Democracy is in decline, especially in the USA, which mistakenly believes democracy can be spread by military intervention. Iraq is a picture of success, isn't it?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
" The German government might want to listen to Dr. Paul Krugman first, before pointing any fingers about economic policy."
I do hope you're jesting, as Klugman is one of the cretins(no offense to actual people from the beautiful isle of Crete) who proposed to the Obama administration the ludicrous notion of minting a Trillion dollar platinum coin to pay down the US debt.
The Germans are absolutely correct to seriously question the foolish currency printing.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
Superlib, in SCOTUS decision of D.C. vs Heller there's a clear reference to the anti-tyranny protection, included in the following exerpt:
" The Supreme Court held: 
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. …"
1 ( +2 / -1 )
"The CDC says the number of gun homicides was 11,493." And most of those were in urban, innercity areas plagued with drug gang turf wars, like Chicago.
There really IS a reason to oppose "universal " background checks AND registration : States Rights as protected by Tenth Amendment.
“In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation(prohibiting civilian gun ownership) a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them." Further, only non-opposition party members received the permits, excluding the groups that would soon be herded up and led to slaughter.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. That's the relevance we should all learn from those very dark years in the 20th century.
Do recall a certain ethnic group were also rounded up and interned during WWII in the good old US of A. That's domestic tyranny.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Legalize the drugs, and the cartels lose their power as the US did by ending alcohol Prohibition.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
And as a show of good faith, how about if the chinese cease and desist from sending ships and aircraft into the area that has been internationally recognized to be legitimately under Japanese control? That would be a good start.
-1 ( +3 / -4 )
RR, I agree with you about the registration issue. A perfect example of how such information can be abused is how the rag "The Journal " in NY published the addresses of registered handgun permit holders. Very dangerous.
Registration is a first step that makes eventual confiscation not only possible, but even more likely.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
I also find it quite disingenuous by the president and vice-president that they didn't take such actions as they are now doing immediately following the Aurora cinema massacre. Was it that the timing was just not right, meaning BEFORE the election? Ah, too politically risky.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
"…I agree with Obama in relation to prosecuting gun traffickers. I say we start with Eric Holder."
RR, Hear! Hear!
The Attorney General and his minions who participated in "Fast & Furious", deliberately and intentionally placing untold numbers of illicit weapons into the hands of known Mexican drug cartel members, with no tracking nor accountability, have so far been protected and given complete immunity by the same president who now touts actions against law-abiding US gun owners.
Does the stench of duplicity and hypocrisy not deeply offend the nation's olfactory senses? Where is the media outrage?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
" May I ask why you included the word "patriotic"?"
Certainly. It's the patriotic duty of any American and particularly of one who takes an Oath of Office to" support and defend the Constitution against enemies, foreign AND domestic." This is a central concept of the NRA.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
Laguna, if I may answer your question:
" Do you support all gun ownership changes being subject to identity checks? If not, why not?"
Whether you or I support that notion is immaterial. What does matter is the constitutionality of the law. The collectivists at the forefront of this debate are set on federally legislating that which in within the individual states' rights(Tenth Amendment applies). A major problem that has been allowed to grow in past decades is the expansion or creep of federal powers, in contradiction of the spirit of the Constitution, very often via the contorted interpretations of the Commerce Clause.
The Constitution was written broadly with regard to the rights of the people, but narrowly regarding governmental powers for the express purpose of limiting government. Lincoln essentially destroyed that.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
The Constitution expressly prohibits all governments from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This permits us to defend ourselves when the police can’t or won’t, and it permits a residue of firepower in the hands of the people with which to stop any tyrant who might try to infringe upon our natural rights, and it will give second thoughts to anyone thinking about tyranny.
The country is ablaze with passionate debate about guns, and the government is determined to do something about it. Debate over public policy is good for freedom. But the progressives want to use the debate to justify the coercive power of the government to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding folks because of what some crazies among us have done. We must not permit this to happen.
The whole purpose of the Constitution is to insulate personal freedom from the lust for power of those in government and from the passions of the people who sent them there.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
Laguna, your view is short-sighted.
" Certainly, a massacre of two dozen or so children would not polarize the country; no, it is the President's fault for bringing this up…"
What a farcical twist. The polarization began long before the Aurora and Newtown tragedies.
" Wait - requiring presentation of identification before purchasing a gun is akin to censoring the Internet?!"
Who said that? Background checks have been the law for a long time when buying a firearm legally, but in case you haven't noticed, not one gangbanger has ever presented an ID to a back-of-the van thug.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
People call Obama a hypocrite, but he's been pretty consistent on this: he wants to keep American kids safe. Kids in the countries he wants to drone bomb can go to Hell. If you're going to call Obama a hyprocrite on anything, you could do what the NRA has. The NRA has pointed out in a "controversial" ad that the president thinks armed guards at schools make complete sense IF it's the school where his own precious daughters are. Armed guards at commoner schools? Ha! Don't make your elitist hyprocrite political masters laugh!
I will admit, however, that it does seem awfully suspicious that the state is attacking gun ownership at the same time they're stocking up on enough armor-piercing rounds to turn every man, woman and child in the country into Swiss cheese. "I'm confident that there are some steps that we can take that don't require legislation and that are within my authority as president," says The Man Himself. Obama gets it. Congress has all along been a smokescreen to make the American people actually believe that they have some say in the political process, that their president really wasn't supposed to act like a monarch and that their little government wasn't supposed to grow into an imperial one. Now to be clear. I'm not saying Obama is going to be next mutant offspring of a Stalin-Hitler-Mao-Pot fourway. But something awful is indeed shaping up. Maybe Obama is just prepping the stage for the nutcase fascist general who will ride in on a tank to assume the mantle of Caesar. Maybe that Caesar will be the sort of ruler who isn't afraid to get his hands good and red with the blood of resisting patriots. Or maybe it will be Obama himself.
2 ( +4 / -2 )
Here the rails to soft, comfortable totalitarianism are once again being greased by rhetoric about "protecting the children", much like the government's attempts to control the flow of information on the Internet by claiming the aim is to stop child pornography. So, if you oppose "sensible limits" on gun ownership then you support child pornographers. Or something like that. It's government logic -- the same logic that would seek a gun ban if Lanza had run over those Newtown children with his car -- and it's hard for morally correct and sensible people to follow. "My starting point is to focus on what makes sense, what works," said Obama on Monday, "what should we be doing to make sure that our children are safe and that we're reducing the incidents of gun violence." Did you catch it, good reader? How gun violence just got tacked on to the part about keeping kids safe? It's quite the jump. After all, children are rarely hurt by guns in the US or anywhere. They are more often hurt and even killed by their own parents and guardians who often use their bare hands. And what Obama is calling for, and what his supporters really want, is not a ban on guns. It's just to make sure that the guns are in the hands of the state, which also has all the planes and drones that blow up several innocent children every few days.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
" , the rifle Lanza used is not covered by Connecticut's "assault weapon" law or by the federal ban, which used similar criteria. Both laws ban the Colt AR-15 by name, but rifles not on the list of forbidden models are banned only if they have detachable magazines plus at least two of these five features: 1) a folding or telescoping stock, 2) a pistol grip, 3) a bayonet mount, 4) a grenade launcher, and 5) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor. The gun used by Lanza was legal in Connecticut, so it did not meet these criteria, which means it also would have been legal under the federal ban that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) promises to reintroduce next month (a bill President Obama supports)."
It should be noted that the 500M dollar estimate is a low-ball and as with such proposals the actual costs just snowball.
All the discussion obout rules in other countries is irrelevant, sorry, as it's not a "one size fits all" situation.
I should commend the community organizer for polarizing the country so sharply. Divide and conquer.
After reading the dictatorial edicts, I'm not sure which or any would have actually prevented the tragedy at Newtown or would reduce the largest percentage of firearms murders(innercity gang/drug-related killings).
A knee-jerk reaction like this(and the misnamed Patriot Act) neither increase safety nor protect liberty. It's a further decline into a Police State.
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
Stupid idea. They wiil not assimilate, but rather spread religion-based intolerance as evidenced in EU, UK, etc.
2 ( +4 / -2 )
THE ONLY QUESTION ABOUT GUN REGISTRATION
Only one thing is overlooked in the common sense proposals to register guns, so here it is. How exactly would writing down my name, or your name, help arrest criminals or make you safer? Although at first blush, gun listing has a sort of tantalizing appeal, on reflection you have to wonder whether gun lists would be an instrument of crime control at all.
The unfortunate answer is that, no matter how good it feels when the words first pass your ears, registering honest gun owners doesn't stop criminals, and in fact focuses in exactly the opposite direction. It is an allocation of resources that has no chance of achieving its goal, if that goal is the reduction of crime.Registering 70 million American households is extremely expensive.
Do you know what it takes to run a database that big? You need 19,000 changes daily, just to keep up with people who move every ten years. Floor after floor of cubicle after cubicle for employees with permanent jobs, payroll, parking and dry cleaning bills. It's a federal jobs program all by itself, all in the common sense -- but deceptive name -- of stopping crime. How many criminals do you figure will register when all is said and done? That's right, none, and the planners know that. All that money and time, invested on tracking the innocent.Americans who fail to register would become felons without committing a crime.
Under registration, activity that is a common practice and has been perfectly legal since inception makes you a felon. Think about that. Possession of private property would subject you to felony arrest, if the property isn't on the government's master list. Boy, that doesn't sound like the American way. No other evil is needed, there is no victim and no inherent criminal act takes place.Registration, if enacted, will create an underground market for unregistered guns bigger than the drug trade.
How many times must an elite forbid what the public wants, before learning the unintended consequences of outlawing liberties? People get what they want either way, it's just a question of how much crime the government itself forces to accompany it. With respect to guns, the last thing you want to encourage is the creative import programs and price supports that drug dealers enjoy, forPeople have said to me, "But, if all guns were registered and there was a crime, then you could tell."
Tell what? If your neighbor is shot, that's not probable cause to search everyone with a matching caliber in a ten-block radius. The evidence needed to conclusively link a person to a crime has no connection at all to a registration plan -- police aren't waiting for official lists so they can start catching murderers. Gun registration schemes lack a crime prevention component.You don't really think authorities would use gun registration lists to confiscate weapons from people, do
Despite current examples of exactly that in New York and California, and global history for the past century, this couldn't really happen, do you think? Who would even support such a thing in a country like America, with its Bill of Rights? The guarantees against confiscating property, unwarranted seizures and the right to keep and bear arms would surely forestall any such abuse of power.
And what about the so-called First Amendment test? If it's OK for arms it must pass muster for words too. Why would an honest writer object to being on the government list of approved writers? Why indeed.
Pile logic on logic, some people just feel the government should register everything, just to keep control. When government has that much control, you no longer possess your liberties. You're living where government lists define who can do what, and where people control trumps crime control -- the gun registration model precisely.
I might favor registration if the system would include criminals. In fact, I'd favor testing the system on them first. But the U.S. Supreme Court, in a widely known case (Haynes v. U.S., 1968), has already determined that a felon who has a gun cannot be compelled to complete such forms, because it violates the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. That's right, registration -- not in your case of course but in the case of a criminal -- is a self-indictment of a crime, and is therefore prohibited.
Gun listing is a feel-good deception that passes unquestioned by the media, engorges the federal bureaucracy, and undercuts the linchpins of American freedoms. It has no more place in a free society than a government authorized list of words, and should be rejected outright. Elected officials who promote such a scheme are opposing the very Constitution they take an oath to preserve, protect and defend, and deserve to be removed from office.
-1 ( +4 / -5 )
Starting a War on Guns may seem like a simple and logical thing, but let's look at recent history for some guidance. We have the War on Drugs, and that has pretty much failed. The prohibition on some drugs has put millions behind bars and the cops are more heavily armed and militarized every year. We have the domestic War on Terror, and all that got us was groping by the junior gestapo at the airport. We did have the War on Alcohol, better known as Prohibition, which gave rise to notorious gangs, black markets and yes, the first federal gun control laws.
At least somebody had the sense to call that one off. It's nearly impossible to stop one of these great wars once it gets started.
-2 ( +4 / -6 )
I'd like to see every one of these politicians line up to FIRST turn in or register any and all weapons possessed by them AND their bodyguards. Let's see these hypocrites do that FIRST.
-3 ( +6 / -9 )
" So you see the problem as a violent society....and your solution is easy access to weapons?"
You really just don't get it.
As noted by Noliving, " Innercities are responsible for the vast majority of crime in the US, we need seriously look at why that is. 3% of the US counties are responsible for as much as 78% of all homicides in the US."
" Ending the drug war is also crucial to all of this, nearly 80% of all gun crime is tied to the drug war in this country."
Access to guns is ALREADY PROHIBITED for felons, et al, but, as criminals disregard the laws, they will go to great lengths to obtain weapons as one town recently experienced when overnight several police vehicles were broken into and undisclosed contents stolen.
These laws, however, only obstruct law-abiding citizens and not criminals, who utterly disregard laws anyway.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
" I forgot to say that sport shooting clubs should use a secure range, either indoor or supervised by the military if outside."
This argument also, at its essence, comes from the misguided concept that rights come only from permissions bestowed by some form of government. Even the UN disagrees with that precept.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
" America is no longer in danger of being invaded, its people have no need of a militia"
" Americans do not need to hunt..."
" Self defence at home?"
" So what if the thief breaks into your house when you're out and nicks the gun and kills someone with it... you want that on your conscience?"
" Why do Americans now need high-powered magazine-loaded firearms intended for the battlefield?"
Disingenuous statement on its face. Battlefield weapons have been banned from civilian ownership(except very rare cases) since FDR. The argument is about semi-auto firearms(ONE ROUND PER SQUEEZE) which would essentially include every revolver as they also chamber the next round. I carried an M16 in NAM, selectable auto(that's the definition of battlefield weapon) and indeed hunted with an AR-15(civilian version is different in very significant aspects); they are great for deer.
" How about you use the gun to defend your family/possessions? You have one chance.."
Oh, like the woman in the Atlanta area successfully did last week? Better ONE chance than NONE, like a sitting duck sheepishly hoping for rescue that if it comes at all will be TOO LATE. Be my guest, advertise on your own front door that your home is devoid of even the least protection and is an easy target. To most efficiently promote your confidence in police protection, post your address and home inventory online. Of course no one should ever do such a foolish thing, but how ARE the home invasion or robbery statistics in your town?
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
" to finally end the mentally challenged needing to quote the second amendment to justify having a gun."
Ah, here it is, the far-left ad hominem attack via "mentally challenged " argument. Unless one concurs lock-step with the anti-liberty leftist position, then one is somehow intellectually deficient, not sane, or some other way inferior. The inferiority complex expressed by superiority ruminations.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
" The right to bare arms does not mean baring weapons which fire projectiles at a very fast rate, baring arms means holding a fork or axe...."
People bare their arms every day, quite safely. Baring weapons is often called brandishing. BTW, axes have often been used as very deadly weapons.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
To answer your questions about whom to which I had alluded, recall that initially on the wall were seven commandments inscribed for all to see. But over the course of time, one by one under the direction of the leader (Bonaparte ) the commandments had been painted over until at last only the one I quoted remained.
The parallel is how the current leader of the US also leads by Executive Order, unrestrained, and has systematically painted over the law of the land to suit his purposes.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )