revel, I read that if a congress person gets 10 letters on a topic, they take notice. If they get 20, they act. Apparently most people feel like you do and don't bother. Keep those cards and letters coming in folks!
The USA has spoken
The Clinton Ban has sunset...the majority of us in the USA wanted it that way. Democrats lose again.
The majority of us? I doubt it.
The second Amendment is as much a part of the Bill of Rights as any other.
The Supreme Court as Conservative as they are still must allow gay men and women and discreet married people who cheat to do what they want behind closed doors.
And they have to let all the nutcase paranoids who have not an enemy in the world but still insist on owning an arsenal that could take out several platoons - keep their legal arsenals.
One of my favorite people is the History Channel's expert Mike Zomber who owns a Luger similar to the one that Hitler popped himself in the head with. Last I checked someone offered Mike a million for it and he wouldn't give it up for a million. It's considered the most valuable handgun in the US.
I'd never think of trying to separate Mike from any of his collectibles. And it wouldn't be because I somehow feel safer that he has a few around should I happen over to dinner.
In fact I wouldn't feel one way or another about it. And it has considerable to do with the fact that I know nothing he owns is likely to wind up in an office building mass murder, or a school massacre. But he's one of a kind, just like the Luger he owns.
It might not apply to you. And though you are constitutionally protected, can we be sure you are a Terry Nichol, or a Tim McVeigh or for that matter a Cary Stayner? I wonder.
I meant to say can we be sure you "aren't" like any on that list. . .
I sort of liked the typo. Because after so many posts, who wouldn't be suspicious of your character and demeanor if you're one of the gun enthusiasts?
I earned my sharpshooter and got at least a bar or two into it once. But when kids started shooting at birds that were likely to be dwindling or endangered species, I began to notice the base nature of the average human child.
I've always felt some relief that certain types of people will be afforded the opportunity to go half way around the world to put themselves into the gunsights of their equals and opposites in some foreign backwater or desert metropolis.
Maybe they'll kill and be missed and come back heroes; maybe they will not be missed and at home they won't be missed much either. It takes all kinds. In most cases it looks like wasted treasure to me, and I believe it is worth thinking twice about the way we're headed.
I don't think it's a breach of the second amendment to ban some types of weapons any more than it is a breach of the first amendment to make it illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Public safety is a greater good.
I tried to stay out of. Really, I did, but. . . .
I continue to believe that politicians are more dangerous than firearms. Would it violate the 1st to outlaw some political commentary, if they just didn't ban it all?
Let's tread softly, Roger. I hate squabbles, but your question is not pertinent to my point. It is illegal to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire. Public safety needs to be weighed whenever we decide where one person's rights end to respect the rights of others.
Your comment about trusting politicians is one that I commonly hear but find puzzling. Don't you believe in representative government? Do you not think that the voting public has the ultimate last word? Granted there are special interests (like the NRA, maybe?) who get politician's ears, but at the end of the day, we are the ones who can vote the bums out.
Well then, I'll give it a pass.
No harm, no foul, my friend.
Save the scary looking weapons ban!
Cars kill lots of people. I think we should ban cars. And doctors too.
This "fire in a crowded theater" argument is pretty silly.
Firstly, it's not well applied to the assault weapons ban, because
a) the assault weapons ban, other than by banning >10 round magazines, didn't make illegal "more deadly" guns/accessories and
b) what you're saying is that since you can make certain types of speech illegal as long as it's to stop violence, then you can make certain types of weapons illegal, as long as it's to stop violence. Listen to that - make certain types of weapons illegal, because they're only meant for killing people? The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the right of the people to own something that is deadly! How can you then say that "well, that doesn't cover guns that aren't meant for anything but to kill people!"?! That's the ultimate in absurdity. Don't go into the "what about nukes?" argument yet. Read on.
Secondly, the Supreme Court was silly in making it in the case in which they did. Of course, there's the purely constructionist argument: the First Amendment simply states, without making any exceptions, that abridging the right to free speech is unconstitutional - and thus the Supreme Court's decision had no basis without an amendment to allow for laws making false or violence-inciting speech illegal.
But moreover: the specific case in which the argument was made dealt with a pamphlet which did nothing more than say that the Thirteenth Amendment, by making unconstitutional involuntary servitude, also made unconstitutional the draft - and so the American people should stand up for their rights and against the draft.
I ask you now...is it silly, or do you agree with the following statement?
(the following is the culmenation of the "fire in a crowded theater" argument, taken from the same decision - Schenck v. United States)
"When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."
THAT, my friend, is what you get out of a Supreme Court that says to heck with what the Constitution says - there are more important issues at stake here. If we had Judge Holmes' Supreme Court today, every anti-war news reporter, blogger, and protester would be in jail or quieted.
So how do you want it? A Constitution that means what it says, or a Constitution that doesn't protect anything because, depending on who the judges are at any given time, whatever they think is more important outweighs your rights?
"Well, does the right to keep and bear arms guarantee a right to nukes?!" Yes. Sorry. But see, the framers weren't stupid. They put in an amendment process, by which those things they didn't foresee can be taken into account; and by which any mistakes might be corrected. How difficult do you suppose it would be to get enough support for a Constitutional amendment to ban nukes or make false and inciting speech unprotected? Rather than relying on the argument "they never would meant for..." just CHANGE it. The only reason people don't - because there are too many things in the Constitution that they like to ignore, but can't get changed; and admitting that it means what it says would hinder their agendas.
I realize this issue is long dead considering the assualt weapons ban was allowed to die. However an interesting thing happened to me today and it had to do with this board.
On the advice of Swimpy I sent an email to some of my representatives. Amazingly this afternoon when I came back from running errands and got my mail I had a letter from Jim Bunning US Senator.
He thanked me for writing to him but then he went on to say "As you know, anti-Second Amendment lawmakers..." And "As you and I know, gun control laws..."
What struck me was not his arguments for the side of gun people but his wordings like "As you know" and "As you and I know" and "anti-second Amendment lawmakers"
I am wondering just what these senators say to just ordinary people now and how they try to make out like their statements are some how facts and that he and the reciever are on the same side of something.
Everything from the district is like that. Ever try to make sense of congressional procedures? Everything is backasswards.
Yea, I got those kind of responses, too. I know they have canned answers for everything, but I really think that somebody is keeping a tally in the office. Call me Pollyanna, g'head.
From the eliptical report of Senator Bunning's response, I can't tell if it is a brush-off answer, or not.
roger wrote:From the eliptical report of Senator Bunning's response, I can't tell if it is a brush-off answer, or not.
Yea I know that's what I found so odd. Maybe it was canned, maybe they have secretaries in there reading the emails and then according to the issue and what side you are on they have a prepared letter for it? That would be awfully efficient for a body that is not known for that though.
swimpy, we need more pollyanna's of the world.
At a minimum, I think we are entitled to an answer, and our representative's position. I do imagine they all have canned answers, and you get one or the other, depending on whether congressman agrees with your opinion, or not. If there is agreement, you probably get the one that is easiest to understand.
I don't often write to these guys. In fact, I've written a total of three times to two representatives. Bill Richardson answered both; the other ignored it. Richardson went on to become our ambassador to the UN, and is now governor of New Mexico. Not sure what happened to the other.
Well I have an update if anyone is interested.
I got another letter from yet another representative today. Mitch McConnell US Senator wrote me a letter full of the bla bla about gun ownerships.
However, in third paragraph he says the following:
"In your letter, you mentioned the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban."
Gosh, swimpy, the whole thing makes me kind of nervous. I am regreating writing. Nevertheless I made copies of it and am going to keep them both in my files as souvenirs. Even if they are canned, at least they are responses, pretty good as my first time in ever writing to anyone in office.
