The Supreme Court today invalidated the rights of states and localities to pass laws restricting handguns when it decided today that Chicago’s proposed “gun ban” was unconstitutional, and that the 2nd amendment applies to states and localities, and how dare those reprobates try to infringe on the common man’s right to carry a Dirty Harry .45??
You know, I try, and try and try again to wrap my head around the absolute suspension of rational thought that seems to be a congenital defect in the brains of the right wingers. Here in Virginia, just a couple of years ago, we had a complete mental case buy himself a 9mm at a gun show, no questions asked, and he snapped one day and shot over 30 students and teachers. You might remember that, it was world news for a week or so. And this guy was being treated for severe mental imbalance.
In Appomattox Courthouse, Virginia, where the Civil War officially ended, a man went on a rampage and killed 11 people – some were kids. You probably don’t remember that. He was a white-redneck-cracker-militia-type, and even here in the local news, coverage was scant, at best. Of course, my local newspaper is just another Republican Propaganda machine, and has been ever since President Obama had the utter gall to not only be black, but to run for president, and even worse (in their eyes), to win.
Despite Columbine, despite Virginia Tech, despite all the killings and rampages these last few years, the Supreme Court thinks that Chicago shouldn’t have any right to try to make the city a safer place like Washington DC did a couple of decades ago. 52 people got shot in Chicago over the weekend – and it would have been a hell of a lot more had everyone been armed.
When DC, the nation’s capital and home of the…go figure, Supreme Court, banned handguns, it did so during a time when DC was the annual winner of the “City with the Most Murders” award. It was the murder capital of the United States. When handguns were banned, and it wasn’t quite so easy to carry them, or buy them, the murder rate when down significantly. Recently, the Supreme Court reversed the DC handgun ban, and reversed a law that for a couple of decades was working reasonably well.
Chicago would have liked to give it a try, and have a city that’s a bit safer, a murder rate that’s a bit lower. I call that fair enough. But, the NRA doesn’t like it, they think that every tom dick and dirty-harry-wannabe out there should have as many large and useless-for-anything-but-human-killing handgun and assault rifle they can get their hands on.
Despite all the “rats” rhetoric from our little friends on the right, despite the massive propaganda and congressional control machine that is the NRA to the contrary, where there are readily available handguns, there will be murders. Period. That’s the way it works, folks, and I don’t want to hear about “law abiding citizens,” because when “law abiding citizens” get themselves a Dirty Harry heater, they tend to go a little power crazy. I’ve seen it myself, and it isn’t pretty. If you make it easier for “law abiding citizens” to get their hands on any kind of gun their little hearts desire, you end up with a whole lot of “not-so-law abiding citizens.” It’s like living in a constant Mexican standoff. We all know the psychological and societal results – most of us remember the cold war quite well. Eventually, someone will want a tank. Then someone will want a rocket launcher, and by god, the 2nd amendment states that a well regulated militia should be armed to the teeth, and a well regulated militia these days needs tanks and rocket launchers! Funny how they always forget about that “well-regulated militia” part, isn’t it? Doesn’t quite equate to a bunch of idiots with pipe dreams of being a Rambo, does it?
What we see here is a clear cut case of true judicial activism – right on the Supreme Court bench. This bunch of right-wingers on the Bench will crow about state’s rights all the live-long day if it involves anything BUT what might actually benefit the American People just a little bit. Then it’s “FEDERAL LAW, BY GOD!!!” All bought, brought and paid for by the NRA. Here in Virginia, as of July 1, any yahoo with a gun can walk into any bar in the state…as long as they don’t drink. Yeah, you tell me how that’s going to get enforced. You see, it carries a misdemeanor charge to drink in a liquor-licensed establishment while carrying one’s concealed weapon. The only way anyone will know is when someone gets shot. So much for that misdemeanor charge, and so much for some innocent schmuck just trying to eat dinner…maybe even with the kids in tow. Because, you know, Outback Steakhouse serves beer. So does Ruby Tuesday’s. And most everywhere else that isn’t fast food. So tell me, where are those individual rights to not have some drunk hothead start shooting when me and Mine are just trying to enjoy a dinner out?
And let’s not forget that the well-armed NRA dues paying membership outnumbers the military and all law enforcement 2 to 1. The NRA sent the Supreme Court on a fool’s errand, and they are just howling hallelujah over it.
I gotta tell you, this is NOT what the founding fathers imagined when they wrote the ultimate screw up that is the portion of the 2nd amendment, and even further bastardized by the NRA:
NRA Members. You wanna live around this??
Well Hello Bee
If you can imagine, I received a phone call from the NRA. They got my Name and number from My Sportsman License here in NY. Must be, no one else dares call me. My wife answered and handed me the phone all while saying “Oh Lord”.
Without going into the whole bloody mess, let’s just say, they hung up on me. So what I’m trying to tell you is I agree with you. I just did it in my own calm, helpful way.;)
Bee I was gonna try and say something funny about the pic-then my teabagger coworker came across my mind and I knew he would look at it and see nothing out of the ordinary. Maybe see it as funny in the way that seeing a family that has 6 or 8 cats is funny. And in that sense there ain’t nothing funny about that pic and I know you know that.
Good post. No, great post. I share your frustration and disgust with those idiots.
Bee just so you know, I redid my post on the late Senator.
I felt guilty…
The United States of Smith & Wesson.
I particularly agree with the state’s rights part. SCOTUS hasn’t become activist; it’s become corrupt.
Yeah, the “States’ Rights” are only important when it’s an issue the Klanbaggers take offense to, like health reform. When it comes to things like corporate control of the country, or guns, the Klanbaggers say in unison, “F*CK States’ Rights!”
Tim: Oh, to be a fly on the wall during that call, hehe. And hey, you know, it’s your blog, man, and you can say whatever you damned well please. Don’t ever backtrack just because you think maybe some people got pissed off – first, they really didn’t, and second, they’ll come back. Although we can say Byrd was a fine fiddle player
Christopher: or Walmart…or Exxon…oh, hell, it’s about all the same, isn’t it?
Leslie : agreed, darlin’ – agreed. Their correct decisions are getting meager, that’s for sure.
Jolly: Exactly!
I was gonna say what Jolly Roger said. The wingnuts go on and on about states’ rights, but there’s one thing that’s even more important to them: their penises, er, [ahem] guns.
You know, it’s like money talks… etc. NRA has it. Loads of bubba dumb crackers to feed more to them, too! I once bought a handgun because I has been mugged and I carried the shop money home at night… so I bought a 38 revolver and learned to shoot it … gave my thumb a raspberry and it was hard to learn to target with. But I did. I never once carried it with me. Once I learned to shot, I had a bad dream about it and finally gave it away.
It’s a fine post!
There are way too many guns out there.
Too many fools own them.
It takes only one to make a misery for a whole community.
Why would right wingers want to ensure the danger?
shit.
opps, sorry Bee. LOL
Ahh Bee, what to do with this? I am absolutely for states’ rights. That being said, the United States Constitution is to be adhered to by ALL states as the law of the land. Anything not covered in the constitution is THEN reserved to the states or the people to decide as per the tenth amendment.
Disavowing citizens their second amendment rights to keep and bear arms without going through the legal process of amending the constitution would be the same as if your beloved Virginia were to pass a law saying that progressives no longer had a first amendment right to free speech within its borders.
The Bill of Rights are meant as restrictions upon the federal government and to be applied equally by all states accordingly. The individual states are free to make laws as they deem fit, as long as they do not run contrary to the United States Constitution, including the second amendment.
I agree that we absolutely need to button down on gun-crime offenders and close the gun show loopholes that avoid back-ground checks for those that are mentally unstable or have a felony criminal record. All others have a constitutional and I would submit to you, a God-given right to defend themselves and their loved ones.
Further, if you will look at the Bill of Rights, they were written so as to protect citizens’ individual liberties and not those of the state or nation. The right to keep and bear arms is the second liberty listed in those amendments for a reason.
Further, almost without exception, our founders had every intention of allowing citizens to exercise their natural right to keep and bear arms. I give you two quotes from the writer of our founding document as a nation and a fellow Virginian:
“We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;”
—Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
and
“No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
—Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
Lastly, you point to all of the killings such as at Appomattox or Virginia Tech, but what you don’t see is how many times such horrific shooting sprees were thwarted from the start or the number killed mitigated because some citizen was carrying a firearm.
I live in the quirky state of Utah currently and a few years back a nutjob acquired a gun illegally, went into the Trolley Square Mall in downtown Salt Lake and proceeded shooting people. Ironically the mall had signs that this was a gun-free zone. (Evidently the killer had no compunction about violating that law either.) Well, an off-duty police officer was in the mall at a restaurant with his family and heard the shooting. He was able to pin down the killer until other officers arrived. The killer himself was killed and when they surrounded his body they discovered he had tons of ammunition on him.
Had that armed officer not been there, far more people would have been killed. One wonders how many people could have been saved at Virginia Tech or Columbine or elsewhere had some citizen been allowed to carry a weapon in which to perhaps pin down, scare off, wound, or kill the murderer far sooner.
I respect your not wanting to own or be around guns, but if you disarm the populace, the only ones that will have guns will be the criminals. Then we all just become prey.
Lastly, if you care to be objective and look at some facts on the issue, there is an excellent book called “More Guns, Less Crime” by John Lott that uses actual statistical data to prove that not only were our founding fathers right in their inclusion of the second amendment, but it is vitally necessary to maintain a safer country, ma’am.
Why some one needs a dirty harry forty five. I haven’t got a clue why.
Hey we have those people here too in sunny CA. they can bring the gun into a Starbuck’s now or so I have heard. Just what you need right, some moron needing his/her caffeine jolt carrying a gun. Hubby has a gun, I know how to shoot but I hope I never have to use the damn thing ever. The NRA has just way too much say so in a lot of things not even gun related if you ask me.
T. Paine My, that was quite the monologue. Please don’t equate the 2nd amendment, which has been truly bastardized to the point of being unrecognizable by the NRA propaganda machine, to freedom of speech. If you shoot your mouth off, I can respond in kind, or walk away. If you shoot your .45 off, I may very well have the opportunity to do either.
Peppy: handguns, all handguns, exist for one reason, killing humans. That’s all they’re good for. When hunting game, a rifle or shotgun is far superior. So, basically, there is no real necessity for a .45.
Jess: I used to carry a concealed weapon, back in my younger days, when I worked in a part of town that was considered “dangerous.” Once I found that it wasn’t really dangerous, and decided that it was safer to go without that little .38 than to go with it, I sold it back to the hunting store I bought it from. I actually wish now that I had turned it in to the “cash for guns” program the City here used to run…at least then it would have been destroyed. But, that was a long time ago, and the Bee wasn’t thinking along those lines back then.
Bee, I apologize for my previous long-winded comment’s length. That being said, I am ABSOLUTELY comparing the necessity of the 1st amendment’s freedom of speech to the 2nd amendment’s right to bear arms. Both are absolutely necessary to a free society, as are the other eight amendements in the Bill of Rights. That was essentially the point I was trying to make. I am saddened that you don’t agree or choose not to see that distinction, ma’am.
This is more of the consequences of 30 years of right-wing Republican dominated politics. It’s sure to get worse before it gets better, but I’m confident that over time this decision and others like it will be reversed or discarded. That will happen because the Supremes won’t always be an extension of the GOP/CPAC/NRA axis. It will also happen because there will be enough killings and accidents that people will have gotten a belly full of gun permissiveness — just like most civilized countries around the world.
T. Paine wrote: “I respect your not wanting to own or be around guns, but if you disarm the populace . . .”
Who, exactly, said anything about disarming the populace?
Oh wait, I know. It was the NRA. If the angry, beer-guzzling misfit down the street is told by the voices in his head to get himself a B.A.R and several thousand rounds of armor-piercing ammo, and win one for the Gipper by cleaning out a mall parking lot, child care center or hospital lobby, that’s his God-given, inalienable right! Right, Paine?
And if a few angry young gang bangers gets into it with members of a rival gang at a park or on a streetcorner, and a gun-toting, self-appointed crimefighter draws his .45 in righteous response — well, the public had better be wearing lots of Kevlar and get good at hitting the ground fast. To hell with their right to go about their business without the prospect of being so much collateral damage.
I don’t want all guns banned. I haven’t heard any serious talk of doing anything like that. Banning handguns in places like New York City, Chicago, L.A. and so on makes a lot of sense. In Fargo, Missoula or Medford, not so much.
Anderson, that is the exact implied actions that the left wants is to disarm the populace. Evidently, as you imply along with many on the left, most people are idiots and are far too dangerous and unstable to own such weapons. Such used to be the law in Chicago and D.C. that citizens could not carry handguns, up until these correctly adjudicated decisions. Two cities with exceptionally high crime rates, despite these bans, I might add.
Next, if you notice, I specifically said that I want loop holes closed so that criminals and the mentally ill are not able to acquire guns. Something that the NRA also supports, by the way.
Further, if you read my previous comments, you will have noticed my argument of how lives might have been saved in such horrific crimes if a citizen had a weapon with which to stop a murderer, as was the case with the officer in the Salt Lake mall that I related.
Lastly, why the hell are people living in Fargo, Missoula, or Medford more worthy of their constitutional right to bear arms and thereby protect themselves than those folks living in New York, Chicago, or L.A.? Aren’t they also Americans deserving of those same Constitutional rights?
It was a Chicago man that brought the lawsuit against the city of Chicago for not allowing him to have a handgun with which to protect himself in his gang-riddled neighborhood. The SCOTUS decision that reaffirmed his right to self defense via a legallly-owned handgun was decided correctly accordingly.
T. Paine wrote: “Anderson, that is the exact implied actions that the left wants is to disarm the populace.”
Ah, the old, “You’re not saying it, but I know what you’re thinking” ploy. Look, I expect there are a few on the left who, if they could have their druthers, would disarm the populace. I expect there are a few who’d like to see meat banned from the national diet. But, I’m sure 99 percent of those few know there’s no way their fond desire is ever going to happen.
“Evidently, as you imply along with many on the left, most people are idiots and are far too dangerous and unstable to own such weapons.”
I implied no such thing.
Now, do you claim there are no deranged and dangerous people at large in society? How many does it take to kill a bunch of people when one snaps? What’s an acceptable level — 1 in 10,000, 1 in 100,000? How much of a life/death gamble do you want for yourself and your loved ones as you go about your daily life?
The more guns in circulation, the cheaper and more easily available guns are — and the more gun worshipers make a cult of owning and using them — the more gun deaths we’ll have. We’ll never have a gun-free country, nor do I want one. But I recognize there’s a terrible tradeoff for having so many around and so many enthusiasts with Walter Mitty daydreams of Dirty Harry heroics. The more guns, the easier it is for them to wind up in the wrong hands. It’s that simple.
Re: your geography and rights question. Where people live in greater concentration, you have more crime and violence and much less target shooting and deer hunting. You have less sportsman culture, more gang culture. That’s just the way it is. But then, there are exceptions.
If you want perfect freedom to own and use a .50 caliber sniper rifle, Uzi or whatever, and take a handgun or two wherever you go, the wilds of Alaska, north Idaho or Montana are appropriate. Downtown Los Angeles or Baltimore is not. If you want the benefits of living in a bustling metropolis, it would be better for all if you’d do it unarmed, along with everyone but law enforcement. It’s not a hard concept.
Mr. Anderson writes, “If you want the benefits of living in a bustling metropolis, it would be better for all if you’d do it unarmed, along with everyone but law enforcement. It’s not a hard concept.”
That is fine and dandy if you can guarantee that ONLY law enforcement personnel have the weapons. Since this is impossible, I would just as soon have the capability to defend myself or loved ones when I am chosen as a target for muggers or worse.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
Oh yeah, and then there is still that pesky little Constitutional amendment that says I have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, sir.
“That is fine and dandy if you can guarantee that ONLY law enforcement personnel have the weapons.”
I can no more guarantee that than you can guarantee some nutcase with mass murder in mind won’t riddle you and yours with bullets before you know what’s hitting you. You might have noticed, these characters don’t arrange to meet their intended victims in the middle of Main Street at noon. You could just be getting out of your car on the way into a restaurant or something.
“When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!”
Funny you should say that. A week ago, at a big annual community sports event in my town, there was a confrontation between members of rival gangs on a crowded downtown street (the events are held on downtown streets). One punk fired a few shots, hitting two innocent bystanders, both young. Fortunately, the injuries weren’t too bad.
As it happened, an off-duty police detective was right there. She summoned uniformed officers who arrived, literally, within seconds, apprehending all the punks involved. One officer was gun to gun with the shooter but didn’t fire because there were too many people around. After a scary moment, the shooter put his gun down.
I’m glad a well-trained officer was in that situation and not some gun-packing citizen who just might’ve over relied on his shooting prowess and under relied on using sound judgment.
T Paine said I would just as soon have the capability to defend myself or loved ones when I am chosen as a target for muggers or worse.
It’s funny,though. I live in Virginia, which is armed to the teeth. We’ve had lax gun laws for quite some time, and they got even more lax the last couple of years. What’s funny is, I hear all the time in my City news about people getting shot, but never about those well-armed, heroic concealed-carry citizens saving anyone. I did hear a couple of years ago how a woman who was an NRA poster child, a real marketing wonder, was murdered by her own husband with her own gun when they got into a hell of a fight one night. But I can’t tell you the last time I heard about someone saving a life because they happened to be packing heat.
About 2 days after 9/11, a fellow near Fredericksburg VA bought a gun to protect his family. His 3 year old shot himself to death with it.
I have no problem with a shotgun or rifle for home defense, but if the chips ever to ever fall, and I found myself faced with a criminal in front of me and an armed, hero-wannabe citizen behind me, I’ll consider myself dead either way, because it will go one of a couple of ways:
1. The well-armed “heroic” citizen will forget he/she has a gun on them in the stress of a moment they have no real training for and no real concept of danger – basically, freeze like a deer in headlights.
2. Shoot at the criminal, and hit me instead.
I’ll take my chances with talking my way out of the situation any day of the week, thanks. You see, I’ve taken the “handgun use and safety course” as mandated by the State of Virginia before one gets their concealed weapons permit, and I can tell you this: Out of at least 8 or 10 people in the 2 hour class that day, I was the only one who could hit the unmoving, unthreatening paper target with every shot fired. So, with well over 200,000 concealed carry permits in the state of virginia, if only one out of 10 can hit the side of the barn they are standing in front of, much less hit a moving human target with a handgun (and that is NOT an easy thing to do), you get a one in 10 chance of the “hero” with dreams of telling the punk to “make my day” actually saving your ass rather than accidentally killing you. Or your kid. Or your spouse. Or your mother. Again, I”ll take my chances with the criminal. At least I know what their intent is.
Bee, you don’t hear all of the stories about a criminal being persuaded to move along because he was met by a homeowner brandishing a weapon when the punk tried to break into his home.
Those stories aren’t sensational, nor do they support the typically progressive media’s agenda of proving that firearms are a crime detterent. Quite the contrast to the murderer that shoots up a McDonalds and all inside. That, of course, will make the news everytime and help progressives make their case that we need more gun laws, which is ironic because the killer wouldn’t have obeyed that law of even having a gun either. (Again I refer you to Dr. Lott’s book “More Guns Less Crime”)
I would hope your concealed class experience was an anecdotal abberation too. Most people that I know that have gone to the trouble of getting a concealed carry permit, have done so out of being responsible citizens and practice reguallarly with their weapons to the point of being quite profficient.
Further, often times just the brandishing of a weapon to a would be criminal is enough to make him look for easier unarmed prey.
Those incidents don’t make the news either, ma’am.
I doubt that most Democrats are for banning all arms outright, but just as the right to free speech is tempered by the needs of society, so must be the right to bear arms. I do not have the right to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. I so not have the right to commit perjury. I do not have the right to slander. By the same token, I have no right to use a small howitzer. There are some things that the right to bear arms includes, and some things that it does not. The question is over where we draw the line.
Paine, I know there are incidents where armed citizens apprehend burglars or stop muggers or thieves. I have read accounts of such incidents. There are definitely two sides to the story. What’s troubling is the risk involved, the variability of training, skill and sound judgment.
I recall too well an incident in Louisiana a few years ago. A young Japanese exchange student all dressed up in a white tuxedo and carrying a corsage went to the door of a home to meet his prom date’s parents and take her to the dance. As he approached,the door opened and he was shot to death, point blank. It turned out that the boy had the right house number but was one street off. The well-armed homeowner thought he was a punk.
I’ve been to Louisiana, Paine. Punks there don’t wear white tuxedos and carry corsages. And if you can find a Japanese punk in prom finery there, you better buy a lottery ticket right away, because the odds are about the same.
If I remember correctly, that homeowner had a gun permit. He had been a law-abiding citizen, albeit a somewhat paranoid one. He was good right up the point he was bad. He has to live out his life knowing he wrongly, stupidly killed an innocent boy. And, what could he say to the parents, who on TV were understandably grief stricken and bewildered. In their country, very few people can get a handgun permit. Very few. And gun deaths are a rarity there, even in crimes.
What does the killer say, “I exercised my constitutional right to defend my home from some unarmed young stranger coming up my front walk to my front door”?
I don’t expect you to change your mind, Paine, but I urge you to think about it. Like I said, there are two sides to this, and I get the impression you’re so steeped in one side you can’t begin to appreciate the other side.
Anderson, I do appreciate your side of the argument, as you have articulated it. I am not blind or deaf to the reasons you espouse. Frankly, I wish we lived in a world where good will existed between all humankind and the need for war, let alone guns was simply not necessary.
Such incidents as the one you describe are extremely distressing and so unnecessary. The man who shot this young man obviously had no reason to fear for his safety, let alone to use deadly force. He should rightfully be punished for his lack of judgement.
That being said, while one such incident is one too many, these type of anecdotal incidents tend to be abberations rather than the norm by far. In the long run, and indeed I would argue in the short run, far more good is done with protecting our second amendment rights than the potential good that others see as a benefit of diminishing that same Constitutional right, sir. Such is my opinion, though I do respect those people whos opinions differ from my own on this topic.