Second Amendment

Do Gun Owners Have Any Rights Which Liberals Are Bound to Respect?

Opponents of gun rights underestimate what's at stake.

|

In Michael Waldman's lauded new book, The Second Amendment: A Biography, the president of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University makes a strange error. The first Supreme Court decision to establish the now-ruling interpretation of a constitutional amendment, most would agree, is an important moment in that amendment's life story, something its biographer should trouble himself to understand.

Yet in Waldman's merely two sentences explaining what was at issue in the case that has defined the modern meaning of the Second Amendment, 2008's District of Columbia v. Heller (I wrote the biography of that case, Gun Control on Trial), he seems strangely ignorant—or wants his readers to stay strangely ignorant—about exactly what law the case challenged.

He writes that the D.C. statutes overturned by plaintiff Dick Heller (and, originally, five other co-plaintiffs booted off the case on narrow procedural grounds) "barred individuals from keeping a loaded handgun at home without a trigger lock." In a later sentence he again refers merely to "the ban on loaded handguns."

This is quite off-target. The laws challenged in Heller did not merely ban the possession of a loaded handgun without a trigger lock. They banned the registration of any handgun that you hadn't already registered before the restrictive statutes went into effect in 1976. They also banned owning unregistered handguns. That means D.C. law banned handguns entirely for anyone who hadn't been grandfathered in decades before.

It was long guns, which could still be legally obtained, that had the trigger-lock requirement. In essence, D.C. had banned any usable weapon for self-defense in the home. This is what the Supreme Court said could not stand based on the Second Amendment. Six years later that's still as far as the Supreme Court has gone in authoritatively defending citizens' rights under the Second Amendment.

The style of that mistake is telling about the modern fight over gun rights: Those who advocate gun control prefer to greatly understate the importance of what's at stake, as Waldman did with Heller.

Those who believe in Second Amendment rights, in Waldman's telling, have nothing real at stake. They are just truculent dupes, fooled by NRA propaganda and a sick, scared culture into wanting, for some reason, to own guns.

As good lawyers will, Waldman argues the alternatives. While insisting the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is meaningless as constitutional law, he also insists that courts should let democratic bodies do whatever they want no matter what the Constitution says. (It's unclear whether he thinks this should apply to the First Amendment as well.)

While snarking over the lack of explicit fuss over personal weapon possession (versus questions about state militias) in the original 18th century Second Amendment debate, Waldman argues the alternative against himself inadvertently. He makes it clear, implicitly and even explicitly, that the cultural atmosphere of the Founding era made the idea that government would pass a law like the real law at issue in Heller pretty much unthinkable. It would be no more worth hashing over than, as Waldman himself quotes, Noah Webster's Founding Father snark about whether they needed to specify in the Constitution that the new government couldn't "restrain any inhabitant of America from eating and drinking."

While pretending at various points that the lack of debate over personal possession of weapons is some gotcha revelation about the original intent of the amendment (which he thinks was just to give state militias power to resist federal tyranny, which he hopes all moderns will see as not worth respecting), Waldman himself writes that "to be sure, Americans expected to be able to own a gun, just as they understood they had a right to own property." Yep, they sure did. Most still do.

One gets the impression Waldman isn't even trying to convince anyone of anything. He's just proud of his attitude, which he thinks unassailably righteous: that guns can be very dangerous, and a democratic government should be free to fight that danger by any means necessary.

In this, Waldman was an apt choice to write a popular book meant to define the modern, reasonable, liberal attitude toward gun rights. It wearies and annoys Waldman and his fellows in activism and politics that they even have to think about the Second Amendment. The real message of this book, and of modern gun controllers in general, is that nothing meaningful is at stake on the other side; that any slight chance that some gun restriction might save a life justifies it.

Waldman shows how little respect he has for those who believe in the right to self-defense that he blithely tosses out this sentence: "the notion of personal safety guaranteed only by a gun in every hand, drawn to fend off the marauding Klan, happily is past."

Replaced by what? Does Waldman not understand that if the right of self-defense means anything in a world in which guns exist and will continue to, that it means the right to own a gun needs to be respected? Does he actually believe that something in the world has changed that means that everyone is now safe from assault and armed self-defense is a relic? Did he read anything about the experiences of the plaintiffs in Heller and in its 2010 follow-up, McDonald v. Chicago, which extended Second Amendment protections against state and local laws?

The dilemma that Waldman and his fellow gun controllers face isn't even really about the Second Amendment, as he shows some signs of recognizing. Most challenged gun right restrictions have survived the Heller test in lower courts. The real problem for gun controllers is that democratic public opinion has, for the foreseeable future, turned firmly in the direction of respect for gun rights.

This pro-gun-rights attitude has proven resistant to even the sort of mediagenic public tragedies that those bothered by the idea of guns think should reverse our policy course. After the December 2012 Newtown massacre, for example, the Manchin-Toomey background check extension bill swiftly arose, but rightly failed.

After May's Isla Vista shootings (and stabbings), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) wanted to revive bills aimed at the mentally ill, offered legislation to keep those with even temporary restraining orders against them from being able to buy guns, and leaned on retail establishments to do more to keep guns out of their stores. California legislators reacted to Isla Vista with proposed laws allowing others to decide for you that you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. After June's Las Vegas gun murder of cops in a restaurant and later citizens in a Wal-Mart, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) talked about returning to tougher background check laws—when he thinks he has the votes. (The killer in Vegas, as a felon, was already barred by background check law from legally buying guns. It didn't matter.)

Still, there is no "tough gun bill" that shows any signs of going anywhere this year. Yet the National Rifle Association (NRA), professionally required to be vigilant, not to say a little paranoid, is still worried. As NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said this week, "there is every potential for bills to be resurrected….it provides false comfort by saying, oh a standalone bill on background checks [isn't happening this year]. Every single gun control scheme and concept is alive and well. In the words of Sen. Feinstein, she conceded after Newtown that she had an anti-gun bill in her drawer waiting to be dusted off."

Most of the currently circulating gun access restriction bills would likely survive a Heller-based challenge, as long as they stayed restricted to classes a judge could argue falls into the categories of exceptions Justice Scalia explicitly spelled out in Heller. But they also wouldn't actually do much, in almost every case, to prevent any gun tragedy. All they would do would be to keep citizens who have committed no crime from access to the best means for self-defense. Despite the NRA's repeated attempts in the face of various "obvious lunatics" killing people with guns to change the subject from weapons to nutcases, an increased focus on mental health would not likely have any effect on most gun tragedies either.

Guns are a big deal. They are a big deal to those who have real reasons to hate and fear the evil acts that they can facilitate. And they are a big deal to those who, in a dangerous world, want the ability to defend themselves by the best means available. Barring certain people in certain categories from access to guns—when there is no reason to believe that denial would do any good—shouldn't even pass a basic public policy interest-balancing test, never mind be allowed to stand under the Second Amendment.

Waldman concludes his book inadvertently revealing the dilemma of the modern gun controller, whether scholar, activist, or politician. He praises those courts who "prudently intervene on behalf of those who need their protection, and who cannot get it through the normal political processes," who in so doing "immeasurably strengthen the country."

The irony escapes him that that's exactly how Dick Heller and Otis McDonald saw their struggle, and their victory—and that most Americans agree. While their self-image doesn't permit them to see it, Waldman and the politicians and activists fighting a rearguard action against the salutary progress in our understanding of rights represented by Heller are roadblocks to justice. Reactionaries of that ilk, one hopes, will fade sooner than later into our nation's dark past.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

225 responses to “Do Gun Owners Have Any Rights Which Liberals Are Bound to Respect?

  1. My rights are NOT subject to majority approval and do not flow from government. As long as I do not harm another with my ownership and use of a firearm . . . it is nobody’s fucking business.

    It’s not that hard. Our rights are listed in the Constitution to PREVENT government infringement.

    1. Exactly right. I think this was an excellent article. I think it should be pointed out that if the Gov can take your guns in this manner (The DC Heller manner I mean–)…even though there is an Amendment specifically guaranteeing, then it creates a very slippery slope (IMO) Though it is beginning to seem like the idea that we as individual humans have any rights is almost forgotten (except by Libertarians)

    2. So clearly stated and implicit in the text that only a scholar could miss it.

    3. All of our rights are subject to majority approval. Initially the constitution was written by a small number of men, who enumerated certain rights and indicated that some number of others had been left un-enumerated. The voting citizens of the colonies then VOTED TO RATIFY that constitution instantiating those (admittedly pre-existing) rights as constitutionally protected.

      This was a majority vote.

      In California in 2008, a majority of the citizens voted on a constitutional amendment which would have stated that two members of the same sex did not have the right to have their marriage recognized by the state. A small group of men (well, people if you want to be politically correct) heard a bunch of arguments about this, and decided VOTED on whether the citizens of California had the “right” to modify their constitution in such a manner.

      So in a sense you’re correct, your rights are not subject to majority approval. they are subject the approval of a small number of appointed so-called “elites”.

      But the way it’s supposed to work is that what rights are recognized and protected ARE subject to majority approval. This is clearly documented in the constitution. Yes, it’s more than just getting a bare majority, but it IS majority approval.

      Which is a good thing, because otherwise we’d be forced to support all sorts of asserted rights like the right to free abortificants…

      Oh, yeah.

      1. This isn’t even wrong.

        Rights are not a subject of popular approval, they exist whether they can be legally exercised or not. The rights we have were not derived from the Constitution or the BoR. Had you any knowledge of the Revolution or the Founding you would already know this.

        Neither the enumerated or unenumerated rights dicscussed at the Constitutional Convention were a creation of the people at the Convention, which is precisely why a state of war developed between the colonists and Britain a full year before independence was even declared, and 14 years before the Constitution was ratified.

  2. As good lawyers will, Waldman argues the alternatives. While insisting the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is meaningless as constitutional law, he also insists that courts should let democratic bodies do whatever they want no matter what the Constitution says. (It’s unclear whether he thinks this should apply to the First Amendment as well.)

    Aw, take a wild guess, Brian. Fairness Doctrine?

  3. You can’t post an article just before PM links and expect anyone to read or comment.

    This is one of my pet peeves though so I can’t resist.

    Yes, the gun grabbers deliberately understate what is at stake. Unfortunately the second amendment advocates also understate it, or barely give it lip service.

    The left, the progressives, the fascists, whatever you want to call them….the control freaks, they know they cannot implement their entire agenda without first disarming the American people. Make no mistake about it, they are evil monsters. Being American does not immunize one from being human. Human nature is that a certain percentage of any population is of the sort that builds gulags, ovens, and re-education camps. The kinds of people that conduct pogroms, ethnic cleansing, and orwellian surveillance. These people exist in America.

  4. Americans fear nothing more than a fellow American with rights. Our constitutionally guaranteed rights, the only ones in the history of the planet, are the only real difference between America and any other nation.

    We’ve allowed politicians to turn our rights to privileges without even amending the constitution. During prohibition government recognized it required a constitutional amendment to commit to prohibition, today we do it with mere legislation. Today our constitutionally enumerated and guaranteed right to bear arms is subject to local and state jurisdiction, and can be permanently stripped from American citizens by conviction of a state felony, like sodomy in South Carolina or possession of a marijuana seed in almost any state not too many years ago since since it doesn’t matter if the felony was committed before federal legislation was passed. The difference between a felony and a misdemeanor in every state is $1, that’s the difference between retaining and being permanently stripped of your rights as an American citizen. Our property can be taken and given to another private entity who can then discard it (kelso). Our property can be taken and kept by law enforcement without conviction, or indeed without charges even being preferred. Our political speech can be taxed and licensed. We can be pulled over and searched on our interstates “just in case” we’re criminals. We can be forced to provide service to people we don’t wish to service.

    1. HERC?

      1. No, you don’t get to have HERCs..

      2. Not enough capitalization

    2. During prohibition government recognized it required a constitutional amendment to commit to prohibition, today we do it with mere legislation.”

      Or even worse, through regulation or the “executive order”

  5. TL;DR version – Statists Are Mendacious Shits.

  6. “The real problem for gun controllers is that democratic public opinion has, for the foreseeable future, turned firmly in the direction of respect for gun rights.”

    What?

    Funny that you complain about Waldman’s conflations, and here you conflate “public opinion” with what a fearful Congress does…fearful of the NRA. In fact, in the sentence quoted above, you say “public opinion” and then go on to talk only about lack of Congressional action, which Reason always tells us NEVER respects public opinion. And it doesn’t respect public opinion on gun control either, not by a wide margin.

    Here, 90% of Americans (that would be public opinion, not congressional action) want expanded background checks.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..slam-dunk/

    And even after it failed, 63% said it should have passed.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/162…..enate.aspx

    Yeah, I know, Americans were confused when they answered that poll…90% of them. Brian, I think you need to understand the difference between public opinion and what Congress does. Reason seems to know all about it when it comes to pot legalization, just suddenly confused when it comes to guns.

    1. u mad, bro?

      1. Nah, having a great day! Mets have won 4 in a row!

        1. I’m pretty excited about SCOTUS telling Jackand Ace and likeminded progs to go pound sand. Personally, it means a lot to me.

          But, you go enjoy living vicariously through a sports team.

          1. They couldn’t have done it without him.

    2. Stronger borders: 80 percent support stricter border control to try and reduce illegal immigration

      LOL.. looks like that dumb old congress doesn’t listen to anybody, do they?

      Define:“expanded background checks.

      1. Thanks for making my point.

        Are you polling me? Here, since you’re too lazy to look at the question as it was asked (just had to click it on):

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/….._10030.xml

        1. Q: Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows?

          Well, first off.. the question doesn’t discern between private and commercial gun sales, sooo.. there’s that. Secondly, would that include private sales? Sales through the paper? Between friends? Family members? Inheritance? Amnesty programs? Odd.. 90% consensus to form and shape a constitutionally right based on a vaguely worded poll question from WaPo is good enough for you and WaPo, but not those stubborn assholes in congress. I suppose I’m thankful for that…

          1. Like I said above originally, because somehow I just knew that for Reasoners Americans are real clear on pot (and you’re even real clear on what stronger borders means), but just somehow all confused about background checks.

            Now how did I know that was coming.

            1. The only poll that really matters to politicians is the one when the election happens. Probably not going to see 90% at that point.

              I suspect that was the one they were concerned about.

              1. In reality, I doubt that 90% of the American people even agree on free blow jobs.

                1. Suicidy is right. 90% of the American people can never agree on anything, least of all free blow jobs.

                  I doubt for example you could get past the 50% mark of Americans who agree on free blow jobs. I might even put money it would be 50% for and 50% against.

            2. Well, all you’ve told me so far is that you, WaPo, and some anonymous poll respondents want background checks on people buying guns at gun shows. All commercial gun sales require a background check, regardless of venue, and have for decades… problem solved! Private sales would be very difficult, if not impossible to background check, and congress knows better than to try. I see a lot of WaPo links, but not a lot of point..

              1. Any poll you want to look at, path.

                Here, the conservative leaning Gallup.
                http://www.gallup.com/poll/160…..lence.aspx

                91% of the AMERICAN PUBLIC wants background checks on all gun sales.

                Keep trying…you’re running out of excuses.

                1. This link is informative–and I say that because it tends to align with my belief that support for gun control, such as “universal background checks” is a mile wide and an inch deep. Note further down the page that, in terms of preventing school safety, the same respondents are more than two to one in favor of focusing on school safety and mental health care as opposed to gun control. A lot of people see the question about background checks, and they assume that what is already happening must not be happening, but should be happening. So they’re in favor. But they have neither prioritized the issue, nor studied it in any depth. So when it fails to be implemented, it’s not a big deal to them. They won’t vote based on the issue like the pro-2nd Amendment people will.

            3. The only person who seems confused is you. It is much easier to get people on board with a vaguely defined position than with something that provides concrete details. Once you start going into what the various introduced background check bills would actually DO, that “90-percent support” evaporated.

              Because they weren’t just talking about background checks at gun shows (which, btw, already happen if the seller is an FFL), they were also talking about requiring a background check for ANY transfer, with transfer referring to something as innocent as letting your buddy borrow a gun during a hunting trip because his broke, or letting him shoot your firearm at the range, or leaving your guns with a friend for safe keeping while you’re out of town. People justly see those as impermissible impositions and did not support them.

              1. We were getting there, WW… I’m sure I was just 5 or 6 more posts of links to WaPo articles away to getting there..

              2. Where exactly did it evaporate. It evaporated to 63% of the AMERICAN PUBLIC saying the extension of background check law should have passed?
                Its still 63%.

            4. “all confused about background checks”

              We are?

              Can YOU actually explain the difference between the system of background checks that currently exists – and which likely represents the limit of *enforceable* requirements – and what ‘universal’ background checks *are*?

              i.e. why do ‘universal’ background checks require (vs the current system), and why are they important?

              Answer this yourself rather than refer to some link out of desperation, please. because I know the answer and doubt you do (or are honest enough to even acknowledge reality)

              1. Good try, Gilmore.

                The topic at hand is the opinion of the AMERICAN PUBLIC, not me, and certainly not you. Whatever my definition is, or yours, is meaningless to the 90% of the American people who said we should have increased background checks.

                What, the American people only understand questions on polls that show results you like?

                Please.

                1. You know what? You guys need to push gun control really hard this year. Let me know how that works out for you.

                2. 90% of the American people

                  Gallup says 65% according to your own link.

                  1. Read the polling data. 65% said post-vote on expanded background checks that the bill should have passed.

                    When asked about the concept of expanded background checks its fairly consistent…around 90% of Americans want it.

                  2. By the way, is that the number you want to accept? 65%? Fine with me. Like I said, it just means Brian was wrong in his suggestion that public opinion is in the other direction.

                3. Whatever my definition is, or yours, is meaningless to the 90% of the American people who said we should have increased background checks.

                  Which shows how susceptible the public is to the latest shitlib hysteria. Maybe you should conduct more limpouts to get people on your side.

                4. What, the American people only understand questions on polls that show results you like?

                  The way the question is posed is intentionally disingenuous, because background checks already are required for most sales that take place at gun shows (that being, any sale that isn’t a private transfer). The respondents understood the question perfectly. It was phrased in such a way as to be meaningless. I’m completely unsurprised it was your go-to source.

                  It’d be analogous to arguing that the American public favors the euthanization of all puppies and kittens based on a question that asked: “Do you think people should have to keep their pets in their own yard?”

                5. Good try, Jackand Ace, but…

                  The poll results from an alleged “91% of the AMERICAN PUBLIC… or, 90% of the American people, evaporated to 63% of the AMERICAN PUBLIC” is meaningless to the issue of clearly defined rights held by the citizens in our constitutional republic, your argument is academic.. at best.

                6. Jacksand Ace…..you’re missing the point. People like the word universal. They want background checks. But, beyond that, and what each of them means by that is where the support falls apart.

                  Make a really specific suggestion for legislation and see how much support you get for that. That might be meaningful.

                7. Ad Motherfucking Hominem, Motherfucker!

            5. What I want to know is, where did they get their list?

              “This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone Mar. 7-10, 2013, among a random national sample of 1,001 adults, including landline and cell phone-only respondents… ”

              That matters and can skew the results significantly. I would want to see the whole survey to know if there were other questions that might influance this answer and a list of demographics of the polled and the methodology used to assemble the list. Without that this is only information that can be interpeted, or used, to promote an agenda.

              1. I posted this link above:

                http://www.washingtonpost.com/….._10030.xml

                If you go to that link, you can see that 46 questions were asked, and there are button to press to go to the next question of the previous question. You can see for yourself every question asked, and decide for yourself if there is bias.

                A question for you…do you do the same for polls that Nick Gillespie trots out all the time, make an attempt to see if there is bias?

                1. A question for you…do you do the same for polls that Nick Gillespie trots out all the time, make an attempt to see if there is bias?

                  What need is there? Elections prove those polls wrong time and time again. I just assume they’re wrong and save time.

          2. I’m a crank. As I read the Second Amendment, no gun control measures, safety requirements, or taxes on arms, are Constitutional.

            Now, one can reasonably argue that this is a bad idea. But to fix it requires a Constitutional Amendment.

            So, if you want me to support background checks, propose a Constitutional Amendment allowing them.

            Not because I’m that attached to guns (I don’t own one), but because a government that believes it can ignore an inconvenient Constitutional provision scares me a great deal more than guns on the street do.

            1. At least someone here gives a reasoned response, rather than the excuse that “if its a poll I don’t like the results of, then nobody understood the question.”

              1. “if its a poll I don’t like the results of, then nobody understood the question”

                I’m content to accept this an axiom, deal?

              2. Let me return the compliment; at least someone who doesn’t react to my position by saying something like “well, your reading is just wrong, because we decided we should weasle around it”

                It’s damned refreshing.

            2. That perfectly sums up my position. Thank you.

          3. Let’s word that poll question more realistically:

            Would you support jailing anyone who sells a gun at a gun show without running a background check?

            I wonder what the response would be to that?

            1. Absolutely, but… Let’s take it one step further, and get on down to the meat and potatoes. No more fucking around here.

              “Would you support jailing anyone who sells a gun at a gun show without running a background check?

              The venue is irrelevant, and/as all FFL holders are requited to do an ATF form 4473(?), and observe all federal/state laws. And *yes*, that includes background checks too. At least that question would have some (intellectual) honesty & integrity.. Time for the masks to come off, and the cards to be laid upon the table.

            2. Maybe you should start that poll.

      2. I’ll tell you what, pathogen. Here is what NRA members themselves think.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..nd-checks/

        Do you think they would have answered it without understanding what it meant?

        1. I suppose that depends on the question asked, how it was worded, and who it was asked to. When you pay the fiddler, you name the tune…

          1. I get it…the American people don’t understand what extension of background checks, or assault weapons, are. Heck, even NRA members don’t understand it.

            Only you do, pathogen.

            1. I don’t get why you are even here, everyone agrees with you! This will lead to epic victory
              in november!

            2. Nobody’s arguing that people don’t know what they want, they’re arguing that you don’t understand how statistics or polling works.

              You can’t make statistically confident inferences from 169 respondents, and the New England Journal of Medicine (Gallup does not break out NRA members) is not likely to be obtaining a representative sample of NRA members anyway.

              1. Tell that to Nick about one of the many polls he always trots out, how the methodology is failed. Or is it only the polls you don’t like the results of?

                1. I can’t make a broad statement that every single poll is methodologically incorrect, but I wouldn’t be surprised if most of them are.

                  However, since I don’t trumpet those polls as support for my position, I don’t have to answer for their flaws.

                2. Actually, we DO tell it to Nick, so go unfuck yourself.

                3. I think you need to argue with Gillespie about that. You’re the one with the beef.

            3. The NRA doesn’t disclose their member information.

            4. Define an assault weapon. Be specific. Then show me how that definition is universally accepted by the federal government, the military, and all e states.

        2. This sounds akin to the climate alarmists claim of scientific “consensus” on global warming spawned from a poll question that was so vague that most so-called “climate-deniers” agreed with it.

          1. I was thinking along those lines myself, I was waiting for JACKland Ass to get to that part…

            1. What’s the matter, pathogen? Upset? Don’t whine.

              1. Please come back and whine in November.

              2. What’s the matter, pathogen? Upset? Don’t whine.

                Funny, you seem to be the one bloo-bloo-blooing all over this thread.

                It’s especially precious considering that more people die from alcohol-related causes than from firearms, but I don’t see you calling for full background checks on all alcohol purchases to keep them out of the hands of DUI offenders or people convicted of assualt, rape, or murder while intoxicated. I guess shitlibs only care about “public safety” when it targets something they don’t like, even if that thing is empirically less hazardous to public safety than the thing they do like.

                1. but I don’t see you calling for full background checks on all alcohol purchases to keep them out of the hands of DUI offenders or people convicted of assualt, rape, or murder while intoxicated.

                  For the love of christ please don’t give him any ideas.

                2. Hey, I’ll tell you what, since you bring it up. Do you want to have the same level of government regulations and police surveillance that exists currently on alcohol, and driving, and place them on guns?

                  I’ll vote for you.

                  1. Hey, I’ll tell you what, since you bring it up. Do you want to have the same level of government regulations and police surveillance that exists currently on alcohol, and driving, and place them on guns?

                    So you support a police state in all of its forms. A true progressive.

                    1. R cubed seems to believe that there is more scrutiny on guns than there is on alcohol and driving. If he is right, and we substituted the existing regulations on guns for similar ones that exist on DUI, we would be relaxing gun control, no?

                  2. Hey, I’ll tell you what, since you bring it up. Do you want to have the same level of government regulations and police surveillance that exists currently on alcohol, and driving, and place them on guns?

                    Really? Because the only restrictions on alcohol purchases are that you have to be over 21 buy it, have to have a license to sell it, and can’t make more than a certain amount. But people who get tons of DUIs and beat their families in an alcohol-induced haze can still purchase it.

                    Are you willing to go through a full background check to see if you have a passel of parking violations before you’re allowed to purchase a car?

                    That post was incredibly stupid, even by the hilariously low bar you set.

                    1. Then bring it on! Lets have police monitoring anyone carrying a gun, pulling them over, checking for their registration, insisting they have insurance, creating a database on all those with registrations, insisting on a license.

                      Your typing fingers to God’s eyes.

                    2. Then bring it on! Lets have police monitoring anyone carrying a gun, pulling them over, checking for their registration, insisting they have insurance, creating a database on all those with registrations, insisting on a license.

                      Really? The police pull over EVERYONE that has a driver’s license?

                      You’re really scraping the bottom of the shitlib inanity barrel here. Perhaps a gig at Salon or Slate is in order?

                  3. In the first place, I think the level of police meddling regarding alcohol and driving is worryingly excessive. That said, as I see it, if the scrutiny given guns were paallel;

                    Anyone with a shooters liscence would be able to buy any gun he could afford, at any time, with minimal paperwork, and only need to notify the government if he intended to operate it on public property.

                    Teenagers would routinely be trained for their shooters’ lisences in the public schools.

                    Police would only be able to stop an gun carrier, and ask for thier lisence with probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed.

                    The “why can’t we lisence guns the way we lisence cars” argument is seriously flawed. I think that most people who trot it out simply haven’t thought it through, but I suspect that the persons who came up with it in the first place may have done so in bad faith.

                    1. Like I said, csp, I’ll vote for the first candidate who says he/she wants to implement the same regulations on operating a motor vehicle (including DUI) onto guns.

                      I assure you, that person would be vilified by NRA.

                    2. And treated like an ebola carrier by all Right Thinking gun control nuts.

                      And I still want to see an amendment first.

                    3. Restrictions just like on motor vehicles? I think I’d go for that too–no restrictions whatsoever on what you can own or use as long as it stays on your own property, and if you get a permit which allows you to take it off your property, it’s good in all fifty states, the city of New York, and the District of Columbia. Where do I sign up?

                    4. I assure you, that person would be vilified by NRA.

                      Cute, assurances on hypothetical actions taken by your intellectual opponent.

                      I assure everyone here that were a candidate to honestly present a plan to regulate firearms ownership the same as car ownership Ace would quickly reverse himself.

                    5. but I suspect that the persons who came up with it in the first place may have done so in bad faith.

                      Either Ace is ignorant or he is mendacious.

                      Maybe it’s both.

                    6. He is a plant from the democratic party.

                      Disregard him and anything he posts- its pure propaganda

                  4. Sure. So long as I don’t take my vehicle and my booze into the public roads, I can have anything I want. Sounds like a deal I could accept.

              3. “What’s the matter, pathogen? Upset? Don’t whine.”

                I don’t think I would call it whining.. but, rather.. baffled at the incoherence of your point. Oddly enough, I still have no fucking clue what you’re on about. I suspect you don’t either. Your post stream has been WaPo links from one month after Sandy Hook (S.H. shootings – December 14, 2012, article date Jan 31 2013), from the queen cheerleader of post S.H. ginned up hysteria, like it was a fresh poll from a neutral source. The sublink in the article pretty much debunks what I think your point is.

                5. Stricter gun laws not seen as most effective solution…

                “82 percent in that poll see “better mental health screening and treatment” as a solution and 74 percent say so about adding armed security in schools and public places.”

                6. Few see new gun restrictions as a top priority
                “..Democrats are the exception: 53 percent say enacting stricter gun laws is a top priority.”

                You don’t say…

                7. The NRA is popular. Its leaders, not so much.

                Odd..

                1. A poll taken in December, 2013, one year after Newtown.

                  From the National Journal, the question was “How pleased would you be if law was passed requiring universal background checks on ALL gun sales.”

                  74% said the would be very pleased or somewhat pleased. Only 22% showed any disappointment.

                  http://cdn-media.nationaljourn…..lumns_tiny

                2. I’ll tell you what, path.

                  Let’s look at the most recent poll available, from Quinnipiac University (please don’t complain about the pollsters, Nick uses them).

                  http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news…..aseID=2057

                  When asked about the general question, should there be stricter gun control laws, 50% said yes, 47% said no. And that has been a consistent response for a long time (not quite the trend in the opposite direction Brian suggests).

                  And then, when narrowed down to one specific, that being universal background checks on ALL gun purchases, once again the same number, 90% in favor.

                  A poll taken this month.

                  1. So on the one hand, people are evenly split on whether there should be stricter gun laws, and split 90-10 on whether there should be stricter gun laws.

                    And you wonder why the commenters here are saying that the wording of the question matters.

        3. Well, there’s a difference between “what the question means” and “what the legislation allegedly crafted to respond to that question means”. For instance, one of the “universal background check” bills referenced here would have required checks not simply on sales, but transfers. Depending on how it’s worded, interpreted and implemented, a transfer could be anything from a sale by a licensed dealer (already covered by background check requirements), to inheriting a gun from grandpa, to handing your gun to someone else at the range to put a magazine through it. So support for “universal background checks” might mean “a background check on any business transfer or transfer to someone a private seller doesn’t know” to someone reading a poll, but might mean “any time the gun literally changes hands” to a legislator, cop or judge.

    3. Opinion polls find that most citizens support the idea of universal background checks in the abstract, until they find out what the details actually are.


      Americans Don’t Think ‘Universal Background Checks’ Extension for Gun Shows Are Needed, National Poll Finds

      Only four out of ten Americans support so-called “universal background checks” at gun shows after being informed that the vast majority of firearms sales at these shows are transacted by licensed retailers that already conduct such checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) as required by federal law. The poll results stand in contrast to the vague claim often reported in the media and attributed to gun control proponents without important contextual detail that 90 percent of Americans surveyed support “universal background checks.”

      1. That’s a great link…”error.”

        Where is that quote from…you?

        1. Well since you’re too stupid to fix a slightly borked link, here you go again.

        2. Reason is somehow prefixing the links with some Reason cruft. If you learn to copy and paste a link, you can learn how to remove the cruft and find the actual link.

          1. Quite honestly, I couldn’t be bothered. I have an interest in reading what people think I should read particularly if they think it refutes me. Seems to me that they need to do the work to have me read it.

            If it happened to one of my links, I certainly would not expect people to figure out a way to hunt it down.

            1. Wow, what a shocker that you can’t be bothered to do something that requires you to argue in good faith.

    4. After the US Senate bill on background checks failed, just 47% of the population was upset about it, a far cry from the 90% that is claimed:


      Mixed Reactions to Senate Gun Vote

      The key Senate vote that halted gun control legislation last week is drawing a mixed reaction from the American public: 47% express negative feelings about the vote while 39% have a positive reaction to the Senate’s rejection of gun control legislation that included background checks on gun purchases.

      1. Read the poll above from conservative leaning Gallup.

        63% said the background check bill should have passed.

        1. Why aren’t the democrats running with this?
          90% and they can’t get what they want?

      2. By the way, you keep linking to “errors.”

          1. Those people who answered that poll did not understand the question, nor the concept.

            Whimpy excuse? Its all the rage at Reason.

            1. If you have contradictory polls, then

              a) the methodology of at least one is flawed; or

              b) the statistic being measured has high variance over time.

              Neither of which lends confidence to the results.

        1. this guy is the Democratic liberal plant placed here to spout the liberal talking points just like “Tony”
          He is NOT for real and discussing anything with him is completely pointless.

          Please disregard anything he posts the same way you would any other leftist propaganda because that is all this is.

          this is the price we pay for an open website

          1. Im talking about Jack and ace of course

    5. @jackland ace – the problem is that the devil is in the details. The law the WaPo oversimplified in their polling question would have gone a lot further than just gun shows. It would have required BGC’s on EVERY transfer of a gun. That includes loaning your father or brother a shotgun for defense or duck season.

      More importantly, it would have provided the necessary information for a database of gun owners. Buried in that bill was a data retention change that could allow the feds to siphon data off to another agency’s systems to build such a database (never mind Congress twice made that illegal).

      Reason has it right. The left simply does not believe owning a gun is important or necessary in a “civilized country”. Of course, those of us living in California (and some living in Florida) can attest that “civilized” lasts only as long as the lights remain on and emergency services are not overwhelmed (i.e. earthquake or hurricanes).

      1. “..(and some living in Florida) can attest that “civilized” lasts only as long as the lights remain on and emergency services are not overwhelmed (i.e. earthquake or hurricanes).”

        Absolutely..

      2. Here is Reason’s take on polls. They love the ones that show the American public supports the stand they take (Nick constantly will quote those polls), but boy oh boy, when its a result they don’t like, such as an overwhelming majority of Americans saying background checks needed to be extended, or assault weapons banned, then its just ” Americans don’t understand what they are saying.”

        Stop.

        1. You can’t even figure out that there are different authors and different commenters, so you’re not really in a position to lecture on nuance.

        2. There’s another type of “poll”. It’s called referendum. Actually casting a ballot. Like…well….like the infinite number of state referendums limiting marriage between men and women.

          Shove your polls. Amend the Constitution or shut the fuck up.

        3. Projection is so ugly, and the Leftards do it so often…

        4. Goddamn but you’re an obtuse motherfucker. This has been explained to you over and over. There is no support for your anti 2A bulkshit. But you’re trying to invent it by distorting weak poll questions.

          But then you are a progtard. I’ve learned that debating and negotiating with your kind is a waste of time. It just gets us shit like Obama and a country going broke. Your kind are incrementalists who are incapable of negotiating in good faith. And you’re all too goddamned stupid to have a substantive debate. Too dishonest as well.

          You and yours are best served by staying out of our way. Trying to steal my property and my rights will result ultimately result in your destruction.

      3. Exactly right.

        The “background check” bill authored by Sen Schumer which failed on the Senate Floor is S649. It failed to win any Republican support for good reason.

        If you actually read the bill, you will find that it has nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with sticking it to gun owners and entrapping them in a variety of technical violations. Some of them are absurd, and yet the bill contains gems like:

        If you own guns and you go out of town for more than a week, leaving your girlfriend at home, you and she will go to prison because that counts as a “transfer”. The same if you have a roommate.

        Want to lend a gun to a friend at a commercial shooting range? That’s a transfer and you and the friend will go to prison.

        Read the details here:

        Turning Gun Owners into Felons : A new bill would make it a crime to “transfer” your gun to a spouse for more than seven days

        http://www.nationalreview.com/…..dave-kopel

        Universal Background Check Bill Is Designed to Land You in Prison

        http://www.examiner.com/articl…..you-prison

        Note: To gun ban advocates, these entrapments are a feature, not a bug.

    6. “Q: Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows?”

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/….._10030.xml

      The usual disinformation.

      1. Why, you don’t like what the American people have to say? You do when it comes to pot.

        1. The democrats need to run with this! Let’s see what the american people say in november.

          1. They do indeed.

      2. Americans Don’t Think ‘Universal Background Checks’ Extension for Gun Shows Are Needed, National Poll Finds

        http://www.nssfblog.com/americ…..poll-finds

        Only four out of ten Americans support so-called “universal background checks” at gun shows after being informed that the vast majority of firearms sales at these shows are transacted by licensed retailers that already conduct such checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) as required by federal law. The poll results stand in contrast to the vague claim often reported in the media and attributed to gun control proponents without important contextual detail that 90 percent of Americans surveyed support “universal background checks.”

    7. If ANY issue in this country truly had 90% support, there would be zero problems passing a law as only a few politicians would buck public sentiment going that strongly. The fact that the legislation goes nowhere shows the number is BS.

      1. You don’t understand. The politicians all fear the NRA. Because 90% of Americans hate the NRA. But the NRA is all-powerful. Did you know that it’s actually structured as a non-profit KKKORPORASHUN! It’s all KKKORPORASHUN-y, and like, totally owns the politicians. Yeah.

    8. The ABC/Washington Post poll claimed 86% of respondents said they wanted background checks at gun shows and online with a 4%-point margin for error. If 82 – 90% of the population supported Manchin-Toomey as reported and pushed by backers of the bill, why then did another Washington Post poll show only 47% of those surveyed were unhappy that the bill failed? Not only that, but 39% were “very happy” or “relieved” it didn’t pass with 13% that didn’t give a shit. The 90% line has become a joke because it is a joke. Suppose you were an idiot that believed the 90% line, and suppose you called yourself progressive; but I repeat myself.

      1. I notice you conspicuously avoided this post Ace.

    9. Opinion polls are sort of moot. The will of the majority doesn’t trump the rights of the minority.

    10. Here, 90% of Americans (that would be public opinion, not congressional action) want expanded background checks.

      Survey sez. Right?

      Whatever you think about Congress, politicians can count votes. If 90% of the U.S. wanted “expanded background checks,” Manchin-Toomey would have gone through the Senate like a rifle bullet through an apple. Had Congress muffed M-T, by now most state legislatures would have passed equivalent bills.

      Didn’t happen.

      When a survey conflicts that obviously with reality, the survey sucks.

      P.S.
      Gun-rights members of Congress aren’t afraid of the NRA. They, and the constituents who elected them, agree with the NRA.

  7. “When you’re seconds from death.. the police are only minutes away.”

    A truthful, and popular platitude of the pro-2A crowd on any internet forum.. anywhere. But, have the gun rights grabbers ever stopped to think about it, what they are really asking for.. when eroding the foundation of the 2A… to read between the lines? Have they ever stopped to think which constitutionally protected civil right their precious heroes in blue (all civilian law-enforcement) derive the authority to arm themselves? The 2A doesn’t say “A well-regulated militia police force being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people police to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.. oddly enough, there’s no police exception, as the police are never mentioned at all. Pro-2A groups focus their attentions in all the wrong places. Permanently and irreversibly link all gun rights within the nation between police and citizen, and hold the police accountable to the same laws that citizens are, and crush the argument forever. Handgun free city/zone? disarm the police as well. Assault weapon ban? all right pigs.. hand em over.. The police unions would crush any politician attempting to ban anything after that… the NRA would mop up the survivors.

    1. I’ve said similar. I think it would be marvelous if Glock stopped selling guns to CA police, for example. And if everyone refused to sell firearms to police in D.C.

      If only all firearms manufacturers had the integrity of Ronnie Barrett. *sigh*

      1. I actually had some idiot call me a liar when I told him that every man in switzerland within a certain age range was required to be armed.

        He asked me how their police could possibly do their jobs if that were true. I told him that the police in Switzerland do their jobs with the full support of the community, because they OBEY THE LAW.

        -jcr

        1. Fuck you for your facts!

          If it isn’t on the twat machine it’s garbage.

        2. That’s not true. Everyone is required to serve in the military, even though many are able to opt out for various reasons including civil service, and then when they leave the military they get to keep their weapons. And many do not. They are not required to have them.

          Regardless, the country still has limitations on gun ownership, including no concealed weapons, and the requirement of a government permit with valid reasons for owning a gun.

          From a Swiss website:
          “Strict legislation in Switzerland has made it extremely difficult to obtain a license to bear arms, and the trend is moving towards even stricter laws. For information purposes only, 400 people had a license to bear arms in the canton of Geneva in 1998. Only eight “survivors” still have authorization today. Understandable when you realize how little violent crime there is in Switzerland.:

          http://switzerland.isyours.com…..aring.html

          1. Sounds like nirvana. I’ll help you pack.

    2. I remind the liberal parrots and puppets that the police are simply proxies for the citizens. We pay police to do the job of deterring crime, investigating it and bringing people to justice because it takes up too much of our time from earning a living. But citizens have never abrogated their right to enforce the laws or apprehend criminals.

      1. Nor has it dawned upon most dimwitted proglidytes that as they erode the gun rights of the citizen, they erode the gun rights of the police that they put sooo much faith in as the only Americans that should have guns (outside of the military). The police, being civilian organizations, have no special protections nor privileges to gun rights defined in either the 2a or the 14th amendment. Attempting to disarm the populace would bring that to the forefront rather quickly, I suspect. The victim of a crime is the “first responder”, not necessarily the police, and is entitled to every protection the officer is… and vice-versa. Nothing more, nothing less…

    3. irreversibly link all gun rights within the nation between police and citizen, and hold the police accountable to the same laws that citizens are,

      A fella can dream. And I do.

    4. I’m pretty sure most anti-gun legislation has exemptions for police written into it..

      NY had to amend their hastily passed 7 round law because they forgot to exempt the police.

  8. To put it more succinctly, gun-grabbers are snotty little shits.

    -jcr

  9. “Liberals” are about the most illiberal people to have ever sucked a breath.

  10. C’mon now, liberals believe gun owners have the right to abortion on demand, gay sex, and contraception paid for by someone else.

  11. This clown didn’t “greatly understate the importance of what’s at stake”; he affirmatively lied about the defining case.

    Jeebus, why the kid gloves? Call a shovel a shovel, already.

  12. So…how’s all that gun control working in Chicago?

    1. Here is your answer:

      http://www.theonion.com/articl…..-bu,36407/

      1. Thanks Zunalter.
        You just can’t argue with science. By the way, is this a part of global warming?

  13. That the Progressive wishes in the end for all guns to be eliminated. I didn’t say all liberals, I said all Progressives. A Jack Kennedy liberal may have some reason left. The modern Progressive is a lunatic. Where do I get this fact from? Because you told us Mr. Progressive. Remember Sarah Brady. That’s when you said it.
    If you hadn’t said it maybe we would negotiate reasonable laws with you. But we know your end goal. To rid the nation of the Second Amendment. Former Judge Stevens concurs by the way. So our stance is we shouldn’t budge. Because instead of looking at a youth which is largely vile and opening fire in schools you blame the guns. Maybe you should blame the parents. Or lack thereof. But then again that is pointing responsibility, another entity you wish to eliminate in the nation.
    As my fictions predicts the day is coming when Tyranny will attempt to take us over. My works which I based on a very reliable source. You should talk to him sometime Mr. Progressive. His name is History. And he lectures often. And I think I’ll hold on to my guns in the meantime. Because my hands are still warm.

    Charles Hurst. Author of THE SECOND FALL. An offbeat story of Armageddon. And creator of THE RUNNINGWOLF EZINE

    1. HERC?

    2. “That the Progressive wishes in the end for all guns to be eliminated. ”

      No no no no no.

      Not the Government’s guns.

      Where would they be without the Government’s guns?

  14. Gun grabbers are universally evil and I hope they and their families drown in a bathtub.

  15. “Do Gun Owners Have Any Rights Which Liberals Are Bound to Respect?”

    Does anyone?

  16. And there it is, all up above. Just like I predicted. Whenever a poll comes out looking for restrictions on guns, and the AMERICAN PUBLIC, in their OPINION, calls for it, you can count on all the excuse makers at Reason to whine that they just didn’t understand the question.

    Death, taxes, and Reason commenters making excuses…you can count on all three.

    1. You’re a pretty sad little dishonest shit, aren’t you JA?

      1. Stop yer whining.

        1. Can’t wait to hear you whine in November,
          But the polls!

          1. Everybody I know voted for McGovern!

        2. You seem to be the one doing the whining here. You’re practically frothing over the piece.

    2. It’s so sad the american people have no way to implement their opinions.

      1. The people of Colorado successfully implemented their opinions… but who wants to discuss that when JA has POLLZZZZZ!?!?!?!?!

    3. The people’s revolutionary truth requires no explanation or logical rigor.

    4. Well, Jackand ACE, politicians know that most of those answering polls don’t actually vote. Strict gun laws occasionally come up in State referendums (Mass an Calif come to mind), which actually allows the voters to make stricter gun laws, if they choose. Would you please post a link to a state referendum where the populace voted to more strictly limit their gun rights?

      1. Referendums have never been the be al and end all to legislation. But I take it for you, they trump polls. But like Nick Gillespie here at Reason, I think polls are a good bellwether as to American public opinion. I note that Nick uses them all the time, and not referendums.

        1. But I take it for you, they trump polls

          The point is that when it comes to politics, it’s votes that matter, not opinion polls.

          Congressmen have to answer to their constituents, not to national opinion polls.

          So if the opinion polls are correct and meaningful, then referendums and congressional races should reflect that fact.

          You see, when your beloved Nick Gillespie trots out a poll that shows 55% support for some libertarian(-ish) position, and it loses horribly at election time, we don’t go around whining (your words) about the opinion poll because it was obviously either wrong or useless.

          1. Nick uses polls all the time to whine about a Congress that doesn’t implement a more libertarian agenda.

            Here, Nick falling back on a whopping 58% of Americans who favor pot legalization (boy, he must REALLY be impressed with 90% who want universal background checks on guns), and then he whines about all the things the President doesn’t do to reflect that huge 58% majority.

            http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…..ts-it.html

            1. You are too stupid to understand that Nick Gillespie is one person, and I am another.

              1. Yeah, your the guy who just mentioned Nick Gillespie yourself in your previous comment.

                1. Yes, and notice the part where I referenced him in the third person, because he is not me.

                  1. It’s amazing to me that these assholes are even able to breath.

    5. Death, taxes, and Reason commenters making excuses…you can count on all three.

      Don’t forget intellectually inbred shitlibs with a control-freak fetish.

    6. Actually, Imdon’t give a fat damn what any poll may say. Gun control measures are unconstisuional untill an amendment allowing them is passed. Similarly, every single goddamned Campaign Finance Reform Imhave ever heard of is an infringement of the first amendment, and the political ratbags who passed all of them should be tarred and feathered.

      But, as I have mentioned, I’m a crank.

  17. There is a dude that clearly knows what time it is.

    http://www.AnonToolz.tk

    1. Finally! The voice of reason.

  18. Why do right-wingers spend so much time concerning themselves over what liberals think of their right to bear arms. I’m all for the right of libertarians to blow their head off, detonate their 3-D printed firearm into their brain, shoot each other in schools, etc., etc. More of us, less of you. This country is fantastic with its periodic and predictable mass elementary school shootings and the resultant cries by nut cases that these massacres are necessitated by the prospect that someday, somewhere it’s going to come down to a shoot out between the Tea Party/libertarian alliance and an armed forces equipped with F-16s. Can I put down odds on who is going to win that one?

    1. Well, actually, quite a few “liberals” are also concerned about this issue. My father was a huge liberal, marched in the Anti-Vietnam-War rallies, while wearing his air force uniform, and supported the Black Panther Party. And he always had a rifle. In fact, he taught me how to shoot. Ninety percent of just about any group would call my half brother a liberal, though perhaps not a true statist. But he supports gun rights. He is also the only Buddhist cop I know.

      Though the extent of restrictions on gun ownership do spark controversy, most polls designed to answer the question: “Do you support the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms?” get answered about 70% in the positive. Since conservatives, including tea-partiers, only make up maybe some 30% of the population, seems a lot of liberals are gun-rights supporters. Your comment on F16s and the like seems rather foolish, so I will pretend you didn’t write it.

      1. But here is the point, Albert. No one, including liberals, want to take your guns away (please don’t refer to the far left that do, and I won’t refer to the far right that wants bazookas in every household).

        The point is about common sense limitations on weapons. And its common sense, to me anyway, that there should be universal background checks on all gun purchases. You would have to explain to me how that means you can’t own a gun.

        You’re right, 70% want you to be able to own a gun. You are correct. And I am correct that 90% want common sense restrictions, such as background checks on all gun purchases and assault weapons ban.

        Every commenter here loves your poll, and thinks that it reflects America. Every commenter here hates my poll, and thinks Americans are too dumb to understand it.

        1. And its common sense, to me anyway, that there should be universal background checks on all gun purchases. You would have to explain to me how that means you can’t own a gun.

          If you fail the background check, then you are denied the right to purchase a gun. Or are you saying gun sellers are supposed to run background checks just for shits and giggles?

          You’re right, 70% want you to be able to own a gun. You are correct. And I am correct that 90% want common sense restrictions, such as background checks on all gun purchases and assault weapons ban.

          Does an “assault weapon” cease to be a gun when it is banned? Because an “assault weapons” ban is a ban on guns, so unless you think this too should have no teeth, then there will definitely be confiscation of guns.

          1. That’s right…failed background check, no guns. Period. You should refer to Albert’s qualifier, “law abiding citizens,” which is what I referred to. Didn’t think I had to spell that out.

            A ban on assault weapons is a ban. I wouldn’t grandfather anything in that regard. Then those weapons would need to be turned in, with failure to do so a crime.

            What, you think I’m fearful of the term “gun confiscation?” I’m not. You still get to own guns, just not assault weapons.

            1. You said:

              No one, including liberals, want to take your guns away (please don’t refer to the far left that do, and I won’t refer to the far right that wants bazookas in every household).

              So are you part of the “far left” that we’re not supposed to refer to you?

              1. You can label me anything you want, I couldn’t care less. Like I said, you still get to keep your guns, just those that would not be legal.

                Hope that qualifier helps you.

                1. sorry, I know your all about semantics;

                  Just NOT those that would not be legal.

                  1. Begging the question

            2. Thanks for being honest about confiscating weapons from citizens.

              Your favored scenario is now playing out in Connecticut:

              Connecticut background check records may be used to track down and confiscate firearms

              http://www.forbes.com/sites/fr…..k-the-law/

              Quote:
              The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for firearms manufacturers, estimates there are likely 350,000 residents of Connecticut who had now banned “assault weapons” as of late 2013…

              Connecticut’s Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) has been using a “Sale or Transfer of All Firearms” form at the retail level that acts as a de facto registration, as it requires that gun sales, along with make, model, serial number and the buyer’s information to be reported to the DESPP and the police. As a result, the CSP has information on which residents might have an unregistered firearm the state considers an “assault weapon.” When I asked if the CSP would use late-registration applications to obtain warrants to seize “assault weapons” Lt. Vance told me, “We don’t make the laws our legislature has that responsibility.”

              1. And thanks for posting. Did not know that, and yes I would support them taking those weapons if they were in fact illegal. I’m sure comp could be worked out.

                What I think would happen is that the state would ask for those weapons to be brought in, and then rather than confiscating what is left, if any of that type of weapon was used and the owner found, then they would face criminal charges,

                But I have no idea. Sounds like Vance has no idea either.

                1. Of course you would support it.

                  But you totally don’t want to take away anyone’s guns.

      2. Just curious, Albert, about your Dad and brother. What is each of their opinions on extending background checks and assault weapons.

        I won’t respond one way or the other, I’m just curious.

        1. The courts have ruled that the police have no duty to protect you. So I’m curious, do you believe people who fail background checks should be able to protect themselves?

          1. If they failed a background check, no guns. No need to be curious as to my opinion anymore.

            1. So what, they should just die?

              1. Whose dying? Is this a movie your running in your head?

                1. Whose dying? Is this a movie your running in your head?

                  If there is no crime to worry about, then why take people’s guns away?

                  Crime happened before the invention of the firearm, and it continues to happen in countries that have “banned” firearms.

                  But I am completely content to characterize your position as:

                  People should be forced to pay for a police force that does not have any obligation to protect them, but does have an obligation to remove from them the means to protect themselves.

                  Civilization and the social contract, bitches.

                  1. Have at it.

                    1. So you’re not taking people’s guns away, except when you are, and you’re in favor of keeping people safe, except when you’re not.

                      Is there an articulable principle to your philosophy, or is it just completely incoherent?

            2. What a sick, pyschopathic cretin you are – preferring that someone’s mother be raped and murdered rather than being able to defend herself.

              I wonder, does your mom know how much you wish she’d die?

              1. Reverend of what church?

            3. Actually, even in California, a convicted criminal may use a firearm for self-defense, if his life is in imminent danger, so long as he doesn’t keep it any longer that such danger is present. And there are a least a couple of court cases where this has been used successfully as a defense for a felon possessing a fire-arm.

        2. Well, to give you a clue, I live in CA, as did my dad. My brother is in Arkansas. Here in CA we have had “extended” background checks and waiting periods for many years. Such checks are made on all transactions except between immediate family members, with some very few other situations, such as disposing of an estate, etc. Please note that such checks have had zero effect on the supply of guns or on gun-crimes. I really doubt my brother worries about it. My dad passed a few years ago, so I can’t speak for him.

          Jackand Ace, you probably don’t live in CA, where the State house and Senate are dominated by Democrats, and a LOT of them are pretty far left, and they have got quite a bit of legislation passed over the years making it more difficult and more expensive to purchase firearms legally. One proposal would have required me to have a renewable license to merely own a firearm and would have required any person I loaned a firearm to, for even one minute, to also produce a license. This would have applied even to me letting my wife use one of my guns.

          Both of our US Senators say they would ban all handguns, and more, if they had the power to do so. In short, restrictions on gun rights here in CA is seen by many here as a pretty big deal.

          1. Thanks for your reasoned response, Albert. I was just curious, because as I reflected above, the majority of NRA members don’t reject common sense restrictions.

            1. You can’t “reflect” on the thoughts of others. You can think about them, you can consider them, you can even believe them, but “reflection” is internal, not external.

          2. /By the way, I’m in New York

            Worked for a long time in Arkansas, and loved it. Great place. Your brother is lucky,

            1. My wife is from NY, Long Island, more precisely.

        3. Are American dumb on this issue? Well, many are ignorant, for sure, at least on the details. About the law? No, not necessarily, but about what “assault weapons” actually are, which are simply military-style semi-auto rifles. Also, since most Americans get their news from television, they have no clue that of the 10,000 or so murders committed with firearms last year (or was it 2012?), less than 400 were committed with long-guns, which includes target rifles, hunting rifles, .22 rifles, shotguns, AND assault weapons.

          Most folks, being pretty decent, simply accept the notion that “extended” background checks will help reduce crime. So, most of them, in theory, don’t have a problem with it. Quite frankly, I don’t really have a big problem with it here in CA, but I am not so naive as to believe it makes any difference at all. And I do object to the fact that it costs me more money every time I acquire a new weapon, just to they can put my name on a list.

          The problem is this: “common sense” restrictions run the gamut from inconvenient regulations to de-facto bans, depending on who is speaking and where one lives.

          You can feel free to respond if you like, as you might have guessed, I won’t throw an s**t your way 🙂

          1. No need. I would guess that you and I could arrange some kind of common sense restrictions that both could live with.

            Again, thanks for even responding.

            1. There is only one “common sense” restriction. . . Hands off!

              Anything else is an exercise in psychopathy.

            2. Well, if you really think a total ban on so-called assault weapons is reasonable (I realize that you are quoting a poll, and I don’t know if that is your actual stance), then we might not agree on what is common-sense.

              The most popular “assault weapon,” if one defines that weapon by how often is it used by criminals to kill people, is undoubtedly the 9mm semi-auto pistol, which is also favored by most police and the military. It is also the one particular weapon mentioned by the Supreme Court in Heller as being a weapon “in common use,” and therefore, cannot be banned.

              1. What you wrote changes nothing…I KNOW that we could work something out.

                But to most here, I’m a statist, with various adjectives thrown in.

                1. What you wrote changes nothing…I KNOW that we could work something out.

                  But only if the compromise goes in your direction.

                  You know, your ignorant argument about cars and alcohol above is rather amusing.

                  I can buy a car without a driver’s license, own it without applying for title or registration, and operate it on private (and some state and federal) property without ever having had a license or registration. Were I to acquire a license it would have legal reciprocity in every state, as would the registration on my vehicle.

                  I can also buy alcohol by merely presenting ID.

                  I don’t need a background check to purchase either product. Indeed, even if I’m denied a driver’s license for being legally blind, mentally incompetent, or a habitual DUI offender, I can still purchase a car and even operate it in the same fashion as above. I can also purchase alcohol.

                  Too actually regulate firearms ownership like cars and booze would entail the removal of many gun laws, and the establishment of few new ones.

                2. I am not so sure.. though I am willing to discuss it. Gun control and crime, and their interrelationship, is something I have been researching for a couple of decades now. And no, I don’t just mean reading articles. Most of my analysis is based on my own research. Research was a big part of what I did for a living for many years. And I know just enough statistics to spot poor use of them. I have one basic premise: show me a gun control law which actually might reduce murder rates (not “gun-murder” rates), and I would consider supporting it, at least on a limited, test basis. But I will not support feel-good gun laws which make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain the firearms they feel they need to defend themselves and have no measurable impact on the murder rate. Please note, “assault-weapon” bans, at least every one I have seen, are exactly that.

    2. somewhere it’s going to come down to a shoot out between the Tea Party/libertarian alliance and an armed forces equipped with F-16s.

      Yeah, because you certainly won’t be on the front lines. The rabble-rousers never are, prefering to hide behind the tacticools and curl up into the fetal position. Just look at Boston.

    3. Why do right-wingers spend so much time concerning themselves over what liberals think of their right to bear arms.

      Why do liberals spend so much time concerning themselves over what other people are doing with their lives?

      THE WORLD MAY NEVER KNOW

    4. So, the point has come where the Armed Forces are being used against American citizens and you think anyone wins.

      That’s your problem, you live in a little boy false world where this is an outcome that you would put bets on. Travel a little, enjoy the third world, and that make trite comments about what would be another American revolution.

      Fucking assholes with their dreamy eyed of socialism. Go check out Eatern Europe and see how much they liked it.

    5. This country is fantastic with its periodic and predictable mass elementary school shootings

      True. There’ve been enough to count on BOTH HANDS since the turn of the previous century.

      Won’t someone think of my compulsive need to be shielded from any risk of danger, ever?

    6. Having served in the military, the majority of the ones equipped with F-16s are conservative or libertarian about most issues, and would be extremely hesitant to fire on Americans. Most of us take our oath of service seriously.

    7. You might want to check with the Taliban before you make that bet. They seem to be holding out fairly well, considering they’re equipped with rusty rifles that haven’t seen an armorer in 25 years, fertilizer, flip-flops, and pajamas.

      1. Ever been to the arms bazaar in Peshawar? Oh, do go….not a spot of rust to be seen. Weapons have been de rigeur for quite some time and they are quite familiar with care and feeding. Oh, and EVERYONE’S an armorer, by the way.

    8. If that shootout ever comes, half the Armed Forces are going to defect and it will be a hell of a slugfest. The alliance you speak of will be busy hunting down the likes of you and festooning the lamp posts and telephone poles, to keep you from being informants and 5th columnists.

  19. What the Progressive gun grabbers fail to understand and why their attempts keep failing is that rural democrats/liberals are just as much “gun nuts” as they imagine conservatives to be. A couple of friends of mine are pure unreconstructed Obamabots, but their gun collection is far larger than my own. For some reason, my frends who are otherwise pure as the liberal snow in most matters dislike city folks telling them that they should just let the coyotes eat their Heritage organic free-range chickens, or wait a couple hours for the County sheriff to show up when some schmuck is trying to rob their house.

    1. wow, really? You have to be insanely stupid to be a farming, working man (i.e. REAL WORK) and still vote democrat

  20. Arguing the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is pointless. Either the Federal Judiciary has the power to re-write the Constitution at will, throught the process of “Creative Misinterpretation”, or they don’t.

    If you cheer when Federal Judges decide the 14th Amendment established the right to same sex marriage in 1868, you should also cheer if Federal Judges decide the 2nd Amendment protects your right to wear a short sleeve shirt.

    1. There is a difference in my opinion. Specific rights enumerated prohibit government infringement on those rights – exercise of religion and the right to bear arms. Then you get into the general enumerations like the 9th and 10th that present a non-specific framework for rights and powers. The 9th establishes that rights are not fixed or granted by government but rather that the people can establish new enumerations that shall not be infringed upon. The 14th is specific in that it restricts the powers of government to discriminate in the distribution of (any) privileges. So, no, there isn’t a specific right to marry another person of your sex in the 14th, but that’s irrelevant to the issue because it is about discriminatory entitlements. Nothing prohibits gay people from marrying, the issue is what government benefits they can get.

  21. Waldman – and all other anti-human, anti-rights, anti-gun bigots – would rather see your mother, daughter, sister, grandmother, aunt brutally raped and strangled to death with her own pantyhose than to allow her an effective defense.

    They are sick, twisted individuals with few redeeming qualities, if any. There is no place for such psychopathy in polite society.

    1. That’s a strangely specific scenario you have in mind.

  22. Are there any reliable studies that can be pointed to that show the relationship between shootings and illegal ownership of guns?

    1. CJE… well, since somewhere between 70% and 80% of convicted murderers have previous serious offenses, and are, therefore, usually barred from legally owning or possessing firearms,in a word, yes.

  23. Who is more likely to shoot someone in an act of aggression… a legal gun owner or an illegal gun owner? (not counting police who are legal gun owners and for some reason, allowed to shoot people in an act of aggression).

    So if you remove all the privately owned legal guns, leaving only the illegal guns what have you accomplished? Not much besides removing the doubt criminals have about a victim being defensless.

    But you’ll need more police (the only legal gun owners left) to counter the increased acts of aggression by illegal gun owners. Which would necessitate an increase in taxes to pay for it. While cops also pay taxes, they consume more tax dollars than they replace.

    It seems to me to be more efficient to allow citizens to own guns, which they buy themselves, rather than placing the burden on the taxpayers to fund a huge police force. But I’m just looking at the logic and economics of it, not the Constitution or “feelings” of it.

  24. It all comes down to this; the Second Amendment was written to protect the right of the citizen to own and use military grade weapons. We know this because the debates on the Constitution and Bill of Rights were extensively documented. Therefore, those who wish to pass gun control laws, no matter how sensible, without amending the Constitution further are Constitusional scofflaws, with no respect for the concept of Constitutional limits to State power. Such people worry me more than random armed nuts. The history of the abuse of State power in the 20th Century alone shows that they prone to murderous fanaticism.

  25. Every single gun control scheme and concept is alive and well. In the words of Sen. Feinstein, she conceded after Newtown that she had an anti-gun bill in her drawer waiting to be dusted off.”

    And that quote is proof positive that gun control has absolutely fuck-all to do with crime or violence prevention and that these high profile crimes are nothing more than agitprop for the sick, twisted proponents of reducing individual liberty.

  26. It is exactly because people such as Waldman that I desire to own weapons. The fairy-tale Utopia he apparently has established in his own mind opens the door to governmental tyranny. We already can see the beginnings today. I see more stories about cops “behaving badly” than I see actual crime stories. From burning babies in cribs with flashbang grenades to strip (and cavity) searches ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. Our Nation’s police forces have gone from “To Protect and Serve” to “To Intimidate and Incarcerate”. Our police forces are becoming militarized, and in no way can I see this has a good thing. Legally or illegally, I will keep my weapons. Cop or criminal, you come into my home uninvited (no knock warrant or not), you will be shot.

  27. Better question is ” ARE THEIR ANY RIGHTS ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT LIBERALS DON’T WANT TO ELIMINATE”.

    Obviously the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th have no meaning anymore to liberals.

    However they do recognize the right to have someone else pay for their contraception, healthcare,housing, cell phone bill, groceries education transportation ect….
    And the right to vote without proving that you are eligible to vote.
    And the right to violate our territorial sovereignty by walking across the border and demanding the same rights, privileges and programs as citizens
    And the right to education and jobs if you happen to belong to certain protected groups

    I could go on but you probably already get the point

  28. I’d feel better about these guys, if they cared equally about taxing themselves to fix up decaying cities like DC.

  29. ‘He writes that the D.C. statutes overturned by plaintiff Dick Heller (and, originally, five other co-plaintiffs booted off the case on narrow procedural grounds) “barred individuals from keeping a loaded handgun at home without a trigger lock.”‘

    The wilful, prideful ignorance of anti-rights idiots is astonishing. Trigger locks are clearly marked “do not install on a loaded firearm,” regardless of whether it is a handgun or a long gun.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.