J. Aldridge: I wanna exercise my “right” to defend myself with a Gatling gun.

I don’t see any problem with that. Of course, you won’t be able to take it with you everywhere you go (Gatling guns are too big for that); nonetheless, if you had to defend your home from a large mob, or your community from rogue soldiers (say, in a time of civil war, or of anarchy), then it would probably be useful to have a Gatling gun, among other possibilities.

A disproportionate number of racists were (and to lesser degree are) rednecks.”

Michelle, if you are a white person, just try walking through a black neighborhood almost any place in the U.S. and see who the racists are really quick!!

ArthurKirkland: This anecdote indicates some benefit to the availability of guns, but also seems intensely one-sided.Was there any downside, for victims of that period’s bigotry, to having a bunch of lawless, racist rednecks running around with unregistered, unregulated guns?

You seem to overlook the small fact that registered and regulated guns can be used for illegal acts just as easily as stolen guns. In the racism of the day no black would have qualified to own a “registered” gun. Banning guns would have left the black at the mercy of knife or baseball bat wielding Klan member. As was pointed out, the KKK were, and still are, cowards who depended on intimidation and clandestine murder in attempt to suppress the civil rights movement.

The second amendment was not written to allow hunting and target shooting. If you read the supporting literature of the day you see that the intend was to provide for an armed populace to be call on to defend the country. The other reason was for the people to protect themselves from the criminal element, and that included encroachment on liberty by an overreaching government.

The tree of Liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
3rd president of US (1743 – 1826)

Although there are a lot of posts, the areas of the country represented seem limited. Neither the City of Chicago nor (sadly) the state of Vermont are places that have gun laws typical of the nation.

I live in the northern part of the Commonwealth of Virginia, near the District of Columbia, and the state of Maryland. This area truly is representative of the wide range of laws and attitudes concerning guns.

The District has the most-restrictive gun laws in the US, although less restrictive than they were, and probably less restrictive than they will be. Handguns generally cannot be taken outside the home; all guns must be purchased from, and sold to, a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL); there is only one FFL gun dealer in DC; all guns must be registered through a time-consuming, expensive, and onerous procedure clearly designed to prevent registration; guns in the home are supposed to be unloaded, and locked. (Better than it used to be when the Metropolitan Police refused to register any semi-automatic handgun, and all weapons had to be kept disassembled.)

Across the river is the Commonwealth of Virginia where the only requirement for purchasing a firearm is to be able to pay for it and to pass the federal background check (NICS); there is no system to register firearms; anyone of age and not a felon is permitted to carry a gun openly, and open-carry is widely accepted; where those same people can carry a loaded handgun in their car, as long as it is displayed openly; where shall-issue concealed handgun permits (CHP) have gone from 150,000 a few years ago to 205,000 today, and where any CHP holder can go to the General Assembly Building to visit his elected representative (sitting in the oldest legislative body in the Western Hemisphere) carrying his handgun either concealed or openly. (The representative might just be carrying one, too.)

Let me add an aside about “discretionary” permitting. An acquaintance of mine, USMC LTC Oliver North who was then on active duty, was threatened by a foreign terrorist organization (Abu Nidal’s group) and applied for a handgun permit under Virginia’s then “discretionary” permit system. LTC North was told by a Virginia magistrate that he had insufficient reason to carry a gun.

Maryland is not the most restrictive state in the nation when it comes to guns, but it is close, with no open carry, a discretionary CHP system that issues very few permits, restrictions on transporting firearms, and other impediments to self-defense.

Compare the crime rates of those three jurisdictions. For 2007 (the latest year for which DOJ figures are available) the murder rate in Maryland was almost twice that of Virginia, and the rate in DC was six times that of Virginia. (If memory serves, in 2004, the murder rate in DC was about 1000 times greater than that in Arlington County, just across the Potomac from DC.

Some will argue that shall-issue permit systems reduce crime. I think that is true, but I am not sure that the evidence is conclusive. What I do know is, that contrary to the hand-wringing predictions of “blood running in the streets” that have been made whenever a state switched from a discretionary system to a shall-issue system, in every case there was a reduction in crime, and the rate has not once gone up.

There has been discussion of who should, or should not, possess firearms, and whether there should be licensing or registration. Without repeating arguments already made here, let me refer everyone to a study published by the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. The study, entitled, “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A review of international and some domestic evidence” is available through Amazon and at other places on the internet.

For those without the time to read, the answer is, “No.”

I agree that there should be some restrictions on gun ownership. Felons convicted of a violent crime should be prohibited from possessing firearms. I am not so sure about prohibiting possession for persons who committed non-violent felonies, after they have served their time and any parole or probation time.

Guns are tools that can be used for good or evil. If you misuse a firearm, face the consequences. Let people exercise freedom, and take responsibility for their actions.

ArthurKirkland: This anecdote indicates some benefit to the availability of guns, but also seems intensely one-sided.Was there any downside, for victims of that period’s bigotry, to having a bunch of lawless, racist rednecks running around with unregistered, unregulated guns?

By definition, “lawless” rednecks are going to have guns, whether the state deems their firearms
“unregistered” or not. So, the real — and only — question is whether this lawless element is going to have a monopoly on those guns. If the answer is yes, then the commununity organizer will likely be murdered. That is especially true, because the police have no legal duty to protect an individual citizen.

Your anti-gun argument would be more persuasive if the police were liable for failing to protect citizens, and if the government could disarm the rednecks. But, since neither of these eventualities will ever come to pass, I will continue to support the Second Amendment, the National Rifle Asociation, and my individual right to keep and bear arms.

Every organizer — and I was one for thirteeen hazardous years — knows that it is better to be tried by twelve than carried by six. Wake up to the real world!

In fact “gun control” was developed in the south for just that reason to keep guns out of the hand of freed blacks. Protest by Dr. King where protected by armed blacks more than once, and at the request of Dr. King. The first mention of the words “Gun Control” can be traced back to those times.

Why this is a suprise is not a mystery, as so many who are charged with the teaching of history have been so caught up in teaching it covered with a pre-determined agenda. Let history stand on it’s own, the good, the bad, and the ugly!

The founding fathers called for the right to bear arms, not just for the protection against those who would rob from us, steal steal from us, or kill us, but for the those people in power from enslaving the citizens they took an oath to serve.

I can remember my father being threatened by a group of racist as a young teen. I remember my father being asked what he would do if they came to his home and burned a cross on the lawn.

My father without missing a beat said, truthfully, “I would come outside with my hand filled, and when I hit the ground my wife, kids, would cut everything standing in two”. They just turned and walked away.

I have been a cop for 28 years, I have taught people unarmed self-defense for 30 years, and now I provide armed self-defense. This country will be stronger with more people taking advantage of their second amendement rights. Providing responsible security for you or your family requires more than just providing health, care, and life insurance.

There are records of very viable, ecconomicly strong, black communities after the civil war. When one studies the history of those towns will show how being armed created a safety which bred a respect, which caused a willingness of non-blacks to trade and do business with those communities. It has been stated, “God, Guns, Gandi” made them great.

Regarding the comments earlier that stated that the society is more violent inspite of the number of firearms present. You got it wrong, in places where law abiding citizens can carry, crime is down. Funny that is true in each of those areas.

When will you learn that to remove guns from the possession of the lawful, you only make them easy victims for the lawless who will still use firearms against the rest of us?

Jasmindad: Frank Drackman says:
What part of “well regulated” don’t you understand?

It’s the part you don’t understand… and that would be the context of the phrase in the late 1700′s when the Bill of Rights was written. Read what any of the framers had to say about the populace being armed (they considered it essential to the country’s well being and survival), this includes Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Patrick Henry, and virtually any others who commented on it at all. Learn your history.

Per multiple CDC (notably not gun friendly, “guns are a public health issue”) and DOJ comprehensive studies (as well as dozens of smaller ones) over several decades; no restrictions on purchase, ownership or carry, however “reasonable”, beyond basic existing Federal manufacture, wholesale and retail purchase regulations have been shown to have any statistically significant effect on crime rates or public safety.

Further, gun ownership (both gross and per capita) in the US has steadily increased over the past few decades, quite dramatically just recently, and yet both violent crime and accident rates continue to trend dramatically downward even during this time of economic upheaval.

There’s absolutely zero evidence in the US that more gun restrictions will have any positive effect on crime or safety. How do those facts square with your, understandable, gut feeling that somehow “those people” should be further restricted than they are now?

How much more evidence will it take for you to disassociate your personal preferences for yourself (which no pro-gun person can rationally argue with) from your views on public policy on firearms for others?

Federal Farmer: Poorly worded seems to be your stock-in-trade.

“Poorly formatted” seems to be yours. You made it seem like I said what Carl from Chicago said, and you said what I said. Learn how to quote, please.

Federal Farmer: The problem with saying that all people don’t have a right to have a gun is that it exposes one as an elitist windbag.

No. It exposes one as someone that recognises reality. For example, felons are not allowed to possess guns (and in some places, ex-felons as well). Even some of your erstwhile ideological companions (too many to bother linking; search “felon”) above recognise that.

Cheers,

Pintler: And if we can design a working nutcase filter, we can use it for all kinds of things (running for public office comes to mind :-)).

Our existing filter is broken. See this thread.

Cheers,

The problem with saying that everyone has a right to have a gun is that all kinds of people (including nutcases) will then try to get a gun.

Well, we agree there! And if we can design a working nutcase filter, we can use it for all kinds of things (running for public office comes to mind :-)).

zuch: That is a demonstrably false statement.  

This was poorly worded on my part (I hope subsequent posts cleared up what I meant).It might have better been said: “The problem with saying that everyone has a right to have a gun is that all kinds of people (including nutcases) will then try to get a gun.HTCTU.Cheers,

Poorly worded seems to be your stock-in-trade.

The problem with saying that all people don’t have a right to have a gun is that it exposes one as an elitist windbag.

Carl from Chicago:

[zuch]: The problem with saying that everyone has a right to have a gun is that everyone will then try to get a gun. 

That is a demonstrably false statement. 

This was poorly worded on my part (I hope subsequent posts cleared up what I meant).

It might have better been said: “The problem with saying that everyone has a right to have a gun is that all kinds of people (including nutcases) will then try to get a gun.

HTCTU.

Cheers,

OTOH, ‘militia’ types with wacko grudges against the gummint and hot tempers ought to gain some extra scrutiny.

Zuch, it’s worth remembering the history. May issue CCW, for example, sounds like a great idea – the nice lady who was raped gets a permit, the newly patched motorcycle gang member doesn’t. There were (usually rural) Sheriffs who ran things correctly, but the in the big cities it didn’t work out so well – the police chiefs gave permits to essentially zero people who weren’t the mayor’s buddies, celebrities, or retired cops. That is why the vast majority of states have gone to shall issue CCW, and that’s why there is deep distrust of discretionary licensing schemes.

As an analogy, we might arguably be better off if you couldn’t vote if you couldn’t find Iraq on a map, or name the three branches or whatever – but given the discriminatory history of poll tests, they are a nonstarter today.

zuch:
The problem with saying that everyone has a right to have a gun is that everyone will then try to get a gun.

That is a demonstrably false statement.

(forgive me if that’s been said … lots of comments here)

Kirk Parker: zuch,The exact same logic you apply to high-seas piracy is also at work when walking down the city street: when someone starts to assault or rob you, the police aren’t going to get there in time.For some reason, you seem determined to stay on the border of trolldom…

Like this guy forced to face felony Unlawful Use of a Weapons charge because he needs to protect his daughters from drug dealers. Now he’s also facing First Degree Murder. Since he has no yacht, he has no business using a firearm to protect his family.

zuch: Please. [...] Individuals selling at gun shows is no different than if they made the sale outside the show, at home, or wherever. 

True. Which is another issue. ;-)Anyway … I’m not going to get anywhere with the absolutists (I know this well from experience), so I’ll let this particular sub-thread drop, having said my say.Cheers,

It is the same issue. There is no “gun show loophole” as the Brady Campaign and others trumpet. It is a “selling my private property” issue in reality. It occurs both at gun shows and not in gun shows. Of course, the notion that some guy selling guns illegally out of the trunk of his buick is going to stop because he’s supposed to perform a NICS check is ludicrous.

The exact same logic you apply to high-seas piracy is also at work when walking down the city street: when someone starts to assault or rob you, the police aren’t going to get there in time.

For some reason, you seem determined to stay on the border of trolldom…

Federal Farmer:

[zuch]: Yes we do. Gun shows.

Please. [...] Individuals selling at gun shows is no different than if they made the sale outside the show, at home, or wherever.

True. Which is another issue. ;-)

Anyway … I’m not going to get anywhere with the absolutists (I know this well from experience), so I’ll let this particular sub-thread drop, having said my say.

Cheers,

luv2ski: This foolish public policy proposal is built on quicksand. It completely ignores the black market that imports mountains of drugs into the US despite our best efforts to interdict and aggressively prosecute perpetrators. In the face of a total ban, it assumes that these same criminal networks couldn’t easily import or manufacture firearms for criminal use. This is of course, preposterous.

No policy needs to be 100% effective to be effective.

In fact, don’t you implicitly say just that in the very next paragraph?:

luv2ski: My personal favorite is the canard that because an activist carried a gun and was killed anyway that this is prima facie proof that carrying a gun provides one with no added protection.

Cheers,

zuch: Where did I say that?!?!?OTOH, ‘militia’ types with wacko grudges against the gummint and hot tempers ought to gain some extra scrutiny. As well as folks like the SLA. I didn’t say the solution was to ban them from such (although that is one approach). I said that such were a problem that needs consideration. There might be other solutions, I don’t know. But shouldn’t we at least talk about it before screaming “… my cold, dead fingers”?Cheers,

I didn’t know the SLA were still in existence? I just assumed they all had professorships somewhere.

‘Militia’ types as dangerous ‘gummint’ haters is a false stereotype that betrays an elitist attitude. A great many ‘militia’ types have served their country with distinction and honor.

zuch: Again with the mischaracterization; we don’t do anything remotely like that now. 

Yes we do. Gun shows.Cheers,

Please. Dealers at gun shows still have to run a NICS check for each sale. Individuals selling at gun shows is no different than if they made the sale outside the show, at home, or wherever. Maybe you should visit a gun show sometime.

Federal Farmer: I don’t feel I mischaracterized your elitist attitude. Rich guys with yachts are the sort of people that can have guns. The rest, not so much.

Where did I say that?!?!?

OTOH, ‘militia’ types with wacko grudges against the gummint and hot tempers ought to gain some extra scrutiny. As well as folks like the SLA. I didn’t say the solution was to ban them from such (although that is one approach). I said that such were a problem that needs consideration. There might be other solutions, I don’t know. But shouldn’t we at least talk about it before screaming “… my cold, dead fingers”?

Cheers,

Kirk Parker:

[zuch]: But handing out guns like popcorn in a movie theatre doesn’t seem like it.

Again with the mischaracterization; we don’t do anything remotely like that now.

Yes we do. Gun shows.

Cheers,

zuch: I didn’t say that. In fact, I pointed out my ambivalence but willingness towards packing in a specific circumstance. Please read for comprehension. Thanks in advance.Cheers,

I don’t feel I mischaracterized your elitist attitude. Rich guys with yachts are the sort of people that can have guns. The rest, not so much.

Federal Farmer: Since you want a gun on your yacht you must be a pirate!

Of course not (and I recognise you’re being sarcastic). I’m considering having a gun (for certain passages, at least), not because I “want” a gun (all things being equal, I do not, not to mention the considerable hassle or even outright banning of firearms in some countries along with still penalties such as prison time and confiscation of vessel if gun laws are violated). The reason is that there are pirates and armed robbers out there, and “911″ is not very effective. Prevention is always the best route, but there’s something to be said for some modicum of self-defence. Note that I have no illusions of the efficacy of Gandhian civil disobedience against pirates, and think that any such attempts would be foolish and unsuccessful. And just a reminder: That was the subject of the post.

Cheers,

Federal Farmer: Oh sure, anyone that would want a gun must be a closet Timothy McVeigh!

I didn’t say that. In fact, I pointed out my ambivalence but willingness towards packing in a specific circumstance. Please read for comprehension. Thanks in advance.

Cheers,

dasing: Why can so many people READ an article and not UNDERSTAND it? In the article it stated that ” the protesters ‘let’ the hate groups beat them to gain sympathy for their cause, knowing that no murders happened in front of the media cameras.

Gandhi “let” the British beat (and fire on) him and his followers too. More that “let”, he even provoked this. He was willing to let them murder him as well (in fact, when tried for his civil disobedience, he demanded the maximum sentence). That’s the whole freakin’ point, if you believe in Gandhi/MLKII style stuff (rather different from the Black Panther approach back then, wouldn’t you say?). You are willing to put yourself at risk for your beliefs. If you are not really doing so, you’re a fraud. If you’re lying in wait with a hidden gun in case things get nasty, that’s not CD, that’s the ol’ same old same old. It may ‘work’, but that’s not CD.

dasing: All I ask is if you can’t understand any article find someone who can, and then form your opinions!

All I ask is that you read the comments as well. I’ve explained this before.

Cheers,

This foolish public policy proposal is built on quicksand. It completely ignores the black market that imports mountains of drugs into the US despite our best efforts to interdict and aggressively prosecute perpetrators. In the face of a total ban, it assumes that these same criminal networks couldn’t easily import or manufacture firearms for criminal use. This is of course, preposterous.

My personal favorite is the canard that because an activist carried a gun and was killed anyway that this is prima facie proof that carrying a gun provides one with no added protection. Try that theory on the next street cop you meet. Not only would this vacuous, binary logic disarm police, it would reason away the need for seat belts or airbags in cars because people die in accidents in which their use failed to prevent a death.

But handing out guns like popcorn in a movie theatre doesn’t seem like it.

Again with the mischaracterization; we don’t do anything remotely like that now. Can you think of any other object that the average person needs a Federal background check before purchasing? Where it is illegal for me, as a resident of WA visiting neighboring OR to purchase? Come on, all we’re really talking about is some slight run of the ratchet backward for a change…