I doubt you'd be a fan of such Public Registries for other things....like say, mental illness diagnosis. anyone who is diagnosed with any mental status that includes possible violence as a symptom or medication side-effect must register with the Police, and be in a Public Database. Whats the harm in that, right, we law abiding citizens would then know who the crazies are.
Well, lets ask a Cop (Green32) if he's about.And I don't consider a police check to be a "criminal invasion" or a swat team, etc. That's your excessive attempt at distorting to serve your stance.
If a citizen calls in and reports his neighbor is currently "acting erratically in plain sight", is "making (you) very nervous by his actions", is engaging in "disturbed behavior" AND you report that he is "stockpiling guns"......what would the appropriate police action be?
By all means if you become aware of illegal activity, or any behavior theat makes you fearful from your neighbor yous should dial 911
I enjoy John Stewart, he always is entertaining and makes some good points, but in this case he is rationalizing emotionally rather then looking at the whole picture logically.
Once again if are very nervous by the actions of your neighbor then you should report them regardless if he owns a gun or not. Should we register butcher knives, baseball bats, pointy sticks? Sticks and stones can break your bones and a knife can stab you through the heart?
Your last paragraph is pretty much what I was suggesting, but I was asking whether some form of registry for all weapons would make sense. I raised this question not because I feel it must be done in a particular way but because I could see some scenarios where it could be a way to deter a mass murder. In thinking about it, I would be okay with a registry of all weapons that only law enforcement could access. As long as I knew that somebody was putting two and two together to identify someone giving seriousl signals of violence, that would work. Doesn't have to be a private citizen doing the dot connecting. If it was law enforcement accessible only, would that change anybody's mind here about a universal registry? Just curious...
I agree that a gun registry could be a good tool for Law enforcement to use.
I am against gun regsitry because I feel it could be abused by the government, and at some point in time lead to gun consfication.
I also believe the main purpose of the 2nd is to keep govt. fearful of it's citizens, and feel it is important to at least have the means needed to overthrow the Govt. if it ever became nesacarry. That and I believe in the right to defend our selve in general with guns.
I would also point out that WA state has a gun registry for all guns sold through FFL's since around 1995 or so, and there guns have not been confiscated. I also don't believe WA LEO's have found the registry of particular usefullness on any large scale. I feel WA passed this gun registry on purely an emotional basis.
That said, the point I highlighted is one which I am at best mixed on to dubious re that being the intent of the 2nd Amendment. It would have been extremely paradoxical for the founders to invest so much in a Constitutional government with mechanisms for peaceful change and amendment, for compromise, and for protection of minority factions and then to throw in an amendment to protect against itself by armed force. I can imagine their fear that a usurper would discard the Constitution and try to suppress "the people" via some form of despotism, thus the desire to make sure the people maintained the right to keep and bear arms. In addition, congress still held authority over the state militias, so even the language of the second amendment is structured to maintain that arrangement as a local/state level means of guarding "the free state." JMHO.
First off thank you for your very kind comments on my posting.
As to the 2nd, I always have felt the wording was very clear. However I am not the authority in deciding it's meaning, I am happy to leave that up to the SCOTUS, and to the people if they so decide to amend it.
I do feel compelled to speak out on issues pertaining to the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, in this forum and others and even have in the last 3 years begun to write to my legislators and tell them my feelings, I feel it our duty to do so, along with voting.
I apologize for the lengthy copy and paste quotes below, the truth of it is these great men represent my thoughts better then I could ever state them,
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787.
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778).
"(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."
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
-Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
First President of the United States
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Third President of the United States
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
to James Madison
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a subject."
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
-Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1989 at col. 1.
Whoever was responsible for publishing that information should be in jail.
I wonder what would happen if someone published the names and addresses of everyone who was on welfare, food stamps, unemployment or housing assistance.
I should have also added that Jefferson was opposed to standing armies, the draft, and pretty much anything that smacked of military consolidation of power. And he was pretty explicit in his take on the second amendment, which is more in the form of citizens being organized into "well-regulated" units rather than sitting on their front porch with a shotgun:
For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation." --Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482
"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important, but especially so at a moment when rights the most essential to our welfare have been violated." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803. ME 10:365
"It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813. ME 13:261
"A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
Last edited by long island leprechaun; 01-16-2013 at 08:48 AM.
But your second line is a great example of why the first is unacceptable. No one would be tolerant of having the welfare rolls or food stamp recipients names and addressed published so, and rightfully so. That information should be private, even if the Govt. has it. I do not believe the FOIA was ever intended to bash private citizens for recieving services from Government, nor was it meant as a tool to "out" those of a different political viewpoint for mere expression of a constituioanl right without additional cause or crime.
The media would (rightfully) never publish the addresses of people with mental illness because a tiny minority commit violent crime yet have no problem with the scarlet letter approach on ALL law abiding gun owners.
I think it is fair to say we are not in reality that far off. It seems clear to me the founding fathers intended for the "MIlitia" to be under govt. control.
Somewhere in DC it is written, "Of The People And By The People"
If "The People" want to declare something legal or illegal, evn though I do not agree, I am OK with that.
If "The People" want to amend the constitution, even though I do not agree, I am OK with that.
I do not support a overthrow of the govt. At this time. But somewhere down the line I can see where it may become necessarry, maybe 50 maybe 150 years down the line.
I think maybe are difference lies in how we view guns themselves, I see them as George Washington referred to them.
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
Where as others see them as the root cause for evil acts of violence.
Regardless I will submit to the will of the people how ever this shakes out, not happily, but understandably, in the meantime I will continue to stump for the cause.
And I get the self-protection issue. I don't have a problem with gun ownership and believe it should be protected. As to the specific types of weapons and their proper venue, I'd probably want more constraint.
Also, an argument can be made that there is nothing about Constitutional Government that makes it above reproach of revolution (armed or otherwise) if it oversteps it's bounds. Simply being "constitutional" does not make it special, or fair, or immune to the causes of a civil uprising and rebellion, as portions of Occupy itself so clearly shows.
Indeed.One man's tyranny is anothers legitimate excercise of the Constitution.
I'm curious tho, what kind of United States do see if we simply banned all private ownership of guns outright, say? What effects do you believe such a decision would have (made via Constituional Government, i.e. the revokation of the 2nd amendment via teh appropriate path, etc)?
Because I'll be quite honest, I look at New Yorks "strictest" laws ever.....and I don't see it having any effect on criminal gun violence, and it's effect on the law abiding will only create new criminals who fail to meet the new regulations. I don't see it stopping a single mass shooting, or stopping run-of-the-mill crime at all. Which makes me ponder the point, beyond political points.
To the second point, if our Constitutional process cannot repair itself through peaceful means, it has failed. There should truly never be a situation within the context of our existing framework that requires citizens to become revolutionaries using guns to back a position. If we really believe in representative democracy, any attempt at tyranny through the Constitution should be rebuffed by the good sense of the people using the appropriate legislative and judicial, as well as electoral processes. This is a point where Jefferson motto about "a little revolution once in a while," is, I believe, dead wrong and a piece of arrogant drivel, which he himself would not exercise.
To the last point? If we met the criteria for an amendment to the Constitution revoking the Second Amendment, it would be the will of the people. Until that will shifted (as it did with prohibition, which also didn't work out too well), there is no ground for armed rebellion. That just plain should not be an option if our system has any worth at all. If we are invaded, or the Army takes over and disbands the Constitution, the people should indeed prepare for militia action to protect their freedom. But that's revolution against another government, not our present one.
Obviously.Maybe I'm missing your point there.
Yes.To the second point, if our Constitutional process cannot repair itself through peaceful means, it has failed.
Disagree. Intolerable Tyrany can exist even in a Constitutional Representative Republic, for example, if the system and process is corrupted in any number of ways (widespread Gerrymandering for one example).There should truly never be a situation within the context of our existing framework that requires citizens to become revolutionaries using guns to back a position.
Assumes the majority of people always and universally posess "good sense".If we really believe in representative democracy, any attempt at tyranny through the Constitution should be rebuffed by the good sense of the people using the appropriate legislative and judicial, as well as electoral processes.
How'd that work out over slavery, for example?
No gorund in your view.To the last point? If we met the criteria for an amendment to the Constitution revoking the Second Amendment, it would be the will of the people. Until that will shifted (as it did with prohibition, which also didn't work out too well), there is no ground for armed rebellion.
Perfectly resonable ground, perhaps, for millions of thers.
Assumes, arrogantly, that our system is perfect, and uncorruptable.That just plain should not be an option if our system has any worth at all.
To which the only reply is....lol.
Assumes only the Millitary can "take over" and run roughshod over the Constitution and the people.But that's revolution against another government, not our present one.
This exchange is one reason I strongly support the rights of succession. If a region ont he Nation feels, via it's own representative democratic process, that it no longer chooses to be a willing part of the Union, it should have the freedom of self-determination as to what Government is chooses.
Check this out. There is no provision for retired Law Enforcement.
I am now....a criminal.
The 15 round mags I had for my glock are now illegal. If I were to sell them out of state, there are no 7 round mags for this weapon.
Technically, the law allows me to put 7 in a 10 round mag, but only if I owned the mag before, which none of us do because we had no warning about this.
This is why people are screaming; In Cuomo's rush to be the first, he effectively disarmed thousands of good guys... and essentially criminalized them....did nothing to address the thousands of black market weapons that flow in and cause the real damage in our streets. (I vouchered many many guns during my career due to arrests....all handguns and all illegally possessed...virtually all of them from out of state....I was nearly killed by one too)
Throw the baby out with the bath water for political expediency, demonize solid citizens with ill informed rhetoric, ignore the roll of mental illness and societies failure to protect itself from the thousands of virtual time bombs "not taking their meds"....
One of these time bombs drives into Harlem with a pocket full of cash, he will drive out with a gun. Its no big secret.
New Warfish Gun Laws:
1. All Guns Must be Registered. No Full Autos allowed. Max 25 round Clips.
2. If you are found guilty of committing a crime while in posession of a NON-registered firearm or illegal firearm, you and executed.
3. If you are found guilty of committing a crime while in posession of a registered gun that is not your own and has not been reported (within 24 hours) as stolen, you get life in prison no parole, the registered owner gets 10 years, no parole.
4. If you are found guilty of committing a crime with a registered gun that is your own, automatic 50 year mandatory minimum.
To make room in prisons, Pot will be legalized (and taxes), and all other non-violent drug posession crimes will be converted to misdemeanor and the prisoners released. Violent drug crimes get no repreieve.
Done, gun problem fixed as fixed as it'll ever possably be in a free country.
Best of all, the only "rights" involved are those of a convicted, violent, gun toting criminal. Not all of us.