The Bush Administration strikes a blow (or fires a shot, I suppose) for common sense.

2nd Amendment Covers Individuals

Glad to hear that.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
The Bush Administration strikes a blow (or fires a shot, I suppose) for common sense.

2nd Amendment Covers Individuals

---

Great, now maybe they'll get behind some other amendments. My particular favorite is the 14th:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Perhaps they can explain why homosexuals aren't entitled to this one.

It isnt surprising that they would take a ridiculous position like this. After the tax cut for the top 1%, the energy plan to cover the corporate robber barons, the assault on civil liberties, the trashing of environmental protection,and the attack on Oregon's right to die law. What is coming next, measures to support the tobacco lobby and overturn Roe v. Wade ?

It's heartening to see the right to bear arms finally protected by a President - thumbs up to W!!

Trying to ban individual gun ownership is a fruitless pursuit (no matter what you think the Framers meant by their 1787 wording).

I'd instead concentrate on making purchasers of firearms (and the ammunition as well) RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES of their decision to possess, use and maintain these POTENTIALLY destructive items.

Metaphoricaly speaking, you can buy a car today but can't LEGALLY operate it on public streets and highways until you establish proof of ability to operate the vehicle safely (license) and proof of financial responsibility. Why? Because a car, operated unsafely, can cause gread human and financial destruction...... as can firearms!

But as long as the opponents of the NRA's scorched-earth policy of NO concessions respond with equally all-or-nothing "absolutist" positions, the NRA will prevail. The American middle, given only these two extremes, chooses to (and will continue to choose to) err on the side of not changing the status quo.

Concurrently, I also believe that the American middle WOULD support responsible regulation of things like AK-47s and assult rifles that carefully DO NOT in any way infringe on guns and ammunition for sport and self-protection uses. However, given the all-or-nothing approaches, these compromise argument are going to continue to remain under the general public's radar.....

Think back to the arrest and prosecution of the guy who provided the automatic gun used by Harris & Klebold at Columbine. I think the American people thought that holding him accountable was a reasonable use of the law and in no way trampled on the Bill of Rights. If presented clearly, Americans IMHO will reject the NRA's assertion that even those types of transactions have Constitutional protection.

It'll be interesting to see how the courts ultimately decide......


Edited for typos and missing word

[ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: Wurm ]

How ironic that whereas Poppy Bush resigned his membership from the NRA, Sonny's administration is the first ever to uphold the individual's 2nd amendment rights. I know liberals hate the notion of guns and feel like gun control is the answer to so many of our nation's ills, but I just don't see it that way. The reason I became a member of the NRA is not that I'm so pro-gun (don't own one, and my gun-related hobbies - skeet, trap, and target shooting - either fell by the wayside or never seriously got started), but that I see most gun control as simplistic and misguided measures that don't deal with the root of the problems. On the flip side is something that liberals are loathe to admit, that gun ownership does indeed deter crime. Here's a quote from a recent Boston Globe article (sorry, but the link's expired) ...

[quote]While exaggerated claims about the evil of guns generally get respectful treatment in the media, no such attention is accorded to facts which suggest that the case for guns as a means of crime prevention may be more than a National Rifle Association myth. John R. Lott, an economist who is now a senior research scholar at Yale Law School, has published studies that conclude that state laws allowing any citizen with no criminal record to obtain a concealed weapon permit lead to lower rates of violent crime, including murder. So far, Lott's research has held up well under scrutiny. Yet most of the mainstream media and punditry ignore his findings and scoff at the notion that guns may have benefits.

---

This issue has many facets, and I'm not about to argue them all in one post. But I'm damn glad W's administration has taken the correct stand on this issue.

Wurm, it seems we posted at about the same time. Your post touched on a number of the facets that I didn't get into in mine. But now that you've brought them up ...

[quote]Trying to ban individual gun ownership is a fruitless pursuit (no matter what you think the Framers meant by their 1787 wording).

---

One thing we do agree on. Folks, when you see those bumper stickers, "You can have my gun when you pry it out of my cold dead hand", take it as gospel.

[quote]I'd instead concentrate on making purchasers of firearms (and the ammunition as well) RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES of their decision to possess, use and maintain these POTENTIALLY destructive items.

---

And they are. Take a look at the differences in the way the law views a crime committed without a gun and a crime where a gun is used. And their are laws aplenty governing the negligent use of firearms. By the way, 80% of crimes involving a gun are committed by criminals who are walking around with an outstanding warrant for their arrest. If we really wanted to reduce gun-related crimes, we'd invest more manpower and resources into getting those folks behind bars.

[quote]Metaphoricaly speaking, you can buy a car today but can't LEGALLY operate it on public streets and highways until you establish proof of ability to operate the vehicle safely (license) and proof of financial responsibility. Why? Because a car, operated unsafely, can cause gread human and financial destruction...... as can firearms!

---

Why don't we set up a nationwide equivalent of the DMV for guns? Hmmm, do you really think people who intend to commit a crime with a firearm would bother??

[quote]But as long as the opponents of the NRA's scorched-earth policy of NO concessions respond with equally all-or-nothing "absolutist" positions, the NRA will prevail. The American middle, given only these two extremes, chooses to (and will continue to choose to) err on the side of not changing the status quo.

---

Don't underestimate the power and passion of the NRA. If you have any doubts, listen to uber-liberals like Charles Schumer talk about gun control. They don't dare speak too loudly on 2nd amendment issues, because any politician who does risks the "seek and destroy" campaign of the very well-funded and well-organized NRA.

[quote]Think back to the arrest and prosecution of the guy who provided the automatic gun used by Harris & Klebold at Columbine. I think the American people thought that holding him accountable was a reasonable use of the law and in no way trampled on the Bill of Rights. If presented clearly, Americans IMHO will reject the NRA's assertion that even those types of transactions have Constitutional protection.

---

While I certainly share your condemnation of whoever sold two minors firearms, I feel this stance misses the point. First and foremost, obviously, the teenage boys who committed the crimes of Columbine should be held responsible, and they have. But aren't you forgetting the 2nd most important factor? Where the HELL were their parents?!?! OMG, I couldn't have so much as brought a gun into the house as a teenager without (1) my parents' knowing about it; and (2) being subject to some very strict <ahem> guidance on their part. Not only did these kids possess guns, they were living in some bizarro alternate reality, planning an elaborate scheme of mass murder, building bombs ... how the hell did the parents not know?! And why didn't they do anything about it?!?!

Did the person who sold the guns commit a crime? Yes, and he should be made to pay whatever penalty for selling firearms to a minor. Is he responsible for what happened at Columbine? No. The only ones responsible for Columbine were the criminals themselves (both legally and morally) and indirectly, their parents (morally if not legally).

Seems like Wm1865's "common sense" is on a par with Bill O'Reilly's, NOT that of the presidents of the last 60 years, whose Justice Depts had exactly the opposite view...

Governor Bush & Evangelist General Ashcroft are sucking on the barrel of Heston's shotgun. Perhaps a name change to the United State of Texas is in order?

I just joined the NRA recently. I had trepidations about because they haven't been very gay-friendly in the past but I think that, if we want the organization to change, then it's important to be inside of it.

I'm already sending letters to the NRA about their past anti-gay rhetoric, urging them to drop all of that irrelevant stuff and to focus on 2nd amendment issues exclusively.

Somebody raised a good point about gun control. It's very silly to me because most criminals don't get their guns legally, they buy them illegally. So the liberals can set up as much gun control as they want, it won't make a damn bit of difference.

What they will achieve, however, is to successfully disarm those of us who follow the law. Ironic, isn't it?

Here's a small piece of a column by one of the Pink Pistols. It's about the Edgewater massacre that happened in Massachusetts a few years ago:

"After the shootings at Edgewater Technologies in Wakefield, victim 'Sandy' Javelle's friend wrote a letter to the Boston Herald on January 11th, revealing that the victim had a New Hampshire concealed carry permit but was denied a reciprocal Massachusetts license, without reason. Javelle died empty-handed, allegedly trying to protect other victims, including Paul Marceau, who turned out to have a male partner. Yes, that's right: Lesbian senator introduces a law allowing discrimination, discriminatory law is then used to arbitrarily deny the right to self defense to a qualified person, who then cannot prevent the murder of a queer man. I suppose we have reached a great day for the queer movement - the point where we can finally oppress our own community without needing society's help. The question now is, will we? "

See this page for the entire column (well worth reading):
http://thisisdavidr.net/columns/battle_for_soul.html

[quote]Originally posted by Treebeard:
I just joined the NRA recently. I had trepidations about because they haven't been very gay-friendly in the past but I think that, if we want the organization to change, then it's important to be inside of it.

---

Thank you, TB, for illustrating the raison d'etre of Log Cabin Republicans!

Happy to be of help.

I'm going to go to a LCR meeting soon in my state. Technically I'm not a republican though, I'm an independent. But it would be interesting to meet some other people who fall more on the conservative side of things than many of the liberals I know.

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:


Thank you, TB, for illustrating the raison d'etre of Log Cabin Republicans!

---

Log Cabin's theme song:
"Treat me like a fool, treat me mean and cruel, but love me / take my aching heart, tear it all apart, but love me."

If indeed that is the raison d'être of Log Cabin, they have practically nothing to show for their efforts. The Republican Party is as viciously anti-gay as it ever was. Look at their platform. Look at their rhetoric. Look at their record. Same with the National Rifle Association. Last I checked, they're still funneling cash to viciously anti-gay political candidates. So who are you trying to fool, besides yourself?
I always perceived Log Cabin's raison d'être as to sell the GOP to us, in spite of the vitriol and bile that Republicans continually spew. Surely it offers a good deal to the Republicans - they don't actually have to DO anything to advance gay rights, but they can get their message out & peel off a few gay votes, and eventually neutralize the gay rights movement as a political force.

I don't agree at all. Bush is far less homophobic than other republican presidents, including his father.

Note that he appointed an openly gay man to head the White House AIDS office http://www.lcr.org/press/20010409.asp , he has not overturned Clinton's executive order prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the executive branch of the government and he has been attacked by the far-right over his refusal to endorse an anti-gay agenda: http://www.lcr.org/press/20010601.asp

So I don't agree that all republicans are evil homophobes. That's a vast oversimplification, it's unfair and inaccurate.

And, as I said before, if you want change in the NRA then the way to do it is to engage directly by becoming part of the organization. You aren't going to get anything done by standing outside of it and whining that they are anti-gay.

[quote]Originally posted by Billy:
Log Cabin's theme song:
"Treat me like a fool, treat me mean and cruel, but love me / take my aching heart, tear it all apart, but love me."

If indeed that is the raison d'être of Log Cabin, they have practically nothing to show for their efforts. The Republican Party is as viciously anti-gay as it ever was. Look at their platform. Look at their rhetoric. Look at their record. Same with the National Rifle Association. Last I checked, they're still funneling cash to viciously anti-gay political candidates. So who are you trying to fool, besides yourself?
I always perceived Log Cabin's raison d'être as to sell the GOP to us, in spite of the vitriol and bile that Republicans continually spew. Surely it offers a good deal to the Republicans - they don't actually have to DO anything to advance gay rights, but they can get their message out & peel off a few gay votes, and eventually neutralize the gay rights movement as a political force.

---

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: Treebeard ]

BoSox, thanks for your as-always thoughtful and reasoned responses

I think you caught the gist of my call for a recognition that gun ownership and use bears legal/societal responsibilities.

Take a waiting period, for example - why isn't the NRA in the forefront of designing and implementing a state-of-the-art, truly secure "quick/instant" verification registry? The technology and security are available, it just takes a) money and the will to see that such a system would aid, not hinder the vast majority or law-abiding citizens who want to exercise their right to obtain a legal firearm.

An important use of such a registry would be to aid prosecutors in using (as you point out) existing laws to really come down on people who choice to use a gun results in destructive results. Said a different way: say a robbery takes place, and a clerk is killed. The gun is recovered and is found not to be registered. 5 years EXTRA on top of any other term for THAT violation. Since the great majority of Americans are NOT going to be committing robberies anytime soon, isn't this a legitiate use of "promoting the general welfare" (Preamble)....

And anyone who says that the government would use a registry to "come after the guns to take them away" has been watching too many "black helicopter" crackpot videos ......

On the Columbine gun provider, I wanted to make it clear that I think his crime would have been as bad had it taken place a few months later when the shooters had reached their eighteenth birthdays. And yes, the parents should share culpability for what their spawn did (damned hets)!!!

Treebeard - I understand your rationaile for joining the NRA. Unlike others who oppose their core Second Amendment stand, my problem is with the misdirection of the zeal of 2nd Amendment support into other political areas that have absolutely nothing to do with firearms.

Like parts of the national Republican Party itself, this organization that has the potential to do some significantly important and beneficial things is instead in the hands of some seriously extreme people - people who have no problems at all subjugating the valid mission of the NRA to abet their extreme and, I daresay, un-American goals.

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

Ump25- I see reproductive rights as being very much linked to gay rights. It says you have the right to do with your body what you want to do with it. The paradox is this- these people may want no restrictions on guns, an instrument of death, but they are quick to try to regulate what they see as morality regarding sex and reproduction- private matters that government has no business in regulating.

Not true, I'm pro-gun and pro-choice. Don't tar all gun people with the same anti-abortion brush.

[quote]Originally posted by msbsf:
Ump25- I see reproductive rights as being very much linked to gay rights. It says you have the right to do with your body what you want to do with it. The paradox is this- these people may want no restrictions on guns, an instrument of death, but they are quick to try to regulate what they see as morality regarding sex and reproduction- private matters that government has no business in regulating.

---

Oh, dear, the abortion debate again? We should probably abort this before it becomes viable, but for what it's worth, pregancy is not a choice - it is actually physically impossible to "choose" to become pregnant, you can only choose to try - but rather the result of a series of choices (you choose to have sex, you choose to use or not use birth control, you choose to take the risk that birth control might fail). Thus, once you're pregnant, you're not faced with a choice but with the consequences of your previous choices - on all of which, by the way, I'm "pro." Government should not regulate the people with whom you sleep, or the protection you use or do not use. But if an innocent human life results from those choices, government - even and perhaps especially a small, limited government - has a vital role in protecting that otherwise defenseless life.

I'm completely and undeniably right on this. There's really no need for further debate. Thank you, and have a nice day.

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: William1865 ]

To tie this to the original post: If unborn children were able to carry concealed weapons to defend themselves against their abortionists, the world would be a much safer place. (See below.)

[La-la-la-la-la. La-la-la-la-la.]


I'm kidding.I'm kidding. Geez.

[quote] I'm completely and undebiably right on this. There's really no need for further debate. Thank you, and have a nice day.

---

Granted that I am opinionated, but I would hope that I never appear this full of myself.

[quote]Originally posted by Billy:


Granted that I am opinionated, but I would hope that I never appear this full of myself.

---

See the end of my last post.

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: William1865 ]