Disarming the citizenry on pen stroke at a time

[CSUBUCDAD]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... am-that-l/

Wow, no I will really feel safe flying. How bout you

Edit: guess the truncated link thingy ain't working here.

[dbackjon]

Linkie no workie

[Cap'n Cat]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... am-that-l/

Wow, no I will really feel safe flying. How bout you

Delusionary gun freak with penis size issues.

[houndawg]

No way. Too many guns out there that can never be collected, the barn door is open and the horse is long gone.

[Wedgebuster]

Well, when Dick Cheney was flying around on my dime and shooting folks in the face, I just wanted to make sure I had a bigger gun than he did.

How big a gun do you suppose Obama is going to use to shoot somebody in the face with?

For me, it's a wait and see issue.

[wildkyle]

is there any good idea that obama will undo

[TwinTownBisonFan]

is there any good idea that obama will undo

31 posts and I still haven't understood a word that's come out of your mouth. maybe it's the right wing hackery... maybe it's the grammar that makes me wonder about the academic credentials of Weber State... but seriously... you win the Chris Tucker award.

[travelinman67]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... am-that-l/

Wow, no I will really feel safe flying. How bout you

Delusionary gun freak with penis size issues.

Try, Constitutional Law scholar protecting Rights of Americans...

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” — Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” –James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” — Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

” … to disarm the people — that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”– George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

“The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun.” — Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress … to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…. ” –Samuel Adams

“[S]ome think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.” — District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 64 (2008).

"By nature's law, every man has a right to seize and retake by force his own property taken from him by another, by force of fraud. Nor is this natural right among the first which is taken into the hands of regular government after it is instituted. It was long retained by our ancestors. It was a part of their common law, laid down in their books, recognized by all the authorities, and regulated as to circumstances of practice." - Thomas Jefferson, Batture Case, 1812

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can." - Samuel Adams

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits. . . . and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - Sir George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court 1803

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mahatma Gandhi, My Autobiography

Gandhi...

...pro-gun...

Who'd a thunk?

[wildkyle]

is there any good idea that obama will undo

31 posts and I still haven't understood a word that's come out of your mouth. maybe it's the right wing hackery... maybe it's the grammar that makes me wonder about the academic credentials of Weber State... but seriously... you win the Chris Tucker award.

obama is undoing everything that is helping america be safe. who would want to hijack a plane when the capitan has a gun

[ASUMountaineer]

31 posts and I still haven't understood a word that's come out of your mouth. maybe it's the right wing hackery... maybe it's the grammar that makes me wonder about the academic credentials of Weber State... but seriously... you win the Chris Tucker award.

obama is undoing everything that is helping america be safe. who would want to hijack a plane when the capitan has a gun

Civil Rights be damned, keep me safe Big Brother. "Conservative"

[Skjellyfetti]

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mahatma Gandhi, My Autobiography

Gandhi...

...pro-gun...

Who'd a thunk?

The Gandhi quote isn't referring to personal ownership of guns.

It's referring to the British depriving India of a standing army/militia.

[travelinman67]

Gandhi...

...pro-gun...

Who'd a thunk?

The Gandhi quote isn't referring to personal ownership of guns.

It's referring to the British depriving India of a standing army/militia.

Says who?

Please share the source of YOUR interpretation. Gandhi intent is very clear, or he would have said, "standing militia".

'Course, I'm sure you understand what he meant better than he who made the statement...

Then again, there are a few folks who call it like it is...

Spoiler: show

http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2008/12/be ... peans.html
as illegally well-armed as many Europeans are, they're just not in a position to use those weapons against the armed bad guys the way the Londoners of 1909 were. Carrying a pistol in Edwardian times was a right, and chasing down a criminal was a civic duty. Doing the same these days carries a long prison sentence. The modern German gun owner may well use an illegal pistol to defend himself against a murderer -- after all, arrest is better than death. But he has good reason to resist the good samaritan urge to race around the corner to assist a stranger.

So Europeans still own their guns and they may even carry them, but they reserve their use for rare circumstances.

That Times description of a 1909 "hue and cry" was written by Richard Munday, a British firearms scholar who contrasted the century-old incident with the helplessness of Mumbai residents during the recent terrorist attack. India has suffered under strict gun control laws since the 19th century, leading Gandhi to lament, "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”

In India, as elsewhere, people probably own a relatively large number of guns beyond the approval of the law. But under threat of prosecution and imprisonment, armed Mumbai residents certainly stayed at home to defend their families, leaving strangers to fend for themselves against the terrorists who openly used their illegal guns.

That's the end result of unenforceable laws for you. You get all the downside of whatever it is you're trying to restrict, but none of the benefits.

I'll gladly match you one for one...

[grizzaholic]

> Doctors vs Gunowners
>
> (A) The number of physicians in the U.S. Is
> 700,000.
>
> (B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per
> year are 120,000.
>
> (C) Accidental deaths per physician is0.171.
>
> Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of
> Health and Human Services.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Now think about this:
>
> Guns
>
> (A) The number of gun owners in the U.S.
> Is 80,000,000.
> (Yes, that's 80 million)
>
> (B) The number of accidental gun deaths
> Per year, all age groups, is
> 1,500.
>
> (C) The number of accidental deaths
> Per gun owner is
> ..000188.
>
> Statistics courtesy of
> FBI
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> So, statistically, doctors are approximately
> 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do.'
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT
> ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Please alert your friends
> To this
> Alarming threat.
>
> We must ban doctors
>
> Before this gets completely out of
> hand!!!!!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Out of concern for the public at large,
> I withheld the statistics on
>
> Lawyers
>
> For fear the shock would cause
>
> People to panic and seek medical attention!

[Cap'n Cat]

The Gandhi quote isn't referring to personal ownership of guns.

It's referring to the British depriving India of a standing army/militia.

Says who?

Please share the source of YOUR interpretation. Gandhi intent is very clear, or he would have said, "standing militia".

'Course, I'm sure you understand what he meant better than he who made the statement...

Then again, there are a few folks who call it like it is...

Spoiler: show

http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2008/12/be ... peans.html
as illegally well-armed as many Europeans are, they're just not in a position to use those weapons against the armed bad guys the way the Londoners of 1909 were. Carrying a pistol in Edwardian times was a right, and chasing down a criminal was a civic duty. Doing the same these days carries a long prison sentence. The modern German gun owner may well use an illegal pistol to defend himself against a murderer -- after all, arrest is better than death. But he has good reason to resist the good samaritan urge to race around the corner to assist a stranger.

So Europeans still own their guns and they may even carry them, but they reserve their use for rare circumstances.

That Times description of a 1909 "hue and cry" was written by Richard Munday, a British firearms scholar who contrasted the century-old incident with the helplessness of Mumbai residents during the recent terrorist attack. India has suffered under strict gun control laws since the 19th century, leading Gandhi to lament, "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”

In India, as elsewhere, people probably own a relatively large number of guns beyond the approval of the law. But under threat of prosecution and imprisonment, armed Mumbai residents certainly stayed at home to defend their families, leaving strangers to fend for themselves against the terrorists who openly used their illegal guns.

That's the end result of unenforceable laws for you. You get all the downside of whatever it is you're trying to restrict, but none of the benefits.

I'll gladly match you one for one...

Funny thing is, T don't give a single flaming fvck about guns, either.

Poor Ghandi. Had some assholes misinterpreting for their benefit, too.

[Skjellyfetti]

The Gandhi quote isn't referring to personal ownership of guns.

It's referring to the British depriving India of a standing army/militia.

Says who?

Please share the source of YOUR interpretation. Gandhi intent is very clear, or he would have said, "standing militia".

'Course, I'm sure you understand what he meant better than he who made the statement...

Then again, there are a few folks who call it like it is...

Spoiler: show

http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2008/12/be ... peans.html
as illegally well-armed as many Europeans are, they're just not in a position to use those weapons against the armed bad guys the way the Londoners of 1909 were. Carrying a pistol in Edwardian times was a right, and chasing down a criminal was a civic duty. Doing the same these days carries a long prison sentence. The modern German gun owner may well use an illegal pistol to defend himself against a murderer -- after all, arrest is better than death. But he has good reason to resist the good samaritan urge to race around the corner to assist a stranger.

So Europeans still own their guns and they may even carry them, but they reserve their use for rare circumstances.

That Times description of a 1909 "hue and cry" was written by Richard Munday, a British firearms scholar who contrasted the century-old incident with the helplessness of Mumbai residents during the recent terrorist attack. India has suffered under strict gun control laws since the 19th century, leading Gandhi to lament, "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”

In India, as elsewhere, people probably own a relatively large number of guns beyond the approval of the law. But under threat of prosecution and imprisonment, armed Mumbai residents certainly stayed at home to defend their families, leaving strangers to fend for themselves against the terrorists who openly used their illegal guns.

That's the end result of unenforceable laws for you. You get all the downside of whatever it is you're trying to restrict, but none of the benefits.

I'll gladly match you one for one...

Context.

Spoiler: show

XXVII

RECRUITING CAMPAIGN

So I attended the conference. The Viceroy was very keen on my supporting the resolution about recruiting. I asked for permission to speak in Hindi-Hiridustani. The Viceroy acceded to my request, but suggested that I should speak also in English. I had no speech to make. I spoke but one sentence to this effect: 'With a full sense of my responsibility I beg to support the resolution.'

Many congratulated me on my having spoken in Hindustani. That was, they said, the first instance within living memory of anyone having spoken in Hindustani at such a meeting. The congratulations and the discovery that I was the first to speak in Hindustani at a Viceregal meeting hurt my national pride. I felt like shrinking into myself. What a tragedy that the language of the country should be taboo in meetings held in the country, for work relating to the country, and that a speech there in Hindustani by a stray individual like myself should be a matter for congratulation? Incidents like these are reminders of the low state to which we have been reduced.

The one sentence that I uttered at the conference had for me considerable significance. It was impossible for me to forget either the conference or the resolution I supported. There was one undertaking that I had to fulfil while yet in Delhi. I had to write a letter to the Viceroy. This was no easy thing for me. I felt it my duty both in the interests of the Government and of the people to explain therein how and why I attended the conference, and to state clearly what the people expected from Government.

In the letter I expressed my regret for the exclusion from the conference of leaders like Lokamanya Tilak and the Ali Brothers, and stated the people's minimum political demand as also the demands of the Muslims on account of the situation created by the war. I asked for permission to publish the letter, and the Viceroy gladly gave it.

The letter had to be sent to Simla, where the Viceroy had gone immediately after the conference. The letter had for me considerable importance, and sending it by post would have meant delay. I wanted to save time, and yet I was not inclined to send it by any messenger I came across. I wanted some pure man to carry it and hand it personally at the Viceregal Lodge. Dinabandhu Andrews and Principal Rudra suggested the name of the good Rev. Ireland of the Cambridge Mission. He agreed to carry the letter if he might read it and if it appealed to him as good. I had no objection as the letter was by no means private. He read it, liked it and expressed his willingness to carry out the mission. I offered him the second class fare, but he declined it saying he was accustomed to travelling intermediate. This he did though it was a night journey. His simplicity and his straight and plainspoken manner captivated me. The letter thus delivered at the hands of a pure-minded man had, as I thought, the desired result. It eased my mind and cleared my way.

The other part of my obligation consisted in raising recruits. Where could I make a beginning except in Kheda? And whom could I invite to be the first recruits except my own co-workers? So as soon as I reached Nadiad. 1 had a conference with Vallabhbhai and other friends. Some of them could not easily take to the proposal. Those who liked the proposal had misgivings about its success. There was no love lost between the Government and the classes to which I wanted to make my appeal. The bitter experience they had had of the Government officials was still fresh in their memory.

And yet they were in favour of starting work. As soon as I set about my task, my eyes were opened. My optimism received a rude shock. Whereas during the revenue campaign the people readily offered their carts free of charge, and two volunteers came forth when one was needed, it was difficult now to get a cart even on hire, to say nothing of volunteers. But we would not be dismayed. We decided to dispense with the use of carts and to do our journeys on foot. At this rate we had to trudge about 20 miles a day. If carts were not forthcoming, it was idle to expect people to feed us. It was hardly proper to ask for food. So it was decided that every volunteer must carry his food in his satchel. No bedding or sheet was necessary as it was summer.

We had meetings wherever we went. People did attend, but hardly one or two would offer themselves &s recruits. 'You are a votary of Ahimsa, how can you ask us to take up arms?' 'What good has Government done for India to deserve our co-operation?' These and similar questions used to be put to us.

However, our steady work began to tell. Quite a number of names were registered, and we hoped that we should be able to have a regular supply as soon as the first batch was sent. I had already begun to confer with the Commissioner as to where the recruits were to be accommodated.

The Commissioners in every division were conferences on the Delhi model. One such was Gujarat. My co-workers and I were invited to it. We attended, but I felt there was even less place for me here than at Delhi. In this atmosphere of servile submission I felt ill at ease. I spoke somewhat at length. I could say nothing to please the officials, and had certainly one or two hard things to say.

I used to issue leaflets asking people to enlist as recruits. One of the arguments I had used was distasteful to the Commissioner: 'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.

passage quoted above starts on page 444:
http://books.google.com/books?id=rNXCuW ... lt#PPR5,M1

There's ya go.

In the passage he is trying to enlist recruits in the defense of India. It is against British law. THAT is what he is referring to.



Perhaps you should consult original works instead of referencing blogs posted at blogspot.com.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

thanks for the homework on this Jelly - yep - that's what he was on about.

[travelinman67]

Fair enough...

I'll give you Gandhi.

Care to try the Federalists?

[houndawg]

You guys are fcuking a fly's ass. The country is awash in guns, gun control is a non-issue.

[Cap'n Cat]

Fair enough...

I'll give you Gandhi.

Care to try the Federalists?

Again, Conks facing backward to the past and not looking forward. There hasn't been a serious Federalist in this country since John Quincy Adams was P.

[travelinman67]

You guys are fcuking a fly's ass. The country is awash in guns, gun control is a non-issue.

It's a constitutional issue, and there are a pile of ignorant pro-gun control pissants who can't see beyond the ends of their noses.

One of the items that's being studied since the Mumbai incident is the number of people in the vicinity of the attack, who had access to a firearm, but failed to retrieve it and use it to intervene...even an armed security officer in the train station...hid rather than confront the one attacker he was faced with.

The reports that U.N. investigators received were that the people who had access to guns, owned them illegally, therefore, were afraid of using them for fear of getting themselves in trouble.

Enough said.

Gun owners live under a belief in the rule of law...and for those who choose not to...caveat emptor. Gun control advocates operate under a belief that disarming everyone makes the world safer, not recognizing the flip side that opens the door of exploitation by the lawless.

This debate can and will go on for the rest of our time on this planet...nothing will change...and IMHO, in light of the dishonest and bullying tactics employed by gun control advocates since the evolution of Handgun Control, Inc....

...the gloves have come off.

If the President wants to lie about his position on gun control while behind his back making regulatory and budgetary changes to clamp down on gun ownership and the rights of citizens to defend themselves...

...then he just lost ANY support I might have considered showing. Screw him and the lying pack of weasels around him...

[grizzaholic]

You guys are fcuking a fly's ass. The country is awash in guns, gun control is a non-issue.

It's a constitutional issue, and there are a pile of ignorant pro-gun control pissants who can't see beyond the ends of their noses.

One of the items that's being studied since the Mumbai incident is the number of people in the vicinity of the attack, who had access to a firearm, but failed to retrieve it and use it to intervene...even an armed security officer in the train station...hid rather than confront the one attacker he was faced with.

The reports that U.N. investigators received were that the people who had access to guns, owned them illegally, therefore, were afraid of using them for fear of getting themselves in trouble.

Enough said.

Gun owners live under a belief in the rule of law...and for those who choose not to...caveat emptor. Gun control advocates operate under a belief that disarming everyone makes the world safer, not recognizing the flip side that opens the door of exploitation by the lawless.

This debate can and will go on for the rest of our time on this planet...nothing will change...and IMHO, in light of the dishonest and bullying tactics employed by gun control advocates since the evolution of Handgun Control, Inc....

...the gloves have come off.

If the President wants to lie about his position on gun control while behind his back making regulatory and budgetary changes to clamp down on gun ownership and the rights of citizens to defend themselves...

...then he just lost ANY support I might have considered showing. Screw him and the lying pack of weasels around him...

Good post

[Cap'n Cat]

You guys are fcuking a fly's ass. The country is awash in guns, gun control is a non-issue.

It's a constitutional issue, and there are a pile of ignorant pro-gun control pissants who can't see beyond the ends of their noses.

One of the items that's being studied since the Mumbai incident is the number of people in the vicinity of the attack, who had access to a firearm, but failed to retrieve it and use it to intervene...even an armed security officer in the train station...hid rather than confront the one attacker he was faced with.

The reports that U.N. investigators received were that the people who had access to guns, owned them illegally, therefore, were afraid of using them for fear of getting themselves in trouble.

Enough said.

Gun owners live under a belief in the rule of law...and for those who choose not to...caveat emptor. Gun control advocates operate under a belief that disarming everyone makes the world safer, not recognizing the flip side that opens the door of exploitation by the lawless.

This debate can and will go on for the rest of our time on this planet...nothing will change...and IMHO, in light of the dishonest and bullying tactics employed by gun control advocates since the evolution of Handgun Control, Inc....

...the gloves have come off.

If the President wants to lie about his position on gun control while behind his back making regulatory and budgetary changes to clamp down on gun ownership and the rights of citizens to defend themselves...

...then he just lost ANY support I might have considered showing. Screw him and the lying pack of weasels around him...

Hey, T. Take it easy. Single-issue hate is illogical and makes you look like one of them rich, suburban MILF fetus poster-toting assholes you see at intersections on election day.

Come on.

[houndawg]

You guys are fcuking a fly's ass. The country is awash in guns, gun control is a non-issue.

It's a constitutional issue, and there are a pile of ignorant pro-gun control pissants who can't see beyond the ends of their noses.

One of the items that's being studied since the Mumbai incident is the number of people in the vicinity of the attack, who had access to a firearm, but failed to retrieve it and use it to intervene...even an armed security officer in the train station...hid rather than confront the one attacker he was faced with.

The reports that U.N. investigators received were that the people who had access to guns, owned them illegally, therefore, were afraid of using them for fear of getting themselves in trouble.

Enough said.

Gun owners live under a belief in the rule of law...and for those who choose not to...caveat emptor. Gun control advocates operate under a belief that disarming everyone makes the world safer, not recognizing the flip side that opens the door of exploitation by the lawless.

This debate can and will go on for the rest of our time on this planet...nothing will change...and IMHO, in light of the dishonest and bullying tactics employed by gun control advocates since the evolution of Handgun Control, Inc....

...the gloves have come off.

If the President wants to lie about his position on gun control while behind his back making regulatory and budgetary changes to clamp down on gun ownership and the rights of citizens to defend themselves...

...then he just lost ANY support I might have considered showing. Screw him and the lying pack of weasels around him...

Ever the victim.

It's too late to control guns. It can't be done.

[Ibanez]

Fair enough...

I'll give you Gandhi.

Care to try the Federalists?

Again, Conks facing backward to the past and not looking forward. There hasn't been a serious Federalist in this country since John Quincy Adams was P.

Dubya and JQA are similiar folks.

[Skjellyfetti]

Fair enough...

I'll give you Gandhi.

Care to try the Federalists?

I think the founders had the same intent as Gandhi-- providing a militia.

2nd amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What constitutes a well regulated militia?

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss

-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 29

Who controls the Militia?

Article One, Section 8 of Constitution:

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So, in the Constitution... Militias are allowed, so people are allowed to bear arms... however... guess who is in charge of ARMING the militia (and therefore deciding what weapons the people can or cannot have)? Congress.




Look, Travelinman... I am a gun owner. I believe citizens of this country have the right to own guns. I don't think many gun control advocates want the complete confiscation of firearms... however, I think there should be limits on what private citizens can process. I think the Supreme Court is very clear that limits on guns are entirely Constitutional... even Scalia said the right to bear arms "is not unlimited." DC v. Heller maintained that restrictions on firearms are entirely Constitutional.

So, I believe citizens have a right to own guns and that the government can place restrictions on ownership of guns. Do you believe differently... that citizens have a right to won guns and that government CAN'T place restrictions of any kind of firearms?