Barack Obama's presidential campaign has worked to assure uneasy gun owners that he believes the Constitution protects their rights and that he doesn't want to take away their guns.
But before he became a national political figure, he sat on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated the opposite positions.
The foundation funded legal scholarship advancing the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners' rights, as well as two groups that advocated handgun bans. And it paid to support a book called "Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns."
Obama's eight years on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which paid him more than $70,000 in directors fees, do not in any way conflict with his campaign-trail support for the rights of gun owners, Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Obama's presidential campaign, asserted in a statement issued to Politico this week.
LaBolt stressed that the foundation, which has assets of about $935 million, doesn't take "detailed policy positions," but rather uses its grants to "fuel a dialogue about how to address public policy issues like reducing gun violence."
As with most foundations, Joyce did not record how individual board members voted on grants, but former Joyce officials told Politico that funding was typically approved unanimously.
LaBolt said Obama, an Illinois senator, "does not remember each of the over 1,500 individual grant requests and his assessment of their merits, but he considered all requests in light of the foundation's goal of developing a robust public dialogue around reducing gun violence."
Obama joined the board in the summer of 1994 as a 32-year-old lawyer who had yet to run for public office, but he already had a reputation in Chicago as an up-and-comer, particularly on issues related to low-income communities - a key foundation focus.
By the time he left the board in the winter of 2002, as he was gearing up for his 2004 U.S. Senate bid, Obama had served six years in the Illinois state Senate and had also considered leaving politics to become the group's full-time president, by his own acknowledgment.
Obama's service on the board of the Joyce Foundation and a few other Chicago-based nonprofits including the Woods Fund of Chicago remains one of the least scrutinized parts of his career. But it's one that could hamper his efforts to woo populations of rural pro-gun voters in Pennsylvania, which votes April 22, and in a general election match-up with the presumptive Republican nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain.
In his appeal to gun owners, Obama has not emphasized his own legislative record, which includes supporting a ban on semiautomatic weapons and concealed weapons, and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month. He has blamed his staff for indicating on a questionnaire filled out during his 1996 state Senate bid under his name that he supports banning "the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns."
Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago and served as president of the Harvard Law Review, has instead focused on his respect for what he contends are constitutionally guaranteed gun owners' rights, the "passion" of hunters and the "tradition" of handgun ownership.
In February, he told an Idaho audience "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." Days later, when Politico asked him about the comment, he said, "It's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally."
Pressed to clarify his stance during a debate Wednesday evening in Philadelphia, Obama told ABC News anchor Charles Gibson, "I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns. What I think we can provide is common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets."
A white paper on his website states: "As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama ... greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" as well as "the passion that hunters and anglers have for their sport." It says: "He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting."
And, in a memo to reporters this week defending Obama's much-criticized assertion that down-on-their luck small-town voters "get bitter" and "cling to guns or religion" or isolationism, his campaign touted his position on guns and blasted New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's.
Obama supported a 2002 amendment to bar the use of federal homeland security funds to seize firearms during states of emergency, while the memo pointed out she opposed it. The memo adds: "Sen. Obama has consistently stated that the Second Amendment contains an individual right and has been consistent in his support of common-sense gun laws that do not abridge that right because it is a matter of defending the Constitution."
But the Joyce Foundation in 1999 awarded $84,000 to the Chicago-Kent College of Law for a symposium on the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to bear arms, but rather only a state's right to arm its militia.
"No effort was made to include the individual right point of view," its organizer, Carl T. Bogus, a Roger Williams University School of Law professor, wrote in one of several law review articles stemming from the symposium. "Full and robust public debate is not always best served by having all viewpoints represented in every symposium. Sometimes one point of view requires greater illumination."
The Chicago-Kent Law Review edition that resulted from the symposium has been influential in Second Amendment jurisprudence. It was cited several times in a 2002 federal court decision upholding most of a tough California gun control law on the basis that the Constitution doesn't protect individual gun owners' rights. It was also cited in a 2001 federal court decision out of New Orleans that took the opposite view.
The Supreme Court denied review of both cases, but it will address the issue in a forthcoming decision in a closely watched case challenging the D.C. handgun ban.
Obama hasn't taken a firm stand on the ban or on the case before the high court. "I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence," he told Gibson during Wednesday's debate. "As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right."
During Obama's time on the Joyce board, though, the foundation gave seven grants totaling more than $2.5 million to a group that wants Congress to take much more proactive action: the Violence Policy Center.
The D.C.-based nonprofit, which calls itself "the most aggressive group in the gun control movement," for years has argued for a national handgun ban.
In a 2000 study called "Unsafe in Any Hands: Why America Needs to Ban Handguns," the group concluded that Congress could and should ban handguns nationwide "soon" and allocate $16.25 billion to buy back the 65 million handguns it estimated were then owned by civilians.
The study dismissed as "pure myth" the theory that the Second Amendment bars such strict gun control laws.
The study was funded partly by the Joyce Foundation, said Josh Sugarmann, the center's executive director. "The Joyce Foundation gives us general support," he said, though he added that the foundation's continued funding of his group is primarily for efforts to study the public health effects of gun violence.
That appears to be the purpose of a majority of the 83 gun-violence grants totaling nearly $24 million approved by Joyce's board from 1997 (the first year for which the foundation has posted its annual report online) through 2002.
But in 2000, the foundation also awarded a $20,000 grant to a publishing group to support Sugarmann's book, "Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns."
And in 2002, Joyce gave $10,000 to a nonprofit group called Handgun-Free America. The purpose of the grant was "to support a student grass-roots gun violence prevention campaign." But the organization billed itself as "dedicated to ending the handgun epidemic in America through the sensible act of banning private handgun ownership."
Sugarmann's group filed a brief with the Supreme Court supporting the D.C. handgun ban, while Bogus is the lawyer for a group of scholars who also filed an amicus brief taking D.C.'s side in the case. Still another amicus brief supporting the ban was signed by a half dozen anti-gun-violence groups to which Joyce gave 14 grants totaling $3.2 million while Obama was on the board. Joyce's grants to the groups - Freedom States Alliance, Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence, the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence and Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort - were mostly for state-based activities.
Though both Sugarmann and Bogus disagree with Obama's interpretation of the Second Amendment, they also contend that Obama should not be held to account for grants made by Joyce.
"To think that every board member of a foundation is somehow responsible for not just every grant made but the end product displays a lack of understanding of the ways foundations operate and is unrealistic," Sugarmann said.
It's "absurd," Bogus said. "Even in our hyperventilating world, it seems to me that there is nothing wrong with a board member of a particular charity voting to dispense funds to organizations that hold a different view than he happens to hold, at least in part."
The Joyce Foundation's board is comprised of a dozen people. Though it has included individuals active in both political parties, the foundation is strictly nonpartisan. At meetings, directors are expected to be prepared to discuss the contents of binders that sometimes contain hundreds of single-spaced, double-sided pages describing more than 100 grant proposals.
"Not every [grant] got discussed," said Carin Clauss, a professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School who served on the board with Obama. "Some were just: 'Yeah, we don't have any problem with that.' The primary function of the board was to identify the public policy issues that were going to be the subject of grants."
There was "typically consensus" on funding blocks of grants, recalled Deborah Leff, who was president of the foundation during most of Obama's tenure. But she said "there were certainly times when grants were rejected. This was not rubber-stamped. This was a fairly thoughtful process."
Clauss and Leff remember Obama being very well-prepared and engaged on all issues. But both recall Obama being most active on issues related to welfare reform and expanding employment and educational opportunities for low-income populations.
Neither Clauss nor Leff recollect Obama objecting to, or otherwise discussing, grants related to Second Amendment scholarship or to groups interested in banning handguns nationwide.
"Chances are that I would recall it," said Leff, adding that she also did program work on gun violence for the foundation. "So I think that would have stuck with me."
Clauss, who contributed $250 to Obama's 2004 Senate campaign and $500 to his presidential bid, recalled that Obama indicated an interest in becoming president of the foundation after he lost his 2000 congressional primary challenge to incumbent Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D-Ill.).
In an interview last year with The Boston Globe, Obama played down the seriousness of his discussions with the Joyce Foundation about becoming its president.
The foundation presidency is a full-time job, which paid Leff's successor $232,000 in 2000. But Clauss said many board members "would have advised Obama not to [take it], since it would have taken him out of the activist political role."
Politico attempted to contact seven other current and former foundation board members who served with Obama, seeking their recollections about his stances on gun control and the Second Amendment. Four did not return calls or e-mails, one said he had no recollection of Obama's stances, and two deferred to Ellen Alberding, the current board president.
She acknowledged that the board decided collectively not to comment on Obama's tenure.
"They're letting me handle it," Alberding said. "We figured that it'd probably be better to have one voice."
Alberding said Sugarmann's group is "the only organization that we fund that explicitly has that goal" of a national handgun ban. The foundation's cash can't be used to lobby, she pointed out. And she stressed that when Obama was on the board, the focus of the foundation's gun violence program was almost exclusively on studying the issue from a public health perspective.
With all the group's grants, though, Alberding said, "We're not promoting a particular solution. We're promoting really smart people to think about problems and come up with ideas on how to solve them."
For instance, she pointed out that the foundation also has funded the Ohio State University's Second Amendment Research Center. Its website says it strives to address gun violence, while also recognizing "equally the widespread private ownership of firearms in the United States, the many legitimate uses of firearms in American society, and the high levels of firearm violence in our country."
But the center's director, Saul Cornell, joined Bogus' Supreme Court brief supporting D.C.'s gun ban.
The center got $525,000 from Joyce during Obama's time on the board.
Alberding pointed out that gun violence is not among the biggest of the six broad areas in which the foundation issues grants to shape public policy. Its three primary interests are protecting the environment and increasing poor people's access to education and jobs.
The other areas in which the foundation issues grants include reducing the influence of money in politics and boosting high culture in Chicago.
Of the $219 million in grants approved from 1997 through 2002 - the years of Obama's tenure for which the foundation has posted its annual reports online - the environment received $57 million, followed by education ($56 million), employment ($41 million), gun violence ($21 million), money and politics ($17 million) and culture ($6.5 million).
Here are some hard facts:
The "Assault Weapons Ban" was enacted on September 14, 1994. The majority of Democrats voted for it, and the majority of Republicans voted against it. Bill Clinton signed it into law.
This bill banned the manufacture, possession, and importation of semiautomatic assault weapons for civilian use. Guns manufactured before September 14th, 1994 were grandfathered. Guns manufactured after this date (for use by the military, police, and government agencies) must be marked with the date they are manufactured.
To identify an assault weapon, this bill uses objective criteria, along with a list of 19 specific guns.
For example, semiautomatic rifles which accept a detachable magazine are classified as "assault weapons" if they have two of the five following features: folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, grenade launcher, threaded barrel for flash suppressor.
An assault weapon, as defined by this bill, does not include fully automatic machine guns. Since 1934, a civilian must obtain permission from the U.S. Treasury to legally own a fully automatic weapon.
In April of 1999, Bill and Hillary Clinton held a press conference on gun control legislation. Hillary Clinton stated:
"And since the crime bill was enacted, 19 of the deadliest assault weapons are harder to find on our streets. We will never know how many tragedies we've avoided because of these efforts." |
Assault weapons were involved in less than 1% of homicides before the assault weapons ban took effect in 1994. The same is true as of 1998.
As of 1998, about 13% of homicides involve knives, 5% involve bludgeons, and 6% are committed with hands and feet.
The Clinton administration prosecuted 4 people in 1997 and 4 people in 1998 for violating the assault weapons ban.
1995 Fatal Accident Totals
Motor Vehicles | 43,900 |
Falls | 12,600 |
Poisonings | 10,600 |
Drownings | 4,500 |
Fires | 4,100 |
Choking | 2,800 |
Firearm | 1,400 (1.5% of fatal accidents) |
For Children 14 and Under
Motor Vehicles | 3,059 |
Drownings | 1,024 |
Fires | 883 |
Choking | 213 |
Firearm | 181 (2.7% of fatal accidents) |
Falls | 127 |
Poisonings | 80 |
There were 259 fatal firearm accidents for 15-19 year olds in 1995.
There were 6,319 fatal motor vehicle accidents for 15-20 year olds in 1996.
As of 1998, 37,000 National Rifle Association (NRA) Instructors and Coaches are conducting firearm safety and proficiency programs that reach nearly 700,000 participants a year.
In 1988, The NRA developed a gun safety program for schoolchildren (pre-K through 6th grade). As of 1998, the program has reached about 10 million children. The goal of the program is to teach children what to do if they should encounter a firearm. Children are taught to "STOP! Don't Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult."
The NRA's 3 rules of gun safety are:
1) Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction (whether loaded or unloaded).
2) Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
3) Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to shoot.
In the Bill of Rights, the second amendment to the Constitution reads:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." |
Gun control proponents have argued that the use of the word "people" in this Amendment, refers not to the civilian population of the United States, but to the State National Guard Units.
Gun rights proponents have argued that the use of the word "Militia" in this Amendment, refers not to the State National Guard Units, but to the citizens of the United States.
James Madison was responsible for proposing the Second Amendment and was one of three authors of the Federalist Papers, a group of essays published in newspapers to explain and lobby for ratification of the Constitution.
In Federalist Paper 46, James Madison argued that a standing federal army could not be capable of conducting a coup to take over the nation. He estimated that based on the country's population at the time, a federal standing army could not field more than 25,000 - 30,000 men. He wrote:
"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence." |
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." |
Quotes from Thomas Jefferson, the author of The Declaration of Independence:
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. |
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. |
"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..., or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joBMq6b4MmE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0&feature=related
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 91
Well said Charles, an people in arms will never be subjected to tyranny of government. An armed populace is the most effective way to ensure that civil society continues to exist in this country and the best means to persuade representatives to pass legislation that is in the people's best interest. Gun ownership is at the center of modern day republican ("republican" used to denote a form of governance and not a specific political party) values.
The very reason that the political left wants to pursue gun control is to deprive the people of the very means to political emancipate themselves if tyranny manifest itself in the United States. The only good form of gun control is little or no gun control what so ever. Every compitent citizens should be allowed to purchase and possess a firearm. It is the most efficient way to protect our neighborhoods, our families, and the freedoms and liberties that we so deary cherish as a nation.
"The very reason that the political left wants to pursue gun control is to deprive the people of the very means to political emancipate themselves if tyranny manifest itself in the United States."
Huh? Is that meant to be a joke? Besides being absolutely paranoid, it doesn't even make sense. If "tyranny manifests itself in the United States?" Are you expecting some sort of insurrection to suddenly spring up?
Wouldn't it make more sense that the reason the political left would like to pursue gun control is to reduce the number of gun-related deaths? That certainly makes more sense than cringing in a fall-out shelter waiting for a chance to emancipate yourself from tyranny. This is the United States, remember?
Come on. It's one thing to have a legitimate view on either side of the issue, but let's keep it within the domain of the real world. Paranoia isn't very persuasive.
No its not a joke! It is however an accurate theoretical political statement that anyone who is familiar with Lockean cocepts of civil society and government can recognize. When people enter into a political union they convey natural rights to authorities in government and are reciprocaly given rights in return, because authorities are allowed to govern from the consent of the people they must obey the will of the people. The general will of the public and the actions of government must be in harmony with one another as a consequence. An armed populace with the means to liberate itself if a just government reverts into a tyranny will never be shackled. Furthermore, the government of an armed populace will never become tyrannical or despotic in the first place. That was all I was trying to say. In a nutshell an armed people will always be a free people.
Charles, the surest way to not be taken seriously is use a term like "liberal deadbeats." That and it's "neocon criminal" flipside are meaningless bumper sticker drivel used in lieu of providing a cognizant argument.
Perhaps you can give a shot at providing a rational argument for how God gave everyone the right to keep and bear arms, because on its face the idea is patently ridiculous. The founders, who were men just like all of us, wrote the 2nd amendment and the rest of the Constitution. While they may have presumed God was on their side (as do so many, including many adulterers, murderers, and swindlers), the word God does not occur in the Constitution anywhere. It only appears once even in the Declaration of Independence, and it has nothing to do with a right to own guns or any other right. God may have given us the intelligence to make decisions, but he most certainly did not give us the right to bear deadly weapons. Nor did God create Democracies or Republics. Those were created by men, with normal human foibles, and men must take responsibility for what we have wrought.
President Obama has no plans to take our guns away. I don't understand this post anyway. It was obviously written more than a year ago, during the primaries, and seems to seek more to hinder Obama's electability (too late!) than to make a cogent argument for anyone actually having a plan to take guns away from people.
In any case, my guns aren't likely to wind up in anybody's hands to whom I don't either sell them, or leave them in my will.
Obama said in other statesments that he would favor a ban of assault weapons that mirrors the ban passed in 1994. That in and of itself goes to far.
Thanks for all the info/post. President Obama may have no current plans to limit gun ownership, but his past record shows that he would be sympathetic to any bill crossing his desk that does. I'm not sure I trust him on the issue myself, no matter what he "says"...?
Either the constitution gives us the certain right to own guns or it does not, one can't have it both ways. If it gives us that right, as I believe, no president can take it away. If it does not, no president can fully protect that right.
All the nebulous claims that Obama will take our rights away are spurious efforts to defame the president for political purposes and have no validity in fact. The SCOTUS is the entity upon which we must depend and they have made a clear ruling on it. Yes, the president does appoint justices. And justices wind up voting in manners opposite of what the appointing person wants, on a regular basis. Think Earl Warren.
The Constitution, as interpreted from the lens of the time the 2nd Amendment was written, didn't particular consider how it would be construed as times changed. The amendment taken literally doesn't give a general right for every citizen to own as many guns of any type as they want. The NRA has done a great sales job confusing the issue.
That said, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the 2nd Amendment to give the right for citizens to own guns (talk about your "activist" judges). The Supreme Court has also consistently interpreted the 2nd Amendment as giving the government the right to "regulate" gun ownership.
The bottom line is that no one is going to take away peoples reasonable gun ownership rights, but there is the right and obligation to regulate those rights. So stipulating registration and limits on excessively deadly weapons are allowed by the 2nd Amendment. The Amendments gives you the right to guns and the government the right to restrict guns within reasonable limits. You can't cherry pick the part you like; they come as a package.
Perhaps if people weren't so paranoid and whiney there wouldn't be any real discussion. But then the NRA likes to foster paranoia because it increases their membership dues and sales of their member companies. You would think people would have realized how they are being manipulated by the NRA and others, but it seems some folks just don't get it.
"The right to keep and bear arms comes form God, the Constitution is there to affirm that."
Poppycock. The Constitution doesn't even mention God. It was written by men. Making believe God gave these and any other rights to us is pure and simple drivel. It's an attempt to get around your own inability to make rational arguments by usurping the name of God. And by the way, doing so breaks the 3rd Commandment. Ironic, isn't it.
"Poppycock"
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
It would appear that the founders of our great country disagree with you David.
"It would appear that the founders of our great country disagree with you David."
Actually, it would appear you can't read. Let me help you:
First off, you just quoted the Declaration of Independence, whereas my comment was in reference to the Constitution. So your whole comment is irrelevant.
That said, let's walk through your copied statement:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident,..."
That would be "we," as in the founders, as in men, as in the guys that wrote the Declaration of Independence. Not God. Men held "these truths to be self-evident." God didn't hold these truths to be self-evident. Men did.
"...that all men are created equal,..."
While I think everyone will pretend to agree to this, there are clearly many who think otherwise still today. But let's assume we're in agreement. Oh, again this is the founders who are stipulating that all men are created equal, not God.
"...that they are endowed by their Creator..."
Oh good, the part where the founders are making believe that they know what God's endowments are.
"...with certain unalienable Rights,..."
And what are these unalienable Rights, we wonder, that men have decided God has whispered in their collective ears?
"...that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - "
Ah, life (sounds reasonable), liberty (okay, got that), and the pursuit of happiness (pretty much got a better shot at that here in the US than they do in Iran or other tyrannical states, like for instance, France). So, check. The men who wrote the Declaration of Independence claim that we have unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Cool. So Governments are instituted among men (by men and for men) who derive their powers from the governed (that would be the people, who at the time were men, not women, and not even all men, since some men were clearly more equal than other men). But the key here is that this came from men. Not from God. No matter how men want to claim they know God's will, they don't. Period. In fact, it is men who simply attributed anything they wanted to get done to God in order to give themselves some "higher authority." Kind of like the Church did during the Inquisition, and during the Salem witch trials, and during the attack on 9/11. [It's not me, it's God who wants to burn women that their jealous neighbor claims is a witch.]
But in fact God has not given us these rights. They were accorded to us by the wisdom of the founding fathers, who after all, were just men like everyone else. Well, they were better educated, more intellectual, richer, and more elitist than everyone else, but luckily for us they used that for good instead of evil. You have to give them a boatload of credit for not just taking over the new country to build their own wealth and power. So the founders (not God) found these rights to be self-evident.
Furthermore, nowhere in the statement you copied does it say anything about God (the Creator) giving us the right to "keep and bear arms." Not one iota of truth to the contention that this statement or any other states or even implies that God gave us the right to keep and bear arms. That right was given by men to men in the 2nd amendment to the Constitution, which to reiterate for those who haven't yet grasped the obvious, was written by men.
So, first of all you can't seem to keep track of the conversation and/or can't tell the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Secondly, you have this tendency to see what you want to see in whatever it is that you are copying, even when it actually contradicts you.
And thirdly, it appears that the founders of this great country absolutely agree with me.
It is you that seems completely lost.
"The Constitution reiterates the rights we are all given to us by God. Nuff said."
Got a memo that says that? And why do you think God would specifically give us the right to "keep and bear arms?" Are you that confused?
John - Can you purchase a M1A2 Abrams tank? I don't think so. The Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean that people can own guns, but the government can regulate what and how those guns are owned.
So your statement is not accurate.
David K.,
I agree with you, the government does have a duty to regulate to some extent, this right. The government does not have the right to "infringe" it and if you can tell me how the Supreme Court interprets that word it would be interesting. We've limited certain weapons for well over sixty years without denying the rights of responsible citizens to keep guns and will probably continue to for as long as the constitution is the law of the land.
While I have a lot of respect for the NRA, in recent years they have held some untenable views in my opinion. I believe that some of their views are a disservice to themselves as they are untenable with many people. Their reporting regularly on the crimes prevented by gun owners is a worthwhile effort. The press is not about to publicize this except on a very local basis.
The Supreme Court has decided many cases related to the question, each one slightly different, but all resulting in the general interpretation that the right for individuals to own guns is consistent with the 2nd amendment, AND that the right of the government to regulate gun ownership/usage is also consistent with the second amendment. When some jurisdictions have tried to overstep the "right to regulate" with outright bans, they have been stricken down by the Supreme Court. Case in point was last year's decision regarding the Washington DC ban, which was found to be unconstitutional.
The NRA is in the business of staying the NRA. It gets money from membership dues, but it gets mega-money from maintaining a high level of paranoia amongst its members. The battle cry of "they are coming for your guns" brings in tons of cash, which of course increases the amount the executive director and board can pay themselves. Like all "advocacy" groups, their advocacy tends to shift from the best interests of their members to the best interests of the group itself. In many ways, the NRA has done more damage to the right to bear arms than any regulation the government might deem necessary.
As for "their reporting regularly on the crimes prevented by gun owners is a worthwhile effort," I bet they don't spend too much time reporting the number of people killed by guns stolen from the houses of legitimate gun owners. Or the number of children of legitimate gun owners who accidently blew their little brother's head off. Or the number of legitimate guns that were used in student murder rampages. Sure, there are crimes prevented due to gun ownership, just as there are crimes and accidents that occur due to gun ownership. And clearly guns are dangerous weapons. So doesn't it make just a wee bit of sense that we have some sort of control over them? Like having to register them - why is that such a big deal? Like restricting certain weapons that have no legitimate use outside of the mililtary? Like giving special allowances to gun collectors who demonstrate a legitimate hobby and a history of responsible behavior (and no history of psychological instability)?
The point is that the more that gun owners run around making irrational claims the more everyone else is going to think that there needs to be some control over irrational gun ownership. Let's just be honest about it. Make sure that guns are owned and maintained responsibly. The best way to do that is to stop being so bloody paranoid. Would you want to give a gun to someone who acts paranoid?
"but they spend plenty of time trying to get people like you to understand that the problem is not one of guns but of defective people."
John - Here's the fallacy in your argument. First, you assume that "people like me" (whatever the hell that means, but it's an easy crutch for you to use rather than provide a rational argument) don't understand that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Well, the right to own guns includes the right to keep them out of the hands of "defective" people (again, whatever the hell that means; would you have considered Timothy McVeigh "defective" before he blew up the Murrah building and killed 168 innocent people, including many children that he knew would be there?).
The point, John, is that how do you identify "defective people" before they blow up buildings, gun down innocents on the street, or take to a life of crime? And what about the non-defective people whose guns are stolen by defective people? And the non-defective people whose guns are "borrowed" by their defective sons with an urge to reenact Columbine at their local school because they think shooting people makes them "men?"
Don't lose sight of the reality here. The 2nd amendment has been interpreted to give individuals the right to bear arms and the government to try to keep arms out of the hands of wackos. The trick is how do you determine which is which. The only way is to have some sort of limits (i.e., no Abrams tanks) and licensing (is it really too much to ask to register you guns?).
Be rational and people won't worry about you being so irrational all the time.
The press doesn't want the American people to know that guns actualy save lives in many instances, because it would adversely impact the efforts of gun control advocates. Furthermore these groups target politicaly incorrect weapons such as assault weapons merely to make a political statement which does not and can not truely affect crime levels. The Federal Assaut Weapons Ban of 1994 was a disaster. The ban didn't accomplish it intended aims and manufactures demonstrated that it is ridiculous to ban cosmetic characteristics of firearms by altering the guns they sold to be within the law.
Josh - See my response to James above.
I agree that bans with the kind of loopholes that allow manufacturers to alter guns around the ban are ridiculous. Such laws are done for show and filled with lobbyist-designed ways to make the law meaningless.
But that misses the point entirely. Being honest is the only way to have a rational gun policy.
I respectfully think you missed the point, the point was that laws that prohibit guns based on cosmetic characteristics are essentialy impotent. Thats is why the assault weapons ban did not work, it was fundamentally a bad law.
I believe you missed my point. The law was written specifically to allow gun makers to get around it easily.
Great post Josh, Thanks.
But I don't think it is the lefts desire to leave the citizenry vulnerable to a tyrannical government, The left thinks they are doing the right thing...However it is our responsibility as patriots to get in their way and not allow them to diminish our rights.
This is the United States folks. Stop being so paranoid.
Sinclair Lewis was a novelist. "It Can't Happen Here" is a NOVEL.
Jack London is a novelist. "The Iron Heel" is a NOVEL.
For the record, JRR Tolkien was also a novelist, and the Lord of the Rings is also a NOVEL. Hobbits don't really exist.
Charles, are you really so delusional to think that novels represent reality or that God handed a memo to the founders giving us all the right to keep and bear arms?
Men write novels and men wrote the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Men decided we had these rights. Not God.
And yet, it's still the most free country in the world, right? So these are exceptions, not the rule. Nor would an armed populace have done anything to change it. In fact, it likely would have been worse.
"The amendment taken literally doesn't give a general right for every citizen to own as many guns of any type as they want."
And you base this on what David?
On the literal text of the amendment, which is why I said "the amendment taken literally."
On what do you base your dissent?
"On the literal text of the amendment, which is why I said "the amendment taken literally.""
In other words...In your opinion.
"On what do you base your dissent?"
Also on the literal text of the amendment, along with the words of those who drafted the amendment, and the citizens who demanded it be included in the constitution.
Is there a reason you ignore everything that has been said?
Come on John, it is not I that is talking in circles. Read what has been written.
"All the nebulous claims that Obama will take our rights away are spurious efforts to defame the president for political purposes and have no validity in fact."
James,
We know the positions he has taken in the past, votes cast. I think we can be assured that Obama is a supporter of wide spread gun control, to the extent that it would be a violation of the second amendment.
At the very least he will pass another ban on assault rifles if he gets the chance. As an owner of an AR-15 and a demilitarized AK-47 I find this idea offensive. These guns are no more dangerous than the sporting rifles that many people use to shoot deer and large game. Furthermore, these guns (assault rifles) are used in far less crimes than shotguns and handguns. Furthermore, a large caliber sporting rifles possesses a much greater threat to a policemen fitted with bullet proof vest than an assault rifle that shoots a 223. caliber bullet or a 7.62 mm round.
John,
"These guns are no more dangerous than the sporting rifles that many people use to shoot deer and large game."
Agreed! So why have them instead of the sporting rifles? Actually, those guns don't scare me but man of the people who insist on having them scare the hell out of me. And right now the Mexican drug lords that are trying to take over are supplying their needs with these weapons out of the US.
I have guns and can protect my home without an assault rifle.
Dan,
Obama has not the time nor the inclination to push gun control when he has other, equally contentious issues that need to be addressed.
James the guns that the Mexican drug cartels use are full automatic "machine guns" these weapons are no demilitarized "assault rifles". Note that legally, a "machinegun" is defined as any rifle that has select fire or full auto capability. All demilitarized assault rifles sold in the United States are strictly semi-auto. To own a machinegun in the U.S. you must apply for a class three weapons permit which requires an extensive federal background check and an annual $500 fee paid to the ATF.
Since laws regulating machineguns have been in effect since the 1920s only a handfull of fatalities have been attributed to legal machineguns. When one considers that there are several million of these weapons in the United States owned by personal gun collectors it is truelly amazing.
Criminals do not use legal machineguns and legal assault rifles to commit crimes with. Commonly narcotics traffickers purchase illegal machineguns (i.e. Ak-47s, M-16s, FN-FALs, and G-3s) on the international black market. These guns come from military stocks that have been illegaly diverted to the criminal underworld. However most criminals use handguns because they are cheap and can be easily dispossed of. Criminals in the U.S. don't use assault rifles because they are prohibitively expensive and the investment to purchase them flys out of the proverbial door when if they are disposed of in order to hide evidence of a crime.
I own an AK-47 for target practice and personal home protection, you can keep your handgun John. I know if a burgler gets in my house I can throw thirty rounds of full metal jacketed ammo and hollow tipped rounds at his person. No one is going to rob my house and live to tell to tale.
"Agreed! So why have them instead of the sporting rifles?"
Why not?
When we look at assualt weapons bans/restrictions the gun control advocates use scaremongering to get people to agree to their goals.
The problem is that there isn't a gun control advocacy group who is for reasonable gun ownership, they all are for the elimination of guns from society or restrictions so strict that the effect would be the same.
This isn't about law-abiding citizens, it's about identifying the ones that are not.
Get rational
At the very least!
I suggest supporting the Second amendment foundation I do! They are even more rigorous in their defense of the second amendment.
Excellent post, my friend. Liberals want bigger government and more control over the people, and a big part of that means disarming them.
Where do you get this stuff? And why is it that people can say "liberals want big government" without laughing? History documents that Republican presidents have increased the power and size of the federal government more than Democratic presidents. Starting with Lincoln. Reagan and Bush II both increased the size of government more then their predecessors.
As for some plot by liberals to gain more control over the people by disarming them, does this mean that somehow the government thinks that there are enough guns in the populace to overtake the United States military with all its personnel and sophisticated weaponry? The concept is so patently absurd it is impossible to see how such folks can survive the day through their fear and paranoia.
Liberals want big government...
HA!! HA!!
"The concept is so patently absurd it is impossible to see how such folks can survive the day through their fear and paranoia."
Fear and Paranoia? You mean like the global warmists David?
With an armed citizenry and the very distinct possibility of breakaway factions of the military it would be possible to stand against a tyranical government.
"With an armed citizenry and the very distinct possibility of breakaway factions of the military it would be possible to stand against a tyranical government."
And you wonder why the liberals think those who scream second amendment all the time are fearful and paranoid?
So the government wanted never-before-seen power to take over businesses does not = big government? GM is now Government Motors. Part of the banking industry are on the line. It's all about power and control.
"the liberals and many of those in government want to destroy the United States,"
Really? And why would they want to destroy the country we all live in?
"they should be paranoid and fearful. That's the way Thomas Jefferson intended it to be."
You are suggesting that Thomas Jefferson intended that the people should be paranoid and fearful? Really? Why would he help create the United States in such a way that the people should be paranoid and fearful of it? That's exactly what they were trying to get away from in King George (ironic, isn't it).
"As Jim Quinn said, "the Second Amendment is the reset button the Constitution.""
Why did the Constitution have to be reset? And why should we care what some Limbaugh clone thinks about the Constitution, given that he doesn't actually seem to understand it?
You really have to get out more.
John - How many cases are there of assault weapons being effective in keeping "perps from trying to rob you house?"
It's bumper sticker arguments like that that make the liberals wonder if you're rational enough to own a gun.
"The Constitution, as interpreted from the lens of the time the 2nd Amendment was written, didn't particular consider how it would be construed as times changed."
The founders intentenion in writing the constitution was to draft a document that expressed the limitations of the government, that is why the bill of rights are included as amendments to the constitution.
Those whe originally drafted the constitution thought that the government could take on no power that was not expressly indicated by the constitution, but the citizenry disagreed, they wanted assurances and demanded that these rights be spelled out as concrete unassailable rights.
There is a process to change the constitution, the founders wanted to make sure that only by a desire of the people that it be changed.
I don't think the filter of time was one of the requirments for change.
Do you purposely miss the point?
David - They hear you knocking but nobody's home.
Did I say anything about disarming you? And don't you think that sounds just a little irrational?
Stop with the straw men.
Dan,
The reason the "Bill of Rights" was not an integral part of the original constitution was because they wanted to get a constitution in and working and finally agreed to follow up with a bill of rights. Had the time factor not been involved, the bill of rights would have been included.
There is no real basis for concluding exactly what the founders intent was and would be today unless you can talk to spirits in the "other world." Many construe it the way you do. I certainly do not! It was left so vague and loose so that it could work for future generations without amendments. Still, the only judge of what it means is up to the SCOTUS.
James,
I do not remember where or when I learned that it was the people who demanded a bill of rights be included in the Constitution, Do you have a particular reason you do not see it so?
From the federalist papers;
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.
Alexander Hamilton
From the Anti-Federalist Papers;
"The country from which we have derived our origin, is an eminent example of this. Their magna charta and bill of rights have long been the boast, as well as the security of that nation. I need say no more, I presume, to an American, than that this principle is a fundamental one, in all the Constitutions of our own States; there is not one of them but what is either founded on a declaration or bill of rights, or has certain express reservation of rights interwoven in the body of them. From this it appears, that at a time when the pulse of liberty beat high, and when an appeal was made to the people to form Constitutions for the government of themselves, it was their universal sense, that such declarations should make a part of their frames of government. It is, therefore, the more astonishing, that this grand security to the rights of the people is not to be found in this Constitution."
"Brutus"
David,
Oh where to begin....LOL!
"And you wonder why the liberals think"
I neither wonder nor care.
The ideals of the founders were what they were, your opinion not withstanding.
It does not matter that you don't think they should have held a deep belief in God and attributed the rights of the people as being provided by him (God).
Your analysis (More words posted) of our Constitution doesn't change the history of our country nor the words written by the founders, as empty as it was....I'm glad you got that off your chest.
"I neither wonder nor care."
Yes, we know. Sad, really.
"It does not matter that you don't think they should have held a deep belief in God and attributed the rights of the people as being provided by him (God)."
And again you don't read well. This has nothing to do with my opinion. Unless you can provide a memo directly from God, these were rights that men gave men. Not God. Men. Did you miss the point again?
"Your analysis (More words posted) of our Constitution doesn't change the history of our country nor the words written by the founders, as empty as it was....I'm glad you got that off your chest."
Yes, yes, you have established that you care not for intellectual analysis, prefering instead to simply mime some bloggers bumper sticker lines. Again, sad, really.
Dan,
When you say "the people" to whom are you referring? If you are referring to white, male land holders, then certainly the people demanded it! However, if you're talking about common folks, as near as I can determine, the common folks didn't have that much to do with anything political since they had no voice to speak of.
It is easy to imagine that information was flowing rapidly and fluidly and that the will of the people had a ready means of expression. It did not. Let's face it, when we reference the "founders" we are not talking about average common people. Newspapers were owned by those who wanted to influence and manipulate public opinion to their way of thinking. The idea of unbiased news coverage is relatively new and will never become total reality.
Another error we tend to perpetuate is that the leaders and politicians of the 1700s spoke with more honesty and integrity than today and that the common good was paramount in all their thinking. Actual altruism was as rare in those days as today and self serving was as common. People are people and always have been. So if one thing is written by an author or leader in a letter to one person, it is probably less likely than today that the writer was speaking the truth rather than a specially targeted message for those to whom the letter was addressed. Due to the poor communications it was less likely to be caught by anyone that cared than it is today.
I am curious as to who "Brutus" is in relation to this.
Thanks, Dan!
You have some good discussion going on here... I stopped by and left you a ten...
"Another error we tend to perpetuate is that the leaders and politicians of the 1700s spoke with more honesty and integrity than today and that the common good was paramount in all their thinking. Actual altruism was as rare in those days as today and self serving was as common."
Hmm,
Human nature is pretty constant but I think many of the founders were men of faith and high ethics. I think the results of their efforts is proof of that.
I'm still curious as to what you base your believe on that the reason the Constitution did not contain an initial bill of rights was one of expediency?
Dan,
I can tell you that the expedience factor, if that is what you call it, was what I was taught in more than one American History class in the forties. That, in those days, was a pretty well accepted concept. Again, no one knows the thinking of anyone other than what they chose to commit to paper and that is not always free from self serving tint.
Dan,
In an effort to make myself and my thoughts on the subject perfectly clear, I consider the right to keep and bear arms absolutely essential to this nation and our form of life! I am opposed to elimination of guns including hand guns. I recognize that some of the people who want them the worst are the best argument to outlaw them but I still object to that measure.
No, we won't "overthrow" the current government with our squirrel guns. Or even with assault weapons. I will acknowledge that an overthrow of the government was at least one of the reasons for the amendment because we had just finished fighting just such a war and the advances in technology and weaponry could not be foreseen. The government has just too much resources and technology. What guns will do is make every law enforcement officer, government agent or military type, have just a measure of respect for the inhabitants of any home with this protection potential. It will alter the picture, so to speak, and change attitudes of certain ones who might well be overbearing and excessively dominating.
At the same time, the Supreme Court has long recognized that certain restrictions on the ownership of weapons is constitutional and that government does have a legitimate role in protecting the citizens from certain kinds of weapons. Most obvious is the nuclear bomb. I believe it would be out of place in the general population and would quickly fall into the hands of terrorists.
We know that fully automatic weapons have been restricted for many years. We could call this an "infringement" on the right to keep and bear arms, but government has certain responsibilities to all the people, not just those who enjoy shooting sports.
Somewhere along the line, common sense has to be a factor in what is done. Sure, it is not very common and can be abused if there is any concession made to it. But that is the way it needs to be. I was raised with guns, own guns and have used them for sport. I don't for a minute believe that only sports is a legitimate reason to possess guns. Personal protection and protection of others are valid reasons as well. Collecting can also be a very valid reason. And finally, one need not have a reason at all, it is guaranteed by our constitution.
It is difficult to walk a fine line between reason and rampant issues and application of weapons. But that is what I believe a reasonable person should do. I'm am as jealous as most in Idaho of my second amendment rights. I believe we need to do whatever it takes to preserve that right, but Ruby Ridge is a great example of what it should not be, in my humble opinion.
Hope this makes my stand a little more clear. If not, I tried!
Thanks Dan.
Josh Sledge,
I notice that you are willing to take a life simply to keep from being robbed. A police officer cannot take a life unless there is a life in danger. Once someone breaks into your house, they have invited bad things to happen to themselves but until you take the liberty to kill one, the bad things have not been visited on you. Once you squeeze that trigger your life will be hell. The ability to consider all the ramifications of ones actions before taking emotional action, is the difference between most criminals and most law abiding citizens.
Under Mississippi State law any citizen who has an intruder break into their residence is entitled to defend their life and their private property with lethal force. I refuse to be another casualty for the coroner to examine because I did not take all the necessary action I could against a burgler. I would rather shoot first and ask questions later and take my chances in court than loss my life. I understand taking human life is no joke, I don't try to trivalize it.
I'm still scratching my head about it being a God given right to own guns.
ummm.... I don't ever recall stating that it was a god given right to own a gun however I did say that owning a gun is clearly recognized by the Second Amendment, as long as we have the Second Amendment it is the right of every American (except convicted felons and the mentally ill) to own a firearm. That said political freedom flows from an armed populace, because an armed populace possesses the means at its disposal to rise up against the government if it becomes despotic have ever improbable such a scenario may actually be.
Scratch away Spencer! LOL!
But no, I am willing to help;
Self preservation, the protection of one's life, family, possessions. it IS a God given right.
I would like to see your justification for blaming God for your right to own a weapon, please. God is supposed to be where you place your trust, not a firearm! I believe in the right to own a gun, I do argue why anyone would need to own something more than a hunting rifle or personal firearm. Could you please enlighten me on the chapter and verse you are misunderstanding?
Best gun you'll ever own for hunting, target shooting, and home protection. I give it a ten.
Lisa,
Since you've already established in your post that what ever scripture I present that suggests a person has the responsibility to protect their life and family and property as a misunderstanding how bout you post us scripture that express the idea that we do NOT have that responsibility?
Yeah, the same old scare tactics last used on the Clinton years.
The foundation funded legal scholarship advancing the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners' rights, as well as two groups that advocated handgun bans. And it paid to support a book called "Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns."
Legal scholarship advocating gun bans, sounds soooooo far fetched. I heard of Legal scholarships but this smells like a big LIE.
It PAID to support a book. WTF, again it sounds LIKE another Repuke LIE.
You know I used to fall for these LIES too. When Clinton imposed background checks (WTF is wrong with such a law?) We scrambled to buy handguns because the word was out, no more handguns to the public.
LYING SACKS OF YOU KNOW WHAT!!!!!
I bought a cheapo instead of taking my time and getting the best bang for my buck.
Every hand gun I have bought it took 5 minutes tops to do the background check.
Even my hunting companions who do their own reloads were miffed and bought huge amounts of powder because Clinton was going to outlaw that too. Never happened.
I have challenged ALL my gun toting friends to bet me $1,000 dollars that as long as they don't commit a felony, the government will let them keep their guns. No Takers, they may be crazy but they ain't stupid.
Do I think Obama will confiscate weapons: NO
Will Obama increase taxes on ammo: YES, He already has a box of shells is astronomical now! I can hardly afford to goto the range now!
Will Obama place a ban on assault weapons again: YES, if he is able to do so, he might attempt to.
Will Obama needlessly restrict handgun ownership: POSSIBLY
The NRA, whose purpose is to serve the gun manufacturing and selling industries, is loving Obama. He has made gun sales go through the roof. He has given them an enemy for their membership to focus their paranoia on. When the membership is scared (which is so often the case with NRA members because the leadership fosters fear) they give and give and give some more to the organization.
There are sane arguments for protecting our right to bear arms. The NRA is not a worthy organization from which to make those arguments.
Its always about "paranoia" with you people sometimes being concerned and taking legitimate action is waranted. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of regret". People are legitimately scared of Obama in many places in this country. They do not want him to outlaw politically incorrect firearms (a.k.a. assault rifles) again like Clinton did in 1994 that why the sales of the AR-15 and the AK variatants have doubled and tripled in many cases. People are scared, people rally around the NRA because they want to do something about their legitimate fear instead of merely preying that the government doesn't prohibit them from purchasing the firearms they want to.
Why in the hell do you trust the government so much? Do you really think they are that benevolent?
Josh,
What I indicated was the NRA creates paranoia to further the agenda of the gun industry and their own political power. I could turn the question around and ask you why the hell do you trust private industry and the NRA so much. Private industry doesn't even make a pretense of working on behalf of the American people. The NRA works on behalf of the gun industry and the NRA leadership.
When the needs of these two groups coincide with those of the NRA membership, so much the better for them. The top priority of the group is not to work for the membership.
The "N" in NRA stands for 'national'. Most folks don't know that it means national in the most generic sense. You don't have to be an American to join the NRA. Yet, this tiny group of less than 2% of the American population has an entirely out of proportion affect on American politics. I would like to know how much of that affect is in the service of foreign interests.
So, if you think the NRA and the gun industry are working with your country's interest in mind, think again. Many fine people are members of the NRA. But the NRA is not lead by fine people whose purpose it is to defend the Constitution or work on behalf of this country. The Second Amendment to them is just a meal ticket.
As for paranoia, I have to wonder when someone uses a picture of a heavily armed and bemasked soldier as their icon if they are not themselves a little on the paranoid side. :-)
"The "N" in NRA stands for 'national'. Most folks don't know that it means national in the most generic sense. You don't have to be an American to join the NRA. Yet, this tiny group of less than 2% of the American population has an entirely out of proportion affect on American politics. I would like to know how much of that affect is in the service of foreign interests."
I have to give you credit you post really good comments, that said just because one conservative organization has a really high degree of momentum why is a threat or why do you think that it manipulates our political system there are much more numerous political organizations on the political left that make up any even more tiny minority that have a great influence in American politics if not arguably greater influence than the NRA. Just to name a few, you should consider, PETA, ACORN, the ACLU, and the SPLC. These groups are considerably much smaller than the NRA but they have a tremendous impact on politics on both state and federal level when their particular cause is jeopardized by a judicial decision or a piece of legislation.
Most of the aboved mentioned organizations have arguably just and admirable causes but they too are ran by paranoid individuals. It is wrong to contend that the NRA is an organization that ran solely for ulterior motives. Does the NRA help arms manufactures in this country? Of course they do, but no more than any other special interest group out there. In fact I would argue that this goes hand in hand with their struggle to defend the second amendement because the more Americans who own firearms, the more Americans who will fight against unnecessary infringements of their right to own those firearms.
As for my avator, I decides to choose a gas masked soldier for two reasons none of which have to do paranoia. (1) "my logic is toxic", there are two many liberals/progressives walking the streets that have no logical basis for their political beliefs except what they have been told their entire lives by their parents, their peers, and of course the media, especially people like myself who are in their early twenties. (2) A gasmask is a filter, it filters out dangerous chemical elements, radioactive material, and biological pathogens. It is hard growing up to be a conservative at an elite private university that tries to force a liberal agenda on you every waking minute of your life for four years. Socrates would have a field day if he lived in America, I like to think that I battle the contamination spread by political sophist on a day to day basis with as much tenacity and intellect as I can muster.
"Say the words "gun registration" to many Americans-especially pro-gun Americans, including the 3.5 million plus members of the National Rifle Association-and you are likely to hear about Adolf Hitler, Nazi gun laws, gun confiscation, and the Holocaust. More specifically, you are likely to hear that one of the first things that Hitler did when he seized power was to impose strict gun registration requirements that enabled him to identify gun owners and then to confiscate all guns, effectively disarming his opponents and paving the way for the genocide of the Jewish population.
....
Though by no means alone, the NRA has been at the forefront of this historical argument for many years. As far back at least as 1968, the NRA has claimed that "No dictatorship has ever been imposed on a nation of free men who have not been first required to register their privately owned weapons."5 Charlton Heston, the late president of the NRA, never failed to emphasize the connection between gun registration and the Holocaust. "First comes registration, then confiscation," Heston would exclaim at progun conventions and rallies. "Any of the monsters of modern history-such as Hitler and Stalin-confiscated privately held firearms as their first act."6 Wayne R. LaPierre, the current executive vice-president and chief executive officer of the NRA, similarly highlights the link between gun registration, confiscation, and the German experience. In his book Guns, Crime, and Freedom, under the heading "National Firearms Registration," LaPierre gives the following account of gun registration systems:
"Ultimately registration will let the government know who owns guns and what guns they own. History provides the outcome: confiscation. And a people disarmed is a people in danger. In Germany, firearm registration helped lead to the holocaust. Each year we solemnly remember in sorrow the survivors and those lost in the holocaust, but the part gun registration and gun confiscation played in that horror is seldom mentioned. The German police state tactics left its citizens, especially Jews, defenseless against tyranny and the wanton slaughter of a whole segment of its population.7"
...
In much of the literature and argument, the references to Hitler and Nazi gun laws are often dressed in Second Amendment rhetoric. The message, in essence, is that the Founders specifically crafted the Second Amendment to protect the Republic from dictators-and that Adolf Hitler proved the Founders right.
...
Not surprisingly, the Nazi-gun-registration argument has entered the public lexicon and is repeatedly rehearsed today on the opinion pages of newspapers across the country. Most of the time, the message is simple: gun registration will lead to confiscation, and confiscation to tyranny, as demonstrated in the German experience.
Here are a few typical letters to the editor, the first from the pages of the Modesto Bee: Sometimes the opinion commentary contains an infamous statement by Adolf Hitler himself, where he praises Germany's gun registration system in these chilling terms:
"This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!19"
The quote has been published more than a hundred times in papers across the country. In fact, a Lexis search of the news library returns 106 references to Hitler's statement. The quote has generated its own cottage industry of referents.20
...
In fact, the Nazi-gun-registration argument has so far penetrated the American consciousness that, today, a majority of Americans-approximately 57 percent-believe that handgun registration will lead to confiscation.23
...
Now, much of the rhetoric is questionable as a historical matter. It turns out, for example, that Hitler's infamous quote, rehearsed in so many newspapers, is probably a fraud and was likely never uttered. The citation reference is a jumbled and incomprehensible mess that has never been properly identified or authenticated, and no one has been able to produce a document corresponding to the quote. It has been the subject of much research, all of it fruitless, and has now entered the annals of urban legends-in fact, it is an entry in the urban legends website. The webloggers seem to have this one right: "This quotation, however effective it may be as propaganda, is afraud. . . . This quotation, often seen without any date or citation at all, suffers from several credibility problems, the most significant of which is that the date often given [1935] has no correlation with any legislative effort by the Nazis for gun registration, nor would there have been any need for the Nazis to pass such a law, since gun registration laws passed by the Weimar governments (in part to address street violence between Nazis and Communists) were already in effect."24
More important, as a historical matter the passage of gun registration laws in Germany during the first part of the twentieth century is a complicated matter. Following Germany's defeat in World War I, the Weimar Republic passed very strict gun control laws essentially banning all gun ownership, in an attempt both to stabilize the country and to comply with the Versailles Treaty of 1919. The Treaty of Versailles itself imposed severe gun restrictions on German citizens. One of the key provisions of the Versailles Treaty, Article 169, stated that "Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless." But even before the Treaty was signed, the German parliament of the Weimar Republic enacted legislation prohibiting gun possession. In January 1919, the Reichstag enacted legislation requiring the surrender of all guns to the government. This law, as well as the August 7, 1920, Law on the Disarmament of the People passed in light of the Versailles Treaty, remained in effect until 1928, when the German parliament enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition (April 12, 1928)-a law which relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. The licensing regulations foreshadowed Hitler's rise to power-and in fact, some argue, were enacted precisely in order to prevent armed insurrection, such as Hitler's attempted coup in Munich in 1923, as well as Hitler's later rise to power.25
And there are other curious aspects to the Nazi-gun-registration argument. In the first place, the argument is of an odd form for the NRA and pro-gun proponents. After all, the NRA stands for the proposition that "it's not guns that kill people, it's people who kill people." The central idea here is that instrumentalities-in this case handguns-are just that: instrumentalities. They are not to be blamed for what people do wrongly with them. If you follow the logic of that argument, then you would expect a member of the NRA to respond in the same manner when confronted with the Nazi-gun-registration argument: "It's not gun registration that produces gun confiscation and genocide, it's people who do."
The Nazi-gun-registration argument is also a bit disorienting because, at least whenever I have been to a gun show, there are always displays of Nazi paraphernalia. The fringe pro-Nazi element in this country has far more ties to the pro-gun community than it does to the anti-gun community, and you are far more likely to see a swastika at a gun show or a pro-gun rally than you are at the anti-gun Million Mom March on the Washington Mall. The relationship between pro-gun organizations and minorities has always been a topic of heated and intense debate. The NRA and other pro-gun organizations try to appeal to minorities by arguing that gun control is an effort to disarm vulnerable African-American residents in crime-stricken inner-cities-a devious way to perpetuate elite oppression of minorities.26 At the same time, though, the NRA often appeals directly to the white middle-class male voter. Here's Charlton Heston:
"Heaven help the God-fearing, law-abiding, Caucasian, middle class, protestant, or even worse evangelical Christian, midwest or southern or even worse rural, apparently straight or even worse admitted heterosexual, gun-owning or even worse NRA-card-carrying, average working stiff, or even, worst of all, a male working stiff, because then, not only don't you count, you're a downright nuisance, an obstacle to social progress, pal.27"
Of course, being a white male middle-class evangelical southern Christian admittedly heterosexual rural working stiff is not the same as being a white supremacist. And it is probably a minority status. But the symbolic message in Heston's comment is not one of inclusion or integration. At least, the imagery used is a far cry from that of the oppressed Jewish family in the Warsaw Ghetto during the Nazi regime.
Finally, the Nazi-gun-registration argument is somewhat puzzling because there is, in a number of states in this country, a lengthy tradition of gun regulation, including gun registration. In fact, the Anglo-American tradition of gun registration dates back to seventeenth-century England. Both prior to and after the adoption of the English Bill of Rights, there were a number of gun regulations in place in England, including registration requirements. In 1660, for instance, all gunsmiths were ordered to produce a record of all firearms they had sold and of all their buyers from the past six months.28 Gunsmiths were then required to report this information weekly.29 These requirements-which constitute the first known gun registration scheme-remained in place after the adoption of the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which declared that "the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law."30 Prior and subsequent English history reflects a long and steady tradition of substantial statutory limitations on gun ownership.31"
From:
On Gun Registration, the Nra, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars
Bernard E. Harcourt
University of Chicago - Law School
June 2004
The paranoia has been a boom to ammo sales. A new factory poped up in our state to meet the paranoid demand. Sled is harping this paranoia as obama inspired when in fact it is the NRA. I got a call from the NRA warning me that if I do not join their org and give them money, I will lose my gun. Too many have guns because they are insecure to begin with anyway.
To quote wolverine: the liberals and many of those in government want to destroy the United States
What is an armed paranoid schizoid to do????
Are the warnings not there? These are the same rants Timothy McVeigh would spout.
Look at their Icons, and they are responsible gun owners?
Have you seen the price of ammo lately it is sky high.
The NRA not only represents a miniscule percentage of Americans, it also represents a very small percentage of gun owners. They are part of the radical right. It's too bad. They do have a few good programs like Eddie Eagle Training. But the leadership has sold out their membership and now only represents the fringe of their own fringe group.
I agree with your estimation of these folks as being paranoid. They are. Of course, they don't realize it. Otherwise they would probably get the help they need.
I don't know why folks who want to own and shoot guns just admit that they like to feel powerful and look threatening and shoot things up. I know that's not all having guns is about or what it's about for every gun owner. But I believe that it is a lot of it for the most vocal in the group.
I still don't believe the NRA is part of the radical right they want people to be able to have their guns and be unobstructed by the federal government or state governments. Are they lobbying group, of course they are but all lobbiest aren't bad, there are a lot of lobbiest trying to do very good things for this country and as along as we are a democracy there will always be lobbiest, there were lobbiest in the Roman Senate for Christ sake!
If the NRA is part of the fringe then they are part of the fringe in the same way that the ACLU does not represent all American attorneys many of whom possess differing opinions about what the government can and can not do to its own citizens.
Press Release: As Trials Of Waco Survivors Open In Texas, ACLU, NRA, Others Ask Clinton To Address Federal Police Abuse.
January 10, 1994
WASHINGTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union, the National Rifle Association, and other organizations from across the political spectrum today called on President Clinton to appoint a national commission to investigate serious allegations of abuse by federal law enforcement agencies and to recommend steps that must be taken to reduce constitutional and human rights violations by federal law enforcement personnel.
http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/firearms/enforce/aclu.html
ATTACK-AD BAN MAKES STRANGE BEDFELLOWS NRA, ACLU CALL FOR POSTPONEMENT The Boston Globe (Boston, MA) | May 13, 2003| Lyle Denniston, Globe Correspondent | Copyright 2003 The Boston Globe. Provided by ProQuest LLC. (Hide copyright information) CopyrightWASHINGTON - A federal court ruling on a new campaign finance law has drawn together two lobbies on opposite ends of the political spectrum, the National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union, in a legal effort to stop a broad, immediate ban on political advertising by interest groups.
Both groups want to move to put public pressure, by name, on members of Congress to support or oppose different pieces of legislation, but have been stymied by a May 2 decision by a three- judge panel of the US District Court in Washington. That ruling could present the risk of criminal ...
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-7775916.html
ACLU Of Nevada Declares Support For Individual's Right To Keep And Bear Arms Friday, July 18, 2008In a surprising break from the national office of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Nevada state office recently declared its support for an individual's Right to Keep and Bear Arms, apparently making it the first state affiliate to break with the national ACLU's position on the Second Amendment.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4095
Unusual Allies in a Legal Battle Over Texas Drivers' Gun Rights
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL
THE NEW YORK TIMES
HOUSTON, Texas - Keith Patton was driving home one night in February when police officers pulled over his red Ford Explorer for a traffic stop.
His license and insurance form were in his gym bag on the floor near the back seat. Under the bag was a .357 Magnum.
Mr. Patton, 51, an oil-field geologist, software tester and martial arts instructor from suburban Katy, told the police about the gun, which he said he had bought hours before from a co-worker for target shooting. Moments later, he was handcuffed and on his way to jail, facing a charge of unlicensed carrying of a weapon.
The arrest might have been routine elsewhere, but this is Texas, where a code rooted in the days of the highwayman recognizes the right of travelers to be armed, and the Legislature has repeatedly endorsed that principle.
Defiant police officers and prosecutors, however, saying they retain law enforcement discretion, have continued arresting and bringing cases against motorists like Mr. Patton found with unlicensed handguns.
The conflict has led to a legal standoff and a new effort by legislators to resolve the issue. It has also inspired an unlikely alliance between the gun lobby, which has long drawn support from the political right, and civil liberties advocates, long identified with the left, in defense of pistol-packing travelers.
In a report issued in February, the Texas affiliate of the National Rifle Association joined the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition "to spotlight unlawful, unnecessary governmental encroachment on average law-abiding citizens."
http://www.theppsc.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1836
The price of ammo is high. That's the free market and the NRA working together to scare you all to buy buy buy and stock up some more to do battle with the evil socialists that don't want to take your guns away.