Banished for Questioning the Gospel of Guns

By artappraiser on Sat, 01/04/2014 - 2:03pm |

By Ravi Somaiya, New York Times, Jan. 4, 2014

BARRY, Ill. — The byline of Dick Metcalf, one of the country’s pre-eminent gun journalists, has gone missing. It has been removed from Guns & Ammo magazine, where his widely-read column once ran on the back page. He no longer stars on a popular television show about firearms. Gun companies have stopped flying him around the world and sending him the latest weapons to review.

In late October, Mr. Metcalf wrote a column that the magazine titled “Let’s Talk Limits,” which debated gun laws. “The fact is,” wrote Mr. Metcalf, who has taught history at Cornell and Yale, “all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”

The backlash was swift, and fierce [....]

“I’ve been vanished, disappeared,” Mr. Metcalf, 67, said in an interview last month on his gun range here [....]

His experience sheds light on the close-knit world of gun journalism, where editors and reporters say there is little room for nuance in the debate over gun laws. Moderate voices that might broaden the discussion from within are silenced. When writers stray from the party line promoting an absolutist view of an unfettered right to bear arms, their publications — often under pressure from advertisers — excommunicate them [....]

URL:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/media/banished-for-questioning-the-gospel-of-guns.html

Add new comment
7013 reads

Comments

PROOF ....Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

by Resistance on Sat, 01/04/2014 - 2:23pm

Likewise, when I am looking to buy a car or a new electronic device, or to see a good movie, I only want reviews and advice from industry flaks. NOT.

by artappraiser on Sat, 01/04/2014 - 2:42pm

Me too.

Though it sounds like the magazines are like proving grounds for the manufacturers. Bad guns quietly get sent back for improvements.

Based on the polls I've seen, I'm willing to bet that Metcalfe is in the majority among gun owners, most of whom don't write in to the letter, just like most voters don't vote in primaries. Only the rabid respond.

So it's really manufacturers they care about it. As the article says, that is their source of revenue.

On a related note, I just heard from an old friend, a heretofore non-shooter and still one mostly, that she has started a magazine/association called American Woman Shooter on a shoestring. Mostly, she's a publisher and thinks this is an underserved market, which it probably is, and thus a smart publishing move.

To my eye, she looks a little silly holding her gun in her Editor-In-Chief launch picture.

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 01/04/2014 - 3:02pm

As someone who always votes in primaries, I'm not sure I like your analogy…

by Verified Atheist on Sat, 01/04/2014 - 3:08pm

You're rabid in a good way.

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 01/04/2014 - 5:07pm

All the banished need to start their own "gun magazine."

It could be funded by wealthy--and sane--gun enthusiasts.

Maybe even to the point of not needing advertising from rabid manufacturers.

Or manufacturers who are sane and know history will be catching up with them and want to stay ahead of the curve. The point being that many of their customers are sane and would appreciate a sane stance from the people they buy from.

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 01/04/2014 - 2:51pm

It appeared he had a very good job before he entered the political realm.

Remington or Browning know, that the trend by all government's, is to get the guns.

The Obama administration would tell us "You can't have guns in the hands of the wrong people" Of course the government in power will define "the wrong people"

So be wary the slippery slope

Notice how the wolf in sheep clothing (Obama and his comrades) went for the guns, BEFORE anyone, suspected a government run amok; as proven by Snowden and The NSA leaks.

Obama and those who think like him, cared not; they were violating Constitutional Rights to Privacy, just as our forefathers warned, there could/would come a time "power in the hands of the wrong people" or those in power,who would not protect the Constitution as our forefathers intended, and in their wisdom; our forefathers, (the signers of our Constitution) provided the safeguard of the 2nd Amendment in that event.

"First they came for those, with assault rifles, and I didn't care because I didn't have one, next they came .........

If you don't believe this could happen, learn a lesson from the British scheme and how they got the Guns.

Look at the Syria massacres and you think some defender would come to you in a time of distress?

by Resistance on Sat, 01/04/2014 - 3:28pm

the British scheme and how they got the Guns.

I hadn't heard about this. But in any case, it appears they left 4,060,000 of them behind, 6.7 per 100 people.

Was it something like the slippery slope of how auto regulations in our country (including registration of owners and operators) vastly reduced the number and availability of automobiles?

by artappraiser on Sat, 01/04/2014 - 3:39pm

From the link you provided

"Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in the United Kingdom are required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example hunting, target shooting or collection"

NOTE: Self defense is not a valid reason.

When riding the public transportation system and some hooligans who are bent on raping or robbery; (India comes to mind, where woman are raped and left for dead too many times ) I can assure you; lawless individuals don't give a crap about the laws; how do you suppose you'll defend yourself ?

PS I read somewhere else, it is misleading to say you can own a gun; but you must have it locked up at the Gun Club.

You bought it, but they control it and if you don't like that arrangement don't own one?

Guarantee you, there will come a time when you need a cop; there isn't one around. (Especially if municipalities cut their budgets).

by Resistance on Sun, 01/05/2014 - 6:07pm

I've heard tell that licensed guns would work just as well against criminals as unlicensed guns. (Or not, if you believe it's folly that they are of much use in protecting oneself.)

Also, many experts in fighting crime seem to believe that having all guns licensed will assist the goal that fewer criminals and incompetents (like children or mentally unstable) have access to them. Go figure, that is actually why they care about that, it's actually not about wanting to take away the people's guns.

To repeat: just like with automobiles. (Which, BTW, are currently used nearly every day in certain places in the Mideast as weapons. Where there is woe for the crime fighters and investigators when they are not registered and licensed.)

by artappraiser on Mon, 01/06/2014 - 3:53pm

It appeared he had a very good job before he entered the political realm.

He was in the political realm before. It's just that he was on the political side of those who want no restrictions on guns whatsoever.

As far as guns being in the hands of "the wrong people," ALL sides think guns shouldn't be in the hands of the wrong people.

Every time there's a massacre, the NRA talks up the need for mental health something or other so that the "wrong kind of people"--the mentally ill like Lanza--don't get guns. They don't argue that Adam Lanza should've been walking around with a gun, or do they? I don't think they do.

If this is true, someone has to decide who are the wrong kinds of people. Who gets a gun and who doesn't. It can't be that no one decides or that the wrong kind of people decide themselves that they are the wrong kind of people and shouldn't be allowed to own the guns they own.

And if you're concerned about our freedoms, here's a guy who was FIRED because he expressed the wrong opinion. Fired because he pissed off a few powerful people. I guess it's their right to fire whomever they wish, but they're hardly freedom lovers.

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 01/04/2014 - 4:45pm

This is such a good point.

And the discussion as a whole just reiterates for me the absurdity of opinions on this issue like Resistance's. It has clarified for me that what their main problem really is in interpreting the Second Amendment: the meaning of the word infringed. It's all just always a highly selective interpretation of what it means to have a right infringed.

You rarely see screaming and yelling that their right to own and use grenades and tanks and surface-to-air-missiles has been infringed. (Need I mention that the latter are the real current weapons of use to bring down governments, along with IED's?)

Nor do you hear them screaming that their First Amendment rights to yell fire in a crowded theater have been infringed. And as shown here, they can be perfectly comfortable with those wanting to speak about some forms of firearms regulation being silenced. i.e., "infringed", in certain situations.

It's all about their definition of what is an infringement and what is not.

Another absurdity: seems quite willing to force those defined as mentally ill into care where some of their human rights are infringed even though psychiatric diagnosis and treatment is still in the dark ages, and even though one of the favorite tools of the Soviet system was to label political dissidents as mentally ill and lock them up in mental hospitals.

by artappraiser on Mon, 01/06/2014 - 3:00pm

Considering what you wrote here

And the discussion as a whole just reiterates for me the absurdity of opinions on this issue like Resistance's by artappraiser 1/6/2014 - 11:55 am (re: Peter Schwartz)

and here

The list of historic quotes certainly screamed "cherry-picked and taken-out-of-context" to me, so much so that it didn't seem worth time to disprove. by artappraiser 1/6/2014 - 11:36 am (re: ocean-kat)

You think its absurd; yet don’t even care to read or understand the issue in its entirety, or how the writers of OUR Constitution intended it to be read?

BTW I am in agreement with those who wrote and fought for our freedom and many other Patriots don't believe they were absurd either, nor would they dare dishonor their sacrifice; Except maybe the British loyalists and a few others with dishonorable names.

Are your words and opinions best described as biased or prejudicial ?

by Resistance on Mon, 01/06/2014 - 3:29pm

Yes, as I understand it, Scalia, an originalist if ever there was one, said explicitly in the Heller case that the right to bear arms wasn't "unlimited." That "shall not be infringed" does NOT mean that no limitations can be placed on that right.

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 01/06/2014 - 10:17pm

The Standard Model finds, squirrelled away in the Second Amendment, not only a private right to own guns for any purpose but a public right to oppose with arms the government of the United States. It grounds this claim in the right of insurrection, which clearly does exist whenever tyranny exists. Yet the right to overthrow the government is not given by government. It arises when government no longer has any authority. One cannot say one rebels by right of that nonexistent authority. Modern militias say the government itself instructs them to overthrow government – and wacky scholars endorse this view. They think the Constitution is so deranged a document that it brands as the greatest crime a war upon itself (in Article III: 'Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them...') and then instructs its citizens to take this up (in the Second Amendment). According to this doctrine, a well-regulated group is meant to overthrow its own regulator, and a soldier swearing to obey orders is disqualified from true militia virtue.^[17]

^{This quote from Garry Wills is pretty cogent. The argument is reminiscent of the nullifcation argument in support of which is often brought the Virginia-Kentucky Resolutions written by Jefferson.}

But Madison, who also had a hand in them I believe, walked that back. The Constitution doesn't itself provide a right to dissolve the Constitution by allowing states to nullify any federal law they think is unconstitutional. The same thing goes for armed insurrection to overthrow the government.

The question then is: Do we live in a time of tyranny?

Resistance might say yes. But the fact that our government bends to the will of world opinion, bends to overwhelming public opinion, bends when one person, Edward Snowden, publicizes its questionable practices, suggests to me that we aren't there.

In short, Edward Snowden, almost alone, has done more to preserve our fourth amendment rights than all the gun owners in America. As far as I'm concerned, that is just a fact. NO ONE in the government is afraid of all those NRA members except when they try to pass gun legislation, and the NRA threatens to back an opponent.

But you won't find Wayne LaPierre marching against the NSA or brandishing his guns at Langley. The only thing gun owners are willing to march for...is the right to own guns...and against a tyrannical government whose only tyrannical act, as far as they are concerned, is to threaten to take away their guns (and maybe levy a tax).

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 01/06/2014 - 10:39pm

threaten to take away their guns

I'm surprised to see even you pick up their language. Who is threatening to take away all the guns? The only real talk has always been limiting a very few of the types of guns and ammunition available, and separately, registration of owners. It is always the slippery slope argument about things that wouldn't put much restriction on them. It is always calling something an infringement that is actually very minor alteration in the scheme of things.

Taking away all the guns out there is basically impossible. Only the nuttiest anti-gun wingers call for that, virtually no politicians, not MSNBC, not NPR, not the orange Satan, not The Nation. It is all rabid fantasy land victimization, imaginings.

This is why I can get kind of dismissive about spending so much time on all the Constitutional arguments, Those arguments are so hypothetical and theoretical, because nobody with any standing is even suggesting taking away all the guns. When I first saw the Charlton Heston "cold dark hands" routine, I laughed, thinking "what a ridiculous drama queen routine, no one's trying to take your stupid rifle away."

by artappraiser on Mon, 01/06/2014 - 11:37pm

...government whose only tyrannical act, as far as they are concerned, is to threaten to take away their guns (and maybe levy a tax).

Note bene the attribution.

I'm saying that's why they march...what they think the government is threatening to do...as opposed to marching against an abridgement of, say, their fourth amendment rights.

I agree with your main point though, to be fair, some people DO argue for an extreme position, but not anyone with real standing, as you note.

IOW, it's not an argument that's never heard. It's just a pretty far out argument and light years away from our reality.

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 01/07/2014 - 1:57pm

I'll return in the AM but in a quick response.

The 2nd amendment wasn't just written for our selfish generation; it was written for future generations as well.

Just because a few fearful people, short sighted individuals, who today decide We no longer need the Second Amendments full strength. They then weaken its power, disregarding, acting with ignorance and ignoring the RIGHT that future generations may need tomorrow. If we guard with jealousy to protect our that RIGHT; They will be handed down, what we preserved today, just as our forefathers passed on to us and all generations.

It's selfishness on our part to decide what future generations will need in the future. Diminishing the value of the 2nd Amendment it's not the only example of a selfish generations disregard of others.

by Resistance on Tue, 01/07/2014 - 12:54am

No its you who are selfish to claim that there is no regulation that can be put on the second amendment in the face of clear harm to society.

Look, the first amendment is very important to me, especially the right of the people peaceably to assemble. At Rainbow Gatherings it affects my life directly. Lawyers for the Gathering and the ACLU are in court every year to fight for our right to gather and to stop police harassment. Sometimes they win sometimes they lose. But I understand freedom to assemble is not absolute, its not unlimited. I acknowledge that there must be some time, place and manner regulation. One hopes the government would respect the right to assemble and not abuse those regulations. Often, imo, they don't. At Rainbow Gatherings and at many political gatherings during the Bush years I felt there was clear abuse of time, place, and manner regulations.

One always hopes the courts will judge wisely and protect our rights but that's not always the case. Do I then conclude there should be no restrictions on the right to assemble? Can a group of protesters block all roads at the central bus station keeping the buses from exiting and shutting down mass transit for the city until their demands are met? Can two protesters picket the mayor's house yelling constantly with bull horns every night for six months from 1 AM to 6 AM?

Much as I want my Rainbow Gatherings without police harassment I'm not selfish. There must be balance of competing interest even in a free society with guaranteed rights. I recognize the need for time, place, and manner regulation. So we continue to fight until our right to gather is recognized within that balance.

You on the other hand see no competing interests, you recognize no balance, you see no reasonable regulation as valid. I call that selfish. Frankly, I don't think you have a clue what it means to have your rights infringed or what it means to fight for them. Stand on this line someday.

Just to clarify, I don't endorse all the behavior of every individual in this group. But it was a justified action to confront harassment and mostly good imo.

by ocean-kat on Tue, 01/07/2014 - 2:01am

Who told you O K that the existing NON ENFORCED LAWS weren't balanced?

Just because some say or imply, we might violate our Right, the government should take our Right away? We haven't violated anything.

Sounds like the abusive parent who says, they should beat little johnny now because they know he'll do something bad; maybe not today but soon enough.

Enforce existing laws. PEOPLE need to quit looking to punish law abiding citizens by putting more laws on the books so a reason exists to punish.

e.g. We as a Nation have made significant progress concerning Racism. Some thought the harsh treatment of law abiding colored people was warranted. The colored person did nothing wrong and either do law abiding gun owners. Attitudes are changed, when citizens actually learn and put away handed down preconceived ideas.

http://www.nraila.org/about-nra-ila.aspx

"While NRA is a single-issue organization, the Institute is involved in any issue that directly or indirectly affects firearms ownership and use. These involve such topics as hunting and access to hunting lands, wilderness and wildlife conservation, civilian marksmanship training and ranges for public use, law enforcement-related issues, product liability, trapping, crime victim rights and criminal justice reform."

I don't have a problem, placing limits/restricting the 2nd Amendment Rights to those the courts have ruled as having FORFEITED THEIR RIGHTS e.g. Felons. THAT LAW IS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS

Search the web "NRA and mental health"

Link provided below for those "who don't have the time"

http://www.nraila.org/search.aspx?s=%22mental%20health%22

Mental Health and Firearms

Since 1966, the National Rifle Association has urged the federal government to address the problem of mental illness and violence. As we noted then, “the time is at hand to seek means by which society can identify, treat and temporarily isolate such individuals,” because “elimination of the instrument by which these crimes are committed cannot arrest the ravages of a psychotic murderer."
FULL STORY

SINCE 1966 ????????

by Resistance on Tue, 01/07/2014 - 9:13am

The NRA wants mentally ill "lunatics" incapable of purchasing firearms, but then opposes use of a database to prevent the mentally ill from being able to purchase firearms. So since 1966, the NRA has blocked meaningful legislation on the issue.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/07/2014 - 9:51am

What data base are you trying to force FREE people to sign up for? Free people want to remain silent; as is their Right

Persons who have been determined to be having mental issues or a felon, should be the only names on the data base. Law abiding citizen’s names don’t need to be on the data base. What’s unreasonable about that ?

From the link you provided

“Mr LaPierre noted. It supports putting all those adjudicated mentally incompetent into the system, and deplores the fact that many states are still putting only a small number of records into the system.”

Then the writer of the article wants to insult our intelligence; claiming we shouldn’t be too hard on those, who would savagely murder others As though the writer cared more for the lunatic’s feelings, the writer doesn’t include the WHY Mr LaPierre said it.

Fact: A lunatic went onto the base and murdered innocent people. Maybe the writer would prefer, we sugar coat the terms we use, to describe these lunatic/monsters

“He talks of improving mental-health treatment, but then uses the harshest possible language to describe the mentally ill, telling NBC:

Mr LaPierre:

We have no national database of these lunatics... We have a completely cracked mentally ill system that's got these monsters walking the streets.

Read this link, .....In fact before you try to falsely represent and smearing the NRA again, why don’t you read about the TRUTH of thier stance before attempting to sound so informed about what the NRA is doing?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-01/nra-has-some-good-ideas-for-stopping-massacres.html

a week after a contractor -- who had a security clearance despite clear signs of mental distress -- shot and killed a dozen people at the Washington Navy Yard on Sept. 16: “We have a mental health system in this country that has completely and totally collapsed. We have no national database of these lunatics.”

“On the gun check, the NRA supported the gun check because we thought the mental records would be in the system; we thought criminals would be in the system. And we thought they would be prosecuted.”

They were not, .... WHY NOT??? It's obvious, they weren't on the database because the main objective of the gun control advocates, is that they want law abiding citizens names on the database. To heck with that scheme.

So America will grieve more loss of life, because the LUNATICS, those who would murder others, names are not on the list. Law abiding citizens don't need to be on a database, of those who should be refused the Right.

by Resistance on Tue, 01/07/2014 - 11:59am

From your own linked article

Yet the NRA fought tooth and nail last spring against the universal background check bill that failed in the Senate, saying it would “criminalize” private sales between family members and close friends and would be the first step toward a federal gun registry and eventual seizure.

In fact, the bill specifically banned establishment of a federal gun registry and included exemptions for sales between close relatives, and it had bipartisan sponsorship. It also included provisions to penalize states that lag in providing the database with names of criminals, addicts and people who have been adjudicated as mentally ill and reward states for complying faster.

This will come up again. LaPierre should be asked, once again, to tell the truth, and to live up to his own words.

I did not misrepresent the NRA position of talking out of both sides of its organizational mouth. Your own reference verifies my statement. Than you. Try reading the entire article.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/07/2014 - 1:01pm

The link was not a sponsored or supportive group of the NRA. I included it to show all the misinformation your link contained, by using another outside group, to dispute some of the claims your article made. To avoid the claim if I just used NRA supportive groups as the source

In fact, the bill specifically banned establishment of a federal gun registry and included exemptions for sales between close relatives

Although it contained provisions, that might appeal to the NRA and it's members We are not gutting the Right to Bear arms by compromising away those Rights. Besides you don't need the NRA to compromise anything, for the government to do their job under the current law

Doesn't matter how much sugar you pour on fecal matter, it's still fecal matter

The NRA and it's members are not buying into these slippery slope, incremental steps intended to make useless the fullest intent of the Right.

by Resistance on Tue, 01/07/2014 - 2:13pm

We are not gutting the Right to Bear arms by compromising away those Rights.

There you go again. This provision is no more "gutting the right to bear arms" than telling someone they can't yell fire in a crowded theater is "gutting the right to free speech". That's been explained to you so many times and so well, that it's an amazing feat of willful ignorance that it hasn't yet gotten through to you.

by Verified Atheist on Tue, 01/07/2014 - 2:35pm

There is quite a difference between shouting fire in a crowded theater (unless of course there might actually be one) (I suspect if you saw one you'd sneak out saving your own skin and when asked why you didn't warn others you'd say it was illegal ) It is clear you lack the understanding to differentiate between a Lawful right and an unlawful act.

Lawful individuals don't look to hurt others.

Ignorance; is a word you must hear often?

by Resistance on Tue, 01/07/2014 - 3:10pm

Ooh, nice dodge.

Yet, it still hasn't sunk in that all of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights have caveats. Despite being guaranteed "freedom of speech", we aren't allowed to divulge state secrets. Despite being guaranteed the "right of the people peaceably to assemble", we are not allowed to assemble where ever we please. Please explain what paranoid delusion has you believing that gun registrations are the first step to gun removal. You just assert this, repeatedly, without anything supporting it.

by Verified Atheist on Tue, 01/07/2014 - 3:26pm

...our forefathers, (the signers of our Constitution) provided the safeguard of the 2nd Amendment in that event.

Seriously now.

What role have guns played in the NSA issue?

Was the NSA...is the NSA now...so worried about all those gun-toting Americans that they were scared off from their snooping?

(It's sometimes said that the Japanese didn't invade mainland America because they were afraid of those guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans.)

Did Snowden, Greenwald, or Bamford wield a gun as the best and surest way to protect Americans' right to privacy?

Are the NRA and its members going to form an armed cordon around Snowden as he steps off the plane at Dulles to prevent him from being arrested by the FBI?

The only cause for which gun owners march while bearing arms is the cause of protecting the firearms they carry in those demonstrations.

It's a bit like what Richard Pryor said about winos and vampires. Winos aren't afraid of vampires, not even Dracula. The only thing winos are afraid of is running out of wine.

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 01/04/2014 - 5:05pm

Was the NSA...is the NSA now...so worried about all those gun-toting Americans that they were scared off from their snooping?

Disregarding this portion "..is the NSA now" .

Remember it took a whistle-blower, to expose what the government tried to hide, from a free people with privacy rights.

Now I suspect it's too late to do anything about it now.

by Resistance on Sat, 01/04/2014 - 5:20pm

But you're not responding to my point about the efficacy of guns in protecting us against NSA snooping.

In what way is the 2nd amendment protecting us against the NSA?

Even starting earlier, in what way could guns have protected us?

Please sketch out the "mechanism of action"...game it out for us.

Who would you point the gun at?

In contrast, I'm suggesting that the only person who's had any impact on this snooping is Edward Snowden (and the press) who did NOT use a gun.

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 01/06/2014 - 10:26am

Had it not been for Snowden, we wouldn't have known what this government was doing behind our backs. Evidently those in charge, the Congress and the courts, knew to keep it from us.

Eventually, maybe, as Jefferson stated, the people will get angry enough, to push back against these government abuses.

But it's hard to keep the government in fear, of the citizens disapproval, when it appears some of the citizenry is too stupid, to realize, they undercut the main reason for the Second Amendment when they attempt to help those in power, INFRINGE upon those Rights.

Our forefathers would role over in their graves, if they knew some cowardly and fearful citizens, were attempting to undercut the power they could wield, in the event of a future where the government trys to usurp more power than the free people/governed would allow.

Example: Do you think the government in Syria cares about those opposed to the way things are run? What makes you think we Americans, are any safer from a government who serves privilege and money and ignores the people.

Times have changed from the days of British rule but the methods employed today still produce the same results.

Excerpts from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,.........But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

SECRET COURTS , STONEWALLING DIRECT QUESTIONS FROM THE PEOPLES REPRESENTATIVES IN HOPES OF FATIGUING THOSE LOOKING FOR ANSWERS

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

NSA AND THE WIDE NET THEY CAST AND THE MEGADATA THEY COLLECT

A GOVERNMENT RUN AMOK NO LONGER NEEDS PHYSICAL QUARTERING. THEY HAVE ELECTRONIC EARS

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

EVERY INCIDENT OF HOMICIDE AND MASS MURDER, IS MET WITH MORE EXCUSES, BLAMING THE PROBLEM ON GUNS; RATHER THAN HELPING THOSE IN NEED OF MENTAL HEATH CARE.

and has endeavoured to bring on the ~~inhabitants of our frontiers, the~~ merciless ~~Indian~~ Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and condition

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us

THEY DON'T GIVE A CRAP!! THEY WANT THE GUNS AND THEY WANT TO RIG THE VOTING SYSTEM.

Did this answer your question Peter, or should we enter into a discussion of the Citizens having the right to defend themselves, against a superior army?

by Resistance on Mon, 01/06/2014 - 1:21pm

I don't think it did, but I'll try to respond later.

In the meantime, here's an interesting book on the subject...

"Cornell, a leading constitutional historian, shows that the Founders understood the right to bear arms as neither an individual nor a collective right, but as a civic right--an obligation citizens owed to the state to arm themselves so that they could participate in a well regulated militia."

http://www.amazon.com/Well-Regulated-Militia-Founding-Fathers-Origins/dp/0195341031/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389064303&sr=1-1&keywords=saul+cornell

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 01/06/2014 - 10:14pm

Saul Cornel has stirred much controversy as have everybody with a platform who advocates on one side or the other, or in the middle, about gun control. He applied for and received a grant from the Joyce Foundation.

From Wikipedia: Since 2003, the Joyce Foundation has paid grants totaling over $12 million to gun control organizations.[1][13] The largest single grantee has been the Violence Policy Center, which received $4,154,970[13] between 1996 and 2006, and calls for an outright ban on handguns, semi-automatic and other firearms, and substantial restrictions on gun owners. [My bold]

A link critical of Cornel at a gun rights support blog: http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/carl_bogus_resp.php

Cornel defends himself at The Volokh Conspiracy: http://www.volokh.com/posts/chain_1112820316.shtml

I have only read a bit but I suggest an interesting comment a bit down page by Randy Barnett.

by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 01/06/2014 - 11:24pm

I'm not sure there's a market for gun magazines among the sane gun owners. Many, perhaps most, of gun owners don't care to read gun magazines. I hunt in the national forests in the area I live in but I don't care to read about elite hunting for elk in Colorado or moose in Alaska nor do I care about the specifics of all the different guns. Just as I drive but I don't care to study the differences between all the different makes of cars.

I'm also not a survivalist so I don't care to know about all the different assault rifles I could use to protect my cache of can goods from the hordes of starving city folks invading my retreat.

My guess is gun magazines are for collectors or gun nuts.

by ocean-kat on Sat, 01/04/2014 - 3:51pm

We'll never know unless someone tries, and he may have to try several times before he gets the mix right.

When Xerox came out with its first machine, a number of people opined that copiers were a small niche market at best. What was the need for them, what with all them mimeograph machines around?

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 01/04/2014 - 4:48pm

But yes, it would have to be a different kind of gun magazine for a different kind of gun owner. But still, maybe, with some cross over appeal.

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 01/04/2014 - 4:49pm

True, its just a guess and I could be wrong. If there was a gun magazine for sane gun owners I might even subscribe even though I have little interest in reading about guns or hunting just to register my support as a gun owner for sane gun regulation.

by ocean-kat on Sat, 01/04/2014 - 4:55pm

I could use to protect my cache of can good

I wouldn't be advertising, you have a cache of can goods.

by Resistance on Sat, 01/04/2014 - 4:49pm

http://theamericanwomanshooter.com/

Here's my friend's new magazine, The American Woman Shooter.

She's not the person on the cover. She's the black woman, Lucretia, whose thumbnail appears on the inside.

I know very little about guns, but I wouldn't say she looks completely comfortable holding whatever it is she's holding.

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 01/04/2014 - 5:13pm

Very interesting, marketing-wise especially.

Cover girl reminded me right away of some Cissy Spacek characters

And guess what, in searching for a photo, I found she did an interview for Garden and Gun magazine (in Spring 2012), a relatively new publication that I've mentioned here before as doing well in the South and making it financially so far. She's a Southerner (born in East Texas) who sounds pretty comfortable with that sort of country gentry culture espoused by the magazine, has a Virginia farm now (of course that could be some acting geared towards hawking her book, but still the image stands)....which is not at all like the world of Guns and Ammo, that's for sure.

And while I'm on Spacek I might as well throw in that I think that Malick's 1973 film Badlands, in which she co-starred and which I consider a masterpiece, still has a lot to say about the mindless violent side of gun culture among some American youth. Perhaps even more so with the popularization of violent video games.

by artappraiser on Sun, 01/05/2014 - 2:55am

I confess to a visceral dislike of the G&G ethos, as I receive it.

The interview with SS sort of reeked of it.

I admit this is something of an irrational bias, but there it is.

I had to laugh when one of them said that Southern living is..."pungent."

The conflict between farm and city...European antiques and a whistle from childhood ...it's all very, very American and goes all the way back to our beginning.

Really need to get over this bias. That would be very librul of me. Conservatives demand of libruls the very thing conservatives refuse to do as a matter of principle.

by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 01/05/2014 - 12:32pm

AWS brings Nancy Lanza to mind, one wonders if the nation needs more women who are comfortable arming themselves and their homes to the teeth. But who cares? If Lucretia can make some bucks off the 'Woman Shooter' scheme good for her....the bottom line in dollars is all that counts in the USA.

by NCD on Sun, 01/05/2014 - 11:13am

Actually, Gabby Giffords might be a better analogy--both in AZ, FWIW.

One quick look at her mag thus far doesn't suggest many bucks coming in.

For me, the watchword is always balance. Almost nothing is good or bad in itself.

The right has festishized the gun and the 2nd amendment, and the left has kinda done the opposite.

by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 01/05/2014 - 12:21pm

The gunnies might as well call the 2nd Amendment the One and Only Amendment.

Freedom of speech or opinion, for this guy, are not recognized or respected by this crowd. Money, gun money, calls the shots here, in a nation run 'of the dollar, by the dollar and for the dollar'.

by NCD on Sun, 01/05/2014 - 1:06pm

I always like to bring up the time, place, and manner regulation on the first amendment right to assemble. It's one of the many examples of regulation on the first amendment the refutes the idea that the second amendment is so inviolate that there can be no regulation of it.

It also refutes the idea that the second amendment is there to protect all the other amendments in the bill of rights. If that was so where were the second amendment advocates with their guns when Bush abused civil liberties of protesters using time, place, and manner regulations?

Like you said, the only amendment the gun nuts care about is the right to bear arms.

by ocean-kat on Sun, 01/05/2014 - 3:01pm

Not hard to imagine Jefferson and the boys, sitting in the room, writing the Bill of Rights and they saying "The First Amendment sounds so magnificent, almost to good to be true; especially seeing how King George and English law made promises too and they failed to live up to the law, eventually ignoring and disregarding the governed's concerns and petitions.

Then some in the group said " the First is all well and good;, but how do we assure those rights; against a government who ignores these rights?

They all agreed the Second amendment is the insurance/assurance, against any usurpation of power, making our system of governance better than the one we just overthrew, who made so many promise but failed to keep.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE insured by the Second Amendment.

PS Maybe now, we'll finally get a government; who'll care for the sick amongst us, as it relates to mental health care; instead of continually ignoring their plight, because they purposely make no provision for it , allowing them to hurt themselves or others.

by Resistance on Sun, 01/05/2014 - 6:33pm

And yet, as o-k pointed out, it seems the vast majority of people who think that the Second Amendment has no equivalent of the First Amendment's "shouting fire in a crowded theater" never seem to be inclined to protect any amendment other than their precious Second Amendment. Illegal search and seizure? Sign me up!

by Verified Atheist on Sun, 01/05/2014 - 9:01pm

Illegal search and seizure? ????

1776 - Quartering troops to listen and observe the colonists and report back to the King George.

Fast forward ........ NSA to listen and observe the colonists and report back to the King

It appears the forefathers were wise, to include the 2nd Amendment for future generations; smart enough to preserve the most important guarantee.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764)

PS The government recognizes a chink in the armor and have polled, that some Americans are ready to abandon the 2nd amendment. So instead of focusing attention on making the citizenry healthy, so ALL can share in the benefits of FREEDOM; they let loose upon society, those who would act savagely against one another; so that the government can act against our rights and not act to cure those sick.

by Resistance on Mon, 01/06/2014 - 12:21am

That was exactly my point.

by Verified Atheist on Mon, 01/06/2014 - 8:17am

Not hard to imagine Jefferson and the boys, sitting in the room, writing the Bill of Rights

Its not hard to imagine many things that never happened. People with little knowledge of history find it easy to live in a fantasy world.

http://consortiumnews.com/2013/03/31/crazy-gun-toting-insurrectionists/

These constitutional “scholars” don’t seem to know that Jefferson did not write the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. He was the U.S. representative in Paris from August 1784 to September 1789. By the time Jefferson returned from Paris, the Constitution had been written and ratified and the Bill of Rights was moving through the first Congress.

But hey, Its not hard to imagine that while in Paris Jefferson took part in the writing of the constitution and the bill of rights using his Ipad and skype. And that the exact conversation you imagined took place while he was teleconferencing with the other delegates from some Paris WiFi hot spot.

by ocean-kat on Sun, 01/05/2014 - 10:12pm

Too most Americans, (with the possible exception of JEOPARDY players (the elite class)) they would get the sense of it, despite their lack of knowledge, of who were the major players.

Would you be agreeable, to accept, folks did sit down and write it? (Maybe they stood?)

This illustration was not intended as a history lesson, it was only to raise an awareness, as to possible reasons for the 2nd amendments inclusion; despite the common knowledge that most people in the colonies knew the importance of gun ownership and to assure there would be no encroachment on what was commonly accepted it was included SORRY

by Resistance on Sun, 01/05/2014 - 11:04pm

There are reams of reference material from that time. Letters from the major participants, papers written by both those involved in writing the constitution and the bill of rights as well as others both in support and opposition during is passage through congress, numerous newspaper articles.

What you imagined is a fiction, a lie, projected into the past onto the writers of the constitution and the bill of rights to forward an agenda that exists today. A lie, albeit an unwitting lie since most who spread it in their ignorance believe it to be true. In all the arguments and discussions over the bill of rights by writers at the time there is no historical data to back up your imaginations with or without including Jefferson.

But I have no doubt you will continue to imagine it happened, in fact, in some months I'm sure you'll forget that Jefferson was in Paris and took no part in writing either the constitution or the bill of rights and you'll continue to imagine he was there taking part in your imagined dialog.

by ocean-kat on Sun, 01/05/2014 - 11:11pm

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates,……..

http://www.madisonbrigade.com/t_jefferson.htm

You have a problem with this O K ?

Simply stated ......"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Simple enough that even the less educated can understand.

by Resistance on Mon, 01/06/2014 - 12:28am

I would change the title and the conclusion of Turley's opinion to one which stated that the second amendment is as Constitutionally valid as the other nine. That said, it is no less the legitimate law of the land, until the Constitution is changed, than the others. There are reasons [some listed] to believe that the founding fathers did include the right to bear arms for the reason of resisting the government, as Resistance claims.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/top-liberal-constitutional-law-ex...

by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 01/05/2014 - 11:21pm

Nice find LULU

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."

– Thomas Jefferson

by Resistance on Sun, 01/05/2014 - 11:54pm

Your link doesn't go to Turley's article but to a blog that includes an excerpt from it. More than half of the blog was actually written by the blogger or from other sources and are not Turley's opinion. The title was not Turley's but the blog's author. The conclusions of the blog are not supported by Turley's article. This was a poor attempt to use a supposed liberal constitutional scholar to support the blogger's opinion, but as usual in these cases its untrue. Were you fooled by the blogger or did you think I would be fool enough to miss it and you'd successfully pull the wool over my eyes?

I don't always agree with Turley even though he's considered a liberal. But I generally agree with his views on the second amendment. But Turley did not address the idea that the second amendment was designed to grant the people the right of armed insurrection. He only addressed whether it guaranteed an individual or state sanctioned militia right to bear arms. Is that what you're interested in discussing by bringing up Turley's article?

Some people quote thusly, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State....." others "...... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Whatever piece supports their agenda. I don't ever address whether the original intent of the second amendment was an individual right or exclusive to a state sanctioned militia. I believe in a living growing constitution and whatever the original intent, times have changed and an individual right to bear arms is widely accepted by a majority of Americans. I personally would like the second amendment to guarantee an individual right to bear arms but I don't claim that's the original intent.

I actually supported Scalia's decision in DC v Heller. I support an individual right to bear arms. From Scalia's opinion:

(a) In the Second Amendment’s operative clause (“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”), the phrase “the right of the people” creates “a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”

I also believe in reasonable gun control. Scalia acknowledges the right of the government to enact regulation of the second amendment, though its likely Scalia and I would disagree what constitutes "reasonable." From Scalia's opinion:

The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. (54-55) Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned. (55)

But nothing in his decision in any way states that the second amendment is or was a protection granted to allow insurrection against the duly elected government of the United States.

The only part of the blogger's, not Turley's, opinion that appear to support the second amendment as a grant for insurrection are the quotes at the bottom. The vast majority I agree with as they support an individual's right to bear arms for defense. The few that are left have been circling around the right wing gun nuts for years. Some are taken widely out of context, I suggest you read the original. A good place to start is to find the letter Jefferson's tree of liberty quote is taken from to see what he was actually talking about. Its on line, I read it some years ago. Its a rather crazy letter.

Sometimes the quotes are from the revolutionary war period and the author was exhorting people to take arms against the British. The gun nut will find some quote that uses "government" rather that "British government" but the whole of the letter makes clear the meaning of the reference. Again I suggest instead of taking some out of context quote from some gun nuts blog you go to the original. At other times the quote is 100 or more years after the passing of the bill of rights when some advocates were attempting to justify changes to gun regulations. Not from the founders if that's what's important to you.

At other times the quote doesn't actually exist. Someone made it up and it floats from right wing site to e-mail to e-mail to right wing site. It happens all the time. Just a couple of weeks ago some tea party Rep in congress got caught using a dozen fake "Lincoln" quotes. Do you trust this anonymous blogger? I don't. Did you think the quotes were from Turley's article who you do trust? They weren't.

So nothing in your link convinces me that the founding fathers enacted the first amendment so the people could overthrow the constitution and the government they just created. If you need further evidence just look at how Washington dealt with the Whiskey Rebellion.

by ocean-kat on Mon, 01/06/2014 - 2:52am

I appreciate the effort you expended with your response. You are right that the title was not the one Turley used but I reiterate that it was the one I said I would change, so we come closer in our views when that is noted.
All following emphasis mine.
As to the quotes supplied by the blog author, yes, I accepted them as accurate. Are they made up lies? Possibly some are. I didn't hear them voiced first hand so I cannot be certain. Maybe all are bs, I know that sometimes quotes are manufactured. That said, I also realize that no individual spoke for the entire convention. There was much arguing of different views supporting different philosophies, but what came out of that included the Second Amendment. The quotes, if correct, would seem to reflect at least some of the reasoning as touted by those who pushed for the amendment and which were implemented with the combined agreement of the rest.
As to your assertion that the blogger's conclusion differs from Turley's, I do not see any defined conclusion even presented by the blogger. Only quotes of a respected Constitutional scholar and of various persons involved in our country's early years and the formation of it's government. For that reason I can only conclude that the blogger wants the Second Amendment protected and that he/she is offering evidence that it is a protected right and that he/she is presenting evidence as to why it was made a protected right. I think the only conclusion that can be definitely derived from the whole of the blog is that the blogger defends the validity of the Second Amendment as being equal to that of any of the others. As does Turley and as do I. Do you disagree?

Were you fooled by the blogger or did you think I would be fool enough to miss it and you'd successfully pull the wool over my eyes?

I wasn't trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes and I see no reason for you to suspect that I am. And I do not consider you to be a fool but only mistaken in some of the conclusions you have drawn here. And, I won't get bent out of shape by the strong implication, as I see it, that you are suggesting that I am a fool.

But Turley did not address the idea that the second amendment was designed to grant the people the right of armed insurrection. He only addressed whether it guaranteed an individual or state sanctioned militia right to bear arms.

No, he also addressed the thinking of those founders who wanted the amendment and who obviously convinced others of its importance. The blogger then goes on to emphasize evidence, which Turley acknowledges, though it is not the basis of his argument, as to what that thinking was.

Turely: More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.

Ocean Kat: I don't ever address whether the original intent of the second amendment was an individual right or exclusive to a state sanctioned militia. I believe in a living growing constitution and whatever the original intent, times have changed and an individual right to bear arms is widely accepted by a majority of Americans. I personally would like the second amendment to guarantee an individual right to bear arms but I don't claim that's the original intent.

I also believe in a living evolving Constitution and whatever the original intent, and whether that intent is still a valid reason to keep the amendment, it is too prominent as an important protection, too explicit and too definitive in its wording to deny the fact that under the Constitution citizens are guaranteed the right to bear arms and the fact that militias are no longer an appropriate means of national defense and defending ourselves from government tyranny with small arms is no longer a meaningful option does not change that.

So I agree with Turley when he says,

But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.

Gun nuts, as well as many non-nuts believe that various gun regulations create a slippery slope. There are many promoters of regulations who obviously wish that all guns were banned from the public so the fear of regulations, even reasonable ones, being a slippery slope is understandable. It is quite obviously a situation which has become highly problematic due to the unintended consequences of what was a completely legitimate provision at the time it was inserted into the Constitution. My agreement with Turley leads me to believe that arguments and proposals which try to avoid the current and ongoing validity of the Second Amendment are completely wrong. So, I conclude that:
I would change the title of the blog and I agree with Turley's analysis which stated that the second amendment is as Constitutionally valid as the other nine. That said, it is no less the legitimate law of the land, until the Constitution is changed, than the others. There are reasons [some listed in the blog] to believe that the founding fathers did include the right to bear arms for the reason of resisting the government, as Resistance claims.

by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 01/06/2014 - 11:58am

by Resistance on Mon, 01/06/2014 - 6:55pm

You still want to spend most of your time convincing me that the second amendment is valid and it guarantees an individual right to bear arms. I've never said otherwise. I wasted a bunch of time to assure you that I in fact do believe the second amendment is valid even so far as concuring with the most conservative Supreme Court justice, Scalia in DC v Heller. Yet you spend so little time addressing the proposition that the second amendment was enacted to grant citizens the power to overthrow the government. Likely because the evidence you so far has offered amounts to 3 or 4 sentences out of several posts and thousands of words.

You assert your trust in some anonymous blogger. So lets look at one of the few quotes.

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
– George Washington

I chose this one since it was the clearest and most convincing quote to advance your proposition.

There is no citation what so ever. This doesn't cause you any suspicion? It would me. Assuming he didn't write it himself, clearly this blogger must know where he saw this quote. Perhaps he read it in a book, but he decides not to include the name of the book. Or maybe he saw it on another web site, but he doesn't include a link. Why wouldn't he source the quote?

The only explanation for not sourcing this quote is that the source is too flaky to be revealed or seen in context the quote no longer supports the bloggers position.

Why would you accept the validity of this quote? Why would you believe it means the same thing when taken in context? A large part of your proposition rests on this quote. Is this truly the quality of your research? You accept uncritically any quote from any blog you happen to agree with.. My high school teachers wouldm't accept such shoddy scholarship. Please explain exactly why you trust this blogger and why you believe this quote is true.

Or don't bother. I decided to waste some time trying to source this quote to see if I could understand it in context. Surprise, surprise, it doesn't even exist.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

And yet another bogus Washington quote:

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government

The actual quote:

A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.
---George Washington's First Annual Message to Congress (January 8, 1790)

This is one more example of why I tend to doubt quotes without any citations especially from the far right wing. Time and time again I've wasted time searching for the source of such quotes only to find they don't exist or they mean something quite different in context.

Now what are you going to say? That quote is fake but I trust the blogger and the other 3 unsourced quotes are probably true?

"The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them."

Thomas Jefferson 1787

Waduyathink, real quote or bogus? Hard to say without a citation but you're the trusting sort. (Its real.) Think it means what it seems to if taken in context?

I've tried to take Jefferson's sound advice, to set you right as to the facts. Here's hoping you're now pacified.

by ocean-kat on Mon, 01/06/2014 - 9:50pm

What I have spent time trying to convince you or anybody else who might be interested is expressed in my initial comment which I will repeat with the emphasis on my main point which was also in the original.

"There are reasons [some listed] to believe that the founding fathers did include the right to bear arms for the reason of resisting the government, as Resistance claims."

From there it went to bickering about details mainly involving who is credible. Side point; When I discuss issues such as this with friends I doubt there has ever been a time when we agree on every point. I can easily imagine every word that passed between you and I being said face to face from across a table and none ever being said with any animosity. I think I conceded every claim you made about false quotes existing and clouding issues, if I did not before then I do now, even though I am confident that some, I am betting most, of the quotes in the piece I linked to at Washington's Blog are legitimate.

You are wise to not give your full confidence to anything you read online but you should also have scepticism even if it includes a citation because it may be completely wrong.You have spent time yourself proving that a citation is no guarantee of accuracy. I can find citations for every quote in the piece I linked to, even, obviously, the one you debunked. I could cite Washington's Blog for that one.The history of a war, as an example, is written by the victor and always contains a lot of bs spouted by historians among others yet that history is usually right about who won.
So, that said, one or five or ten honest quotes are not made dishonest or irrelevant by one or two or a million false quotes intended to convey the same idea.
Cheers and goodnight.

by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 01/06/2014 - 10:22pm

Oh jeez, of course a citation isn't a guarantee of truth. Its just gives one an opportunity to backtrack to seek the truth. That's what I try to do. You just trust if you agree with it. If you posted a quote citing Washington blog I'd check there. If there had been a citation there I'd follow that and so on until I found the original or hit a dead end. If I hit a dead end I do a search. After that fucking waste of time I end up discovering its bogus.

What a cute little game you play. You say, here's a quote that proves my point, ha, ha, I win. I waste a couple of hours to show its fake. You say, oh well here's another quote that proves my point, ha ha sucker, waste another couple of hours tracking that one down.

You should be fucking embarrassed and apologetic to put out such a fraudulent quote, to assert that you trust the blogger and believe the unsourced quote. But you're not, you don't give a shit. No one here should trust a word you post after seeing how shoddy your research methods are.

I certainly wouldn't do it. Before I included a quote I'd search back to find the most authoritative source I can find and if I couldn't find one I wouldn't include the quote. That washington blog included so much unsourced information made it immediately suspect to me. That's why I love the internet so much. For the first time in my life I'm usually able to find the exact quote or data I somewhat remember and an authoritative source to back up my opinions. Whatever, I don't think you'll ever get a clue about what it means to have an adult conversation.

And yes, I'm not a nice guy. I'm a hard ass that gets pissed pretty quickly when dealing with bullshit.

by ocean-kat on Mon, 01/06/2014 - 11:33pm

ocean-kat, the one hard claim I have made is the following: [Apologies to anyone else bothering to follow this for my need to recap what has been said several times already]

There are reasons [some listed in the blog] to believe that the founding fathers did include the right to bare arms for the reason of resisting the government, as Resistance claims.

I saw the article at Washinton's Blog and followed the link to Turley's blog. I saw there what is to me a convincing analysis which supported his conclusion. That conclusion is that the right for U.S. American citizens to bare arms is created in the Constitution as positively as are any others in the Bill of Rights. Turley says in affect that we U.S. citizens do, in fact, have the right, under the Constitution, to bear arms, a fairly easy concept to grasp even for anyone who disagrees with him. He alludes to the fact [I believe it to be a fact, maybe you don't, what else drives you to get so worked up?] that some of the framers of the Constitution believed this right was important to protect the citizens from their government turning tyrannical. The possession of arms, they believed, or at least said, was a necessary right and in some cases the duty of citizens. That was the reason given by some [many?] to include that right in the Second Amendment. This formed my support for my one hard assertion: "There are reasons [some listed in the blog] to believe that the founding fathers did include the right to bear arms for the reason of resisting the government, as Resistance claims".
I made the conscious choice to link to Washinton's Blog because it had fourteen quotes evidencing that assertion. I did not think/do not think, that it was anywhere near a complete deposition of the evidence supporting the claim. It was merely a handy list so I included it.
I have now done a few minutes of online searching to verify or disprove a couple of the quotes myself, The one by George Washington came up as a false quote in the second entry at Google when I typed it in. One other Jefferson quote came up as correct at The Library of Congress. The next couple I attempted to verify or debunk had pages of links but after reading a few and then skimming to names of the blogs where they came up it became obvious that they are the fodder of right wing anti-gun legislation bloggers. The reason that is the case should be obvious but I quickly gave up searching for acceptable proof that the quotes were legitimate. [That raises a question, what is acceptable proof? First hand hearing the words spoken more than two hundred years ago? Original documents? School books which can be shown to have some misstatements? But never mind that now, I think we will both agree that there are some statements attributed to historical figures which are somehow accepted as being true and correct. There often exists evidence which is accepted as proof.]
What I did not find in my short search, and what I realize is not proof of validity of the quotes, is a debunking such as that which came up almost instantly in the case of the twisted quote attributed to George Washington. I figure that is the reason you used that one to support your rant and did not use any other. You probably couldn't quickly find proof that others were false even if you actually did spend hours trying. Probably you stopped there thinking that one proof that some quotes are contrived makes your case that all of the ones listed must be discounted if not attributed to a source which you give credence to and others might agree with you, especially if you screamed loud enough. But possibly you could not find proof that any or all of the others were false and admitting they were legitimate would completely undermine your entire rant, at least IMO. I say 'possibly' for a reason that I will come to shortly.
Above, after I said that I would bet that most of the quotes are accurate your head exploded and among your personal insults you claimed of me many things for which there is no evidence in the preceding dialogue such as the claim that I believe anything I read which supports what I want to believe.
I very often express an opinion by saying it is how I would bet. I have done a fair amount of gambling at what is to me high stakes and this method of expression fits my broader belief system. Sometimes I give odds that I would give in an actual bet. That to me is a shortcut to saying that I have no certainty in my opinion or belief, certainty being only a concept no sentient being should have about much of anything IMO, anymore than I am certain of winning when I bet big on a hidden full house against what I believe to be two big pairs with one other matching card of each pair showing on the board, but it does express my level of confidence in that opinion or belief.
So, ocean-kat, I have a simple, honest proposal to make. There are still 12 quotes that you haven't de bunked here plus one which is verified by the Library of Congress, [[Maybe that site was faked, Maybe they are lying to distort history, I can't prove different, maybe you can] although possibly you have already done so in your own investigation and not said so yet, or that you will be able to if you try. It shouldn't be so hard. Although there are not click able links there are attributions which show where the quote came from for seven of them such as this one. "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." [Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-B.] The rest at least have the name of the alleged quo tee.
I will offer to make it worth your while to do the research to debunk my belief that most of the quotes in question at Washingtoin's Blog are legit. I will send a money order to a Dagblogger we agree on, I suggest AA if she is willing but Ressistance or probably any other regular would also be acceptable to me, for one hundred dollars which is to be forwarded to you if you prove four of the remaining quotes to be false. [Minor discrepancies in wording not to be an issue if the essential meaning is clearly the same] I will agree to letting three Daggbloggers which we agree on to be the judge of the evidence. Again, I suggest AA to be one if she is willing. I will also send a two hundred dollar money order to be included in your winnings if you prove seven of them to be false. [You can ignore how few need to be correct to indicate the beliefs of some of the Founding Fathers] That is high stakes to me. You can put up fifty dollars to win as much as three hundred dollars. For me to win fifty along with my returned money orders, you must fail to debunk at least four. If I had strong confidence in a provable case I would jump on that bet in a minute. How about you, Mr, Pissed-off Hardass? You even have a while, I'll say until noon tomorrow, to investigate and satisfy yourself one way or the other before accepting my bet and taking my money if you can find the right evidence to support your insulting rant.

by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 01/07/2014 - 3:26pm

So nothing in your link convinces me that the founding fathers enacted the first amendment so the people could overthrow the constitution and the government they just created

Didn't you mean to write the 2nd amendment?

Maybe I am mistaken, it occurs from time to time, due to my imperfections.

by Resistance on Mon, 01/06/2014 - 1:38pm

Good points and good work, oceankat.

The list of historic quotes certainly screamed "cherry-picked and taken-out-of-context" to me, so much so that it didn't seem worth time to disprove. But kudos to you for trying to take them on.

You made me curious to check out Jonathan Turley's own blog (note that it is a .org.) Did a search there for Second Amendment and results show that Turley has chosen for the last couple years not to write on it himself but to publish guest posts by Mike Appleton, Lawrence Rafferty and Mark Esposito. And judging by a quick skim, those writers seem to be people who do not think like the NRA, nor like the Washingtons Blog post implies.

For what it's worth, those results also suggest to me that Turley also does not consider himself an expert on the Second Amendment but prefers to publish others' take on it.

by artappraiser on Mon, 01/06/2014 - 3:11pm

Thanks AA, but I really don't think I did that good a job. The right can spew out these quotes by the thousands, and they do. To debunk even one quote is devilish difficult and takes hours of research. I just spent a couple of hours exploring articles from a search of - fake right wing quotes- and came across this as one of the best articles.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2003/12/07/answering-a-christian-nati...

On July 4, 1821, President Adams said, “The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: “It connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”

This is another textbook example of what happens when quotes are simply passed along and repeated without anyone bothering to check the original source to see if it’s accurate. This is why, in scholarly documents, footnotes are used to provide specific documentation of the source of a quote. Let’s follow the trail backwards and see where it leads. The quote is used by David Barton, who is nearly always the modern source of false quotations from the founding fathers. We’ll see an example of another one below. Barton did not get it from the original documents, he got it from another book of quotations by William Federer called America’s God and Country: An Encyclopedia of Quotations. So Federer got it from the original, right? Wrong. Federer’s footnote is to a book by John Wingate Thornton from 1860. The Thornton book is full of quotations and footnotes locating the source of those quotes. But these words, attributed to John Quincy Adams, are not in fact a quote at all. The words belonged to Thornton. The words are not in quotation marks and there is no footnote giving a source. And no one has ever located an original source from Adams that contain those words, of even a similar sentiment to it. The quote, to be blunt, is a fake. Adams never said it. But this is an excellent example of what passes for historical scholarship among the Christian Nation proponents – the truth doesn’t matter so long as something can be made to appear as supporting their position.

Imagine the amount of time the author essentially wasted to track down and debunk that one quote. I don't have that kind of time or interest And that's just one of the dozen or so quotes he debunks in his article which doesn't even begin to touch the thousands of fake and out of context quotes the right wing produces. Its an overwhelming task and I just tried to chip away at the edges a little.

This one though was the most amusing.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/12/01/034/95036/media/Fake-Abraham-Li...

Instapundit has the latest on the fake Abraham Lincoln quote making the rounds--it was debunked by the Chicago Sun Times here:

"There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There's nothing good in war except its ending." Attributed to Lincoln by anti-war protesters earlier this year, the statement actually was made by an actor portraying Lincoln in an episode of "Star Trek."

Nonetheless, you can buy the t-shirt here.

Well, as Thomas Jefferson once said, "Its far easier to make up a quote and attribute it to a famous person to further an agenda than it is for me to debunk it." What? You claim Jefferson never said that. Ok then, prove he didn't.

by ocean-kat on Mon, 01/06/2014 - 4:47pm

Lincoln also hated vampires, doncha know....

On footnotes. I was a wikipedia skeptic in its youth. But once I saw them really cracking down hard on making everyone use footnotes, I knew it was all going to be fine.

by artappraiser on Mon, 01/06/2014 - 4:51pm

The list of historic quotes certainly screamed "cherry-picked and taken-out-of-context" to me, so much so that it didn't seem worth time to disprove.

Of course they are "cherry-picked". They were chosen by a blogger to support a point, the same reason that the blogger chose Turley's carefully expressed opinion. Turley was quoted out of all the possible sources because he presents, with some authority, a point the blogger is trying to make. And, even if some or all of the historic quotes offered by the blogger are completely or partially wrong, that would not in any way reflect poorly on the opinion expressed by Turley.

Regarding your second paragraph, I would not expect Turley to post the same analysis over and over. He was quite clear the one time which we are discussing here. As he noted in the beginning of his opinion piece, the Second Amendment did not fit neatly into his "socially liberal agenda". He makes it clear that he is uncomfortable with what a recognition of the Second Amendment implies. And, I think he makes it clear that he does not think overall like the NRA, and of course he does not mention Washington's Blog which I would not expect him to endorse much of, if any of, the time but which I would expect him to agree with at least in part some of the time, such as when they say that the Second Amendment is Constitutional law. Also, my skimming of the first page of the search you linked to suggests that the 18 guest blogs out of 50 were not all addressing the specific question of whether the Second Amendment had equal standing as Constitutional law as do the other others.

For what it's worth, those results also suggest to me that Turley also does not consider himself an expert on the Second Amendment but prefers to publish others' take on it.

I think it is pretty silly for a person to present themselves as a Constitutional scholar or for anyone else to believe them to be one if they do not have a strong opinion on all the Amendments. As a Constitutional scholar and an accomplished lawyer with a public and professional persona and reputation to maintain, I expect that he does, in fact, have a carefully considered opinion on the Second Amendment, one that would be considered an expert opinion by most, and that he was being careful with his expression of it when he said what he said, including that, "... the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment [implying to me that he does not necessarily agree with the original purpose or that he thinks it may now be an outmoded purpose] does not alter the fact that an individual right is created." Also when he said, "... gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it".
And, is Turley mistaken because of reading false or cherry-picked history when he says, "At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace."?

by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 01/06/2014 - 6:26pm

I just read (and reviewed) a book by a fellow that posts as Mike the Gun Guy on HuffPost. He is becoming thoroughly reviled on gun sites because he doesn't follow the NRA party line.

by Donal on Sat, 01/04/2014 - 7:17pm

I thought of your post right away when I saw this story (and Gopnik's review, too, of course, which I may have also posted here when it was published.) But I thought posting this story here rather than over by you would, er, have more impact if you know what I mean, but I did hope you'd catch it.

P.S. OT but one of your other interests: I just saw there's a video report on new airbag bicycle helmets over at the Beeb.

by artappraiser on Sun, 01/05/2014 - 2:26am

Yes! Developed by some Swedish or Norwegian women engineers, I believe.

Can one trust it, though...

by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 01/05/2014 - 12:22pm

Arm residents

...... finally commonsense

Detroit police chief: Arming residents will act as a deterrent

http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/03/detroit-police-chief-arming-residents-will-act-as-a-deterrent/

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764)

by Resistance on Mon, 01/06/2014 - 8:03pm

My bold

There’s a number of [concealed pistol license, or CPL] holders running around the city of Detroit. I think it's acting as a deterrent. Good Americans with CPLs translates into crime reduction, too," Craig said on WJR Radio's

Requirements are here:

http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10926--,00.html

which look a hell of a lot stricter than background checks I especially find the list of misdemeanors that disqualify to be quite good (#12 and #13), wish something like that could happen federally.

And guess what, after they manage to pass all of that, the government has their name and address. Oh my god, what would the N.R.A. and Thomas Jefferson say?!

by artappraiser on Mon, 01/06/2014 - 8:45pm

Wow, amazing. After reading Michigan's CPL law I, for the first time, agree with Resistance.

...... finally commonsense

by ocean-kat on Mon, 01/06/2014 - 8:51pm

Common sense in regards to arming the residents.

I see no need to have residents register or get permission from the government to carry unless their rights have been revoked by a court..

The assailants have no clue who is registered or not, only that you may be armed that in its self is a deterrent. The element of surprise is a good defense.

We are a free people. able to exercise self defense, without the government controlling who can and cannot.

Imagine.....No! Absolutely not; you may not defend yourself because you didn't get the proper permission slip?

If you want to take a gun course that is your business, the NRA has many good programs.

by Resistance on Tue, 01/07/2014 - 12:15am

It's my understanding that a "right" can't be revoked by anyone, one.

Two, if a right were revoked by a court (as you allow) that is a form of permission-denied executed by... the government. The courts are part of government.

Three, if an assailant has "no clue" as to who is registered and thus the element of surprise remains intact, what is the problem with requiring registration? Your average criminal isn't going to know if you've been denied a registration (as you say).

This is all so contradictory, Resistance, I don't know what to say.

Maybe it's just my bias, but it feels to me like you've got "the government" on the brain. Almost like folks who demanded "the government" stay out of their Medicare.

Or maybe saying "the government" in your presence is like saying "Niagra Falls" within earshot of The Three Stooges...

(Just a little levity...from a Levite.)

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 01/07/2014 - 1:49pm

Three, if an assailant has "no clue" as to who is registered and thus the element of surprise remains intact, ...... what is the problem with requiring registration?

The problem with registration, is we don't need the government to EVER think it can keep a data base of lawful gun owners. Today or 100 or 200 years from now.

The only data base should comprise of those the government has revoked the Right Felons The data base should include those deemed mentally ill, who have shown a propensity to harm themselves or others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_of_rights_due_to_felony_conviction

Laws already on the books dealing with prohibited persons" under US law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)).

Your average criminal isn't going to know if you've been denied a registration (as you say).

What? If the gun rights opponents get their way, criminals will automatically assume, good citizens won't be armed.

by Resistance on Tue, 01/07/2014 - 2:55pm

...There’s a number of [concealed pistol license, or CPL] holders running around the city of Detroit. I think it's acting as a deterrent. Good Americans with CPLs translates into crime reduction, too," Craig said on WJR Radio...

Can repeat the quote from the Detroit article you cited as many times as need be for it to sink in.

by artappraiser on Tue, 01/07/2014 - 3:03pm

I could next move on to giving citations and quotes where police say hotheads (rather than the mentally ill) using unlicensed concealed weapons cause all kinds of mayhem and murder (hence the reason for many of the disqualifying misdemeanors on the Michigan list), often to members of their own families when they are angry at them. But also just to other people that aren't of their tribe (i.e., a member of another gang, a member of another race on their lawn, a guy in a bar who disagrees with them about football, etc.)

But I won't bother. Because I've seen it before: you will then change the topic to: it's not really being about helping the police fight crime but it's really about being able to fight the police and government should need be.

And then we could move on to how the police and government have much bigger weapons than in 1776 and and how in many other other parts of the world it is being shown that the only way to really fight big government forces these days is to use things like IED's, hand-held missile launchers against choppers, and terrorism, including suicide bombers, not firearms or even cannons (the latter of which you lost the "right" to own individually long ago.)

But I won't bother, because then you will move away from that to just talking about the Constitution in general and how it doesn't allow for taking the guns away. Even though nobody is trying to take the guns away, no more than they were trying to take the automobiles away when they started to regulate automobiles....

by artappraiser on Tue, 01/07/2014 - 3:47pm

The license isn't the deterrent ......... IT'S THE PISTOL; IT'S THE PISTOL; IT'S THE PISTOL

How many more times must I say it

Let me spell it out for the mentally challenged. What difference does it make whether you have a CPL or you just came out of the service and you just carried one without the permit?

The assailant you run off /deter isn't asking you to show him your license.

Assailant: OOOHHHH I 'm so afraid of your license.

Good Americans with pistols translates into crime reduction, too," Craig could have said on WJR Radio..

by Resistance on Tue, 01/07/2014 - 3:29pm

No one is suggesting that the license is the deterrent. I have no idea where you're getting that from.

Let me spell it out for you.

Requiring a CPL makes it easier to determine whether someone may lawfully carry a gun — meaning that police can arrest someone carrying a concealed gun without such a license, which is a good thing, since they've demonstrated that they have no respect for the law.

Registering guns means that when a gun is used in a crime it is far more likely that the gun can be tracked down to its owner, which will make it easier for police to solve the crime.

Why do you think so many police forces favor laws like these? Is it a paranoid belief that the police are out to get you?

So, having a CPL and carrying a gun can act as a deterrent to crime. I'd ask if you understand, but alas I already know the answer.

by Verified Atheist on Tue, 01/07/2014 - 3:31pm

I'm gonna pop some popcorn before reading the reply

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/07/2014 - 3:41pm

And these are the summary lines of Dick Metcalf's article “Let’s Talk Limits,” which caused him the banishment:

I don't think that requiring 16 hours of training to qualify for a concealed carry license is infringement in and of itself.

But that's just me...

It's a rather short article, all commenting really should glance at it, to understand the magnitude of his sins, won't take long.

by artappraiser on Mon, 01/06/2014 - 9:25pm

I did read it and he'd have done a greater service for all Americans, by endorsing the many fine programs, the NRA offers in safety training.

BTW It's where I took my training and later joined a shooting club at a local National Guard Assembly Hall

97,000 instructors for Education & Training

From beginner to developing competitor, the NRA Training Department develops safe, ethical, responsible shooters through a network of more than 97,000 instructors and range safety officers, more than 5,700 coaches, and more than 1,800 training counselors

http://training.nra.org/

If the American government were to say to the American people "The wisest course for all Americans, who want to own a gun, carry a gun or you want to sell a gun, is that you should (as opposed to force) get an NRA Certificate of Completion. Sellers could on their own, encourage buyers to be in possession of a Certificate, before a purchase could be made.

NO NATIONAL DATABASE OF RESPONSIBLE, LAWFUL CITIZENS IS NEEDED.

It's obvious the government doesn't promote this notion; instead it tries to find a wedge issue, by demonizing the NRA, instead of encouraging Training.

by Resistance on Thu, 01/09/2014 - 4:50am

Detroit police chief wants citizens to arm themselves

EDITORIAL:

Motor City’s top cop says it time to invoke the Second Amendment

Beat cops have never been persuaded that depriving citizens of the right to defend themselves and their families with a gun is anything more than disarming the victim.

In 2011, a survey of police officers by the National Association of Chiefs of Police found that 98 percent of those surveyed think “any law-abiding citizen [should] be able to purchase a firearm for sport and self-defense.” Seventy-nine percent think someone with a permit to carry a gun in one state should be allowed to carry it concealed in another.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/6/editorial-eliminating-gun-crime/#ixzz2pqfbTrpO

by Resistance on Wed, 01/08/2014 - 5:30pm

Leonard Pitts in McClatchy:

In his December column, Metcalf offered a nuanced argument that gun enthusiasts should accept some minor regulation of their Second Amendment rights. Specifically, he said, a requirement that people who wanted to carry concealed weapons undergo 16 hours of training was not "excessive." The way his fellow gun lovers responded to this, you'd have thought he'd argued for U.N. confiscation of every gun, arrow and slingshot in America.

There were death threats. He lost his show. Subscription cancellations poured in. Advertisers demanded he be fired. And he was.

The community he had supported so faithfully had made him a nonperson. See, that community has a simple credo: guns - no restrictions. And any slightest deviation from that absolutist mantra is grounds for expulsion. If you are only with them 99 percent, you are not with them at all. George Orwell had a word for it: groupthink.

by Donal on Wed, 01/08/2014 - 2:52pm

See, that community has a simple credo: guns - no restriction

A BOLD FACED LIE

by Resistance on Wed, 01/08/2014 - 6:07pm

Do "Universal" Background Checks Reduce Murder Rates?

National mandatory background checks for all private party firearm sales are again part of the national conversation. There are people who everyone agrees should not be able to buy a gun—convicted violent criminals and those currently awaiting trial or sentencing for such crimes, illegal aliens, people with serious mental illness problems. If the background check was free, fast, and did not produce any gun or gun owner registration lists, it would likely face less opposition from gun rights advocates. But such a system is a far cry from recent proposals.

The straw purchasers are already committing a federal felony. It is hard to imagine that they are going to suddenly start obeying a new law on background checks. Of course, the government could do that with the current law. Nor will a background check law affect thefts, or corrupt gun dealers. There are also already laws on the books for those situations.

As I said at the beginning, there are strong arguments in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of those who are not lawfully allowed to possess them. But the evidence just doesn’t exist that such laws would be effective at reducing murder rates.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/8/do-universal-background-checks-reduce-murder-rates.aspx

by Resistance on Wed, 01/08/2014 - 5:41pm

Law Enforcement United Against Gun Control , Survey Finds

FAIRFAX, Va. – PoliceOne.com released today the results of an extensive survey of about

15,000 active and retired law enforcement officers

of all ranks and from departments ranging in size from less than 25 to more than 1,000.

These results strongly show that law enforcement officers do not support President Obama’s gun control agenda. They do, however, strongly support the Right-to-Carry by law-abiding Americans. The survey respondents are united in their desire for politicians to focus on keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill and to reject unconstitutional gun control measures that infringe on Second Amendment rights.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2013/4/survey-finds-law-enforcement-united-against-gun-control.aspx

by Resistance on Wed, 01/08/2014 - 6:08pm

"Universal Background Checks" – Absolutely Not

according to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice, more than 72,000 people were turned down on a gun purchase in 2010 because they didn't pass the background check. Yet, only 44 of those cases were prosecuted. Why, when criminals are caught in act of lying on the form to illegally purchase a firearm are they not prosecuted?

This agenda focuses on peaceable citizens, not violent criminals who obtain guns on the black-market to carry out unspeakable crimes already prohibited under federal and state laws. Instead of stopping crime and eliminating criminal conduct, they are creating more criminals – they are targeting you.

That's why NRA Members and the nation's 100 million firearms owners will stand in solidarity and fight against these misguided and diabolical proposals that have nothing whatsoever to do with curbing criminal violence but everything to do with stripping us of our guaranteed civil rights and our freedom.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2013/1/universal-background-checks-%E2%80%93-absolutely-not.aspx

by Resistance on Wed, 01/08/2014 - 5:59pm

according to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice, more than 72,000 people were turned down on a gun purchase in 2010 because they didn't pass the background check. Yet, only 44 of those cases were prosecuted. Why, when criminals are caught in act of lying on the form to illegally purchase a firearm are they not prosecuted?

This agenda focuses on peaceable citizens, not violent criminals who obtain guns on the black-market to carry out unspeakable crimes already prohibited under federal and state laws. Instead of stopping crime and eliminating criminal conduct, they are creating more criminals – they are targeting you.

These two paragraphs simply don't follow.

First, 72,000 "bad guys" were denied guns. That's pretty good, isn't it? I don't know the ins and outs of the prosecutions, but the article admits the procedure kept guns out of the hands of those people.

Second, the fact these people who lied on the form weren't prosecuted in NO WAY suggests that the "agenda" or the "program" focuses on "peaceable citizens." How? How many peaceable citizens were turned away? How many of them were denied guns? As far as we can tell: NONE.

You can't claim that these 72,000 were peaceable citizens because you're already saying they are criminals, lied on the forms, and should have been prosecuted. So clearly, you believe these people should've been denied guns (at least). And they were denied guns.

by Anonymous PS (not verified) on Thu, 01/09/2014 - 11:11am

It's a good thing that the system worked in identifying those who shouldn't have guns, no doubt about it.

For what reason would Law abiding citizens need to be on Big Brothers Radar?

As posted earlier

There are people who everyone agrees should not be able to buy a gun—convicted violent criminals and those currently awaiting trial or sentencing for such crimes, illegal aliens, people with serious mental illness problems. If the background check was free, fast, and did not produce any gun or gun owner registration lists, it would likely face less opposition from gun rights advocates. But such a system is a far cry from recent proposals.

What is the problem? So your name goes on a National Data Base and their are no restrictions associated with your name, so the benevolent government grants you permission to proceed with your RIGHT?

Law abiding citizens never violated their Right.

Stick to the Law, it's supposed to work, but heres the catch; why would convicted violent criminals and those currently awaiting trial or sentencing for such crimes, illegal aliens, people with serious mental illness problems, not fear Violating a law ALREADY on the books,

What is the deterrent for those; who try to breach the system knowing they were on the list prohibiting THEM. A slap on the hand ?

The list of those prohibited did work, but their was no punishment.

The government needs to send a strong message, "Do the crime, do the time"

Where's Obama's "line in the sand" regarding those violating the EXISTING GUN LAWS?

Proving once again, the main objective is not to punish violators, but to get Everyone who exercises their Right; be on a list.

BTW notice how the government did mess with our rights

Miranda was a Right we had to remain silent, now if you're to stupid to know, you have a right; you now have to invoke your Rights? How twisted is that? Could future generations be affected by this slippery slope?

I know this; We have a Right to Bear Arms and WE the Lawful People, shouldn't have to fight, to keep our names off of a National Data Base. I will also invoke my Right to remain silent, not even allowing them to put my name on a list.

But I'm sure, the NSA already knows, who the resistors are, of their attempts to take away our Rights. They'd also like to know through a National Data Base who has guns and what kinds.

by Resistance on Thu, 01/09/2014 - 1:16pm

How do you implement a background check that does not require some form of ID? How do you guarantee that there will not be a gun owner registration list if they're asking for ID?

by Verified Atheist on Thu, 01/09/2014 - 2:53pm

Pro-gun activists maintain that gun ownership does not necessarily breed gun violence—and indeed, murder rates have declined 17 percent in the United States over the past decade, even as gun ownership has soared.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/gallery/2013/12/the-sandy-hook-backlash/001513-021300.html#.Us5n_p5dW8s

by Resistance on Thu, 01/09/2014 - 4:16am

Target: Me
I spent the last 37 years writing about guns. Then my career as a firearms journalist came to an abrupt end.
By DICK METCALF, Politico Magazine, January 14, 2014

[....] The hijacking of our movement by these radical extremists causes me to fear for the future of the right I have spent my adult life fighting to defend. At present, we defenders of the Second Amendment have the American mainstream voters on our side. Nearly two-thirds of the 109 new state firearms laws enacted in the year following the Newtown shooting actually eased gun restrictions and expanded gun-owners’ rights. During that same period there was no significant federal firearms legislation at all. But when we engage in noisy, extremist rhetoric rejecting all firearms regulation whatsoever, or refuse to acknowledge the plain fact that constitutionally validated regulations and statutes already exist, we risk alienating the American mainstream. And if we lose that mainstream, we will lose this war [....]

by artappraiser on Tue, 01/14/2014 - 9:58am

Mr Metcalf by his words; undermines and gives the (extremist gun control advocates) aid. He will receive no sympathy from Second Amendment protectors for his subsequent, crying about how he's a victim.

He didn't lose his job because of extremists gun right advocate; he lost his job because his writings gave aid to people like you, looking to divide and conquer.

extremist rhetoric rejecting all firearms regulation whatsoever

WHAT ???? No reasonable person; who believes as the NRA does; rejects "ALL firearms regulation whatsoever", the man spoke his opinion and as far as Second Amendment protectors are concerned, they will not accept him as a spokesperson, just because he had 37 years writing about guns. The name Judas comes to mind. Mole?

NRA STANCE

There are people who everyone agrees should not be able to buy a gun—convicted violent criminals and those currently awaiting trial or sentencing for such crimes, illegal aliens, people with serious mental illness problems.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/8/do-universal-background-checks-reduce-murder-rates.aspx

by Resistance on Tue, 01/14/2014 - 11:17pm

reply to lulu's comment above

When I saw your comment and read the blog I had a similar reaction to what AA had, in essence I thought the blog was bullshit. Frankly I hate dealing with bullshit and wished you had posted it to someone else so I could ignore it as it deserved. But you posted it to me so I had a choice. I could ignore it, but that would leave the impression that your bullshit was a powerful argument I couldn't counter. I could waste hours debunking it which I had no intention of doing. So I decided to address the main argument: that the second amendment granted an individual right to bear arms. I agreed. I thought we could put that part behind us but it didn't work at all. Then I slapped around the edges explaining in a general way how the right wing makes fake quotes. And hoped that would end it.

There are reasons [some listed in the blog] to believe that the founding fathers did include the right to bare arms for the reason of resisting the government, as Resistance claims.

If that was your hard point why have you spent most of your time arguing that the second amendment grants an individual right to bear arms. Even after I agreed. You are still arguing that point. How many times do I have to say I agree. Saying that the second amendment grants an individual right to bear arms does not even imply the reasons include the right of insurrection. Any more than it implies that an individual has a right to bear arms because it was the most effective way of committing suicide.

I saw the article at Washinton's Blog and followed the link to Turley's blog. I saw there what is to me a convincing analysis which supported his conclusion. That conclusion is that the right for U.S. American citizens to bare arms is created in the Constitution as positively as are any others in the Bill of Rights. Turley says in affect that we U.S. citizens do, in fact, have the right, under the Constitution, to bear arms, a fairly easy concept to grasp even for anyone who disagrees with him.

Yes his article supported his conclusion that US citizens have a right to bear arms. But once again that doesn't in any way support your so called hard point. Saying that the second amendment grants a citizen the right to bear arms doesn't support the idea that the reason is to grant a citizen the right to foment revolution against the government.

He alludes to the fact [I believe it to be a fact, maybe you don't, what else drives you to get so worked up?] that some of the framers of the Constitution believed this right was important to protect the citizens from their government

Yes, he alludes to what you believe to be a fact. There is no elaboration, no supporting evidence, 99% of Turley's blog simply addresses the question of an individual right to bear arms. Now maybe any one sentence alluding to anything without elaboration or evidence in a Turley article is gospel to you because....TURLEY. But I require more than that to convince me.

I made the conscious choice to link to Washinton's Blog because it had fourteen quotes evidencing that assertion.

No there are not. There are 4 quotes evidencing your hard assertion. The other 10 assert the importance of guns for other reasons.

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.
–Samuel Adams

An assertion of the individual's right to arms but contains no list of reasons.

The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…
–James Madison

This is simply a paraphrasing of the second amendment, including a well regulated militia and additionally, trained to arms. It could as easily be used to argue against an individual right to bear arms outside of a trained and regulated militia. It certainly doesn't even imply a right to insurrection. Also "bear.....arms" When ever I see those dots I wonder what was left out. Certainly nothing that would support the bloggers right wing gun positions. Maybe just extraneous non essential sentences. But often right wingers leave out material in the middle of a quote because it will change the meaning in ways they don't like.

[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.
– Tench Coxe

A clear quote addressing the individual right to bear arms that, again, doesn't address resistance to the government.

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.
–Alexander Hamilton

The best hope for what reason? Defense from foreign invaders? Indians? Criminals? The government? Hamilton doesn't say.

99% of Turley's blog doesn't support your so called hard point. 99% of the washingtonblog doesn't support your hard point. Even 10 out of 14 quotes don't support your hard point. In addition at least one of those 4 quotes is fake. That I think is why you spend most of your time discussing an individual's right to bear arms. The evidence supporting a right to insurrection is slim at best.

What I did not find in my short search, and what I realize is not proof of validity of the quotes, is a debunking such as that which came up almost instantly in the case of the twisted quote attributed to George Washington. I figure that is the reason you used that one to support your rant and did not use any other.

I didn't want to do any debunking. After several back and forths I gave in and did one. I chose the Washington quote since it looked suspicious. I skipped the Jefferson quote because Jefferson is a complex thinker. While some of the quotes attributed to him are fake many are real. But in most cases the "real" quotes mean something quite different in context in the full letter they come from. Debunking in context requires some knowledge of history to clarify what he was talking about. That sort of sophisticated and complex discussion is much more time consuming than merely showing a quote is fake.

That raises a question, what is acceptable proof? First hand hearing the words spoken more than two hundred years ago? Original documents? School books which can be shown to have some misstatements?

Of course it does. That's one reason I hate to debunk right wing propaganda quotes. Did you read my comment to AA? A fake quote by Burton lead to book by Federer that lead to a book by Thorton where the "quote" was not footnoted or in quotes. Perhaps those books aren't on line. Perhaps he had to go to a quality public or university library to complete his research. That's why honest researchers have an obligation to assure the accuracy of their quotes. Its not the responsibility of the reader to do the research for them. The washington blog would not be acceptable in a college, not even in a decent high school. We're all educated adults here. Isn't it about time for you to step up your comments to at least the level required of a high school senior.

I have done a fair amount of gambling at what is to me high stakes I will send a money order to a Dagblogger we agree on

Jeeze, who the fuck are you, Mitt Romney? When I got out of the army I took a bus from California hoe to Pennsylvania. At the very last stop in Nevada I figured I should gamble at least once before I left the state. I gathered a few bucks in change and put it in a slot machine. That's the one time I've gambled. I think this "offer" hints that you still have a problem you need to work on.

I've got a job. I make enough money. In fact I get more job offers than I want and turn down some of them. In addition my life in part is a story of choices made to make less money and live simply so I have more free time to pursue my own interests. I don't intend to waste the precious hours of my life for your petty amount of cash. Nor do I intend to try and enlist other dagbloggers to hold money to play your asinine little game. Are you really this fucking childish?

There are not even 4 quotes for me to debunk. 10 merely assert the value of guns, that everyone should own one, or that its an individual right. Quotes like that aren't hard to find and while some are fake many are likely real. But they don't support your hard point that the second amendment was granted so citizens could revolt against their government.

4 quotes one that was already shown to be fake. That leaves 3 so how can I debunk 4 more quotes?

Do your own research, raise the level of your discourse to that of an average high school senior.

by ocean-kat on Tue, 01/14/2014 - 5:08pm

I guess it's good that the one time you ever gambled you didn't inhale. Rectitude and informed righteousness shines from the man you went on to become. I'm sure your momma is proud.

Two simple claims were made. One, that the Second Amendment of the Constitution means what it says. The second claim is that the reason for the Second Amendment according to some of the framers was to defend against tyranny by the government.
Correction, I made a third claim. I said that Resistance was correct when he made those two claims.
It is possible to come to a correct conclusion based on faulty information and poor reasoning. I agree for the sake of ending a bullshit unproductive exchange to stipulate that all my evidence was crap, that I provided crap evidence and that I do not understand simple English.
But, the fact will remain, either some of the founding fathers did believe that the Second Amendment was important to allow citizens to protect themselves from governmental tyranny, or at least claimed that as a reason, or they didn't. Few controversies are reducible to terms that are that simple such that we can know with certainty that either one or the other of the two possibilities is true but they cannot both be true.
So, you agree with the first claim and either you accept my second claim as valid, even as you argue that I gave bullshit and offensive reasons to believe it, or you believe that it is a false. If you do not believe it is a false claim, or to put it in positive terms, If you do believe that some of the Founding Fathers did include the Second Amendment for the reason I have said, then you agree with my second claim and by logical extension you agree that Resistance is correct about the two thing which I said he was correct about.
So, now that we have each represented our cases to each other such that we each think the other's methods are bullshit, would you consider answering the second claim one way or the other and settling this once and for all. It really does come down to a case where expecting a yes or no answer is justified. Pretend it is a simple grade school test, like a true or false quiz. You have a fifty-fifty chance of being right even if you don't actually know the answer. If you do know the answer you can give it with confidence. You can even bet on it and it wouldn't be gambling.

by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 01/14/2014 - 9:27pm

Good points LULU.

It has been observed; "They have eyes and ears; yet they can't see or hear" and apparently they lack reasoning and understanding

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government,

a real despotism.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

Not Liberty nor Freedom; but despotism

Unarmed fools, believe think they can reason with a despot.

Our forefathers warned us to keep our arms; because they'd "been there, done that" with a despot who only got worse despite our petitions.

by Resistance on Tue, 01/14/2014 - 11:54pm

and that I do not understand simple English.

That must be the case since I've answered your question in every post to you as well as the posts to resistance preceding our conversation. Some how you're still wondering but I don't see how any one could claim there was any lack of clarity in my response on the issue. I do not think the founding fathers inserted a right to insurrection into the constitution by way of the second amendment. I haven't seen anyone make a convincing case. The evidence is extremely scant. There are numerous fake quotes. I've gone back and checked some of the "real" quotes in context, particularly Jefferson and they simply don't mean in context what they seem to.I've invested the time to find and read some of Jefferson's letters and essays, the whole letters the quotes come from, and I don't believe Jefferson supported a right to insurrection. I especially found reading Jefferson's letters interesting to puzzle what he was talking about and illuminating in so far as how a quote out of context can so misconstrue the intended meaning. The actions of early presidents, congress and state legislators when confronted with those resisting the government were equally clear. They put down insurrections quickly, violently, and with overwhelming force.

Reread my posts in this thread. You'll see I've said this several times. You are certainly free to disagree but you need a much higher quality of evidence to make a convincing argument.

by ocean-kat on Wed, 01/15/2014 - 1:14am

A PDF document published 1994. All emphasis mine

The History of the Second Amendment by David E Vandercoy

The purpose of this Article is only to define those shares of liberty the Framers intended to
retain and those given up in the context of the Second Amendment. By way of preview, this Article will contend that the original intent of the Second Amendment was to protect each individual's right to keep and bear arms, and to guarantee that individuals acting collectively could throw off the yokes of any oppressive government which might arise. Thus, the right envisioned was not only the right to be armed, but to be armed at a level equal to the government.
To determine the original intent of the Second Amendment, this Article will examine the history of armed citizens in England, the Federalist and Antifederalist debates, the meaning of the word "militia," the constitutional ratification process, and the various state constitutions in existence at the time.

... My purpose is much narrower. I will address the history of the Second Amendment and attempt to define its original intent. I will not suggest that original intent is controlling. On this point, I am reminded that George Washington once suggested, "Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained."

We both said we believed the Constitution to be a living, growing document but our dispute goes back to the original intent of the founders. This seems to be a fairly thorough account and is well documented.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf

by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 01/15/2014 - 12:23pm

That is a great link.

Anyone who hasn't read this fine research; has no business, discussing what the forefathers had in mind, when the Second amendment was agreed upon.

Read for themselves; what our relevant forefathers words prove, what was on their minds at the time.

Excerpts Chapters 1-4

Machiavelli, who proclaimed that there was a direct relationship between good arms and good laws.

Patrick Henry argued against ratification of the Constitution by Virginia, in part because the Constitution permitted a standing army and gave the federal government some control over the militia. 142 Henry objected to the lack of any clause forbidding disarmament of individual citizens;

"the great object is that every man be armed .... Everyone who is able may have a gun."143

The Antifederalists believed that governmental tyranny was the primary evil against which the people had to defend in creating a new Constitution. To preserve individual rights against such tyranny, the Antifederalists argued for the addition of a Bill of Rights which included, among other rights, the right to keep and bear arms.

Noah Webster ……….. argued:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every Kingdom of Europe. The Supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States

by Resistance on Wed, 01/15/2014 - 7:21pm

Think about what you put in bold there. One could argue that we made it impossible to realize this vision of the second amendment when we instituted a standing federal military, which is something that the founding fathers would most likely have detested. (Also note that Machiavelli does not belong in that list. I'm not sure on what pretense one could label him a forefather.)

by Verified Atheist on Wed, 01/15/2014 - 8:14pm

by Resistance on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 12:48am

Looks to me like an argument that all current citizens should be able to keep and bear hand-held rocket launchers, anti-aircraft missiles and assorted and sundry explosives to make IED's. (We have a lot of examples over the the last half century, like this one, or this one or this one, which show guns and rifles to no longer be of much use in such a scenario.)

by artappraiser on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 4:47am

Semi-automatic handguns might be real good for sowing a fear of grocery shopping, though. Imagine the illusions of power over ordinary people going about doing their business, be your own very own despot for an hour or a day. If you wanted to you could rifles to, say, terrorize a civilian populace with random sniping.

by artappraiser on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 6:01am

One of your links, asks this stupid question

“If there are so many guns in Iraq, why is it still a dictatorship?”

DOH! The American government supplied and nurtured Saddam the Butcher with money and advanced weaponry. Big Oil Government, in our name, propped up this dictator with better arms than his neighbors.

Having guns in itself does not insure freedom, having an equally armed citizenry helps the Resistors remove the dictators.

Imagine the citizens, armed only with Flintlocks, against a government with automatics? Then have some idiot ask “So many flintlocks, why can’t they overthrow the tyrant?

Why am I not surprised at the stupidity of gun control advocates?

Saddam would still be in power, brutalizing his people, had it not been for our superior strength used against him, to aid the people of Iraq.

Ask the rebels in Syria, trying to overthrow Assad, whether their guns are any match to what Assad has?

Go ask them, the lame question posed above. “Why can’t they remove, their dictator?”

Doh! The dictator has better armaments

by Resistance on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 5:46am

Exactly, which is why AA wrote:

Looks to me like an argument that all current citizens should be able to keep and bear hand-held rocket launchers, anti-aircraft missiles and assorted and sundry explosives to make IED's.

After all, our government also has better armaments. As AA has indicated what owning handguns has allowed our things like the "courtesy police" who shoot people for not turning off their mobile phone when the movie has started. Note, I cannot imagine what legal measure could have prevented such an sad outcome. I am just pointing out another example of how guns are actually used. Yes, you can argue, rightfully, that they are used for self-defense, but one cannot reasonably argue that handguns and rifes, even automatic ones, can be used to overthrow our government and its standing military.

by Verified Atheist on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 7:35am

At Waco, the heavily-armed Branch Davidians held their own when faced with ATF agents with comparable weaponry. But once the gov't came in with a halftrack and teargas, it was over quickly. And now, even small city police forces are investing in some sort of armored vehicles. I know Keene very well, and it is a pretty sleepy place to be getting an APC.

by Donal on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 8:37am

Does the N.R.A. even argue the position that the police and army shouldn't have stronger weapons than ordinary citizens, but that everyone, citizens and government, should have equal weapons? Because that is where that interpretation of the 2nd amendment ultimately takes one. The Wild West, anarchy, before there was a sheriff who demanded that guns be submitted at the town line.

Here we are actually back to what Dick Metcalf was arguing. He was saying that he and others, like the N.R.A., are not absolutists and accept that some restrictions are necessary. But that there are so many vocal absolutists out there about not even allowing talking about what those should be that it's counter-productive and going to end up threatening the right to own. And he still got fired for just bringing that point up.

This editorial on the Metcalf brouhaha in the NYTimes today said it well: No less a conservative than Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has written that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Don’t tell that to Guns & Ammo.

by artappraiser on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 4:50pm

As I understand the situation, previews, not the movie were being shown. That is the time when people are talking to each other and occasionally even on the phone.

There was a gun in the hand of an easily angered, fearful male. The alleged movie murderer fits the profile of the murderers of Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis.

by rmrd0000 on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 8:20am

I don't agree that the Trayvon Martin case is the same as the Jordan Davis case and the movie murder. The latter two are road rage/bar fight/testosterone crimes of passion. (Both with noise being the initial irritant, interestingly.) Zimmerman involves pre-meditation to some degree and, as many involved have argued, that pre-meditation may have been racist in Martin's casen (can't think of any story about Zimmerman where he has used a gun without thinking about it beforehand, as a matter of fact.)

I think it's an important distinction on many levels. How racists react and how hotheads react are two very separate things (even though a shooter may be both.)

As to the latter (hotheads), there is a reason everyone puts soldiers through basic training before they are allowed to fight. If you are going to argue the right for the use of weapons either for self-protection or for protection against tyranny of government, you don't want the testosterone hotheads, you want pre-meditation and control. This is also why you are seeing so many commentaries with law enforcement freaking out about the movie incident, because he was a trained ex-cop who lost control. How can law enforcement combat that, how can they know that, when a cop has lost control? It's almost like we have to wait for science to come out with a test for the hothead syndrome, something that maybe a good drill sergeant knows instinctively.

by artappraiser on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 5:34pm

I've seen studies of supposed defensive use of guns that claim the majority are used in escalating arguments that, if there was no gun, likely would have ended with no physical contact or just a few punches thrown. Instead people are shot or killed.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self...

Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal

We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/14/gun-control-self-defense_n_3081...

But Hemenway, the Harvard researcher, says many of the incidents people characterize as self-defense are dubious.

"We expected pretty brave and wonderful things," he says, about a 1990s survey of gun owners. "But most of the things that were presented (as self-defense) were little more than escalating arguments. It wasn't like this is a good guy and this is a bad guy. It's two people who got into an argument and somebody drew a gun."

by ocean-kat on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 10:00pm

In Florida, guns did a great job protecting Zimmerman from Skittles and ice tea. Now a man is protected from a deadly popcorn assault in a theater.

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 01/15/2014 - 12:59pm

In the News

Russia plays weak hand in Palestine
Russia plays weak hand in Palestine

submitted by PeraclesPlease 8 months ago

The intra-Palestinian meeting in Moscow has precedent

Russia's hosted such meetings in the past, most recently Feb 2019

Russia has long lamented the US' "monopolization" of the peace process & tried to carve out a niche for itself: mediating among the disunited Palestinians/2
— Hanna Notte (@HannaNotte) February 29, 2024

Read the article at https://twitter.com/HannaNotte/status/1763116222256701787

Add new comment
Mother Jones is Reaching out to Alternative Party Voters
Mother Jones is Reaching out to Alternative Party Voters

submitted by HSG 9 months ago

Here's what I told them: https://halginsberg.com/vote-for-jill-stein-again/

Read the article at https://halginsberg.com/vote-for-jill-stein-again/

2 comments

Add new comment
Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes...
Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes into force

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes into force https://t.co/pCoDg05irX
— Gareth Harris (@garethharr) December 28, 2023

Read the article at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/28/brazil-law-indigenous-land-rights-claim-time-marker?CMP=share_btn_tw

1 comment

Add new comment
Security Alert: U.S. Embassy Port-au-Prince, Haiti (...
Security Alert: U.S. Embassy Port-au-Prince, Haiti (December 25, 2023)

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

Location: U.S. Embassy and residential compounds

Events: Heavy gunfire is occuring around the area of the U.S. Embassy and residential compounds adjacent to the Trutier area of Tabarre. All Embassy personnel have been instructed to remain indoors and shelter-in-place until further notice. All others should avoid the area.

Actions to take:

Avoid the area;

Avoid demonstrations and any large gatherings of people;

Do not attempt to drive through roadblocks; and

If you encounter a roadblock, turn around and get to a safe area.

Read the article at https://ht.usembassy.gov/security-alert-u-s-embassy-port-au-prince-haiti-december-25-2023/

3 comments

Add new comment
Pakistan Is Creating the World’s Next Refugee Crisis
Pakistan Is Creating the World’s Next Refugee Crisis

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

By The Editorial Board @ Bloomberg.com, December 8, 2023

A mass expulsion of Afghan migrants could destabilize the region and fuel radicalization. The West should pressure Islamabad to change course.

Read the article at https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-12-08/pakistan-s-expulsion-of-afghan-refugees-risks-another-crisis

6 comments

Add new comment
Internet shut down in Chad
Internet shut down in Chad

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

All eyes on #Chad right now
Chad has two internet trunks coming into the country: One from the Red Sea via Sudan; the other from Cameroon. Not possible for the totality of the country's internet network to be shut unless done centrally. A lot of rumors swirling; few facts. https://t.co/N6bDJZ2ixO

Read the article at https://x.com/_hudsonc/status/1732891968709992511?s=20

2 comments

Add new comment
[Economy] where Joe's success falls short
[Economy] where Joe's success falls short

submitted by PeraclesPlease 11 months ago

Read the article at

3 comments

Add new comment
[CRIME News] 3 loss-prevention employees in Macy’s across...
[CRIME News] 3 loss-prevention employees in Macy’s across the street from Philadelphia City Hall stabbed

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

BREAKING: Three loss prevention employees in Macy’s across the street from Philadelphia City Hall stabbed, one of them has died from stab wounds, @PhillyPolice sources tell me. Police converged on the store as the three workers were rushed to Jefferson Hospital. pic.twitter.com/4U1eKycL4W

Read the article at https://x.com/KeeleyFox29/status/1731713272942940365?s=20

38 comments

Add new comment
Former U.S. Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As...
Former U.S. Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As Secret Agent For Cuba

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

Former US Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As Secret Agent For Cuba https://t.co/LDwo4ZJI1K
— HuffPost (@HuffPost) December 4, 2023

Read the article at https://www.huffpost.com/entry/manuel-rocha-ambassador-arrested-cuba_n_656d1e2ae4b028b0f3d07478

Add new comment
[War in Israel, Chapter II] UNRWA under scrutiny
[War in Israel, Chapter II] UNRWA under scrutiny

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

[Chapter I news is HERE, Oct. 7 til today]

You don’t get it.
It’s not about an UNRWA teacher who held an Israeli kid hostage in his house.
It’s all about how for 75 years you have destroyed the future of generations of Palestinians, including my family.
My cousins in Arab countries are still not citizens - not even the… https://t.co/nv6anubGhc
— George Deek (@GeorgeDeek) December 2, 2023

Note 'Community Notes' attached to UNWRA's statement.

Read the article at https://x.com/GeorgeDeek/status/1731020551328579863?s=20

58 comments

Add new comment
Maduro, Under Pressure, Holds Vote to Annex Territory From...
Maduro, Under Pressure, Holds Vote to Annex Territory From a Neighbor

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

Imperialism for me but not for thee?

It's wild that Venezuela is now holding a vote on whether 2/3 of Guyana actually belongs to them! Analysts suggest that Modoru may want military action to pump up his sinking popularity.

Could we have a war in South America?!?

"The people who live in Essequibo are largely… pic.twitter.com/QvMEjkkgwy

Read the article at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/03/world/americas/maduro-vote-essequibo-guyana.html

6 comments

Add new comment
[Where is the GOP headed?] Divisions leave Florida’s House...
[Where is the GOP headed?] Divisions leave Florida’s House Republicans powerless

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

The lack of a cohesive delegation has allowed attention-seeking lawmakers to act on their own.

McCarthy: “You have [Rep. Matt] Gaetz, who belongs in jail…”

Gaetz: “Tough words from a guy who sucker punches people in the back. The only assault I committed was against Kevin’s fragile ego.”https://t.co/LctPuz6Pcf

Read the article at https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/29/divisions-leave-floridas-house-republicans-powerless-00129200

10 comments

Add new comment
‘She got so mad at me’: book on the ‘Squad’ details AOC-...
‘She got so mad at me’: book on the ‘Squad’ details AOC-Pelosi clashes

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

By Martinn Pengelly in Washington DC for TheGuardian.com, Nov. 30

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tells Ryan Grim life in Congress ‘completely transformed’ after Democratic leader stepped down

Read the article at https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/nov/30/squad-book-aoc-nancy-pelosi?CMP=share_btn_tw

15 comments

Add new comment
US health insurers Humana, Cigna in talks to merge -source
US health insurers Humana, Cigna in talks to merge -source

submitted by artappraiser 12 months ago

@ Reuters, Nov. 29

Read the article at https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/us-health-insurers-humana-cigna-talks-merge-wsj-2023-11-29/

3 comments

Add new comment
Central Africa’s dinosaur regimes and the art of coup-...
Central Africa’s dinosaur regimes and the art of coup-proofing

submitted by artappraiser 12 months ago

"Both the AU and the intl community place more weight on whether elections are held than whether they are free and fair. Sanctions/expulsions occur when there is a coup but not necessarily when elections are rigged or if an “institutional coup” occurs." https://t.co/m9dNimJP0D
— Cameron Hudson (@_hudsonc) November 28, 2023

Read the article at https://africanarguments.org/2023/11/central-africas-dinosaur-regimes-and-the-art-of-coup-proofing/

Add new comment

From the Readers

Creative corner

From the Dagbloggers

Hits of the Day

Banished for Questioning the Gospel of Guns

Comments

Mental Health and Firearms

Arm residents

...... finally commonsense

Detroit police chief: Arming residents will act as a deterrent

...... finally commonsense

In the News

From the Readers

Creative corner

From the Dagbloggers

Hits of the Day

Banished for Questioning the Gospel of Guns

Comments

Mental Health and Firearms

Arm residents

...... finally commonsense

Detroit police chief: Arming residents will act as a deterrent

...... finally commonsense

Search form

In the News