Here is a key statement from Mr. Durbin that caught my attention, "... what has become common in America [AR 15 rifles?] is unacceptable in a civilized country."
Neither government nor Mr. Durbin have any legitimate authority to define what is or isn't acceptable property for citizens to own. And Mr. Durbin's "civilized country" is the most loaded term anyone could possibly utter.
Here are some simple facts: (1) We have just under one million law enforcement officers in the U.S. (2) Citizens reported over 2 million violent crimes to law enforcement agencies in 2010. (3) We have something like 2 million people in prisons in the U.S. (4) Law enforcement officers have handguns, the very "assault weapons" that many want to outlaw, fully automatic rifles, grenade launchers, even armored cars.
How do these four simple facts fit into Mr. Durbin's "civilized country" narrative?
More to the point, if law enforcement officers need semi-automatic rifles (so called "assault weapons") to effectively handle criminals, so do I -- the actual victim of violent criminals.
Who are you to say where the line is drawn? The Supreme Court said reasonable restrictions are allowed. The legal understanding of what that means may very well change to include restricting certain items that are now allowed. What are you gonna do then, tough guy, fight the government.
Who is he to say where the line is drawn? Did you really ask that question? He is a citizen, I presume, of a free country. One in which it is perfectly legitimate to call into question the actions, words and decisions of his government and its agents. He is free to express his beliefs, criticize his government, urge voters to replace those currently in office with representatives reflecting his beliefs and petition said government for redress of grievances.
If we replace "Who are you to say where the line is drawn" with "who are you to question the King or the government" it becomes a little uncomfortable, does it not? This reflects a fundamental difference in world views. Either government is a master to be obeyed or it is the servant of a sovereign people to whom they grant just enough power for it to do their will.
I have more say than you, and the AR-15/M/4 pattern rifle is used by the military and almost all law enforcement agencies in the US, that is the definition of common use.
Mike, who are you to say what is "reasonable"? Restricting a right because of the shape of a gun's grip, or because of a hole in the stock, or because of several inches of movement in the stock, or because a rather delicate gas tube has a protective shrouding around it- these are not reasonable restrictions to a great deal of people. Why do you call that reasonable?
Durbin has it right; no 2nd amendment, clearly intended to be for purposes of a militia, was ever expected or destined to legitimize tens of thousands of Americans to be able to kill themselves or others with firearms.
Where in the main clause of the Second Amendment do you see that? The right of the people. Not of the milita, not of the state. If you're reading comprehension were as good as you claim, you'd see that.
dog gone wrote, "... 2nd amendment, clearly intended to be for purposes of a militia ..."
That's why the 2nd Amendment reads, "... the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Oh wait, it doesn't say that. What it really says is, "... the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
All of this militia silliness aside, neither our U.S. military nor our law enforcement agencies are legally obligated to protect my family. And they cannot guarantee that they can protect my family even if they desired to do so. The only people who are guaranteed to protect my family are the members of my family. And we cannot protect ourselves from violent criminals or insurrections with 150 year-old firearms technology. We need the latest and greatest just like the police and military because when criminals attack, our family members are the real first responders.
Freedom is uncomfortable to many, and unacceptable to some. That is, I believe, why so many oppose it. It makes them uncomfortable to suggest that our liberties are, generally speaking, to be left alone and intact. When it comes to self-defense, they find it far more comfortable to abdicate their responsibility and delegate their defense to the state and its agents. It's a fundamentally different way of looking at things to suggest that self-defense and possession of the means to oppose crime and tyranny is a human right, a civil liberty and a constitutionally guaranteed freedom that is not necessarily subject to the democratic process or some appeal to social utility. And, please, before suggesting I'm advocating or longing for some sort of rebellion, take the time to read the last three words of this comment: I am not.
Indeed, to our would-be-European-masters we never have been nor ever will be "civilized". America's history is a violent one just like that of the rest of the human race. Unlike the historically challenged politicians of today's age our Founding Fathers knew man frequently leaned towards violence. They knew the history of violence and oppression in the old world and they wanted to mitigate it as much as possible. Leveling the playing field by preventing governments from disarming the people goes along way to doing that. It should not come down to it, but if it does . . . a suicide pact is preferable to tyranny. Give me liberty or give me death ring any bells?
Is anyone else not surprised that Mikeb can't identify a famous quotation from the American Revolution?
Mikeb, do you realize that if our ancestors had followed your policy, this country would still be a part of the British Commonwealth, and Italy would be a bunch of squabbling city-states being manipulated by major outside powers and by the rump of the ancient Roman Empire?
I'm not sure if he can't or won't. I guess (according to Mike) Patrick Henry got it wrong - along w/ the rest of the FF. My whole point in bringing all of that up was that our nation was founded on an ethos and if you you think it is wrong then challenge it . . . but do so w/ a constitutional amendment to take away the 2A; don't back door us. I am not naive and I know that fascists are not that honorable but yes this stuff is all inter-related.
In my opinion the 2A is obsolete. There's no need to either back-door it or repeal it. For most of its history it enjoyed a collective meaning that pertained to 18th century America. Then, over the last five or six decades a systematic bastardization has taken place as to its meaning.
The FF, as you called them, were not the demi-gods you seem to think they were. They were slave owning, hypocritical misogynists. They did get some things right, but citing them when arguing that you want to own an AR-15 or carry a concealed handgun smacks of desperation.
The Supreme Court noted that the right to keep and bear arms isn't granted by or dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. Self defense, and the means to accomplish it effectively, is never obsolete. I can either abdicate my responsibility to defend myself and those who depend upon me to others, or I can accept the responsibility myself. I choose the latter.
Mike, if you choose to abdicate your responsibility, that is your decision. And it really is okay, if you're content with it. It is most emphatically not okay to insist others join you in such abdication.
No, you're not talking about reasonable restrictions. Of all the things that you've proposed, you've never been able to show how they would solve our gun violence problem. You consistently ignore evidence to the contrary. You speculate and leave a lot to fantasy.
The only way to achieve your stated goal of bringing down the number of gun deaths and injuries is to remove all guns, but that's impossible and a violation of rights. It cannot be done here. We're significantly different from Europe. We don't want to be Europe. How about just leaving each society to go its own way?
Melodramatic? Hardly. You, like each of us, Mike, bear the primary responsibility for your own safety and that of any who look to you for protection. If you choose to not be prepared to do what you can to ensure the safety of you and yours, that qualifies as abdication.
If my home is invaded at 3 a.m. I have only a few interests or questions:
How many intruders are there? Where are they, especially in relation to my family members? Do they constitute a threat? In the event I have to pull the trigger, do I have enough rounds to engage all of them as best I can?
Take my word for it. In that scenario your restrictions are many things. Reasonable is not one of them.
Durbin is well known for his hatred of civil rights, so I'm not surprised here.
ReplyDeleteAnd his hatred of the military......
DeleteHere is a key statement from Mr. Durbin that caught my attention, "... what has become common in America [AR 15 rifles?] is unacceptable in a civilized country."
ReplyDeleteNeither government nor Mr. Durbin have any legitimate authority to define what is or isn't acceptable property for citizens to own. And Mr. Durbin's "civilized country" is the most loaded term anyone could possibly utter.
Here are some simple facts:
(1) We have just under one million law enforcement officers in the U.S.
(2) Citizens reported over 2 million violent crimes to law enforcement agencies in 2010.
(3) We have something like 2 million people in prisons in the U.S.
(4) Law enforcement officers have handguns, the very "assault weapons" that many want to outlaw, fully automatic rifles, grenade launchers, even armored cars.
How do these four simple facts fit into Mr. Durbin's "civilized country" narrative?
More to the point, if law enforcement officers need semi-automatic rifles (so called "assault weapons") to effectively handle criminals, so do I -- the actual victim of violent criminals.
Who are you to say where the line is drawn? The Supreme Court said reasonable restrictions are allowed. The legal understanding of what that means may very well change to include restricting certain items that are now allowed. What are you gonna do then, tough guy, fight the government.
DeleteWho is he to say where the line is drawn? Did you really ask that question? He is a citizen, I presume, of a free country. One in which it is perfectly legitimate to call into question the actions, words and decisions of his government and its agents. He is free to express his beliefs, criticize his government, urge voters to replace those currently in office with representatives reflecting his beliefs and petition said government for redress of grievances.
DeleteIf we replace "Who are you to say where the line is drawn" with "who are you to question the King or the government" it becomes a little uncomfortable, does it not? This reflects a fundamental difference in world views. Either government is a master to be obeyed or it is the servant of a sovereign people to whom they grant just enough power for it to do their will.
I have more say than you, and the AR-15/M/4 pattern rifle is used by the military and almost all law enforcement agencies in the US, that is the definition of common use.
DeleteMike, who are you to say what is "reasonable"? Restricting a right because of the shape of a gun's grip, or because of a hole in the stock, or because of several inches of movement in the stock, or because a rather delicate gas tube has a protective shrouding around it- these are not reasonable restrictions to a great deal of people. Why do you call that reasonable?
DeleteI guess we all can have our own opinion on where the line should be drawn. Fair enough?
DeleteFair enough for me. I certainly won't question your right to say where it should be drawn.
DeleteDurbin has it right; no 2nd amendment, clearly intended to be for purposes of a militia, was ever expected or destined to legitimize tens of thousands of Americans to be able to kill themselves or others with firearms.
ReplyDeleteWhere in the main clause of the Second Amendment do you see that? The right of the people. Not of the milita, not of the state. If you're reading comprehension were as good as you claim, you'd see that.
Deletedog gone wrote, "... 2nd amendment, clearly intended to be for purposes of a militia ..."
DeleteThat's why the 2nd Amendment reads, "... the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Oh wait, it doesn't say that. What it really says is, "... the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
All of this militia silliness aside, neither our U.S. military nor our law enforcement agencies are legally obligated to protect my family. And they cannot guarantee that they can protect my family even if they desired to do so. The only people who are guaranteed to protect my family are the members of my family. And we cannot protect ourselves from violent criminals or insurrections with 150 year-old firearms technology. We need the latest and greatest just like the police and military because when criminals attack, our family members are the real first responders.
How many murders in his state of IL did Durbin say were committed with assault rifles? I'm fairly certain that that number is ZERO!
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
Freedom is uncomfortable to many, and unacceptable to some. That is, I believe, why so many oppose it. It makes them uncomfortable to suggest that our liberties are, generally speaking, to be left alone and intact. When it comes to self-defense, they find it far more comfortable to abdicate their responsibility and delegate their defense to the state and its agents. It's a fundamentally different way of looking at things to suggest that self-defense and possession of the means to oppose crime and tyranny is a human right, a civil liberty and a constitutionally guaranteed freedom that is not necessarily subject to the democratic process or some appeal to social utility. And, please, before suggesting I'm advocating or longing for some sort of rebellion, take the time to read the last three words of this comment: I am not.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, to our would-be-European-masters we never have been nor ever will be "civilized". America's history is a violent one just like that of the rest of the human race. Unlike the historically challenged politicians of today's age our Founding Fathers knew man frequently leaned towards violence. They knew the history of violence and oppression in the old world and they wanted to mitigate it as much as possible. Leveling the playing field by preventing governments from disarming the people goes along way to doing that. It should not come down to it, but if it does
ReplyDelete. . . a suicide pact is preferable to tyranny. Give me liberty or give me death ring any bells?
Yeah, Dave, the bell of the lunatic asylum. Go right in.
DeleteIs anyone else not surprised that Mikeb can't identify a famous quotation from the American Revolution?
DeleteMikeb, do you realize that if our ancestors had followed your policy, this country would still be a part of the British Commonwealth, and Italy would be a bunch of squabbling city-states being manipulated by major outside powers and by the rump of the ancient Roman Empire?
Oh, wait...
I'm not sure if he can't or won't. I guess (according to Mike) Patrick Henry got it wrong - along w/ the rest of the FF. My whole point in bringing all of that up was that our nation was founded on an ethos and if you you think it is wrong then challenge it . . . but do so w/ a constitutional amendment to take away the 2A; don't back door us. I am not naive and I know that fascists are not that honorable but yes this stuff is all inter-related.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the 2A is obsolete. There's no need to either back-door it or repeal it. For most of its history it enjoyed a collective meaning that pertained to 18th century America. Then, over the last five or six decades a systematic bastardization has taken place as to its meaning.
DeleteThe FF, as you called them, were not the demi-gods you seem to think they were. They were slave owning, hypocritical misogynists. They did get some things right, but citing them when arguing that you want to own an AR-15 or carry a concealed handgun smacks of desperation.
The Supreme Court noted that the right to keep and bear arms isn't granted by or dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. Self defense, and the means to accomplish it effectively, is never obsolete. I can either abdicate my responsibility to defend myself and those who depend upon me to others, or I can accept the responsibility myself. I choose the latter.
DeleteMike, if you choose to abdicate your responsibility, that is your decision. And it really is okay, if you're content with it. It is most emphatically not okay to insist others join you in such abdication.
We're not talking about abdicating anything. We're talking about reasonable restrictions. Could you be any more melodramatic?
DeleteNo, you're not talking about reasonable restrictions. Of all the things that you've proposed, you've never been able to show how they would solve our gun violence problem. You consistently ignore evidence to the contrary. You speculate and leave a lot to fantasy.
DeleteThe only way to achieve your stated goal of bringing down the number of gun deaths and injuries is to remove all guns, but that's impossible and a violation of rights. It cannot be done here. We're significantly different from Europe. We don't want to be Europe. How about just leaving each society to go its own way?
Melodramatic? Hardly. You, like each of us, Mike, bear the primary responsibility for your own safety and that of any who look to you for protection. If you choose to not be prepared to do what you can to ensure the safety of you and yours, that qualifies as abdication.
ReplyDeleteIf my home is invaded at 3 a.m. I have only a few interests or questions:
How many intruders are there?
Where are they, especially in relation to my family members?
Do they constitute a threat?
In the event I have to pull the trigger, do I have enough rounds to engage all of them as best I can?
Take my word for it. In that scenario your restrictions are many things. Reasonable is not one of them.