U.S. Supreme Court rules against D.C. Handgun Ban

Which is a common spin put on it by nazi gun grabbing thugs. It makes it a lot easier to be a thug when your victims can't fight back.

Not as much fun though.

Be honest; you wouldn't be upset if you had to actually use one of those weapons, would you?

Cycloptichorn

I use them all the time.

Nobody wants to have to shoot another person, unless of course you are a murderous criminal.

Your argument has zero merit - and you know it.

Common sense dictates: More guns = less crime.

Local law enforcement, State police, FBI and NG are in place to enforce laws and commands laid down by our elected officials, serving and protecting the citizens is maybe 3rd on their list of priorities.

Also, our military (A,N, AF & M) is not to be used on our soil unless all hell has broken loose.

No, I don't know it. I think that part of you welcomes the idea of using the guns that you love so much.

Your hero Nugent certainly seems to relish the idea.

Cycloptichorn

You are blind in one eye and you can't see out of the other.

Exactly, there was no standing army at the time. There is now. As far as "every individual" or "the people", that has been limited by the courts as to who cannot carry a weapon. If you read the amendment as is, it says "the people" which would mean everyone, but that is not true per the courts.

As far as your statement about the police not being able to protect, I think you are wrong. Clean up operations? Where did you get that info?

Please provide a source to a list of these priorities or is it just your opionion?

I will be honest and tell you no I would not be upset to use my weapon to protect myself. If I pull out my gun and point it at someone they can be damn sure I am willing and able to pull that trigger.

It's very true. Police almost always show up well after the crime has been committed, and then they get to document the scene. Today's police are overwhelmed, they really don't have time to sit around and protect you. Plus, guns are light compared to a police officer.

Ted's been carrying since he was in diapers and has never shot anyone. And he's a damn good shot.

cjhsa
I used to be a dispatcher for the police. Crimes like burglaries, thefts, vandals (crimes already committed can wait). Life threatening crimes go to the top of the priority list.

Sure, but there's no guarantee. It still takes at least minutes for the police to arrive. At my cabin, the nearest sheriff is almost 10 miles/minutes away, if he's awake and not on vacation.

Are you really that worried about armed invaders entering your cabin for nefarious purposes?

Cycloptichorn

You don't think people like and admire cjhsa in real life, do you?

Well, that is a good point.

Cycloptichorn

I have always liked and admired cjhsa. However, I wouldn't enter his house... unless I was invited.

You equation 'more guns = less crime' is comical and rather rudimentary in the sense that on the surface of it, the assumption is that more guns in more hands of the general populace will yield less crime since many would-be-criminals will be intimidated by the fact that many have guns in the homes etc. You neglect the possibility that more guns are not the prime determinant in decreasing crime; more, you mistake the sufficient for the necessary. And to do that with such an equivalence relation is DISASTROUS!



To enforce state and federal laws is to protect the citizens; protection of citizens is not apart from the enforcement of civil and criminal laws. You disassociate 'protection of citizenry' from 'law enforcement' and qualify it as a possible third priority on some list.



It is not necessary for "things to break loose" in order for martial law to be ordered, and all armed forces can be called in upon congressional approval. But I do not think "all hell breaking loose" is necessary for martial law.

The history of gun control, part 2


By Sandy Froman



Until Lyndon Johnson came to the White House in 1963 following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, gun control was simply not a national issue. There were no significant federal gun control laws on the books, and the NRA was a shooter's organization that intentionally shied away from any political involvement.

All of that changed with the 1968 assassinations of Sen. Robert Kennedy and civil rights leader Martin Luther King. In the civil unrest that followed, the media found a new whipping boy - America's gun owners. The media blitz against gun rights was unprecedented and became the driving force behind Democrat leaders proposing national gun control.

Although JFK and his brother, Sen. Robert Kennedy, had been NRA Life Members, America's new president, Lyndon Johnson, was a committed gun control advocate. No president ever matched his power and his will when it came to controlling the legislative process. His attorney general and much of his senior staff searched for new ways to restrict gun ownership among the American people. This was part of Johnson's Great Society vision of an all-powerful federal government controlling the lives of ordinary Americans.

LBJ also put anti-gun judges on the federal courts at every level. Liberal Thurgood Marshall, an opponent of the Second Amendment, was appointed to the United States Supreme Court. All three branches of the federal government lurched to the left in most policy areas, including firearms.

Keep in mind that up until this time, private ownership of firearms was not in any meaningful way controlled by the federal government. Johnson's administration was the beginning of the federal government superseding state authority in all aspects of people's lives, including ownership and lawful commerce in their private property - in this case, firearms.

The other major factor that created the federal gun control movement was that the NRA, as an organization, was totally unprepared to deal with the media, Lyndon Johnson, or the anti-gun politicians in the U.S. House and Senate. Up until that point, NRA refused even to have a registered lobbyist. In fact, NRA sent mixed signals to the Hill in reference to Johnson's anti-gun legislation.

If NRA had held nominally pro-gun House members' feet to the fire, the 1968 Gun Control Act, or GCA, would not have become law. With no direction from NRA, however, those legislators simply didn't vote. And the worst piece of gun control legislation in history was enacted into law.

GCA made many common gun-related commercial activities federal crimes. Suddenly, firearm sales became heavily regulated and restricted. Some supporters of GCA saw it as the first step toward the ultimate goal of ending private gun ownership in the United States. The GCA has served as the basis of virtually every piece of gun control legislation, federal or state, that has been enacted since.

Nothing changed politically for gun owners until former NRA President Harlon Carter, a true visionary and often a lone voice on the NRA board, convinced NRA that gun owners needed a powerful grass-roots lobby focused on saving the Second Amendment.

Following Senate passage of a Saturday Night Special bill, which would have banned one-third of the handgun designs in the United States, Harlon Carter got his way. NRA created the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, or ILA, in 1975.

With the creation of ILA, Carter and his small band of young staffers - talented communicators, lawyers, lobbyists, and grass-roots organizers - turned the battle on its head.

Just months after ILA was created, gun owners celebrated a remarkable victory when ILA helped U.S. Sen. James McClure personally hand Massachusetts anti-gun rights Sen. Edward Kennedy an equally stunning defeat.

Kennedy wanted handgun ammunition banned by the Consumer Product Safety Commission as a "hazardous substance." When it came to a roll call vote, 75 senators - among them a majority of Democrats - voted against Kennedy's gun control scheme. Only 11 senators stood with Kennedy. The dynamic had changed. At last, frustrated gun owners across the country welcomed a real Second Amendment lobby.

With his singular vision of the future, Harlon Carter began recruiting young scholars, writers, researchers and lawyers who fervently believed in the Second Amendment as an individual right. Carter often said that we would see the day when these young men and women would be old and wise and their ideas powerful.

No it's just a simple fact. For one to think otherwise is childish.