BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 08:18 PM

Bobert!

"If I kndew that I was making someone uncomfortable I wouldn't do what ever it was I was doing... "


Are you sure you want to give me a straight line like this????

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 08:23 PM

"No one else is responsible for my safety but me."

??Really?? It's a nice sounding slogan, Kendall...but in this society, it just don't work like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 08:49 PM

It comes down to personal responsibility. Kendall, Big Mick, me, others, I consider responsible. Even Bobert is responsible; the P-Vine told me he was. None of us are about to take out a school or some jerk in a bar because we've been trained in the use of firearms. Hell, I'd rather walk away -- I've seen enough shootin' and fightin' in my life. But if it came down to my life or the lives of those entrusted to my care I will kill without compunction and without conscience, using any weapon I have, from my bare hands up. Druther talk my way out of it, though....

But as my very own brother once said, "If you need just one bullet you probably shouldn't be there in the first place."

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 09:33 PM

Well, I fully understand why Mick needs heat... Heck, anyone organizing unions is doing a dangerous job 'cause the the union-bustin goons ain't called goons fir nuthin'...

But, Rap, I don't understand yer circumstance... I mean, libraries ain't where people go to shoot up the joint... Might of fact, they are so far down the list that they ain't even on the list... But I'm sure there must be more to the story...

Yeah, people who do dangerous jobs, like cops and repo men and bail bondsmen and pawn shop owners and liquir store clerks, okay, yeah... Have a little heat but keep it under cover...

That ain't the issue... It's jerks who do it to terrorize people... Hey, it is terrorism... No two ways about it.... I was in a NoVa resturant a couple years back and saw a young couple with their baby ask for the check right after being served and not having time to eat after the Bozo Pistol Brigade swaggered it... They were terrorized... I mean, what's the difference betweeen these jerks and the Taliban??? Both want to intimidate other people... And both do...

And all that "open carry laws" do is encourage these kinds of misfits...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 10:02 PM

Since this thread started, I've been wondering about revolvers. Most people don't seem to object to somebody having a shotgun or a bolt action/lever action rifle. When it comes to handguns, would it make sense to draw some distiction between automatic/semi-automatic hand guns, and the less obtrusive possession of an old fashion revolver?
       The revolver would work just fine for folks who are worried about personal protection, but it wouldn't cross into the realm of a really high-powered, fast firing weapon.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 10:08 PM

No, they wouldn't, Rigs... Hand guns are made for one purpose only: killimg people... I'd rather see .50 cal machine guns legal and handgun ownership for only the people who actually need them: cops, etc...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: pdq
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 10:28 PM

I may have posted this before, but here 'tis:


Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia

               --- Crime Rate Plummets

{Posted on 04/17/2007 12:29:03 PM PDT by doug from upland}

by Chuck Baldwin

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?

The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.

The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.

There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 10:45 PM

This is what real scientists would say is a bogus study, pdq-ster...

Might of fact, the way it is written is dripping with dog-in-the race...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: robomatic
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 10:45 PM

We've already had some open carry in a national park fallout, where a backpacker shot down a bear in Denali National Park with a large revolver which they were carrying to protect them from, well, bears.

But what a lot of us are wondering is did the device provoke intent in any way?

The facts are not in and there will be an investigation. It is, however, the first time it's been recorded in the Park (bear shot by visitor).

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 11:43 PM

If carrying a gun makes you feel eight feet tall and covered with hair you shouldn't be carrying a gun.

I have a fishing license. When I go I'll probably be carrying a .22 pistol -- not because of bears and mountain lions, but because of rattlesnakes.

Now, I have a live-and-let-live attitude toward all critters. Last time I encountered one it was 20 feet away; it "tasted" me, decided I wasn't a threat (I'd stopped) and it went on its way. But I could tread on a rattler and be forced to Do Something. I wouldn't like it, but there it is. If I were to go hiking well up into the backcountry I might carry something with a bit more "oomph" (probably a rifle, not a pistol). But in any case it's a lot easier to let the critters know you're coming so they can clear out than to have to kill one, and even a .357 or a .44 mag could just annoy it.

I wonder if the hiker who shot the bear was forced to or did so because he had a gun that could do so...most bears will leave you alone if you leave them and their cubs alone.

As for the National Parks -- I'm waiting for day when the one camper says "Hey, asshole! That was MY campsite!" BANG! And so are the rangers around here....

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Howard Jones
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 06:11 AM

If I may be permitted to make an observation from across the pond:

What surprises me most about this discussion is how many good, ordinary, peaceable people seem to find it wholly unremarkable that they, and other similar people, should feel the need to carry a gun (concealed or not) for their own protection.

Of course, I can understand the feeling that if the bad guys all have guns then you might want to put yourself on an equal footing. However, here in the UK (where handgun ownership, even for legitimate sporting reasons, is completely banned, and other firearms are very strictly controlled) guns are mostly in the hands of criminals, yet ordinary people don't feel threatened. If my house were to be burgled, it would be very unusual for the burglar to be armed (it would hugely increase his jail sentence, for a start) and I would get into serious trouble for just threatening him with a weapon, let alone using it. Most gun crime here seems to be between criminals, usually drugs gangs.

Even if I were to be mugged by someone with a gun (itself very unlikely), I suspect the mugger would be far less likely to panic and use it since he could be confident that neither I nor a passer-by (even a passing policeman) is likely to haul out a piece and fire back.

An eighteenth century law authorising measures for civil defence may have been entirely appropriate at a time when the US was a young country and its future was still far from certain, and whose expansion relied on the offensive and defensive use of firearms. In a twenty-first century modern society it seems to be to be entirely inappropriate.

I don't know how you could now put the genie back in the bottle, but what really baffles me is that so many reasonable people apparently don't even want to try.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 08:17 AM

"What surprises me most about this discussion is how many good, ordinary, peaceable people seem to find it wholly unremarkable that they, and other similar people, should feel the need to carry a gun (concealed or not) for their own protection."


             There are still some MSNBC listeners out there, you don't want to be unarmed if you happen to stumble across one.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 08:40 AM

In the words of Barney Frank, Rigs: "What planet do you spend most of your time on???"

It ain't the MSNBCers... It's the Limbaugh/Beck/FOXers you need to be carefull around... They are the ones at the gun shows and shooting ranges... They're the ones sending in dough to the NRA... And they're the ones who are join their Bozo Buddies and storm resturants to terrorize people...

That reality... To deny it is redicukous...

B~ (MSNBCer)

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 08:54 AM

Mr. Jones, how do you explain that whacko who just shot down 13 people in the lake district?

Bowerbank Maine passed a law about 10 years ago that required all persons to own a gun. No one has been shot or raped since.

Florida was a war zone until they passed a right to carry law. Since then the crime rate has plummeted.

No amount of belief can create a fact. So, let's stick to the facts.

Bill, I understand your point, but tell me, if you hear a loud crash in the night, would you call the Police or grab a gun? If your Police are like most Police, they could be an hour too late to help you.

Reminds me of that old saying, "If you need a helping hand, check the end of your own arm."

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 09:54 AM

I've posted in other threads what I would do about the crash in the night, Kendall.

And I've experienced one when our front door was kicked in and my wife's purse taken. Being upstairs in bed I thought the living room ceiling light had fallen. I put on shoes and went downstairs to find the door kicked in and the perp long gone. No, we didn't feel "violated", we were pissed off. We called the cops, they arrived in minutes, and by midnight all of the credit cards had been canceled. We had the door boarded up until it could be fixed ($3,700 for a double round-top door with glass inserts; the insurance nearly choked). The next Saturday I came downstairs and found one of the panes in the kitchen door was broken -- no sweat, because THAT we had backed with 1/4 inch plexiglass when we moved in. Frustrated the baddy and he left; the cops were impressed with the idea.

Best to secure the perimeter, but if they come through the last wire I'll be ready for them -- and it won't be with tea and milk.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:08 AM

I do not recommend you use ANY weapon -- knife, sword, spear, bayonet, club, gun, ray gun, Claymore mine, Abrams tank, ANY weapon -- unless you are thoroughly trained in its strengths, weaknesses, use, care, and legal implications thereof.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Stu
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:11 AM

"Mr. Jones, how do you explain that whacko who just shot down 13 people in the lake district?"

Whacko or no, the idea that had everyone this man shot been carrying a gun he wouldn't have shot them is ridiculous. Did all those people carrying guns in the US stop Timiothy McVeigh in Oklahoma - no. It's a non-argument. Howard's expression of the dismay felt by us non-gun-centric societies here in Europe is totally correct, most gun crime is gan-related.

Two things worth considering here: The US is a nation born of violence and is a society which glorifies depersonalised violence unlike any other in the world; a written constitution can be an albatross around the neck of the societies that created them as times change. However, there is a remarkable (and to outsiders befuddling) consensus of opinion in the US that people should be allowed to carry guns - from farmers etc that might need them, to scared city types fearing some faceless foe and the compounds of heavily armed loonies holed up in mountain retreats waiting for armageddon.

"Bowerbank Maine passed a law about 10 years ago that required all persons to own a gun. No one has been shot or raped since."

This is meaningless - there are plenty of towns the world over in countries where there are strict gun laws and no-one has been shot or raped - fact. A law to make people carry guns? Unbelievable. i'd tell them to sod off and exercise my democratic right to be a civilised human being.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:23 AM

'In the words of Barney Frank, Rigs: "What planet do you spend most of your time on???"'


             Barney Frank formulates words?

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:37 AM

"No one else is responsible for my safety but me."

So how would you go about telling the families of Bird's 13 victims that they should have taken more responsibility for their own safety?

My views on right to firearms are informed by one simple question.

Should the right to carry a firearm take precedence over the right of a person not to be murdered by someone carying a firearm? My personal answer is no.

I will reste one question I have asked before:

Why, in the UK where the population is about 25% of that of US the number of firearm deaths in UK are 1% of that of the US? - 200 as opposed to the expected level of 5,000?

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:56 AM

Did all those people carrying guns in the US stop Timiothy McVeigh in Oklahoma - no.

Did the armed presence of the British Army stop IRA car bombs? The situations are similar.

There is no comparison possible between someone who sets a bomb and flees (or doesn't) and someone shooting out a car window. How do you know that the van or lorry by the side of the road isn't full of explosives -- unless the bomber is a fool, like the guy in Times Square recently.

I'm not defending or prosecuting here -- I'm pointing out that there is a difference between a car or truck bomb and a single person with a gun. You cannot EVER defend against the danger unless you know it IS a danger. And you CERTAINLY cannot live your life expecting every vehicle to explode or everyone around you to start shooting. This doesn't even happen in Mexico (which has strict guns laws and a terrific murder rate).

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Howard Jones
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 12:12 PM

The Lake District incident is of course appalling. The man had two legally-held weapons (whether he should have been allowed a licence is now being questioned). However such incidents are extremely rare - there was a school shooting in Dunblane in 1996, and similar incidents to this in Hungerford in 1987 and Monkseaton in 1989. Other than these, I cannot recall any similar occurrences. I was in the Lake District only a couple of weeks ago, and will no doubt return sometime over the next few months - I don't expect to feel threatened, and I certainly don't expect to feel the need to carry a weapon of any kind (even if such a thing were not strictly illegal).

Rather than picking on this isolated tragic incident, of more relevance is the point that in the UK even the majority of criminals don't feel it necessary to carry a gun.

My point is that it appears that a lot of normal, sensible, peaceable Americans, by no means "gun nuts", appear to find nothing surprising about living in a society when they routinely feel the need to arm themselves. Can you not see how weird this is?

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 12:36 PM

No, that ain't weird!

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 12:37 PM

People openly carrying violate the rights of non-carriers in the restaurant to peaceably assemble.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 03:56 PM

No, they can peaceably assemble. They just need to keep their backs to the wall and be constantly aware of how many steps they are away from the door.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 04:02 PM

Terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: John P
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 04:17 PM

I'm a lot less worried about an armed home invasion than I am about a "normal" citizen losing his temper on the highway or in the grocery store. Last year at the Folklife Festival here in Seattle some schmuck got in an argument and pulled a gun. It "accidentally" went off and a couple of people were shot (not killed). If a bunch of the other folks in the excessively huge crowd been armed, there would have been a blood bath.

My parents were robbed at gunpoint on the street a couple of years ago. My dad said that if he had had a gun, the thief would just have had it along with his wallet, since they guy came up behind them and put the gun in his back.

When only criminals have guns it will be easier to tell who they are.

How about this? Make all handguns illegal. Anyone caught with a handgun gets executed, no appeals. Make the law so stringent that people would cross the street to avoid walking near a handgun laying on the sidewalk.

One of the things that bothers me the most is that I have never heard of a parent being charged with a crime when their children find the gun and shoot someone. What kind of idiot leaves a gun and ammo where there is any chance their children can get it? Why isn't it wildly illegal? Those parents should be in prison.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 04:55 PM

I quite agree. Anyone who leaves weapons where children or irresponsible adults can get to them should be guilty of, at the least, reckless endangerment. Some States, Florida and California that I know of off hand, have such a law on the books.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 04:59 PM

Riginslinger -

Gimmie three steps mister, gimmie three steps toward the door.
Gimmie three steps mister, gimmie three steps, you'll never see me no more.

Lynard Skynard.

Ditto for

... ain't good for nothin, but put a man in a hole. (38 Special)

As far as home defense, our gun laws in Canada more or less prohibit the use of guns. I diasagree with it. As far as kids... little old folks that don't have any kids should be allowed - as under English common law - to use guns against intruders to make it a fair fight.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 05:23 PM

When only criminals have guns it will be easier to tell who they are.

Excellent, excellent. I will remember this when I get that other line from the gunheads.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 05:53 PM

"...use guns against intruders to make it a fair fight..."


                Another good way to control illegal immigration

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 05:56 PM

Side comment. A friend of mine, who owned a few guns, moved to Canada for a few years. Since it was not a permanent move, he left his guns with a friend for safekeeping.

He mentioned, however, that at least as far as home invasion was concerned, he was not exactly helpless and unarmed. I asked him how come?

He said, "bullwhip."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 06:18 PM

Yeah... What we need is a national guns-for-bullwhips exchance program... Seriously... I think yer on to somethin' here, Don...

The problem we have here is that nothin', under our current system ot corrupt lobbiest run goevernment, really can be done... The NRA rakes in millions from gun manufacturers and gun shop owners and people who think that the government wants to take away their guns... No, that probabaly more like billions of dollars... So a bunch of folk singers can have all the proper arguments for some sane gun control and guess what??? It's just a discussion amoung a bunch of folk singers... Like really has the NRA shakin' in their cowboy boots...

But realistically speaking, the NRA should be on the forefront of gun safety but they oppose every little thing that folks think up to make guns safer... I'd be willing to bet that if Congress tried to pass a law making it a felony to have unlocked up gins in houses where children under 6 reside the NRA would oppose that, too...Heck, they would oppose a law that fobids people from putting loaded guns in their babbies crib... I mean, there is no compromise in the NRA... They want their guns and that's it... No discussion just shut the fuck up or we'll put a cap in yer ass...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 06:21 PM

In December of 1994, I was assigned to do a month's work on security clearances in Alaska, mostly for the National Park Service. One applicant was a historian who was going to be a law enforcement officer, so I had to interview a number of National Park Service historians who had worked with her. The head of the history department was a very petite woman with a PhD in History. She was very proud that she was certified as an expert marksman with the shotgun. All of the historians had to be shotgun-certified because they did a lot of field work and might encounter troubles with bears.
Sometimes, there are good reasons to carry firearms, even in national parks.
But the only weapon   I   ever carried in a national park was a black, government-issued ballpoint pen. Very effective weapon....

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: artbrooks
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 06:32 PM

The most recent child firearms death in Albuquerque happened six weeks ago. A four-year-old got his father's loaded weapon from his nightstand and killed himself with it. The police said that "the family and the baby sitter did nothing wrong". There are no controls at all over weapons at home in this state.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 07:09 PM

"... tell me, if you hear a loud crash in the night, would you call the Police or grab a gun?"

Rapaire answered that much as I would. Most people, including many of those most likely to BE broken in on, are not trained, ready and trustworthy with weapons. And I would assume that whoever made the loud crash also had a weapon and was ready to use it.

I have read 5-10 stories about citizens & storekeepers injured or killed by intruders as they TRIED to resist for every story about some heroic old person getting the drop on a robber.

It really sounds nice to assert your "right to self-defense", but unless you want to spend your days expecting attacks and rehearsing, I'd think twice about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 07:47 PM

Thread drift addressed...

If thugs know elderly people or ANYBODY who follows our laws CANNOT legally defend themselves in their homes, the thugs have free access. Home invasions are increasing and it is tragic.

I knew one elderly man who had his head cut off and his wife was slashed to pieces... another eldery lad who had his head mashed with a maul until he was unreconizable. I really don't give two fucks from Sunday about the safety of children whose parents haven't any brains. If those parents are that stunned, the kids are in peril to start with. It's a piss poor arguement.

Now, here is one more point since we are on thread drift... if the politicians and their police cannot keep thugs from invading homes, how are they justified in making laws that literally punish someone from defending themselves IN THEIR HOME? Anyone who says people do not have the right to defend themselves by whatever means in their own home is a fool. Yes... a fool.

But that is not what this thread is about...... we (me) now return to regular programming.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 08:09 PM

My point is not that should not 'have the right to', but that most people should not try to use a gun to do so....unless they are trained & competent. Those who truly feel able...go ahead and make plans--carefully.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 08:22 PM

Most folks would be better off using a can of wasp & hornet killer -- the kind you can spray up to 20 feet away. Aim for the face. That way there are no holes in the walls or furniture and if you're like me, you'd want to replace the carpet and perhaps even repaint where the blood splattered. WARNING: Do not test this on someone first -- it's a nasty, nasty thing to do, worse than Mace or pepper spray.

And that's my last word here.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: GUEST,Kendall
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 08:31 PM

Bill D you are right and I agree 100%. Most people are not qualified to use such weapons and too often they end up being killed with their own gun because at the critical moment they hesitated.
My lifelong career was law enforcement. I graduated from the US Treasury Dept. school of law enforcement and criminal investigation. My score on the combat range was just under expert, so I believe I am qualified to own and use guns.
Sometime back I heard a loud crash in my kitchen. I grabbed my .45 and went to investigate. It turned out to be a Raccoon that pulled the window box off its supports and it landed on the metal bulkhead doors. It made an unearthly racket. Although I was fully prepared to shoot an intruder I was greatly relieved to see that it was just a hungry animal.
Carrying a gun is a heavy responsibility and its mis use can have tragic consequences. If you are not absolutely certain that you can handle both the gun and the responsibility then by all means don't use one.

When I said I am responsible for my own security I simply meant I am on the scene and the cops are miles away. Sure I'll call them unless I am in immediate danger; then, they can come and pick up the big pieces.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: John P
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 11:01 AM

I am opposed to the general public being allowed to own guns. That said, I have no problem with people like Rapaire or Kendall owning guns. The problem, for me, is the "general public" part. If I could be convinced that every gun owner knew how to use their guns, and, more importantly, WHEN to use them, I would be happy. Given the general stupidity and irrationality of the American public, however, I think our gun laws are an active detriment to public safety.

Unlimited gun ownership - even individual gun ownership - is NOT guaranteed by the Constitution, and anyone who says so is revealing their inability to read.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 12:19 PM

John P... "...and anyone who says so is revealing their inability to read."

December 15, 1791, Amendment II... "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."

Are you inferring "the people" means "ONLY the people in the Militia"?

If you are, then the Amendment makes no sense at all as it's very writing would be rendered a useless exercise and a waste of time. Was it just a "government work project"?

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 12:40 PM

Amos quoted this on the Thomas Jefferson thread...

"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security."

Thomas Jefferson

Again on my train of thought... I "read" that Amendment II ensures "the people" are not subjugated by the state and I "read" that each and every citizen shall have the rights stated within.

Ya wanna change it, change it. But ya can't interpret the existing clause in your way ONLY... that's against the law of common sense.

Ya wanna regulate, regulate.

But don't tell other people you are "right" and they are idiots when you can't prove it.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: John P
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 01:08 PM

I am saying that "the people" refers to all of us as a group. We, as an aggregate, are guaranteed the right to form an armed militia.

Everywhere that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights discusses an individual, the individual is referred to as a "person". Everywhere that it discusses all of us as a group, we are referred to as "the people".

Examples:

Article 1, Section 2:
"the House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of several States"

"No Person shall be a Representative . . ."

Article 1, Section 6:
"no person holding any Office under the United States . . ."

Article 1, Secion 7:
"But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill . . ."

Article I, Section 9:
"The Migration or Importation of Such Persons as any of the States now existing think proper to admit . . ."

"no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present . . ."

Article II, Section 1:
"No person except a natural born Citizen . . shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Article III, Section 3:
"No person shall be convicted of Treason . . ."

Article IV, Section 2:
"A Person charged in any State . . ."

Amendment I:
"the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

Amendment II:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people . . ."

Amendment IV:
"the right of the people to be secure in their persons . . ."

amendment V:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime"

"nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy"

Amendment IX:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution . . . are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

In addition, the Militia is mentioned several times in the Constitution, and the context makes it clear that what is being referred to is what we now call the Army and the National Guard.

Finally, even if you don't buy the obvious difference between "a person" and "the people", what do YOU think the militia clause in the 2nd amendment means?

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 01:21 PM

Just a historical sidelight, which may give a little wider meaning to that Constitutional provision:

The United States after the Revolution, either under the Articles of Confederation or under the new Constitution, neither had nor expected to have a standing army, or at least a standing army of any significant size at all. Just as with the old collection of 13 colonies/states, there was much too much rivalry and independence. The outlook of many was that the central government was to be more or less a weak coordinator to the thirteen colonies/states, rather than a central government to the entire country. It was to be to the United States more or less what the UN is to the world today--underfunded, nearly powerless, and ineffectual.

The Continentals had a lot of experience in colonial times with militias, and they had proved very helpful by themselves against the British, and then as sources of military manpower when the Congress formed an actual army. When a central army was raised, it was intended to be for temporary existence and for use only in a specific emergency which needed to be addressed.

So, given the experience of militias in then-living memory, although there were significant problems with that system, it was felt necessary to provide militias for the functions now served by the Army, the Army Reserve, and the National Guard. For that purpose it was necessary to form informal, local units which might provide cadres of at least partially trained soldiers against a time of sudden need.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 01:37 PM

John P... "I am saying that "the people" refers to all of us as a group. We, as an aggregate, are guaranteed the right to form an armed militia."

Huh? That is not what is wriiten.

Again, by your interpretation, Amendment II makes no sense. I maintain your arguement infers it has no basis for being written. Why was it written? For a militia that already existed? I believe your basic premise is based upon your interpretation and not on logical examination and consideration of the intent of the clause.

The people have the right to keep and bear arms. Simple to me. And I am sure it was simple to the people taht wrote and signed it. Again, if you want to change it, "clarify" it, regulate it, whatever... do so. If it's really a fuck up and really that obvious, why can't it be corrected?

Hitler got the gun control job done in jig time way back in the 30s. Why can't the good old USA? (Yes, I do have an answer for that... it's got to do with history repeating itself. Ask a war vet if he would give up his guns.)

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 01:57 PM

Dave... certainly a proper arguement. Thank you.

Moving forward in the thread drift and I am glad to see it.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: artbrooks
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 02:20 PM

The commas scattered at random in the 2nd Amendment basically make it meaningless - or at least almost impossible to parse. Was that intentional? We shall never know.

BTW, Hitler only changed the gun laws in Germany very slightly from those in effect during the Weimar Republic - he liberalized them. Also BTW - I am a war vet, own no guns, and have no interest in owning any.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 02:26 PM

Thank you Art. I must be incorrect when I thought there was a roundup of guns from the general population of Germany under their gun laws in the 30s.

My mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: John P
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 02:57 PM

Uh, Gnu, you didn't actually address the fact that the Constitution always refers all of us as a group as "the people" and always refers to individuals as "a person". It is, in fact, what's written. Go read the whole Constitution and pay attention to the use of "people" and "person". Are you saying that the 2nd Amendment is the only place in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights where that doesn't hold true?

Why are you assuming it refers to a militia that already existed, or rather that I think that?

You also didn't say what YOU think the militia clause means.

As to my interpretation not making sense, if you take "the people" to mean all of us as a group, it makes perfect sense:

"Since the existence of a militia (Army, National Guard, generalized fighting force, whatever you want to call it) is necessary to the security of the United States, the federal government shall not take away our right, as a group, to form and arm said militia."

This is the only reading I can think of that incorporates the militia clause and still makes sense. You will note that it also doesn't define a militia -- we get to define it however we want. I choose define it as the Army and the National Guard. Even if you wanted the militia to be more local, it could as easily mean that each town raises, trains, and arms a local militia. There is nothing that says all the weapons can't be stored in the local armory between training sessions or battles. It only says that we have the right to raise and arm a militia.

And even if we were to agree that it guarantees each individual the right to bear arms, it doesn't say that we don't get to make any rules about when, where, and what type of arms we can carry. "Infringed" clearly refers to the basic right, nothing more. Saying that it refers to anyone's right to go anywhere they want with any type of weapon they want is reading things into it that aren't there.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: artbrooks
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 03:18 PM

BANG - 100