Second Amendment and our basic rights

Home » Opinion » Commentary

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Comment

By Joe Turner

Several weeks ago the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The decision was 5 to 4. Five justices supported the Second Amendment as written.

Four justices, as shown in their dissenting opinions, did not necessarily disagree with the Second Amendment but chose to let their personal prejudices influence their votes. This is not unusual. Personal opinion and social engineering will always be a part of any court’s decision-making progress.

The opinions of the four dissenting justices border on the absurd. They are asking us to believe that while the word “people” is in the Constitution 10 times, it means, well, the people in nine of those times and the National Guard in one place, in the Second Amendment. They have forgotten that when the Constitution was written, there was no regulated national militia or anything close to it other than loosely formed local citizen defense groups who owned their weapons and took them home at night. They want us to believe that even though the National Guard was not created by Congress until 1903, the framers somehow saw the future and referenced the National Guard in the Second Amendment. That argument is foolish.

A highly respected local law enforcement person who is a friend told me that his anti-gun opinions came from growing up where there were no guns, in Los Angeles. He had no experience with guns so he decided to be against guns. This seems to be yet another case of an authority making a decision with no experience to back up the decision. He is just like those four Supreme Court justices.

Note that it is the Second Amendment that gives us the right to own guns. This clearly shows that the framers had very high regard for the subject. In fact, they felt that only one other basic right — that of free speech and a free press — was more important.

Liberals, get over it and maybe go sit in trees somewhere. Americans do have the right to own and bear arms to defend themselves, for sporting purposes, and simply because we want to. After all, “simply because we want to” is at the core of being American.

Just down the road in Oakland, crime and murder are so commonplace that the death toll from crime often tops that of Iraq and Afghanistan put together. The violence is being done by criminals who will never obey laws or even common decency. No matter how many gun laws we pass, those criminals will ignore them.

But the rest of us do not commit crimes and certainly do not go about committing murders. Get off our backs.

(Turner lives in Napa.)

56 comment(s)

cop105 wrote on Sep 15, 2008 9:55 PM:

" It cost Canada hundreds of millions of dollars to register all the guns in the country. It has some of most rigids anti-gun laws in the civilized world, and guess what...People are still getting shot and killed. Armed people are people who can defend themselves. The bad guys will always find ways to arm themselves. "

glenroy wrote on Sep 15, 2008 10:31 PM:

" Good work Joe…..there are thousands of people living today because they used a gun to stop an uninvited home intruder…statistics don’t lie, a dead intruder is the ultimate deterrence…stops recidivism every time.

Let those who are do not wish to own a gun plead for mercy when the inevitable intruder arrives in their home…around our home and neighbors we’re too far out in the sticks to rely on law enforcement…besides there is little they can do when you’re dead anyway…..on the other hand….going back to my old police academy training….when protecting your family it’s always better to have one version and only one version when explaining a body with a serious leak in the living room. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Sep 15, 2008 11:10 PM:

" So what?

Now that the gun rights of law-abiding citizens are settled, why don't you folks give it a rest?

I'd sure like to see some of the folks who claim to be so deeply concerned about home defense and the Second Amendment get serious about taking weapons away from NON-citizens and nut cases like the VA Tech murderer.

Or perhaps get behind 'fingerprinting' guns so that the police would be able to trace weapons fired in commission of a crime.

This is your basic Republican post as part of their GOTV effort. However, I failed to detect any anti-Second Amendment effort this election cycle.

Good luck boyz. Americans are worried about the economy this time.

~Ruff "

funnyme wrote on Sep 16, 2008 6:31 AM:

" Thank you Joe. Very well said.

I don't understand why the liberals "feel" so threatened by the PEOPLE who own guns for any purpose other than commit a crime, but when criminals, murderers and the like end up in prison they want to protect their "rights" (Would that be their Second Amendment right?).

One step further. The liberals "feel" so strong about "Choice" well, allow the people to choose whether they want to keep their guns or give them up.
I believe all these liberals have chosen to
keep their Second Amendment Right intact, have you seen their heavily armed body guards? "

Raven wrote on Sep 16, 2008 7:36 AM:

" thousands, according to whom?...almost 4 months since the decision and we still see them nervous about the decision.... "

freeport56 wrote on Sep 16, 2008 7:40 AM:

" Ruff-

VA knew that boy had serious physciatric problems and did nothing about to protect his privacy. Additionally, guns are "finger printed". At the factory each gun is fired three times. It is a test for accuracy, however, one spent round goes to the FBI, one is manitained and filed at the factory, and the third one is enclosed with the firearm.

just to clairify the record, this was probably written a while back and is now just getting into the NVR.

I am sorry you find it unsettling to talk about our rights. Too bad, I always enjoy discussing my freedoms.

Nice letter Joe. "

Common Sense wrote on Sep 16, 2008 10:21 AM:

" Way to go, Joe! "

vocal-de-local wrote on Sep 16, 2008 11:12 AM:

" First of all, for everyone who always says "those liberals" I would like to explain that I am a moderate "liberal" because I believe in the sanctity of government; I believe in social security, universal healthcare if done right, environmental rules and regulations, and SOME degree of social services for those who really need it. I believe in fair distribution of money and higher taxes for higher incomes Yes, I am a liberal and not afraid to say so.

However, it's a mistake to categorize all "liberals" into a one size fits all pigeon hole just because it's easier than using other words to explain yourself.

Regarding gun control: I used to be against it. My "Democrat" husband then joined the NRA about 14 years ago. I hated the literature, still do. I'm not some empty headed person whose brain vessel can be filled up with propaganda.

However, the reason I came around to accepting guns is because: They're here. They're not going to go away. IF our government ever gets wacko (think Hitler or...), we can defend ourselves. If another country ever tries to invade with violence (in some respects this is happening now except we don't recognize it), we can defend ourselves. If our resources become depleted or too expensive for people to buy, they might use violence to steal from ME. If I cannot be defended due to chaos, I will want to defend myself.

What I don't like about gun control is the lax attitude about automatic weapons. They should be totally illegal everywhere and taken completely out of circulation. Why does someone need these types of weapons for hunting? They are intended for mass murder. The NRA looks foolish advocating their use. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Sep 16, 2008 11:24 AM:

" Additionally, I believe that we should develop weapons which have some type of fingerprint identification, as Ruff described, or maybe some type of bullet signature that can EASILY be traced. We should have a target date so that all older weapons that lack fingerprint identification are phased out. And for collectors, donate them to a weapons museum which is where they belong. You WILL survive without your beloved antique weapon by your side!

In order to register for a gun, a person should be required to have training on safety and use. These guns should have a system where the gun cannot be activated without a fingerprint or some other type of personal identification system. This way, children cannot use them.

I know. More rules and regulations by government. I suppose that's what makes me a "liberal". But I would really like to decrease the power that criminals now hold over us. I dare them to steal one of these weapons I describe above. Basically, if we can customize weapons for selective use, create laws which enforce only their use, take the other weapons out of circulation, Many of our problems will be solved. How much you wanna bet that the NRA would fight it? "

Bill wrote on Sep 16, 2008 1:48 PM:

" As a way out lefty left out knee knobbin' type my self and an egalitarian, non vegan I believe everyone should have a gun semiautomatic fully auto concealed or other wise. Shot gun. pocket rocket any ole thing.

And that's the truth which may be scarier than fiction. Why should the right wing have all the fun, Oh and egalitarian sex for everyone, you see the left knows how to share the fun if the right doesn't know how to share the money. "

freeport56 wrote on Sep 16, 2008 1:50 PM:

" Vocal-de-Local;

read my post first.

When you buy a firearm in any STATE of our union, you fill out paperwork for a background check. There is a FEDERALly MANDATED 5 day waiting period and a CALIFORNIA MANDATED 5 day waiting period. 10 days in total.

Machine guns,automatic weapons are illegal to possess in California, unless you have a Class III liccense from the ATF allowing you to possess one. You have to be in Law enforcement or some type of security business to have one. Your background is thoroughly checked out and you have annual inspections and paperwork to fill out on them.

The false hoods that have been prevented to you by the LEFTist Politicians is that these are a scourge and laws must be passed to prevent their use and ability to possess. Those laws have existed for years already. If any of the anti-gun blogger bothered to read any of the laws that are currently trying to be passed, they would see that they DO NOT PREVENT CRIME. They are; however, a direct attack on the second amendment. "

freeport56 wrote on Sep 16, 2008 2:05 PM:

" Vocal cont'd-

Currently there are two groups that actively address your Bill of Rights in the U.S. 1.) ACLU- has attacked your rights and actually made sure that you have very few. 2.) NRA-fights for your right to possess any firearm you wish to own. that is your right under the Constitution.

What your conserns address are CRIMINAL acts. Not law abiding citizens. Ruff referrenced the guy from VA Tech. VA Tech knew he had mental health problems and did nothing about it. Hence his killing rampage. The Clinton administration never prosecuted anyone under Federal Firearms laws to exacerbate the gun problem to institute the Federal firearms ban. he played politics by using the criminal element to institute fear into the people to pressure legislator to pass the law.

Joe is right, we have freedoms we need to protect. When hear ye says we need restricts on our rights, that that lessons the rights we have. The left screams about the Patriot Act and about losing our rights, but minor restrictions are okay. They are worse because after you give up some of one right, they will justify taking away a little more in the name of making you safer, and you will buy into it. "

freeport56 wrote on Sep 16, 2008 2:15 PM:

" Vocal con'td-

your concern about child safety are well founded. Many adults through foolish actions hide rather than lock up a firearm. Then an unknowing child finds the firearm and not being familar with it's use shots himselfd or a friend. There is no doubt that firearms are dangerous. If you possess one everyone in the house should be familar with how it works and the safety required to operate it. The manuals that come with new guns usually devote the first 10-15 pages to firearm safety and the 5 rules involved with gun handling. As you tend to bad mouth the NRA for no good reason, their primary function is safety education. You should actually check out their web site and do some reading on what their mission is. From your comments, you do not know much about the NRA. It is the oldest civil liberty organization in the U.S.

As for the preceived power criminals hold over us, was given to them by the Liberals. Our legislature and courts are more concerned with their rights than they are yours. Stricter and harsher laws concern the use of a gun in the act of committing a crime is a better use of the laws than restricting ownership. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Sep 16, 2008 3:16 PM:

" fp56 - Blather and balderdash... especially since gun rights for law-abiding citizens is now 'settled law' by the US Supreme Court.

Liberals are not trying to take anybody's gunz away... well except in the case of this LIBRUL commie who still wants to see the 'home-protection' crowd get behind keeping their guns and getting them out of the hands of nutjobs and NON-citizens.

fp56 - you sure blow a lot of toxic smoke about guns around election time.

Most of us get it now... the Republicans have to work extra-hard on the anti-abortion vote now that law-abiding citizen's gun rights are 'settled law'.

~Ruff "

db76 wrote on Sep 16, 2008 3:33 PM:

" About 15 years ago a man in New Zealand walked into a daycare and opened fire, killing about a dozen children. As a reaction, the government made it all but impossible to own a handgun. Guess what? Handgun murders have been pretty much eliminated in New Zealand. For some reason, Republicans refuse to see a connection between the availability of guns and homicide by guns. "

freeport56 wrote on Sep 16, 2008 4:43 PM:

" db76-

it is not a Republican issue boys, it's a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Only the libbies can sight an instance of a derangered individual and make a stand on one point. Thanks for sighting a current incident.

Ruff- you obviously do not pay attention to what goes on in our state legislature. They have\had tried through several back door attempts to dismantle our gun rights.For such a psuedo intelectual your responses are both childish and boorish. "

Bill wrote on Sep 16, 2008 4:48 PM:

" Their most direct answer would be to arm the baby sitter. I'm for that don't lrave home unless the 15 year old watching your 9 year old is pakin." "

antipc wrote on Sep 16, 2008 5:51 PM:

" db76, you failed to mention Australias’ gun ban which resulted in a four plus fold increase in violent crime. Don’t forget the American cities which had illegally banned hand guns yet still have statistically higher crime rates.

Why do libs constantly try to control arenas they are ignorant in? "

cab e-girl wrote on Sep 16, 2008 6:18 PM:

" Bill-I am confused by your post. Was there a few typos? "

barefoot wrote on Sep 16, 2008 6:44 PM:

" I didn't get a spent projectile when I bought my 9mm with two 15 round clips (target practice). What's up with that? I did get a locking case, and I have another trigger lock on the gun. (As well as my rifle). "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Sep 16, 2008 7:08 PM:

" fp56 - Thanks for the compliment!!!

I rejoice when Republican-enablers call me names! But I am just soooo disappointed that you left out LIBRUL and commie!

See, I've been concerned that 'napablogger' has been cutting into my turf.

The Supreme Court will reliably knock down any 'backdoor' attempts to get around the new precedent. They believe in precedents they like and are spoiling for a chance to overturn the ones they don't, like Roe v. Wade, and Griswold.

Please quit pretending... you've got your guns, and you know it.

Blabbering about pretend threats to your guns is what's really childish, boorish and kinda boring, too!

~Ruff "

dcwusmc wrote on Sep 16, 2008 9:18 PM:

" Joe, let me address you first... your sentiment is great and your heart's in the right place, BUT the Constitution for the United States does NOT "give" us the right to keep and bear arms, nor ANY OTHER right. For truly, what government gives, government can take away. The Constitution for the United States is the contract we, the People, have with government, which defines and LIMITS the authority GOVERNMENT has to act in our names and on our behalf. The Bill of Rights is, in essence, a sort of "for example" list of areas where government is forbidden to tread. The RIGHTS we have do NOT come from government and never did. OUR Government was instituted to PROTECT our PRE-EXISTING rights, the ones given us by our Creator when we were born. That this has been turned on its head and WE, the People, are limited in our liberty is a sad reflection on what we will put up with. And WHY the Founders felt it incumbent to ADD the Second Amendment, because THEY would have taken to the streets to cut government back down to size probably fifty to seventy years ago.

And for vocal-de-local, the government was NEVER INTENDED to have any sort of say in what we, the People, packed. In point of fact, it was ASSUMED that we would have artillery and rifles and all the arms and equipment of the standing army, for it was expected that the militia, the body of the people, would come, when summoned, to preserve the peace and repel invasions, etc., PROVIDING THEIR OWN WEAPONS AND EQUIPMENT. So today we have automatic weapons and lots of other goodies that FedGov has, quite unconstitutionally, said that we, THEIR BOSSES, may not possess without the "permission" of our employees. "

dcwusmc wrote on Sep 16, 2008 9:30 PM:

" Oh, and vocal, as to your other favorite government programs, there is NO AUTHORITY GRANTED to the federal government to legislate in any one of these areas, which means that each and every one of the ideas you espouse are without any constitutional standing and the federal government is acting completely outside the bounds of the authority granted it by we, the People.

A large part of the thought that went into writing the Constitution and establishing our new government seems to have been that the government would not have any more power than we, as individuals, could legitimately wield. Because the Founders KNEW that no one can grant an authority to act that they themselves do not possess. For example, I cannot hire someone to come to your house to take your money to pay for my wife's surgery, because I lack that right myself... and I cannot hire someone to do what I MYSELF CANNOT LEGITIMATELY DO. So it was with the Founders: They realized that they could not give government what was NOT THEIRS TO GIVE.

So, for you to advocate robbing some people at the point of government's guns to benefit others is as totally and utterly wrong and EVIL as it would be if you went out and attempted to do it yourself. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Sep 16, 2008 9:40 PM:

" So, since we have national guard & a very well-regulated military with several powerful branches, & that "well-regulated militia" they spoke of in the Constitution is no longer needed, should anyone with a gun now be required to join the national guard or well-regulated military so they can play with their assault weapons all they want & do the work with them that those founders anticipated they'd be doing? Sounds okay to me. I must've missed something, because I hadn't heard anyone was going to take any guns away from me & my husband. Shucks. We'll just have to live without then. Scuse me while I go climb a tree. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Sep 16, 2008 9:42 PM:

" db76, your comment about New Zealand is interesting. I only wish that was a possibility here. However, our continent is large and it would take a monumental effort to remove all of the weapons. Secondly we are not an island and even if we removed weapons, someone would be smuggling them over the border and delivering them into the hands of criminals. This is reality unfortunately.

In the melting pot scheme if things, this country is so filled up with misfits and rebels; those who were escaping religious persecution, those who were escaping economic hardship, those who were escaping the law, those who were escaping discrimination for other reasons; and those who just couldn't manage to fit in elsewhere; weapons are both a curse and blessing in a melting pot of escapees. I don't think it's any surprise that we are both creative risk takers and strong willed, hotheaded problem solvers. I suppose at this point, we need to protect ourselves from the "what if" situations. We are not immune from domestic revolution or invasion from a bordering country. If things ever get tough, your gun may become one of your most prized possessions.

I hate guns btw. If I had a magic wand I would remove all of them from the world and prohibit their return! "

db76 wrote on Sep 16, 2008 9:51 PM:

" barefoot? I though 15 round magazines were illegal in California? When I bought my Walther, I could only get a ten round mag. (The spent casing was "hidden" in the case underneath a bunch of foam). "

rogers wrote on Sep 16, 2008 11:03 PM:

" I am not against owning guns for protection or sport (hunting or competitive shooting) or collecting. My grandfather fed his family during the depression because of his skills as a hunter.

At one point in her life, my wife found it necessary for her protection and that of her clients to carry a concealed weapon.

She took a course at a local college and received law enforcement level training not only with handguns but rifles and shotguns as well. She obtained her license and felt confident that she could defend herself with a firearm. It may have taken longer but she came away very well trained and competent in the law as it applies to use of deadly force.

Unfortunately, most Americans who purchase guns don't take classes. That's why I favor licensing for gun ownership. Every state requires some degree of provable competence and knowledge of the law if you want to drive a vehicle. Not so for guns.

Florida's concealed weapons class is a short 2 hour course and a few minutes on a firing range to show that you can pull a trigger. That does not instill confidence in me.

In other states the gun shows and flea markets make it entirely too easy to obtain a weapon. I want a better method to prove knowledge and competence in the use of guns. Quite frankly I've known too many irresponsible idiots (without criminal records) who are clueless about safe gun practices. Maybe you feel comfortable living next to one of these guys in your apartment building but I sure wouldn't.

And to clarify here, I'm not talking about licensing the gun, but the user. This in no way contradicts the Second Amendment. "

rogers wrote on Sep 17, 2008 12:21 AM:

" dcwusmc - Wow! So in essence the Second Amendment is really a God (Creator) driven package! I wonder if you feel the Constitution is inviolable and sacred kinda like the bible?

Actually from the history I have read and observed there are very few rights any person is born with. It is government (an organization of individuals who control a country or region, its people, resources, laws and commerce) who grants the people the rights and extent of participation. The quality of government is another thing.

Those MEN who wrote our Constitution labored for years to do the best they could. The final document did not happen miraculously, it was, like most political statements, a compromise. The founding fathers knew they were limited by their own short lives to perceive every future need, so they built in the need to modify or add to as necessary. These are the Amendments and they are binding and integral to the concept of the original document. They are specific and not "an example".

"The Constitution for the United States is the contract we, the People, have with government..." Couldn't agree more! But we ARE the government because WE are expected to participate in the process of governing and to responsibly uphold the results of that process - the laws - we are a nation of laws, yes? Do we not have the right to change our laws when we collectively find them unnecessarily constraining or endangering to our citizenry.

You speak more to the limits of government rather than the responsibilities conferred upon it by its own people. Do you think we should be allowed to carry hand grenades for personal protection in schools? I wonder what Jesus would pack? "

Rocketman wrote on Sep 17, 2008 12:50 PM:

" db76...........I just googled New Zealand's gun laws. Unless I misread something or the laws changed in the last day or so, New Zealand had some of the most liberal gun laws on the books!!

"New Zealand's gun laws are notably more liberal than other countries in the Pacific, focusing mainly on vetting firearm owners, rather than registering firearms or banning certain types of firearms. Firearms legislation is provided for in the Arms Act and its associated regulations, though stricter unofficial police and government policies also apply" "

freeport56 wrote on Sep 17, 2008 1:07 PM:

" dwcusmc-

better bone up on your history. The "Bill of Rights" according to the founders\framers were those rights we gained at birth. Even Justice Scalia made reference to it at the end of his opinion.
"Undoubtedly some 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.
We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals" "

dcwusmc wrote on Sep 17, 2008 3:31 PM:

" freeport56... where are we in disagreement? "

dcwusmc wrote on Sep 17, 2008 3:50 PM:

" Roger... Just read the Declaration of Independence and the other writings of the Founders. You'll be amazed to find that they believed unequivocally that our Rights do NOT come from government. If you want to say God, as I do, fine, otherwise "nature" or whatever suits. But NEVER do our rights emanate from government.

And is the Constitution inviolable? While there is a mechanism for change, as time changes, yes it is, at its essence, inviolable as the Supreme Law of the Land. Since it is the basic contract we, the People, have to allow government to even exist, its essence cannot be changed without voiding the whole contract. The RIGHTS it protects are inviolable and CANNOT be LEGITIMATELY tampered with by FedGov. That they do so on a daily basis does not make it right. It only points out that the Sheeple in this nation are so complacent or brainwashed by the public school system as to not realize what their RIGHTS are, in order to be able to enforce them against government, the biggest violator.

And, NO, we cannot just willy-nilly ignore the parts of the Constitution we might find restraining on what some of us might want government to do to others. Remember, the initial idea was that government was only allowed to do certain things, but things that would normally be in our own power to do for ourselves. If we, as individuals, could not legitimately do something, we cannot hire government to do it for us. And you cannot, yourself, compel me to pay for YOUR family's upkeep nor, properly, can you get someone else to rob me on your behalf.

And your last question: Hand grenades are, in my PROFESSIONAL opinion, best suited to home defense. "

dcwusmc wrote on Sep 17, 2008 4:01 PM:

" Roger... we are each BORN with a full complement of Rights. Various governments around the world respect them (or not, in most cases) in lesser ways than the Founders decided was correct for the United States. No one, anywhere, has any fewer RIGHTS than anyone else. But the extent to which they are allowed to EXERCISE their rights determines how free they are. Rights are eternal, unchanging: the right to life (and the inherent right to protect that life by whatever means necessary); the right to liberty and justly acquired property. The ONLY obligation that can be created in another person regarding MY exercise of MY rights is that you respect them, just as I must respect YOUR rights. It's quite simple. Sadly, there are too many people with mindsets similar to yours that want to violate my rights, particularly my right to property, either freelance, as my local burglar or mugger might try, or the ones who, lacking the stones to try criminality personally, want government to do it FOR them. From the tone of your comments, I suspect you are one of the latter. Please let me know if I am wrong. "

freeport56 wrote on Sep 17, 2008 5:31 PM:

" Semper Fi-dcwusmc.

vocal- why do you hate guns. Have you ever been to the target range and been shooting? I was taught at the age of 5 and have been shooting for 47 years. Always safe and always careful.

Maybe we should go one day and you can see the doctors, lawyers, mechanics, shop owners, nurses, and others who enjoy the shooting sports.

After all we are not criminals. You dreamm for a firearm dream will only happen when the farrrrrrrr lefters suspend the Constitution. It is a proven fact that when law abiding citizens can have the right to carry a concealled weapon, crime rates drop. Check out John Lott Jr.'s book More Guns, Less Crime. "

rogers wrote on Sep 17, 2008 8:33 PM:

" dcwusmc I do disagree with your concept of inalienable rights that you are born with. When you are born you have an instinct to inhale air and expel noise. Any other "rights" you have are maintained and enforced by those around you who participate in some form of social agreement or government. The ideology of inalienable rights is a wonderful if not beautiful ideal but a practice not honored by many nations on this planet.

Ours is a rather unique blend of history and ideals but not without issues. Slavery, for example, was the practice even though the Constitution professed a different tune. The right to vote and therefore participate was limited to landowners and women were excluded altogether. We have had to make many additions (adjustments?) to that original document to make this nation a more perfect union. That is the practice and process of government and laws should reflect the best of what our citizens demand of that government.

As a gun owner I do not want my rights abridged, but as a practical person I see real problems when a nation refuses to require more responsibility from those who insist on their rights of gun ownership. I suggested that people prove competence through a training & licensing process. I want to filter out the idiots, I don't want them to be able to buy ammo if they aren't mentally competent or unable to demonstrate knowledge of the law. 200 years ago if you walked outside and discharged a firearm, chances were no one would get hurt. Today with a population of over 300 million there is a much higher probability that someone will. I would rather have a little inconvenience but a better informed and trained population of gun users. "

dcwusmc wrote on Sep 17, 2008 11:20 PM:

" Rogers, you can disagree all you like, but it's the FOUNDERS who believed in the concept of INHERENT RIGHTS so strongly that they made that the premier part of the new nation they built. And it's really the only theory that fits all the facts about mankind and human nature.

Our RIGHTS, if they are, as I believe, God-given, cannot legitimately be taken from us at the whim of government. If, as YOU believe, they are gifts of a "benevolent" government, they can be recalled as quickly as the Congress can pass a bill. Or ATF can pass a regulation. Clearly, this is NOT AT ALL what the Founders of this nation had in mind. Recall that, in the FOUNDING DOCUMENT of this country, the Declaration of Independence, the Founders were pretty specific as to their belief in the SOURCE of our rights... "We hold... that they are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights..." (emphasis added). What does that tell you?

May I ask if you are a product of our government school system? That would go a long way to understanding your beliefs.

And for firearms USE, I believe strongly that LOCAL jurisdictions may properly regulate WHERE and WHEN weapons may be discharged in non-emergency situations, thus relieving your mind of the "problem" that seems to be of concern to you.

And, as a retired U.S. Marine, who spent my whole adult life protecting and defending the Constitution for the United States, I WILL NOT TOLERATE infringements on ANY of my Rights, by any one. Which also means I must yet protect and defend YOUR rights, even if you are willing to see them taken from you. "

dcwusmc wrote on Sep 17, 2008 11:38 PM:

" Rogers, as for the vote, I would love to see removal of the franchise from ANYONE who receives a government paycheck or welfare check. For the longest time, the vote was only given to those who would be required to PAY FOR GOVERNMENT. That is the fairest way of all. NO ONE who has an interest in growing government and increasing the burden on those who must pay for it (but do not, for whatever reason, have to pay themselves) should have a say in what government does or what it costs. Only those who have to pay the freight should be enfranchised. If I have to pay for YOUR welfare, why should YOU have any say in how much you get? Simple justice says you shouldn't.

Now, if you want universal suffrage, fine. Eliminate ALL government welfare programs and ensure that those who do draw government paychecks cannot vote on anything that might impact their jobs and checks and I'm with you.

(My personal preference for the franchise would be that NO ONE could run for political office or vote who had not FIRST demonstrated his or her love for country that is so strong that he or she was willing to put their own life on the line to protect that society and nation. In other words, if you are unwilling to put your own tender tushie on the line for your country and your fellows, you have NO BUSINESS telling others how it should be done by being able to vote or hold public office. Do you realize that virtually NONE of the congresscritters or executive branch have served? (McCain served and his son is a Marine in Iraq, which is about the only good thing I have to say about him.) "

renrut wrote on Sep 18, 2008 9:02 AM:

" For thos misguided folks, automatic weapons are illegal in every state. It is a federal law that was passed during the gaqngster days. As for assault weapons, they are no more dangerous that hunting rifles and, in fact, us the same ammo. Stop talking if you do not know what your are saying. "

rogers wrote on Sep 18, 2008 10:32 AM:

" dcwusmc you are so far off it's amazing. For one - the Declaration of Independence is NOT the Constitution. Number of times God is mentioned in the Constitution? Zero. Doesn't mean we are not a nation of religion but rather a safe haven for many religions.

You insist there should be no restrictions or inconveniences against gun ownership. Yet you insist that a representative to our government somehow "demonstrate his/her love for country that is so strong that he or she was willing to put their own life on the line to protect that society and nation". And how do you do that? Insist on military service?

You do NOT want to know the breakdown of military service by Democrats and Republicans currently serving in the House and the Senate. I guarantee it will rattle your cage. The current bunch of executive branch idiots have almost no military experience including the President who hung out at a National Guard camp in Texas well known for protecting the youth of the wealthy who didn't want them to go to Vietnam.

Both Al Gore and John Kerry (sons of wealthy parents) went to Vietnam and served. Tell me again about our VP?

Many in my family and wife's family served in WWII and/or Korea (Marines, Army and Navy) with distinction and honor. While you disparage what you think is my educational background (if you are a product of our government school system...) I might also add so is West Point, the US Naval Academy and US Air Force Academy.

I thank you for your service to our nation. But do not confuse your right to arm yourself to the teeth as a God-given right in this nation. It's not. "

rogers wrote on Sep 18, 2008 10:55 AM:

" dcwusmc wrote: "...as for the vote, I would love to see removal of the franchise from ANYONE who receives a government paycheck or welfare check."

You realize you would also be removing your right to vote as a member of the US Armed Forces and a taxpayer?

You are apparently one of those who doesn't realize that YOU are the government. So by eliminating your own right to participate or even change bad decisions by government, you allow others to continue their bad behavior.

I also suspect you are a strong advocate of limiting the size government. I also suspect you voted for this President and his bunch both times. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Yet this same group has grown our debt, increased the size of government and taken your rights of privacy away from you. They and their ideals of a "free market" have precipitated our current economic meltdown. They removed the government oversight that was put in place by Democrats to stop this kind of unregulated abuse.

Did you vote for them because they promised smaller government, family values, the right to carry a concealed weapon, compassionate conservatism, put the bible back in our public schools and leave no child behind or they declared themselves "born again" Christians? Just curious. "

Raven wrote on Sep 19, 2008 5:31 AM:

" aww..yes...we all know the need for assault weapons to defend the hunter from the vicious deer.....any hunter who needs an assault rifle to bring down the game is not a hunter but more like a butcher...assault weapons have but one purpose...to kill people...don't try and sugar coat it "

tfytmp wrote on Sep 19, 2008 6:19 AM:

" the second amendment gives us, the people, to bear arms. Arms means any weapon. That means tnat no weapon can be banned. Bombs or bomb making products cannot be banned. Fireworks cannot be banned. What can be banned is how arms are used. The problem is how to limit us, but not violate the second amendment. "

cellsitegod wrote on Sep 19, 2008 7:21 AM:

" Hey Raven,
It's not the gun that kills people. it's the bullet. Assault rifles use the same caliber bullet as the non-ban guns.
If somebody wants to kill another person, they'll do it with any gun they can get their hands on.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Somebody come up with an answer to prevent people from killing people.
It's been proven in other countries that gun bans don't work.
Crimminals and crazies can still get their hands on guns. "

rogers wrote on Sep 19, 2008 3:28 PM:

" tfytmp go ahead and make a vest bomb, I'm sure some of the radical Islamic sites can help you with the details. Then you will find out how legal it is and how long it takes the FBI to kick your door in! Where do you get your information????

cellsitegod wrote "Somebody come up with an answer to prevent people from killing people". Apparently 25.000 dead people a year from guns in this country alone isn't enough to make you uncomfortable. Here's your answer:

1. No quick easy buy of guns until thorough back ground check is made, if it takes a month, I don't care.
2. Mandatory training (minimum of 25-50 hours) and licensing for individuals who want to to buy a gun, ammo or ammunition components.
3. Must pass written and firing range testing to show knowledge of safe gun practices and the law regarding their use before a license can be issued.

When you can prove competence and knowledge in safe gun operation (like a driver's license) you can then go enjoy your 2nd amendment rights guaranteed by your Constitution. I'm a gun owner and I'm fine with this. "

Raven wrote on Sep 19, 2008 6:20 PM:

" if it is the simply the bullet that kills, then there is no reason to have an assault weapon at all since you can take the deer down with other firearms ...

my grandfather was quite a proficient hunter and he stayed with a simple bolt action rifle....said anyone who needs two shots shouldnt be hunting "

rogers wrote on Sep 19, 2008 7:31 PM:

" Oh, and cellsitegod I forgot one thing - if anyone commits a crime with a gun (handgun, rifle, shotgun, .22 cal. or .50 cal., they qualify for an automatic 5 year minimum sentence on top of the main crime. It would be non-negotiable and plea bargain proof. Make it a federal crime so it extends to all 50 states. How long do you think it would take the criminals to figure that one out? Not long; I guarantee it! "

XMAN wrote on Sep 19, 2008 11:04 PM:

" During WWII the Japanese ruled out a ground invasion of the U.S. because our civilian population was well known to be armed to the teeth and ready to fight at the drop of a hat. "

Raven wrote on Sep 20, 2008 6:21 AM:

" hmmm....Is that the reason, I always figured that trying to move ten's of thousands of troops and their supporting vessels without detection across the expanse of the pacific without running into the fleet based on the west coast might have had something to do it ....

like to know the historical source for that xman.... "

rogers wrote on Sep 20, 2008 6:48 PM:

" Raven I too have heard this over the years but have never found a legitimate source other than associated NRA claims.

The argument doesn't hold up from what I am able to find from most historians. The closest invasion of US territory was the Aleutian islands Attu and Kiska in 1942. Rather than being viewed as a jump point to the west coast it was seen as mostly a feint to draw US Pacific forces north before the battle of Midway or as a defensive post to discourage attacks on Japan from the north. Most airlines today fly a similar route to Japan.

Japan didn't have a large enough army to invade the US and maintain forces in China, Manchuria, Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Phillipines.

Colonial expansion for raw resources in their neck of the woods seemed to be their primary quest. The only major problem that could stop them was the US fleet in Pearl Harbor. "

Raven wrote on Sep 20, 2008 11:26 PM:

" that was pretty much what I thought too rogers....my minor was history with an emphasis on WWII..... "

XMAN wrote on Sep 21, 2008 3:14 AM:

" There were attacks at Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, Several on the Oregon Coast resulting in large scale forest fires and the deaths of women and children. Mostly from Japanese subs but also from aircraft and very high altitude balloons. You kids don't learn that in history? As an elementary school kid growing up in St. Helena, I lived through those years and they weren't pretty. Also, the halocaust was real - please trust me on that one. "

anticommie wrote on Sep 21, 2008 9:53 AM:

" WOW! I dont know where to begin!!!! Im curious to know how many people on this blog have read "The Federalsit Papers." A very good read for those interested in the reasons the Constitution is the way it is. Hear is a small excerpt from one of the essays discussing who, what, and when militia is.

Federalist Paper #29, Author Alexander Hamilton:

"By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

In California you must pass a written exam to purchase a handgun. Anything over a 10 round magazine cannot be purchased. Good luck getting a CCW, unless you are Fienstien or Boxer (two ademant gun law advocates).

25,000 people die of guns each year? As far as statistics go, and im not against abortion but, how many humans are killed by abortion each year? "

Raven wrote on Sep 21, 2008 3:50 PM:

" Okay since you asked, xman, here ya go

Only a pump house and catwalk at one oil well were damaged in the Santa Barbara oilfield attack although the sub captain radioed Tokyo that he had left Santa Barbara in flames. No casualties were reported and the total cost of the damage was officially estimated at approximately $500-1000.

The Lookout Air Raid occurred on September 1942. The first aerial bombing of mainland America by a foreign power occurred when an attempt to start a forest fire was made by a Japanese Yokosuka E14Y1 seaplane dropping two 80 kg (180 lb) incendiary bombs over Mount Emily, near Brookings, Oregon. No significant damage was officially reported following the attack, nor after a repeat attempt on September 29. Wet weather once again.

About three hundred fire balloons were reported as reaching North America, but little damage was caused. Six people (five children and a woman)
became the only deaths due to enemy action to occur on mainland America
during World War II when one of the children tampered with a bomb from the balloon near Bly, Oregon in the United States and it exploded.
A fire balloon is also considered to be a possible cause of the final fire in the Tillamook (Oregon) Burn. One member of the 555th Parachute Infantry Battalion died while responding to a fire in the Northwest 6 August 1945. "

XMAN wrote on Sep 22, 2008 12:19 AM:

" Subject: Second Amendment

Our Righteous Minds 'were' designed to

-- unite us into teams
-- divide us against other teams and
-- blind us to the truth.

.............. Jonathan Haidt, psychologist "

freeport56 wrote on Sep 25, 2008 10:49 AM:

" The FBI presented these data today in the 2007 edition of Crime in the United States, a statistical compilation of offense and arrest data as reported by law enforcement agencies throughout the nation. The FBI collected these data via the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program.

In 2007, the major U.S. cities with the highest murder rates were cities with severe gun control. The top three? Detroit (where Michigan law requires a permit to purchase a handgun), Baltimore (where Maryland law restricts private handgun sales and requires a seven-day waiting period on handgun sales by dealers), and the District of Columbia (with its handgun ban and its firearm registration law). Detroit, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and D.C. had the highest robbery rates. "

Raven wrote on Sep 28, 2008 10:41 AM:

" interesting that the first thing the FBI says in their stats report is a caution against using these rates to compare the crime activity between different cities.....and that overall, the violent crime rate in the US declined in 2007... "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: