe all that crap you are typing? Yes, some idiots have guns and shoot their relatives, some people are not careful in the storage/hiding of their guns, and some people are just plain stupid. However, please get back to reality - what will you do if you home is broken into? Wait 15 minutes for the police and HOPE you and your family are OK? You are a sad excuse for husband and father if that’s the extent of the protection you offer your family!
Actually though, I’d LOVE for you to move into my neighborhood… near the front of the subdivision and proudly proclaim your home as gun-free. I’d feel much safer in my own home with you as the easiest target. Come to think of it, I wish there were more people like you!
By Earl
March 24, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this
GaLiberal, what in Gods name do you know about any type gun other than a glue gun that you use to put hair extentions on someones head? When have been confronted with a bad guy and had to choose bewteen self-defense and crying like a big girl into some poor 9-1-1 operators ear, crying that the cops come help you….soon. Washington DC pushed for an all out ban on handguns and the first year the law went into place, homicides increased. You seriously need to stop getting all your news from Air Amercia types of places. GaLiberal, I know gay men that shoot, you should you take up target shooting. It’s such an exciting, empowering feeling to shoot a robber. Try it sometimes.
By Lottie
March 24, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this
What ever happened to states’ rights? Why does everything have to end up in the Supreme Court? Why can’t issues be presented to voters for their decision? If the PEOPLE of D.C. want handgun bans, so be it. If they don’t then it should be up to them to repeal the law. If the state of Georgia allows citizens to defend their homes but the state of NY doesn’t and the people agree to it, then it’s their right.
By Bosch
March 24, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this
The one part of the 2nd amendment that I think is horribly mistrepresented is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”
We have the best military in the world to take care of our national security, do we really need every day Joe American armed to the gills to ensure a safe, free America? I think we’ve got that covered.
This amendment has been b******* by the gun loving, “I’m only protecting my family” crowd to mean they have the right to own any kind of firearm available for protection.
This law was creatd to insure regulated militias were armed so that we can keep our country safe - that was long about when we had British coming around attacking us and all that. I don’t know of too many British attacks, Indian attacks, etc. happening these days. And I suppose this law was applicable during the Civil War too, but I think we’ve moved past that as well.
There are many criminal attacks from United States citizens upon United States citizens, but that is a different issue and needs to be addressed beyond attempting to use this 217 year law.
Every citizen does not need a firearm. The time of militias are over unless we start seeing armed Sunni/Shiite militias from the ME or other full scale attacks from other countries happening on U.S. soil, but until that happens - I say, let the military handle any kind of threat to national security.
However, if armed enemies of the state start marching down my street, then I guess I’ll pick up a gun to defend my home - not until then.
But hey, I’m not a lawyer, so what the hell do I know? Just my opinion.
By Bill
March 24, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this
Gosh people, can’t we have a sensible debate without degenerating into name-calling?
I’ve stated that I support responsible gun ownership by law abiding citizens, but some want to make the choice all or nothing, which is unreasonable.
GaLiberal is certainly misinformed, but he has a right to his opinion, and I’ll defend his right to express it. It’s just too bad that we can’t all remain civil during our discourse. I’m not a “gun-nut whacko” any more than he’s a “Liberal bed-wetter”. I just want to arrive at a sensible, logical resolution while keeping my freedoms intact.
Remember, government does not grant freedom; all people are inherently free. Government can only take away freedom through statute. The free speech guarantee in the first ammendment is an individual right, yet you can’t publicly slander someone or yell fire in a public place. Reasonable restrictions are commonplace, however caution must be used to define what is and isn’t reasonable. Where does that decision lie?
By Oh my...
March 24, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this
Bosch, can you move into my neighborhood too? Maybe right next to GaLiberal! (I feel safer by the minute!)
By m
March 24, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this
exactly what regulated militia do you fools feel you have the right to protect yourselves from with all this nonsense? and where do you stop?
By BlueMoon
March 24, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this
GaLiberal-
When you spew venom and call people names like you have the only opinion in the world that counts no one hears you, and for good reason.
Grow up, put together a lucid argument and respect others. Just because there are others that don’t believe in what you believe in doesn’t make them wrong or unworthy of respect and it’s not an excuse so say, “Well they did it”. It just shows immaturity.
And if you ever wondered about the effectiveness of handguns as a deterrent to crime please check out the crime statistics of Australia once the gun ban went in place there. If that doesn’t alarm you, nothing will.
Never mind the fact that I’m not really up for giving away any more rights as it is. We’re losing them at a fantastic rate in this country and one day we’re going to wake up in a communist country and not even realize it.
By Lock_and_Load
March 24, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this
Rebuttal to “a well regulated militia”
1) The militia were made up of CIVILIANS armed with THEIR PERSONAL WEAPONS
2) Militias used pistols
3) In keeping with the “long guns only” argument, can we then own “militia” style firearms? I believe today’s militias use M-16s and Beretta M-92s.
By Matlock
March 24, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this
Here are two links that shed some light on the concealed carry laws.
http://www.georgiapacking.org/
http://www.thehighroad.org/
For a scholarly review of the crime statistics (and whether concealed carry laws increase the incidence of gun crimes), read John Lott’s books “More Guns, Less Crime” and “The Bias Against Guns.”
By Bosch
March 24, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this
Oh my…..
If you have guns in your home, I certainly would not feel safe around you either.
It’s pretty simple to me - the military and police protect us, my neighbors don’t (unless, of course, they might be a policeman, or military personnel).
I also don’t live in fear that someone on any given day is going to break in to my house and harm my family, or steal my stuff. I know it happens, but very rarely.
I also know I could get killed in a car crash today, but I don’t dwell on it. It’s not healthy.
By William
March 24, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this
The main difference between those for and against gun control is readily viewable in the above posts and can be summed up as follows:
For gun control: Well reasoned arguments (with the exception of a couple of name-callers)
Against gun control: Prey on people’s insecurities and fear (consistently).
By Bosch
March 24, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this
Matlock,
Statistics can many times be analyzed and manipulated to support or not support someone’s agenda or purpose.
And forgive me for saying, but a website with “georgia packing” in it’s title tells me that the information posted on that web page is going to have biased material.
It’s the same thing as if I posted a website entitled “Gunsarebadandkillpeople.org.” You would probably have the same kind of reaction as I do to your posted website.
See my point?
John Lott’s research is praised by some, and considered bs by others. It’s all the way you manipulate the data, and how reliable and valid the results are.
By BlueMoon
March 24, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this
Bosch-
Let me share with you the main purpose of a handgun…a deterrent…something to (hopefully) never be used.
It seems as though you have a very unhealthy view of guns. Why not try going to a gun range just to familiarize yourself with them? Most people fear what they don’t understand.
By William
March 24, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this
Bosch, I’ve seen your type before. You’re one of those make-too-much-sense-types who gets others thinking critically for themselves. You didn’t hear it from me but these nut-jobs have been historically known to kill people like that!!
By Bosch
March 24, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this
BlueMoon,
I appreciate that some people feel the need to carry guns or own them, I just happen to not be one of those people, and expect the same respect (not that I feel you’ve disrespected me, but in general).
I don’t feel I have an unhealthy view of guns. I feel it horribly unhealthy to live in fear that I’m going to be attacked, or that someone in my family is going to be attacked.
I know that those things happen, and that is horribly misfortunate. I’m not naive enough to think that I can just leave my doors open at night. I take precautions like everyone else to ensure some layer of added security, I just don’t feel the need to own or ever use a gun.
I have two friends (also an “ex” relative) who are policemen and they all told me that if someone charges into your home, or breaks in on you in the middle of the night, or pulls a gun on you in the street, which, in and of themselves are very slim, you have already lost the battle and they have won. A gun will do very little to protect you in those cases.
By Matlock
March 24, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this
Bosch,
You objected to the website georgiapacking.org simply because of its name. Obviously, you didn’t expend even 30 seconds of your time to examine the contents of the site, which are:
“Here on GeorgiaPacking.org you can find:
* An up to date list of pro and anti gun Bills in the Georgia General Assembly * House and Senate Report cards based on gun related bills they sponsored and voted on. * Georgia Gun Laws in plain English including Deadly Force and Stand Your Ground * Georgia Attorney General Firearm Related UnOfficial Opinions * Firearm Caselaw from the Appellate and Supreme Courts of Georgia. * Weapons Related Georgia Code * Probate Court contact information for all 159 Georgia Counties with a growing list of the actual firearm license process for each county; also accessible through the dropdown box on the left of the menubar at the top of every page * A Firearm Discussion forum to talk about News, Guns, Bills, Laws, Concealed Carry, and the Georgia Firearm License * Places Not Off Limits to firearms and Places Off Limits to firearms * License Renewal Guide explaining the changes to the renewal process that went into effect 7-1-06."Bosch, if things such as case law, license renewal guides and Probate Court contact information make you fearful, I’m not at all surprised that a weapon might frighten you.
For those willing to invest a few minutes of their time to actually read the material, georgiapacking.org provides useful information.
The minimum requirement of an educated person is good manners. To criticize something without expending 30 seconds to read it is, well, bad manners.
Regarding Lott’s data, why not examine D.C.’s crime statistics for yourself? Their gun laws are among the most restrictive in the U.S. Their crime rate must be low then.
Why not look it up and report back here? We’ll be waiting on your reply.
By Rick
March 24, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this
According to the FBI and several others who keep records, the states with lax gun laws have the lowest crime rates. Meaning that when the bad guys know you have a gun they where they can get easy prey. Why do the nut cases shoot up schools? they know they ar ethe only one with guns there. The entire bill of rights address PERSONAL rights. why do you somehow think they made the 2nd any different? I have raised 5 children, 4 girls with guns in the house, they have all made it thru college without being killed accidentally. They all know how to shoot and have carry permits. All i want is a level playing field, the crooks carry everywhere they want . I want the same rights. Please refer me to the case where a person with a carry permit has ever used a gun in crime, I cannot find one.
By Matlock
March 24, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this
Bosch—one other question.
If you were repelled by “georgiapacking.org” because you think it suggests some nefarious purpose, you should indeed be attracted to “theghighroad.org” for the same reason—shouldn’t you.
As for the comment that you “get others thinking critically for themselves”, I don’t see it.
We can either incorporate the available statistical data into forming our opinions on this subject (via a PhD economist using multiple regression analysis), or we can take your word for it—all the time relying on the Founders’ intent behind the Second Amendment.
Call me silly, but I’ll take Lott’s data over the emotional opinion of someone who is extraordinarily apprehensive about even visiting a web site because of its name any day.
Enjoy.
By Corey G
March 24, 2008 12:40 PM | Link to this
I would like to say that I am a resident of DC and saw this article and feel that I should explain the situation for those unaware of this gun issue and put my 2 cents in.
My opinion is I think that this issue is being brought to this level because the city is determined to continue being restrictive with the guise of not allowing hand guns when the whole restrictive nature of the law to include storage and availability are what DC residents are complaining about. Now a lawsuit is being brought to the supreme court and finally may either overturn the gun ban or possibly ruin it for the rest of the nation via a second amendment ruling.
Even though I could legally have a shotgun or a rifle in my house many gun shops will not even attempt to sell me one because of the critical nature of DC towards gun ownership as a whole and the scrutiny they may receive by selling me a weapon. There are so many restrictions gun shops don’t even want to be bothered with it. Although, If I did have a rifle in my home then I would have to disassemble it (basically remove bolt), put a gun lock on the trigger, remove the bullets and place it in a separate container which is locked, then store it in my house ensuring bullets and gun are a safe distance away. This rule even applies to DC metropolitan police (except removing the bolt assembly) and other law enforcement officials residing in DC that are allowed to have handguns due to the nature of their job. This is why even most of the cops in DC don’t even live in DC but prefer to live in Maryland or Virginia. Cops are supposed to be an authority and are cops 24/7, yet they have to obey by this law. Seems a bit over restrictive and ridiculous to me.
I myself see the gun ban as not about not owning handguns but the over restrictive nature and inability to purchase and properly protect law abiding residents. I feel that if the law were less restrictive it would allow law abiding citizens to properly purchase a rifle or shotgun and to have at minimum a gun lock in place as a safety mechanism. This would settle the residents ability to maintain arms for protecting their homes and family and yet allow DC to continue with the handgun ban ensuring the safety of officers and residents on the street. This would also promote more DC officers to move to DC and be able to carry weapons in their house with only a gun lock in place and properly react in case of a criminal trying to harm them in their home. Matter of fact, I would also like to see some type of mandatory gun training and proper handling of weapons if DC residents decided to purchase for home protection. I see the solution overall as being simple and a comprimise between the DC government and it’s residents could be reached.
Now the DC government is upset that it has to go this far and will fight the ban to enforce it. The DC government will flex it’s legal muscle and won’t back down. This is a p** match between DC and the federal government. The DC government wants to continue with business as usual and steer the general public towards the handgun ban or saying crime has dropped or whatever the case may be except to loosen these basic restrictions that I mentioned. It seems like a far fetched idea to have to go to the supreme court when all that is really needed is less restrictions on storage and the ability to purchase rifles or shotguns for home use only. But maybe now the rest of the country will get on the bandwagon and help with DC gun rights especially if it may affect the whole nation if the supreme court rules against individuals owning guns and only a militia via the second amendment. After 32 years maybe we can finally get an answer after this decision becomes final. Who knows? I really do hope this may shed some light on the situation.
By Rick
March 24, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this
Hey Bosch tell the guy in tucker that he lost , last I heard they carried the guy out in bag. What a crock.
By George Washington
March 24, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this
I know only one thing! I follow the rules, work, abide by our current laws. but now we have lost our right to privacy,(the patriot act)and now there is talk about losing the right to bear arms? Just know this, I will die a free man the day they come to disarm me. No government will take away my right to defend myself. I will defend myself & my right to freedoms, my grandfathers have fought & died for me to have…..
By HowAboutREADING
March 24, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this
Sigh….so much ignorance…so little time. Would some of you just read a little U.S. history? Please?
The “rights” in the Bill of Rights are clearly in any lucid reading the rights given to the people that could not be infringed upon by the government. Calling the Federalist Papers, which the founders used to explain why they’d written what they did, just some papers is like calling the Constitution “just another law”.
Why don’t we look at the context in which the document was written? Our founding fathers had been forced to take up arms AGAINST their own government to secure their freedom. Guns weren’t intended to merely protect your life and property, but your liberty from government tyranny. You were given the right to take your personal firearms and join with your neighbors in defense of your liberty as the ultimate way to protect yourself from a despotic government. The army of the government wasn’t seen only as your protector, but as a potential oppressor as the British army had been during/prior to the Revolution.
BTW: There is a reason we are allowed to amend the Constitution. If you don’t like the clear intent of the 2nd amendment, then repeal it. Just don’t try to pretend it means something other than what it clearly says….
By Guthrie
March 24, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this
I say put together an awareness campaign and concerted effort to round up every gun in America. Thereafter, if you’re caught with one it is a mandatory 15 years in prison. The second time is life. Yes, two strikes and you’re out! IF that were the law, I wonder if the “law-abiding citizens” would be able to follow it?
By Bosch
March 24, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this
Mr. Matlock (loved your tv show by the way),
Do you think I’m being rude simply because I questioned the credibility of the web site you posted?
Is it always a knee jerk reaction of yours to assume someone is being rude simply because they question you?
Thank you for posting some of the information from the website on the blog, I don’t like to click on links from blogs, sometimes the consequences can be - well, let’s say viral.
I will concede that that website seems pretty straightforward based on what you posted @ 12:20 -
Regarding Lott though, I’ve read some criticisms of his works and they are legitimate concerns - methodology and replicability.
You claim Lott to be a scholar, and some praise his work (wonder who those are) while others dismiss it (wonder who those are).
Like I said, research is all about the way about data is collected, how it’s analyzed, and whether or not it is valid, reliable, and replicable.
I have read articles stating similar claims (increase in guns = less crime), and they can be disproved just as easily as one can think them to be the gospel truth.
Correlational studies are some of the least reliable and should be always be viewed (from any side) with some skepticism.
By Outside Observer
March 24, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this
Who is to say that the guy (Bocsh?) did not go to the website? Heck, I’ve been and it is definitely partial, imo. Just my two cents.
By Rick
March 24, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this
Also, for you “just call 911” idiots, the supreme court has already ruled that it is NOT the job of law enforcement to protect the citizens. It is to respond to calls, investigate and make arrest when they find the culprits. It is responsibility of the individual to protect themselves. I know the thought of actually having to take care of yourself and not being able to pick up the phone and call someone (government) to protect you flys in face of the libs who want Gov. to fix all their woes. Some times you have to do something your self.
By Bill
March 24, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this
Bosch, I assume the police officers are your friends because you are like-minded. But, I too have and have had several members of law enforcement in my family; two state patrolmen, a swat team leader, bomb squad member and city and county police officers, both liberal and conservative. I can’t remember ever having heard one tell me that having a gun for personal protection would do very little to protect me. It would seem that opinions differ among law enforcement as well. My brother, a marine, once captured an intruder by pulling his handgun. No property was damaged or stolen, no one was injured, and the criminal went to jail. We’re not blood-thirsty after all.
I don’t live in fear, but I am a realist. I sometimes have to go places where I believe my safety is compromised. I carry a handgun to ensure that I have the ability to defend myself should that need arise. Handguns are used for self defense somewhat frequently from what I’ve read, but you just don’t hear about it unless someone is shot or killed. Anything less isn’t news.
I can appreciate your point of view, but statistics just don’t support it. I am a conservative, but not a republican. I am a gun-rights supporter, but not an NRA member. I am not afraid, but I am cautious. I am free, and so are you. Let’s keep it that way, my friend.
By Oh my...
March 24, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this
Bosch and others, please understand you are not required to own, keep, or even look at a gun of any sort. I choose to because I want to play a part in my fate if the situation ever arises - I hope it doesn’t but I wear a seatbelt and drive defensively for the same basic principle. I’m not going to give up my last and most effective level of protection because somebody’s friend who might be a policeman says I don’t have a chance if someone barges in on me. That is clearly BS and you’ll have to try harder than that… I believe Katherine Johnston was about 90 yrs old when the Atl SWAT barged in on her and 6 of her bullets hit their targets. She thought she was being attacked and fought back valiantly.
By Todd
March 24, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this
Too many people voice their OPINION rather than the law. Clearly Americans have the right to own a firearm. Might some be regulated? Sure. But you cannot overregulate to the point where it become nearly-impossible to own one. That is reminiscent of the laws passed to prevent minorities from voting. They could legally vote, it was just near-impossible for them to do so.
Had Congress stepped in and banned guns in DC, that would be a different story. DC is a federally-controlled area just like a military base. They just allow the citizen there to elect their own mayor, which has not always been so.
Want to look at reality? Who commits that most crime with guns? It is not the law-abiding citizen who goes out and buys one. It is the street thug who lives in Atlanta. (Need I really name the counties?)
So we need to ensure that these thugs stop getting arrested, released, arrested, released, and so on.
Maybe we can have a literacy test. If you can read a 6th grade book, you can buy a gun. Crime with guns would plummet. Or maybe we could institute a name test. If your first name has more than one capital letter and any apostrophe or accent, you cannot buy a gun.
By William
March 24, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this
“Please refer me to the case where a person with a carry permit has ever used a gun in crime, I cannot find one.” Rick @ 12:38 pm
I’m positive that there are many cases. Though they could, I don’t think that information is readily divulged. A more appropriate question is were the weapons obtained legally prior to the commission of a crime? In regards to the school shootings that YOU bring up the answer would be a resounding yes (100% true at VaTech and N.Illinois). It is interesting that you’d try to seperate CC from those who go through the proper channels to carry a gun. For the most part, they are the same. People who go through the proper channels to obtain a gun commit crimes, too. Get off of the high horse…
By Kim
March 24, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this
During the Revolutionary War, regular people were the militia. The colonists had no regular army, no navy and few resources to create them. So, if you take into consideration the times that the Bill of Rights were written, the 2nd amendment was appropriate. It is not now.
By Bosch
March 24, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this
Bill,
I think there are plenty of statistics to support my claim and yours. Like I said earlier, statistics are always manipulated and analysis is almost always somehow biased.
Most certainly, if you go to places where your safety is in a comprimising position, and you are comfortable carrying around a handgun, then I’d say, go right ahead. I’m lucky in the sense that I don’t. But I think about people like say, postmen, who deliver mail in some not so friendly neighborhoods, or delivery pizza guys. If I were in a position like that, I’d definitely go to the driving range and learn to shoot, but on the flip side, they choose those jobs, right?
To say that my “police friends” and myself are like minded is very far from the truth. They make fun of me just like some of the “tough guys” here are doing, but they respect my opinion. I also resent the fact from “gun lovers” that just because you don’t like them, then that makes you a pu$$y or wimp or coward. That’s not true, I can take care of my own without a gun (not that I get that impression from you, but you know what I mean).
I think you are right about the media, and there are probably many more cases where guns deterred a crime, but we just don’t hear about it. I also believe that the cases we do hear about like the man in Tucker, or the Katherine Johnson case are manipulated by the media and inflares our emotions on both sides.
But many times, on both sides, I usually hear people give one or two examples of something similiar to “I know someone who [insert emotional story here], and that sums up their opinion, without thinking about the whole picture, I’m guilty of it myself - it’s how we form our opinion, but in general, I rely on the police and the military for general protection, and just good ol’ instinct and precautionary measures to keep myself safe. No guns, don’t need them.
By Oh my...
March 24, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this
Kim, welcome aboard!!! Can you move into my neighborhood too?
By Joe
March 24, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this
There are alot of absurd arguments here.
42,000 people were killed in automobile crashes in 2001. While 29,000 people were killed with a firearm according to the Bureau of Justice. Of that 29,000 only 800 were due to unintentional means. 3,000 people died in 2004 due to drownings. Yet do we ban pools or cars? Of those 800, they either did not have the right training or mindset to safely carry a gun. If you do not put your finger in the trigger it will not go off.
Gun control people are going after the wrong issue. Guns do not kill people. People kill people.
In the US we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Will the government intervein to insure I have that right 24/7? I think not. If you are extremely lucky the police will show up with in 5 minutes after a 911 call. Five minutes can be a lifetime when you are attacked.
The DC gun ban is unconstitutional as you can’t have a handgun and you can’t keep a functional rifle or shotgun. How can you defend yourself if your shotgun is disassembled?
For those who are so antiGun and suggest that gun rights people move to Gaza, well how about you move to a country that does not guarantee your rights to keep and bear arms.
We have the right of free speech, the right of the press, the right of religion and the right to bear arms. We hold all these rights and you can’t pick and choose.
You don’t have to own a gun, but let those choose to do so exercise their rights safely.
By SAR
March 24, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this
There is more to being a husband and a father than just bringing home a check twice a month. You are also, generally speaking, the head of the household. How can you choose not to protect your family in the event you’re needed to do so? Do you really want for your wife and/or kids to see you hiding in a closet with your cell phone and a 9-1-1 operator, begging them to come help you do something that you’re obvioulsy not man enough to do, protect your family. I’d be horrified and ashamed if I were you child and I would seeing a divorce lawyer if I were you wife and you couldn’t protect your family. Be a man, why don’t you!
By SAR
March 24, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this
There is more to being a husband and a father than just bringing home a check twice a month. You are also, generally speaking, the head of the household. How can you choose not to protect your family in the event you’re needed to do so? Do you really want for your wife and/or kids to see you hiding in a closet with your cell phone and a 9-1-1 operator, begging them to come help you do something that you’re obvioulsy not man enough to do, protect your family. I’d be horrified and ashamed if I were you child and I would seeing a divorce lawyer if I were you wife and you couldn’t protect your family. Be a man, why don’t you!
By ToddIsTheDevil
March 24, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this
“Maybe we can have a literacy test. If you can read a 6th grade book, you can buy a gun. Crime with guns would plummet. Or maybe we could institute a name test. If your first name has more than one capital letter and any apostrophe or accent, you cannot buy a gun.”
Todd, I’d be the least bit surprised if a law were passed like that. People are already passing laws regarding sagging pants, etc. Your post is the perfect example of the fear that drives this whole anti-gun control debate. I could go on all day about this but I’ll just direct you to a video I saw about people with your let’s-pass-a-law mentality…
Social Control Prison numbers
This code talk is hilarious…just say how you feel, dude. Just say how you feel.
By Rick
March 24, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this
William , you have the world at your finger tips. Get online and find ONE case of a person with a cc who has used a firearm to commit a crime with it. I can save you some time, it does not exist.
By Bosch
March 24, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this
Kim,
Good point. That’s what I was trying to say earlier, but you put it in more precise, easier to read terms. We have a military now, a pretty damn good one I might add, and I’ll leave the security of the state and nation to them.
And I am also of the opinion that if you shoot somebody in an attempt to rob them, harm them, steal their stuff, or anything with malice on your mind, you should be hung by the neck until dead by the nearest courthouse tree. But that’s just me.
By Bill
March 24, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this
Bosch, sounds like we are in violent agreement, but have different personal situations. Count on my support for your own situation and needs. You don’t need a gun, that’s outstanding, don’t carry one. My situation is different. I have yet to need one, but it’s there if I do.
We have had a good discourse, and I’ve enjoyed the lively debate. I tip my hat to you sir and leave you in peace, hopefully with my freedoms intact.
By Joe
March 24, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this
Kim,
your statement of…….”if you take into consideration the times that the Bill of Rights were written, the 2nd amendment was appropriate. It is not now.”
If you further your argument, then if people protesting disrupts the Bush administration, then maybe it is no longer appropriate to be able to speak what is on our minds either?
What if 80% of our military was wiped out in a nuclear attack? What if a rogue faction infiltrated our military and overthrew the legitimate government? Governments have been overthrown all over the world through out history. Don’t ever take for granted it can not happen here. Some of the greatest nations have faltered because of corruption or the people did not care.
We may be lucky to live where we do, but you should never forget the rights passed down by those who died for the cause of freedom.
By badthing
March 24, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this
If I could re-write the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, this is precisely what I would love to see:
“We, the people of the United States, in order that we shall have the right to preserve a State free for all races, shall achieve this end by the use of less-lethal weaponry only for our continued survival as human beings. This free State entails our personal self-defense as well as our right to our food consumption. In keeping with current government law, if we so choose to possess a less-lethal weapon (be it either upon our persons or within our private homes), we are obligated to store these aforementioned weapons plus any ammo relating to its use in a manner which will serve to protect the welfare of a minor child.”
Marilyn’s Non-Violent Planet http://www.non-violent.com
By Oh my...
March 24, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this
Bosch, I respect your opinion but you keep saying things that just aren’t true. Most recently you said “I can take care of my own without a gun”. Hmmm, let’s say you are a professional athlete, a real pro with lightning quick reflexes, explosive power, incredible strength, stamina, and a huge tolerence for pain. Let’s also say you make your living delivering brutal hits (some at high speed) to other pro athletes. Let’s also say you have a machete for defense of your home. Sounds imposing to me! Now, just to be current let’s say your name is Sean Taylor. Gulp!
By Bosch
March 24, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this
Bill,
“Violent agreement” I like that.
“We have had a good discourse, and I’ve enjoyed the lively debate. I tip my hat to you sir and leave you in peace, hopefully with my freedoms intact”
And I you.
I’m out for a while - hopefully I won’t get attacked while I’m out! I’m unarmed! :-)
By Rick
March 24, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this
bad thing
Then we can all hug and sing koom-by-ya. wave our arms in the air and chase the butterfly s. oh, and dont forget to let the puppies lick our cheeks (giggle, sigh….)
I have children and several guns in the same house, (read previous post) The guns are loaded and the kids are safe.
By Joe
March 24, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this
There are a couple specious arguments floating around here. One is the fact that gun laws “cause” more crime. First statistics only show correlation not cause and effect. The more correct reading of the statistics would be that higher crime rates force more restrictive gun laws to be passed to protect the citizenry from the glut of guns (the majority of which are originally acquired through legal straw-men purchases). If there were less guns there would be less violent crime or at the very least less murders.
The second argument is that cc makes people safer. Of course criminals don’t apply for cc permits, it requires background checks and gives your identity to the authorities. That doesn’t mean that the existence of cc makes people safer. It’s merely a form of “registering” the law abiding citizens.
People need to get out of the wild wild west of the past and realize that we live in a different world. You no longer live 5 miles from your nearest neighbor or any sort of help or support. And your problems spill over onto your fellow citizens and vice versa. Unfortunately the rural citizen who is not exposed to the constant danger of gun violence feels no need to protect the children of more urbanized citizens by being able to buy a few less guns a year, a month, a day etc.
By proud vet
March 24, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this
When this amendment was adopted in 1791 or 1792 we had just recently ended a war with our own tyranny style government (IE the King of England). You have to look at to entire thought of this amendment it was to protect us not only from crime but also from any threat within our country. We have the military to defend us from foreign threats (that is where the canons come in). But as citizens we must be willing and able to defend ourselves from threats within our country we don’t need M-60s or cannons for that, Hence the 2nd amendment to begin with.
This is our right as citizens of the USA not rights for everyone but those who live in DC.
By m
March 24, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this
why do nuts shoot up schools and malls? the answers have been because they know people don’t carry weapons there.
if you step inside a suicidal mind, the intent is not criminal. these types of individuals are more hellbent on having the world go down in their “misery” with them, than to just off themselves “alone”. why else do they turn the weapons on themselves? people shoot up larger areas with massive amounts of people in them because that’s where people congregate. do you really think they’re concerned with other people having weapons (as a deterrent), when they’re going to turn on themselves anyways?
By Roger
March 24, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this
I have a concealed permit and carry anywhere legaly permissable but work. I was almost carjacked but by displaying my handgun the carjackers left in a hurry. I was almost mugged but by reaching around to grab my handgun the mugger realized he had better run than to risk getting shot. Having a gun possibly saved my property and or life. The individuals that tried to accost me may think first next time. They maybe trying to assault someone who is “packing”.
DC’s people should have the same opportunity to self-defence. In DC you must have the rifle or shotgun have a trigger lock and or taken apart. If you have someone break into your house and you take the trigger lock off and load the gun (in self-defence) you have broken the law. How is that right.
Supreme Court please make sure we have the right to self-defence with the 2nd Amendment.
By William
March 24, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this
Rick at 1:29
Please go here to get your question answered
My original post whereby I listed numerous examples of CC holders committing crimes (murder, drug possesion, etc.) was mysteriously deleted….hmmm?? Must be nice to control the media a skew facts….
By William
March 24, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this
Rick at 1:29
Please go here to get your question answered
My original post whereby I listed numerous examples of CC holders committing crimes (murder, drug possesion, etc.) was mysteriously deleted….hmmm?? Must be nice to control the media and skew facts….
By Najeh Davenpoop
March 24, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this
Bans don’t work. See War on Drugs for further details.
By Rick
March 24, 2008 2:14 PM | Link to this
William , I read most of your posts. however, I only found (1) case of a person with a permit who used a gun intentionally to commit a crime.And if you try to google the news accounts for some of those “documented cases, they seem to not be real…Hmmm.
By Rick
March 24, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this
Brady? they are not even on the same planet? you have to get info somewhere else before it is considered real.
By Rick
March 24, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
depending who you ask , there are between 50 and 65 million gun owners in this country. You could not pull up (1) verifiable account of a cc holder shooting some one else.
By Corey G
March 24, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this
The incident file seems to target gun incidents relating to every other state to include concealed weapons permits outside of Washington DC. DC doesn’t allow concealed weapons and ban’s hand guns for it’s citizens and strongly discourages weapons particularly rifles or shotguns in the home. Maybe I don’t get the post on the incident files. The problem with DC isn’t incidents with law abiding citizens owning weapons but criminals having the ability to illegally purchase or obtain and commit crimes including murder. Maybe you are making a point that people don’t make the best decisions with guns and can be dangerous as well.
By William
March 24, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this
Rick,
I did not verify it myself. I don’t know whose site that is and I could care less (especially considering he’s a politician). I scanned directly to the bottom to see the sources, which is why I listed it. That is also why I linked it so that you could go to footnotes which point you towards the original source. Altogether, if any one of those are true, it debunks your claim and I’ve succeeded in finding a CC permit holder who has committed a crime. I don’t have the time to scour on-line archives but if I did, I would. I think I may look into a few of them so that the next time someone comes with that argument I’ll be immediately prepared. Oh well, life goes on either way. Have a good day Rick and great job on getting those girls through school.
By Fred
March 24, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this
Guns don’t kill people… bullets do. Guns just make it so much more convenient to deliver them.
By William
March 24, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this
C’mon Rick!
Google any of the following as they are VERIFIED instances of individuals w/concealed carry permits committing crimes:
Wayne Franklin Lambert Dale Cramm Louis Mockewich Steven Dobric Harold Glover Cecil Herndon
I didn’t feel like going through them all but here are five that are mentioned by more than one source oustide of the initial link I posted. But thats still not enough for you, huh?
By Bosch
March 24, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this
Oh my….
“I respect your opinion but you keep saying things that just aren’t true”
Sorry, but who are you? And who gave you the authority to tell me what’s true or not?
So, you are right, and I am wrong? Gee, I didn’t know we were all blogging with GOD! I’m being sarcastic here.
Seriously, yes, I can say that, and for me, it is perfectly true.
By lolo
March 24, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this
As a former resident of DC (Capitol Hill) I can tell you that there were MANY times I wished I could have had a conceled weapon as I just walked to a restaurant or corner store, much less one to keep in my home.
I don’t know where some of these people get off talking about how residents of DC know it would be better without handguns in the city. Clearly they have only been weekend sightseers.
I guess they enjoy the occasional attempted mugging (or worse) or can rationalize the behaviors of the criminals. All of the vagrants and thugs up there know the law abiding citizens are unarmed. Easy pickings folks.
It’s too bad, becasue DC is a fun city. Hopefully this ruling will be incentive to move back one day.
And don’t count on DC metro or Capitol police to be there in zero seconds flat. It only takes a moment before you have to defend yourself, trust me.
By Softail
March 24, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this
See the funny thing is…you need to read at least to the 9th ammendment. There you will see that (to paraphrase into modern English) you have MORE rights other than those listed here. The Bill of Rights is NOT exclusionary folks. It is not a RESTRICTION. It is merely a set of examples. If they do away with the 2nd….gun ownership can be argued in the 9th. Thank God for Madison!
By Roger
March 24, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this
Nobody mentioned there are about 2.5 million times a year someone with a concealed permit prevents a or stops crime from escalting any further. That surpasses the amount that someone brought up on the Brady link, where they unfortunately broke the law. This includes where ordinary citizens have come to the aid of police officers who were either shot or outgunned.
Why is it that there is hardly any mention in the media of crimes being stopped or prevented by someone with a concealed carry license? Hmm.. who controls the media. We hear about shootings all the time. We don’t hear about citizens stopping crimes.
By Bosch
March 24, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this
Roger,
2.5 million times? Really? That seems a little extreme.
You do realize that if you break that down by day, that’s 6849 incidences or so a day - you’d think that if that were the case, we’d hear about that.
Damn liberal media!
By Glenn Thomas
March 24, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this
People need to understand that when the Bill of Rights was written that a “well regulated militia” was the people! Also if you read the Bill of Rights you will find that rights are mentioned in 5 other amendments. In every case it clearly refers to an individual right so why would it be any different in the 2nd amendment? Besides government has no rights, it has powers. Only the people have rights.
By Bosch
March 24, 2008 3:56 PM | Link to this
Glenn,
It was the people, yes, and of course, those people needed the right to bear arms to secure such militias could exist because there were freaking Indians and British running around (and probably a few bears here and there).
I’ll not dispute that, what I will dispute is the fact that it is outdated and should be revised. We have a military and police force now, didn’t have those back then. I think our military does just fine at protecting us (if they were freaking here and not in Iraq). But still, you get my point?
By Dan
March 24, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this
I grew up in DC and lived there as an adult for four years. The city bans anything but, technically, single or double-barrel shotguns (no pump/semi autos) and bolt-action rifles. In order that they be made useless, they must be kept unloaded and disassembled/locked. Registering them requires a trip through DC bureaucratic hell, with the ever-present possibility that if you try to register a gun of the “wrong” type they’ll arrest you. You can’t buy a gun because there are no gun stores, and other states can’t sell them to you. It’s all very communistic: “We ain’t really banned guns per se, you can still maybe keep an old squirrel rifle you bought thirty years ago, heh heh.” The city’s murder rate skyrocketed after the ban was put in place in 1976, and citizens walk around like sheep because everyone knows they are disarmed and vulnerable. My brother was held up at gunpoint around 1979. A lady was shot in the head in front of our uptown apartment in 2003. The city is run by citizen-hating, arrogant people with no concern whatsoever for the safety of honest people. And all you “musket” promoters out there should sign off forever, as your 21st-century internet technology is not covered by the First Amendement.
By Bosch
March 24, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this
And since I mentioned Iraq, isn’t that evidence enough that ordinary citizens do not need weapons?
See what can happen when ordinary citizens bear arms? When there is chaos, and instability in a country, they shoot each other (and our soldiers in the meantime).
By Keith
March 25, 2008 8:48 AM | Link to this
By sane jane
March 24, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this
I guess, Jack Stilton, you’ll just have to “intemperate” the amendment for us, huh?
And I don’t begrudge your right to “bare” your arms - they need some sun anyhow.
People with IQs lower than 100 shouldn’t be allowed to vote…
People that have to resort to the above silliness have lost the argument.
By ceraphym
March 25, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this
sane jane says”
“I heard a comedian once say: let’s abolish all gun laws & abide by the second amendment. The only catch is that you can only use the technology that was available at the time the 2nd amendment was written.” ———->
That is why he or she is a professional buffoon. If law enforcement will be limited to the same weapons as I, fine. If not, I want the same ability to protect myself. A badge does not make ones life more precious than any other. And handguns did exist at the time of the ratification of are Amendments.
sj says:
“Doesn’t DC have a HANDGUN ban only? Nobody is telling you that you can’t have a shotgun or rifle to “protect your castle.”
Handguns are a particular menace, particularly as it relates to violent crimes.” ———->
You can have a rifle or shotgun, but they must be kept in an immediately unusable condition. Any shotgun worth its value as a defensive arm has fierce recoil … not good for the typical older person or small woman. A rifle round may not be suitable in an urban environment. If police find the handgun as a suitable defensive weapon, the “people” which grant gov the ability to exist, should also be able to defend themselves in the same manner.
Like they say, seconds count when the police are minutes away.
Handguns are only a menace when they are used by the lawless, do not group law abiding in with criminals.
By ceraphym
March 25, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this
By Bosch
March 24, 2008 3:56 PM | Link to this
“Glenn,
It was the people, yes, and of course, those people needed the right to bear arms to secure such militias could exist because there were freaking Indians and British running around (and probably a few bears here and there).
I’ll not dispute that, what I will dispute is the fact that it is outdated and should be revised. We have a military and police force now, didn’t have those back then. I think our military does just fine at protecting us (if they were freaking here and not in Iraq). But still, you get my point?” ———->
Bosch,
Maybe you ought to do a little research on the Katrina disaster.
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=198836
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/labels/social%20breakdown.html
Check these out and tell me what you think.
By Chuck
March 25, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this
It is certainly clear that the Second Amendment protects the right to own firearms i.e. rifles, shotguns, handguns, etc. this is including machine guns, short barreled shotguns, etc. What part of the right of the people shall not be infringed is misunderstood here. A person can already own machine guns if you jump through all the hoops i.e. fingerprinting, paperwork, and lots of cash due to the government freezing any new class 3 weapons from being transferred after 1986. Ignorance is the greatest shield from logic. Try reading something besides the funny papers, i.e. the Federalist papers, the Constitution and the writings of the founding fathers.
A nation who wishes to be ignorant and free wishes for what never was or will be. Thomas Jefferson
By ceraphym
March 25, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this
“Ignorance is the greatest shield from logic.” ———->
Right on Chuck.
By Bosch
March 25, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this
ceraphym,
Um, you call that research? I don’t. A blog entry and an article from the Pew Charitable Trust (but the Pew is a reputable source, I might add).
Katrina caused chaos, and I would think that the police had more to do than run around collecting guns, but hey, if that is really true, then it was wrong. But the media can certainly overemphasize things, now can’t they?
Katrina was an exception to the rule, in many, many different areas.
Too bad the National Guard wasn’t there to help out.
I look at the BIG picture, ceraphym, I don’t base my opinions solely on emotional stories.
By ceraphym
March 25, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this
Bosch, if this is the first time that you heard of the gun confiscation in NO, then you are definitely in the dark on this subject. I was just showing you a couple of articles. Yes, I call this a bit of research. Google Mayor Nagin and gun confiscation. You will get the picture I think. Yes and I too look at the big picture …. that is what I am letting you in on. If you do not like guns, fine. Do you own a firearm? Just wondering.
If not, I invite you and any other folks who wish, to find someone to go to a range with and check it out. If it is geographically possible, I volunteer. I did this with 3 non-shooters last weekend. Talk about a change of heart for these folks.
BTW- In Katrina, 9-1-1 did not exist, the local police abandoned their posts, marauders bred from generations of government handouts preyed upon people. Those who could defend themselves survived, no thanks to the wonderful Fed or local authorities. And when the gov finally did show up, the State Constitution and of the US were violated. You tell me who we should trust, civilian law abiding people who do not have the resources of gov bureaucracies, or those who when they feel threatened by free men, decide to violate those men.
You can not deny that firearms are extremely helpful in defense of life and limb. And the 2ndA is about just that, the defense of oneself from tyrannical gov actions. Everything else, like collecting, sport shooting, etc., is just gravy.
And we are speaking of only handguns here … like I said, if a cop, who I am sure I expend as many rounds in practice than any cop, sees fit to carry a sidearm(aka handgun)for defense, what makes the badge’s life more important than mine?
By Jim in Houston
March 25, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this
Bosch:
“2.5 million times? Really? That seems a little extreme.”
Please Google Gary Kleck. He used to be a gun control advocate until he decided to test the “defensive uses” number for himself (1 million/year seemed to high for him). Enjoy your reading…maybe you will even have an epiphany.
By ceraphym
March 25, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this
PS - The concept of self defense begins with the head of household, not the 9-1-1 operator.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
By ceraphym
March 25, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this
Hey fellow gun owners ….
We number in the millions, correct? From all walks of life, skin color, both sexes, straight and gay, old and young, southern and northern …. 30 million to maybe 80 million of us? Right?
We would make one hell of a political party wouldn’t we? I mean, as lovers of our Constitution and the freedoms enumerated there, it needs a defending voice now more than ever.
By Corey G
March 25, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this
Yesterday in the local DC news 3/24/2008 the police want to search homes for handguns and other weapons and provide amnesty to include drugs or other paraphernalia found. The DC residents are fighting it by calling it unconstitutional. Even former mayor Marion Barry exclaimed that it is unconstitutional. A poll was taken and almost 90% of the people did not want an illegal search to be taken in their home. In my opinion, I think this is another last ditch measure that DC is using to enforce it’s gun ban before the summer when the supreme court may overturn their decision. Plus, who says that they will not target individuals that they searched the first time and provided amnesty after they found guns or drugs. The DC government could easily compile a list of people and try searching later. I thought that this news might expand on comments posted about government seizing weapons since this news happened just yesterday.
By Bosch
March 25, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this
Houston Jim,
I would be interested to know what type of methods Kleck used in his research. Most of the time, behavior studies are correlational. And when you are addressing issues like gun control, it is vital that the studies are able to be replicated or repeated in order to ensure their reliability.
It is impossible in correlational research to force a relationship - it is impossible to say for certainty that one variable has a direct relationship positive or negative on another.
Also, Kleck and Lott do not address the issue of cross-cultural or longitudinal studies in their research - which in case you don’t know, isn’t necessary, but definitely improves your hypothesis.
Just thought you’d like to know.
And, if their hypotheses (Lott’s and Kleck’s) stand the test of time, and are replicable in other towns, countries, etc. I’ll eat my shoes and buy a gun.
By Bosch
March 25, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this
ceraphym,
Sorry, didn’t answer your question. If you read the entire thread of this conversation, I’ve answered a lot of your questions. ^^^^^^
I said earlier, Katrina broke the bank with exception to the rules, and I’ll not dispute that.
I see the point of gun owners, but I don’t see the need to own or have a gun. It’s just a difference of opinion.
I don’t sit around in fear of attack or being robbed. It’s just that simple, but I respect people who keep them - it’s just opinion.
By Jim in Houston
March 25, 2008 3:42 PM | Link to this
Bosch:
“Also, Kleck and Lott do not address the issue of cross-cultural or longitudinal studies in their research - which in case you don’t know, isn’t necessary, but definitely improves your hypothesis.”
My understanding is that Lott’s work is longitudinal…that’s why it’s so good.
Kleck’s work is based on surveys, largely. Read it to make your own evaluation.
As a scientist myself, I understand the weakness of correlations (what I call second order idiot statistics…first order being reserved for those who use un-normalized numbers). I also understand that no scientific findings are “undisputed”. So it is no surprise that some people will quibble about both of their findings. However, the important point is that NONE of the quibblers have been done any original work on a similar scale, with similar statistical power. All they do is complain from the sidelines.
It is also important to mention that Lott injured his personal reputation by some scheme. He has been rightly attacked for this practice. However, this does not discredit his work. Make sure that the criticisms you read do not include these ad hominems. Also, make sure you read his rebuttals (on his website) to any of the scientific criticisms.
Finally, both the National Academy of Sciences and the Centers for Disease Control have evaluated the gun control literature. They found that there was NO evidence that gun control ever controlled crime (which is presumably the point). The converse, “More Guns = Less Crime” hypothesis has somewhat less support, but the only GOOD work (by Lott and others) points in that direction.
By ceraphym
March 25, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this
Bosch,
I understand where you are coming from. And if you do not want a gun in your home for what ever reason thats cool. In my life of 42 years, I have witnessed “race” riots, Katrina, the LA Riots and several smaller catastrophes. In our country, the Supreme Court has ruled twice that police do not have to answer or have no duty to answer emergency calls. I prefer to have the ability on hand to at least discourage those who would want to harm me. I would hate to be caught in a position in which I could not defend myself, or worse, be injured in such a way that my wife and teenage daughter are easy prey for bad guys.
But, if we just narrow it down to the debate at hand, the DC thing, here are my thoughts if you are interested.
DC does, so graciously, allow its citizens to exercise, at least on paper, their 2ndA right. You can have a rifle or shotgun. But let me reiterate from above:
You can have a rifle or shotgun, but they must be kept in an immediately unusable condition. Any shotgun worth its value as a defensive arm has fierce recoil … not good for the typical older person or small woman. A rifle round may not be suitable in an urban environment. If police find the handgun as a suitable defensive weapon, the “people” which grant gov the ability to exist, should also be able to defend themselves in the same manner.
The pistol is portable, easy to use, light weight, has reasonable capacity(reasonable capacity in the sense that it can carry enough ammo to get the job done, not reasonable in the sense that gov should have any say in magazine capacity)and its ammunition is cheap enough to allow practice which is key to safety and knowledge of operation.
Actually, an AR15 with a 20 round mag would be the perfect choice for those who wished to have an effective defensive arm, both male and female, young or old, but can you imagine the uptight DC poli’s allowing an “evil” thing like that in the hands of the great unwashed? I guess that is only for other states/places. LOL.
DC likes to tie the small size of the pistol in with it being the choice of criminals. This maybe true. But..the folks wanting to have this type of defensive arm at home, the folks who are watching this case closely, are just regular law abiding people. Criminals do what they want, get what they want, and exploit those who have been hand cuffed so to speak by the laws which they must abide by.
My lynch pin to this whole debate is this, it is the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Wants and Needs. I would hope you see that ANY erosion of of any of our Rights erodes them all.
My range invite still stands.
By John Tyler
March 25, 2008 4:12 PM | Link to this
I certainly hope the Supreme Court does the right thing.The constitution is clear,and an outright ban on handguns is just wrong,especially in a city with a crime rate like DC. Anyway,isn’t it already against the law to commit gun crimes whether the ban is in effect or not?
By ceraphym
March 25, 2008 4:59 PM | Link to this
“By Rick
March 24, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
depending who you ask , there are between 50 and 65 million gun owners in this country. You could not pull up (1) verifiable account of a cc holder shooting some one else.” ———->
That would be cool if there were not any, but I am sure their has been some. But, since this is kinda in its infancy in many states, I can see someone getting caught in a gray area and therefore technically be violating the law. It would not be the kind of violent crime that those who do not give a wit would commit.