Weapons of Choice

[RangerRick]

Public 'threatened' by private-firearms ownership
Government argues gun restrictions 'permitted by the 2nd Amendment'

Posted: January 14, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Since "unrestricted' private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions, according to the Bush administration.

The argument was delivered by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the ongoing arguments over the legality of a District of Columbia ban on handguns in homes, according to a report from the Los Angeles Times.

Clement suggested that gun rights are limited and subject to "reasonable regulation" and said all federal limits on guns should be upheld.

"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the 2nd Amendment," he wrote in the brief, the Times reported.

He noted especially the federal ban on machine guns and those many other "particularly dangerous types of firearms," and endorsed restrictions on gun ownership by felons, those subject to restraining orders, drug users and "mental defectives."

His arguments came in the closely watched Washington, D.C., ban that would prevent residents from keeping handguns in their homes for self-defense.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I smell a rat in the White House that wants to disarm his sheeple because they just can't be controlled to his expectation. Just exactly does the statment "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"? Baaaaaaa!


Rick

[chloe3388]

Sounds like more panic talk from the gun control idiots. Little things like common sense or the second amendment don't enter into the debate. It is a never ending battle to protect ourselves.

[jim]

It seems kinda funny to think about it, but when the war of 1812 broke out, British soldiers were very surprised to find civilians whanging away at them with their own private cannons as they entered Washington. Seems like quite a few folks had them as lawn ornaments, and used them when the need arose. So much for "The Militia" being the national Guard and not citizens.

jim

[PK.]

Col. Cooper used to say that "An armed society is a polite society".

Why is that so difficult to understand?

[RangerRick]

Because liberals are idiots. They are the demented products of a dispicable union between deseased sub-humans of a low functioning brain disorder and clearly a blight on society in general and America in particular.

That's why.

Ranger Rick

[sam12six]

I tend more to think liberals are more naive than anything. They feel like banding together (government) is the best way to ensure freedom. The thing they don't understand is that the government can't grant freedom. When you're born, you're born free - regulations can't do anything but curtail that freedom. Now, some regulation is an absolute necessity - you can't have people being "free" shoot people just because they don't like the way they look. That's a criminal issue, not a matter of gun control.

I've got mixed feelings on the regulation of things like high explosives, but I've always felt like a person who wants to kill people is going to find a way to do it. He might settle for bludgeoning someone to death with a baseball bat, or he might volunteer at a soup kitchen and poison the food.

This is why I've always had a problem with criminalizing potential or motive. Drinking and driving increases your chances of getting in a car accident. This is a fact. BUT, if you don't get in a car accident, how have you comitted a crime. The problem is people have forgotten the no harm, no foul rule. To me this is like saying people who have been in the military (in active combat) are more likely to commit domestic violence than people who haven't, so being in the military should be a crime - just doesn't make sense to me.

Hate crimes are the same way. A liberal looks at a hate crime and says, "It's terrible to beat someone to death just because he's gay. Let's make a law that REALLY throws the book at people who do that." I look at the same situation and say, "It's already very, very illegal to beat someone to death. It doesn't make any difference whether they did it because he was gay, black, or wearing ugly shoes. It's a crime already."

As far as gun control specifically, centuries ago it was swords and bows, now it's guns.

In societies that had slavery, it was pretty much a universal rule that slaves couldn't own weapons and free people could. In societies without slavery, sooner or later, the public can't own weapons, but the government can.

Like I said, I think liberals are (usually) not stupid, just very sheltered and naive. They don't understand the temptation to abuse power and why that power MUST be balanced by another power. They are idealistic. They think that if they were in control of things, they would be doing all they could to help people. They haven't been in enough situations where people are trying to take advantage of them to imagine someone taking advantage of power to the detriment of the government.

It's hard, but I think they just haven't "seen the light yet".

The funny thing about it is I don't know if I, myself am a liberal or not.

I believe in pretty much total personal liberty up to the point that in infringes on someone else's liberty, so I usually argue against people who call themselves "conservative" when it comes to regulation of personal freedom.

I also believe strongly in fiscal responsibility, so I end up debating the government social programs that are sold as "help those less fortunate" with those who call themselves "liberal".

I guess I'm a liberal conservative.

Because liberals are idiots. *They are the demented products of a dispicable union between deseased sub-humans of a low functioning brain disorder and clearly a blight on society in general and America in particular.

That's why.

Ranger Rick

[jim]

Perhaps you're a conservative libertarian.

Anyway, liberals are at best "usefull idiots" as Lenin said, and Hillary is a Stalinist. :D
jim