The Times and Guns are Different
Of course not. Why should the public safety wishes and concerns of the citizens of Washington, DC be deepsixed by an amazingly vague and archaic statement that dates back to the days when personal firearms were limited to single-shot, slow-loading, short range muskets used mainly for hunting?
Meanwhile, today’s criminals outfit themselves with assault guns and concealable semi-automatic pistols capable of firing numerous high-velocity bullets in a matter of seconds with no need to reload. It’s about firepower these days as regards gun crime, the kind of firepower that can and does overwhelm law enforcers, as happened at Washington, DC Metropolitan Police Headquarters in Nov ‘94, when a single shooter intent on revenge wielded a concealed assault pistol to kill two FBI Special Agents, wound a third, kill a DC Police Sergeant and wound a teenage bystander. One man, one small gun.
The Bergen Record (NJ) reported recently that the Dumont Police Department will spend over $16,000 on Heckler and Koch Universal Machine Pistols, - a semi-automatic weapon with a 30-round magazine and 40-caliber bullets. "Obviously, the bad guys are getting these weapons - we need to keep up", said Detective John Cintrell, one of the department's firearms instructors.
Both of these occurrences show the imbalance in American society between access to overwhelming firepower and public safety. Not something the drafters of the 2nd Amendment could have contemplated. Washington, DC’s handgun ban was simply an attempt to redress this imbalance and deserved to stand.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
The assumption guns -rights advocates make that the authors of the Bill of Rights had good judgement may be unfounded. They were, after all, slave owners, saw women as inferior and undeserving of the same rights as men, and would probably have been sympathetic to Neo-Nazis and the KKK.
Though there were wise dissenters among the authors including John Adams who eleoquently said that "uncontrolled individual discretion to own and use guns" has the potential to " ... demolish every institution, and lay the law prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man— it is a dissolution of the government ."
If John Admas walked the streets of Detroit and many other big US cities after dark, he would find his prediction had come true - with too many guns, many of them concealable, denying good men and women of the enjoyment of liberty without security systems, guns under the bed, and heavily armed police roaming the streets and the government watching through CCTV cameras for the out-of-control militia of the NRA's USA.
In fact, the Anti-Federalists of this time (State's rights advocates) thought the 2nd Amendment was too restrictive for individual use. Their explicit version was rejected because it called out the individual right and read:
"The people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own State, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or for real danger of public injury from individuals."
See John Kenneth Rowland's reseacrh of what the Second Amendment meant to Americans in the early 1790s at http://www.potowmack.org/emerappa.html
Guncite.com: "As David Hardy explains, "Adams was thus mindful of the uses of arms (i.e., legitimate self-defense and militia duty) and concerned about misuse for mob action or anarchy." (The Second Amendment and the Historiography of the Bill of Rights, 1987)"
Having become one of the Powers That Be, he was definitely interested in maintaining that power, like all politicians.
What if the law is goes wrong, what if the government goes wrong?.
Like Germany where people surrendered their guns in the name of " crime prevention" during the benevolent Weimar Republic, you are so screwed.
You'll also note that the Anit-Federalists use of English language of the day differentiated between the People as a group and individuals - in their version of the 2nd amendment:
"The people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own State, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or for real danger of public injury from individuals."
"....disarming the People or any of them ..." the militia or any individual is the clear meaning here. The language of the authors of the Bill of Rights themselves refutes your argument that the 2nd amendment is about individual rights.
Not the National Guard, which didn't exist until 1914. Not the government's pet state organized militias. The people. People like you. U.S. Code Title 18. The unorganized militia is all the people not in the military , National Guard or other GOVERNMENT militias.
You don't want your rights, don't have them. Don't presume to decide for me with weasel logic.
The main body of the sentence is "the right of the people." Since armies and designated ilitias can be sent AGAINST THE PEOPLE by tyrants, there must be a balance of power. When the government -- any government -- has all the lethal force, things can get very ugly very fast.
I'm sure you know, EoR, that women won ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of their right to vote through protest and agitation, risking reputations and even lives. The "Iron-Jawed Angels" of the 1920s and their hunger strike gained national attention. They fought being force-fed to keep them from starving to death for the cause, hence "iron-jawed."
ASKING POLITELY didn't get blacks their civil rights. MARCHING did, and they were attacked with fire hoses and police dogs. Some died.
And that's the government you trust with the exclusive power of life and death?
I agree that we should all MARCH to get handguns and machine gun ownership banned - for the right to less gun crime . I think the public will have to fight back to stop the unfettered distribution of concealed weapons.
The BIG advantage of gun rights through organized militia is the organized part. Like the NRA says, guns don't kill innocent people, irresponsible and criminal gun owners do.
ATF employees are risking their lives to expose corruption and lies in the agency that wants the same things you do. Knowing this, you continue wanting to separate the 99% who never use guns in a crime from their essential rights.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/phoenix-atf-reportedly-retaliating-against-project-gunwalker-whistleblower
And you're blowing the argument that "Nobody wants to take away your guns." Sssshhhh.
Machine gun ownership is already so tightly controlled that it practically IS banned. Are you mistaking semi-automatic guns for military full-autos? Get off the Brady talking points and LEARN something, man. I did.
You cite two instances. The 1994 D.C. Police Dept. shooting , and a statement from the NJ Police. Lets look into these examples.
1) The D.C P.D. shooter, Bennie Lee Lawson, used a "Cobray M-11". This illegally purchased firearm, banned by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban already in effect, was purchased from "Rodney Finklea, who was later convicted of gun trafficking conspiracy and possession of firearms by a convicted felon." (VPC) What the hell makes you people think that passing another law will stop people who already broke laws to facilitate the breaking of other laws??
Source: http://www.vpc.org/studies/wgun941122.htm
2) Speaking about a $16,000 purchase of H&K UMPs, Detective John Cintrell reportedly said "Obviously, the bad guys are getting these weapons - we need to keep up." He might be right-- The bad guys (criminals) are getting these weapons-- illegal for civilians as per TITLE 13 CHAPTER 54. FIREARMS AND WEAPONS of New Jersey state law. Specifically, this weapon is most likely an assault rifle with a collapsible stock, not a pistol. The relevant portions of NJ state law:
"A semi-automatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least
two of the following:
(1) A folding or telescoping stock;
(2) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(3) A bayonet mount;
(4) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash
suppressor; and
(5) A grenade launcher;"
"A semi-automatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at
least two of the following:
(1) An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(2) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor,
forward handgrip, or silencer;
(3) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles the barrel and
that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being
burned;
(4) Manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and/or
(5) A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm;"
A picture of the weapon:
http://hk-usa.com/military_products/ump_general.asp
NJ Law: http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/pdf/firearms/062408_title13ch54.pdf
Point.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
"Washington, DC’s handgun ban was simply an attempt to redress this imbalance and deserved to stand."
So disarming law abiding people balanced things out? Then why is the murder rate so high?
The criminals have them.
Now police say they need them to fight criminals.
Citizens confront criminals more often than police do so we should be as well armed.
The argument that at the time the 2nd amendment was penned weapons were single shot is dumb. Those single shot weapons were state of the art in that day. The people should get state of the art weapons now as well.
The Second Amendment is about prohibiting the Government from restricting the Citizens Rights. Has nothing to do with type of guns. The guns the Founders used were the most advanced types of their day and Citizens could and did, own all of them, up to and including cannon and warships.
You support the police getting higher powered weapons to defend themselves against felons, why should law abiding citizens have the same chance to defend themselves?
First off, let me say that I come from a family of Law Enforcement Officers. My father was on the LAPD for 7 years and then the BNE for another 30 years. I respect Law Enforcement and applaud the work that they do to keep us safer. Notice I said safer and not safe. It is not the duty of the police to protect individulas. The courts have already ruled on this. So if it is not the job of the police whose job is it? OURS! LEOs run across heavily armed felons and need to be better armed. I wholly agree! These same felons attack civilians in their homes - do not these civilains have the same right to protect themselves?
It's always an amusement for me when I consider the specious nature of those who tout "gun control." With the simple fact that gun laws ONLY affect the law abiding, you might think that what's really required is a sure and severe punishment for those that break the law whether it be by misuse of a hand gun or a Ping Eye 7 iron.
The anthropomorphizing of an inanimate object when it comes to assignation of blame is a specious argument and a vacuous concept. The problem with the pro gun-control lobby is that they are focused on the symptom and not the disease. Guns are neither good nor bad, those attributes are properly reserved for people. Knowing that, we should enforce the laws against criminals and for gosh sake stop blaming the tools.