|
The right to bear arms
Share
Email
Print
CommentPresented with two historically plausible arguments about whether the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms, the Supreme Court on Thursday opted for the interpretation less suited to a 21st century America bedeviled by gun crime.
That’s the disappointing part of the court’s long-awaited ruling striking down the District of Columbia’s strict gun-control ordinance. Though the decision endorses the individual-right explanation, it may have limited influence.
That’s the disappointing part of the court’s long-awaited ruling striking down the District of Columbia’s strict gun-control ordinance. Though the decision endorses the individual-right explanation, it may have limited influence.
Gun-rights advocates will focus on what they will see as the magic words in Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for a 5-4 majority: “There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.” Although a bit wordy for a bumper sticker, in isolation it could have been composed by the National Rifle Association.
But Scalia immediately added this qualification: “Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not.” Elsewhere, Scalia explicitly cited gun-control laws not affected by this ruling, including those prohibiting felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms, banning guns from schools and other “sensitive places” and, most important, regulating the sale of guns. Finally, Scalia’s definition of weapons protected by the amendment — those in common use “for lawful purposes like self-defense” — would seem to exclude Uzis and machine guns. (This ruling thus does not provide an excuse for Congress not to reenact a federal ban on assault weapons.)
But Scalia immediately added this qualification: “Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not.” Elsewhere, Scalia explicitly cited gun-control laws not affected by this ruling, including those prohibiting felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms, banning guns from schools and other “sensitive places” and, most important, regulating the sale of guns. Finally, Scalia’s definition of weapons protected by the amendment — those in common use “for lawful purposes like self-defense” — would seem to exclude Uzis and machine guns. (This ruling thus does not provide an excuse for Congress not to reenact a federal ban on assault weapons.)
None of this changes the fact that the majority — including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who pledged fealty to precedent at his confirmation — has upended an interpretation of the Second Amendment that has been the majority view for more than half a century: that the amendment’s reference to “a well-regulated” militia limits the right to keep and bear arms to organized military units such as the National Guard.
In his dissent, in which he tellingly traded historical — and linguistic — arguments with Scalia, Justice John Paul Stevens offered a spirited defense of the traditional view, one we wish the majority had embraced. But it is a fact that legal historians, some of them supporters of gun control as a matter of policy, increasingly have argued that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. (For that reason, some of them have advocated repeal of the amendment — an undesirable option because it would open up the entire Bill of Rights to revision.)
In his dissent, in which he tellingly traded historical — and linguistic — arguments with Scalia, Justice John Paul Stevens offered a spirited defense of the traditional view, one we wish the majority had embraced. But it is a fact that legal historians, some of them supporters of gun control as a matter of policy, increasingly have argued that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. (For that reason, some of them have advocated repeal of the amendment — an undesirable option because it would open up the entire Bill of Rights to revision.)
It was probably inevitable that the court would revisit this issue. The district’s ordinance, which banned handguns and made it impossible for law-abiding citizens to keep working firearms in their homes, provided an unusually tempting target for justices who wanted to reconsider a constitutional issue that had been absent from their docket for almost 70 years. Thursday’s decision needlessly complicated the lives of legislators seeking to bring gun violence under control. But it could have been worse.
(This editorial originally appeared in the L.A. Times.)
(This editorial originally appeared in the L.A. Times.)
Join the conversation
Comment guidelines
All comments will be screened and may take several hours to be posted.
• Keep comments clear, concise and focused on the topic in the story.
• Comments exceeding 300 words will not be posted.
• Refrain from personal attacks, degrading comments or remarks that do not add to a constructive dialogue.
• Comments implying suspects in crime-related stories are guilty before they have been proven so in a court of law will be deleted.
• Do not post e-mail addresses or links except for pages on Napavalleyregister.com or government Web sites.
• Comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined.
• Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.
• If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact dross@napanews.com or bkennedy@napanews.com
For further information on the comment guidelines, click here.
|
|
Hear Ye wrote on Jun 28, 2008 12:21 AM:
napablogger wrote on Jun 28, 2008 6:34 AM:
The main reason is that it is a power to stop tyrannical governments. The fact that so many Americans are armed creates a huge population of armed individuals who would be difficult to control militarily by a totalitarian government.
Could it happen? Maybe that is one reason it never has.
The first thing Castro did in Cuba, and Hitler did in Germany was take away private gun ownership.
I am always amazed at how little value many place on our freedoms. It is what has made us as successful as we have. "
napablogger wrote on Jun 28, 2008 6:56 AM:
If you go back and actually read what the people who wrote the 2nd amendment thought there can be no doubt they intended average people to have weapons.
The problem is we don't have a militia anymore, that is a non government military. The national gaurd is government run, it is not a militia. So no interpretation is going to be exactly the same. But if you look at the philosophical intent, it was to make sure we always lived in a "free state".
They knew a free state depended on the power of weapons and who controls them, and if you take the power out of the hands of individual citizens, you end up with a non free state. "
Rocketman wrote on Jun 28, 2008 7:17 AM:
Rocketman wrote on Jun 28, 2008 7:31 AM:
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.
The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans
overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. "
treeman wrote on Jun 28, 2008 8:41 AM:
Dwayne wrote on Jun 28, 2008 8:57 AM:
My other guns behave themselves.
But this one is a real delinquent, with a mind of its own. I hate guns like that. "
steph wrote on Jun 28, 2008 9:10 AM:
I'm happy my gun rights have been kept intact by five clear-thinking judges.
Fear is no reason to restrict the rights of the people, right dems? "
kevin wrote on Jun 28, 2008 9:11 AM:
izzy wrote on Jun 28, 2008 9:29 AM:
I especially took offense to the lies told or implied! Example:
"Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who pledged fealty to precedent at his confirmation — has upended an interpretation of the Second Amendment that has been the majority view for more than half a century:"
First off, Judge Roberts oath of office was not violated in any way by this decision!
Secondly, no interpretation was upended by any majority(unless you count the erroneous interpretation by Leftys on how they think it should be). Let's be clear....this was the FIRST time this issue has come before the Supreme Court!
The dissenters didn't have a leg to stand on, because once again, their never was any majority opinion on this issue....only in the minds of liberals!
The ban on private ownership of guns in DC is about as stupid as many of the gun bans in Ca.
Humans have an inalienable right to self defense from a person attempting to kill them and they should be able to defend themselves with every means possible!
The Framers of our Constitution put the wording into the 2nd Amendment for a reason and if any of you libs bothered to read some of the very good progun articles written, it's a no brainer what the 2nd says and the Justices were correct and I applaud them whole heartily!
The sad thing is that the Justices are their to protect our Constitutional Rights and 4 of them didn't! "
izzy wrote on Jun 28, 2008 9:33 AM:
napadad wrote on Jun 28, 2008 9:43 AM:
Raven wrote on Jun 28, 2008 10:27 AM:
The ruling was pretty much what I expected it would be. Personally, I think we do have a right to a firearm, but historically I don't think the founders had pistols in mind when the wrote the second amendment, since those of the time were notoriously innaccurate...
Anyway....why not treat firearms the way we treat driving? You want to own a firearm, fine...take a class, get a background check, get a license....violate the laws on use and handling of firearms, you lose your license.
As for the need to keep firearms to resist tyranny, does anyone really think a group of neighbors with their rifles and handguns could stop a trained platoon of soldiers or marines? "
plasticpinkflamingo wrote on Jun 28, 2008 10:57 AM:
Huh? So we can't have pistols because back then pistols were inaccurate? Well then maybe we need a law (I really hate saying that) stating that only accurate guns can be sold.
And do a survey of criminals to see how many guns they have? Yeah that ought to work. Is the idea beyond the lefty thought pattern that maybe criminals would steal guns - as many guns as they could get? Criminals will take whatever advantage they can get to overwhelm and intimidate their victims. Is a robber going to go up to the store clerk and say "Uh, when you get a moment, would you open up the cash register and give me all the money, pretty please?"
Even the most far lefty types turn out to be gun owners. Michael Moore, who did his mockumentary on gun control, owns guns "for personal protection". Certain very lefty-type politicians in SF have carry permits. So it is OK for them but not anyone else.
As for a group of citizens armed with rifles (and I suppose inaccurate pistols) standing up to trained armed forces personnel and their assault weapons, no, this isn't the Napoleonic era where soldiers stood in lines in the open field and fired at each other. But government doesn't really want an armed citizenry. Picture the 250lb officer knocking down and falling on top of the 100lb elderly lady because she wouldn't give up her rusty old revolver (post Katrina). Who really needed protection in that situation? "
izzy wrote on Jun 28, 2008 11:01 AM:
Regarding the platoon of troops, our guys can't fight us on several thousand fronts at once, however, that is why they are all now multi trained with UN troops(The UN logo is on every military cap).....and if they came here from other countries...to fight the citizens....the USA as we know it ...is over! That doesn't mean that individuals would just lay down their arms...if I'm defending my country from anyone...I fight to the death...a prison camp is not to my liking! "
napadad wrote on Jun 28, 2008 11:04 AM:
Dwayne wrote on Jun 28, 2008 11:14 AM:
The rag-tag insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, with crummy equipment and little or no training, have already answered that question...!!! Haaaaaaaaa...... "
plasticpinkflamingo wrote on Jun 28, 2008 2:18 PM:
izzy wrote on Jun 28, 2008 2:34 PM:
funnyme wrote on Jun 28, 2008 3:01 PM:
"...As for the need to keep firearms to resist tyranny, does anyone really think a group of neighbors with their rifles and handguns could stop a trained platoon of soldiers or marines? ..."
As soon as Diane and Barbara (and all of the like) let go of theirs I might think about switching to arch and bows...And I totally, absolutely doubt they live in a "scary" neighborhood...oh wait, they do "think" they live in a scary neighborhood call America...Now, that's scary! "
Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Jun 28, 2008 3:11 PM:
Rocketman wrote on Jun 28, 2008 3:25 PM:
jasper wrote on Jun 28, 2008 3:35 PM:
And in a major crisis, we would be helpless against the teen-ager with the twisted mind who is having a ball looting and robbing. "
Raven wrote on Jun 28, 2008 5:13 PM:
seems to me that most of the deaths and injured have not been caused by the rifles/handguns but by rpgs and various explosives.... "
a teacher wrote on Jun 28, 2008 5:33 PM:
Surely you jest! "
a teacher wrote on Jun 28, 2008 5:42 PM:
Really, the idea that any of us can stand up to an M1 Abrams with a few shot guns is a bit ludicrous. That's what household cleaners (and a little knowledge of chemistry) are for.
The written purpose of the 2nd Amendment is a bit anachronistic. We don't have militias anymore, few people hunt for their dinners and there are no injuns to protect ourselves from. However, I appreciate it's presence in the Constitution, if nothing else it reminds the gov't who is in charge here. "
Dwayne wrote on Jun 28, 2008 6:20 PM:
Good grief... Think it through..... "
russ wrote on Jun 28, 2008 6:29 PM:
How is it possible for four Justices to interpret the Constitution otherwise?
The same Justices can find the language that gives an individual the right to abort a live "fetus/baby" but not to own a firearm. I looked but did not find the abortion language in my copy of the US Constitution. "
Rocketman wrote on Jun 28, 2008 6:51 PM:
a teacher wrote on Jun 28, 2008 7:04 PM:
cpslowine wrote on Jun 28, 2008 7:43 PM:
mikeb wrote on Jun 28, 2008 7:57 PM:
Rocketman wrote on Jun 28, 2008 8:29 PM:
barefoot wrote on Jun 28, 2008 9:17 PM:
Dwayne wrote on Jun 28, 2008 9:24 PM:
a teacher wrote on Jun 28, 2008 10:16 PM:
That being said, I think that the dissent has a point in saying the the law anachronistic and that the consequence of unrestricted gun ownership is devastating some communities. The refrain of:"if they only followed the law" is hollow when the laws obviously don't work.
Right now about half of all Americans believe in stricter gun control. It's actually down from 60%. I think, however, we are one Colombine away from people seriously asking how useful is the 2nd amendment if it doesn't really protect us. "
Hear Ye wrote on Jun 29, 2008 1:56 AM:
I agree with Teach. It's funny to see people arguing with invisible comments.
I personally prefer a shotgun for home protection. I can afford to be less accurate and don't have to worry about taking the life of an unsuspecting neighbor asleep in their bed. "
Rocketman wrote on Jun 29, 2008 8:59 AM:
kevin wrote on Jun 29, 2008 9:05 AM:
Barry Goldwater "
freeport56 wrote on Jun 29, 2008 9:29 AM:
If California's legislature had it's way only Law Enforcement and CRIMINALS would be armed. And you know what they say "When seconds count, the police will be there in a few minutes!" "
izzy wrote on Jun 29, 2008 9:30 AM:
Rocketman..you also are correct!
Tone deaf teach? Hardly, we are waaaay too savvy for liberals to pull the wool over our eyes!
In addition to that...it is NOT a gun problem, it is a people problem! Like I have always told my kids...DARE to keep your kids away from Liberals! Remember, the Democraps always rant and rave about helping the poor, but 50 years later, we still have the poor!
I think the ones that are tone deaf are the always emotional, little common sense liberals!
Hear Ye, if you take my gun class, I can teach you how to use any pistol with confidence and accuracy! "
freeport56 wrote on Jun 29, 2008 9:36 AM:
It was the militia that beat back the british at Concord.
And while you are arguing fighting against the our military, they are specifically prevented by law from operating within our boarders. Besides, those great young men and women would not fight us, there are almost 80 million of us. For those of you that do not think we could take on a tank, talk to a former French resisitance fighter. "
Dwayne wrote on Jun 29, 2008 11:02 AM:
wtrfwlr wrote on Jun 29, 2008 11:22 AM:
izzy wrote on Jun 29, 2008 12:25 PM:
Henry Paine Adams wrote on Jun 29, 2008 12:33 PM:
Are you asking me to believe that registered gun owners are devastating some communities?
Let's get local here: I would like to know if one of the Douglas Brothers was the registered owner of the handgun used to murder Anthony Gee?
I am a law-abiding citizen and would like to arm myself...I shall give no reason as to why I want or feel I need a handgun. I feel SF needs to be held accountable for their clear cut violation of our rights.
"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." "
wtrfwlr wrote on Jun 29, 2008 1:34 PM:
a teacher wrote on Jun 29, 2008 1:45 PM:
Most people assume that criminals get guns by stealing them, but only 10% to 15% get them that way. The rest get them through exploiting loopholes in the law. I read that according to the ATF, 8% of legal gun dealers are responsible for the majority of illegal guns on the streets. It would be nice to hear more form gun enthusiasts about how to get those guns off the street.
Your point about the Douglas boys is my point. I doubt that they were legally in possession of that pistol. It would be nice to keep the pistol out of their hands rather than dealing with the aftermath. "
steph wrote on Jun 29, 2008 4:44 PM:
Education reform, on the other hand, and economic opportunity--private enterprise--could save some communities.
But why should poor people in some communities not be allowed to protect themselves from criminal elements in their neighborhoods; why should they have to wait for police to come take a report after a home invasion?
I urge one and all to look at genocidal acts over the last century, and keep in mind that with a fragile economy and fights over energy, to say that "it can't happen here" in our young country is naive. We COULD organize militias if necessary. That is the point of the second amendment right.
We must be free from a tyrannical government. We cannot count on our government to protect us. "
izzy wrote on Jun 29, 2008 5:44 PM:
I've bought my share over the years, I don't need anymore....but teach....you and others need to step up and purchase these fine weapons. Show your Spirit for America!
The travesty comes when they do these gun turn in programs and these fine pieces of machinery are destroyed....that's just criminal to me! "
russ wrote on Jun 29, 2008 5:55 PM:
Justice Scalia also wrote that the right was not unlimited.
The decision was nothing more and nothing less. How could any Justice find differently?
Barack Obama flip-flopped in his position on this Second Amendment issue. Obama has stated that he would appoint Justices like those who were in the minority bloc of four.
Two-thirds of Americans disagree with Obama. "
izzy wrote on Jun 29, 2008 6:27 PM:
reason-ator wrote on Jun 29, 2008 7:12 PM:
But bearing arms in the Summer is dangerous. Thousands can get skin cancer.
Oh, that's spelled rong.
Seriously, the fact that the vote was 5-4 was scary. Something smells fishy. "
a teacher wrote on Jun 29, 2008 9:32 PM:
How to do it? That's the $64,000 question. "
steph wrote on Jun 30, 2008 10:42 AM:
Since the birth of our nation, kids have had access to guns, but most kids don't use them for violence. There is a difference between kids who respect the responsibility of gun ownership and those who don't, and it's not the gun, it's the upbringing. Gun violence in some neighborhoods is a symptom of a much larger and deeper social illness. "
a teacher wrote on Jun 30, 2008 12:10 PM:
AND...
Saying you would use a gun and actually using a gun are two different things. The military knows this, that's the whole point of basic training. In general people are taught that it is wrong to kill. People have to be conditioned to do what they are told, even when it is dangerous and questionable morally. Most people don't go through basic training.
Most people, I think, would say that they would kill to protect their loved ones, without hesitation. But I doubt it... "
a teacher wrote on Jun 30, 2008 12:45 PM:
I'm not disputing that. Let me put this in perspective. According to the Center for Desease Control, about 35,000 people die as a result of fire arms. about half are suicides and about half are the result of murder (accidents and police actions are a very small percent). Most victims are young and male, I suspect the same is true of the perpetrators. If 17,000 US troops were killed this year in Iraq, what do you think the public would do?
Yes, it's more than just the guns. But 35,000 gun deaths is a very big number. With rights should come some responsibility and an effort to curb some of the consequences. "
kevin wrote on Jun 30, 2008 4:13 PM:
All my boys grew up using guns and learning how to handle them safely. I never had to worry about them going somewhere and "finding" an unsecured weapon. "
freeport56 wrote on Jun 30, 2008 5:37 PM:
better check your stats with the current FBI ones, you are about 20,000 gun deaths over. The last record was 12, 500.Of that number 70% are bad guys killing bad guys and cops killing bad guys. Gun deaths are no where near state averages for automobile deaths.
The contributors to armed citizen you mentioned are news paper articles the NRA finds every month of the average american, with quit a few elderly protecting their homes. You would be amazed at the how people in states outside of "holier than thou" California feel about firearms.
That 8% of illegal guns are done through Mayor Blumbergs "Straw purchases" They are illegal. And yes guns are stolen and passed through the nation wide chain of street gangs, come up from mexico, and 1% come from straw purchases at gun shows.
We have all the gun laws we need on the books. Get the liberal legislature and the judges to enforce them. Maybe Kamal Harris in S.F. could put a few of the gang banger down to pass the message. "
Suze wrote on Jun 30, 2008 5:39 PM:
suze wrote on Jun 30, 2008 6:02 PM:
a teacher wrote on Jun 30, 2008 6:30 PM:
Kevin: I would hope that if the schools ever taught firearms safety that they go into more detail than with sex ed. Basically the message there is "just say no" "
Hear Ye wrote on Jun 30, 2008 6:38 PM:
Teachers numbers look pretty accurate to me. The number you posted does not account for suicide by gun. "
a teacher wrote on Jun 30, 2008 7:52 PM:
Actually, having lived in most parts of the country and over seas, I would not be surprised.
Nationally, most people support the 2nd amendment (71%). About half would like to see stricter gun laws. I would imagine that the contributor to a gun enthusiast magazine would fall pretty solidly into the "I like guns and think everyone should have one(or 10) camp". "
John Richards wrote on Jun 30, 2008 8:20 PM:
Hear Ye wrote on Jun 30, 2008 9:34 PM:
To each his own. The fact that there very well may be a justice or two appointed in the next term or two is exactly the reason I WANT Obama in the White House. Also, I should note that I support the right to own a firearm with reasonable regulation.
I really think this latest ruling was a win of sorts for people on both sides of the fence. It let the super pro-gun people own firearms in D.C. and left the door open to regulate said possession. "
barefoot wrote on Jun 30, 2008 9:53 PM:
John Richards wrote on Jun 30, 2008 9:58 PM:
a teacher wrote on Jun 30, 2008 10:42 PM:
Even if both were bigger, what would be your point? "
jwk wrote on Jul 1, 2008 3:03 AM:
Hear Ye wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:35 AM:
You emphasize Obamas middle name even putting it after his last name, Refer to him as Osama instead of Obama, and make unfounded accusations about what his "appointees" will do and then ask us to do "honest research and evaluation" on him.
Thanks for the morning chuckle! "
Baraki wrote on Jul 1, 2008 9:03 AM:
Dwayne wrote on Jul 1, 2008 12:18 PM:
TFYTMP wrote on Jul 2, 2008 7:10 AM:
freeport56 wrote on Jul 2, 2008 2:56 PM:
sorry for my abscence. you are right. I intentionally left the 55% suicide rate off, because I am more concerned with the criminal activity. People use firearms to commit suicide out of convenience and the "instant" effect factor.
Since The CDC lets you play with the stats and build them anyway you wnat, the chronicle reported 31,000 deaths, i prefer the FBI site because it breaks down the criminal use better. The Dems make an issue out of the CRIMINAL use of firearms, not suicicides. Besides, if you are bound and determined to take your own life, you will find a way even without a firearm. "
freeport56 wrote on Jul 2, 2008 3:03 PM:
please correct me if I fail in my mission, but there are 21,000+ gun laws on the books. Can you tell me why the Clinton Admin never prosecuted anyone under the Federal firearms laws???
They used the use of those laws to say look at all the bad people with guns. The issue is not more laws the issue is enforcement. Besides the laws are always aimed the law abiding citizen. If California wanted to pass a law saying if you kill someone in the commission of a crime using a gun, you get death. I'd say Hurrah! But when they subvert the 2nd amendment by passing a "Microstamping bill" where the technology is proven defective, or try to restrict the sale of ammo by licensing the purchaser and limiting it to 50 rounds at a time. They are directly attacking the law abiding citizen. The Crypts and Bloods havew networks all over the U.S. and can straw purchase guns and ammo. those are the people that need to gone after.
God help us all if Gavin and his cabinet of Honduran drug runners get to Sacramento "
freeport56 wrote on Jul 2, 2008 3:06 PM:
one more time, the CDC gets it's information reported by Doctors, some like to include their opinion into the medical end of a report. That can skew the information. When my father ran a large county hospital in L.A. he had some physicians doing that very same thing with other issues. Apparantly it is more common than we think. "
freeport56 wrote on Jul 2, 2008 3:29 PM:
a teacher, it is a statistical analysis that you might find very interesting, he actually proved the opposite. "
freeport56 wrote on Jul 2, 2008 3:39 PM:
we all share those thoughts on safety. We all feel for the family whose son\daughter gets a hold of a loose and available firearm. It is the poor judgement of the parents, uncles and grandparents to leave a firearm where a chlid can find it unlocked. It is a felony in CA to leave a firearm where a child can find it. they are required, as a matter of safety, to be locked up. You were right to teach your son about hunter safety, that is one aspect of firearm safety training. It is also comforting to know that if you choose not to have guns in the house, it is your choice.
It is always about safety and protecting the innocent. As a matter of educational purposes I have listed the 5 basic safety principles for gun handling
1.All Firearms are considered loaded!
2.Always keep your Firearm pointed down range. Do not point at anything you do not intend to shoot!
3.The trigger finger must be kept outside the trigger guard and up on the frame until ready to fire!
4.All shooters must be aware of their target and what is beyond it!
5.Ear and Eye protection Must Be Worn at all times while on the Range! "
Hear Ye wrote on Jul 2, 2008 5:46 PM:
I'm not sure why your latest statements are directed towards me. I was simply stating that Teachers numbers appeared to be accurate. He stated that they were gun deaths not necessarily murder. He also stated that about half were suicides.
I think people should be able to have shotguns, rifles, and handguns. I do however support regulations. I don't think the second amendment is as cut and dry as some others. It was a different time back then with different arms. My only concern is where we draw the line on the right to bear arms versus public safety and modern technology. "
freeport56 wrote on Jul 2, 2008 9:42 PM:
We just handed full rights to a group of terrorists that was caught IN BATTLE trying to kill AMERICAN SOLDIERS! Now the same bad guys are suing U.S. Military contractors for how they were treated.
We are better off in this liberal nightmare just killing them and not finding out their secrects. This is shear madness. Terrorist, Given RIGHTS in AMERICA! What the hell happened to our rights to defend ourselves by any means necessary. Is left trying to make us AMERICASTAN??? "
freeport56 wrote on Jul 2, 2008 9:50 PM:
did not mean to pick on you. I was just addressing your comments. I see S.F. giving safe harbor to drug runners, terrorists suing American citizens, Gavin Newsome want to corrupt our entire state of Massacalifornia and it drives me crazy.
What does it say about a society that restricts rights. The very reason and insight the founders had was for just this reason. If you allow a little rerstriction or there, you have forfitted those rights. Average Americans laid their lives done forthe words written on that parchment. That very act gave real meaning to the words.
On my right wrist I wear one of those rubber wrist bands with one word on it, "FREEDOM". It is the one possession I value above all others. I do not want it restricted. Whether it is Obama or McCain in the long run it does not matter. But they come after my FREEDOM. A 20 round gets popped up thje shute and I am ready to fight fore that.
Don't mess with our freedom. OInce that is gone, so is everything else! "
jwk wrote on Jul 3, 2008 1:29 AM:
John Richards wrote on Jul 3, 2008 12:04 PM:
freeport56 wrote on Jul 6, 2008 7:48 PM:
550 metric ton =2204lbs =1,212,542.44 pounds.
Enough to kill California+. "
opiniagirl wrote on Jul 7, 2008 8:41 AM:
a teacher wrote on Jul 7, 2008 1:31 PM:
1) the yellow cake was left over from Saddam's original weapons program in the 80's (the one that the the Israeli's destroyed). There was actually much more.
2) Saddam lacked the technology to turn what amounts to radioactive dirt into weapons grade uranium.
3) it has been well known and documented that Saddam had this. What is being moved has been stored since at least 1990. "
freeport56 wrote on Jul 7, 2008 3:11 PM:
a teacher wrote on Jul 7, 2008 8:51 PM:
Pretty illogical there, FreePort. Chemical Weapons would be a far more logical choice for an attack. Easier to make, easier to deliver.
You guys are reaching... "
freeport56 wrote on Jul 8, 2008 8:24 AM:
We all have enough chemicals under our sinks to build a bomb. Pack some yellowcake around it and it is delivered. It can even be packed into chemical weapon warheads. I have several family memebers whos jobs are just thinking up the impossible so that all types of scenarios can be addressed.
Heck, who thought our own planes would be used against us? "
Libertarian wrote on Jul 10, 2008 5:47 PM:
-- American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Question: Where were all you defenders of our Constitution when the Bush administration pushed through the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act?
With these acts now the law of the land what makes you think that you have Constitutional rights?
Thank God that there are dissenting opinions on Supreme Court decisions at least that means they are taking the time to look at all sides of an issue and not just rubberstamping the current administration’s policy or the radical sides of these issues. "