Dan Carpenter: We love our guns -- an...

Dan Carpenter: We love our guns -- and have the deaths to show for it

There are 223 comments on the The Indianapolis Star story from May 11, 2013, titled Dan Carpenter: We love our guns -- and have the deaths to show for it. In it, The Indianapolis Star reports that:

Law enforcers at the city and federal levels have taken the offensive against rampant gun violence in several Indianapolis neighborhoods.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Indianapolis Star.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#105 May 19, 2013
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
Fair enough. We differ on our opinions. I can respect yours.
As I understand yours, for it was the same as mine at one time. Until I started doing some deep studying on the true freedom and liberty our founders had in mind.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#106 May 19, 2013
Aside from felons and the mentally ill?

People who have a history of non-felonious violent crime (including threatening behavior), and known gang members . I think there should be at least a temporary ban for people with restraining orders and people going through divorce (two groups known for violent interactions.)
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
Complacency and paranoia can happen whether you have a firearm or not. I see people all the time who are not aware of thier surroundings. That is a trait some people have regardless.
I have not advocated bearing grenades, rocket launchers or the such. What I do advocate is bearing firearms, shotguns, handguns and pistols.
I do not advocate the bearing of arms for everyone either. For public safety there are classes of people who are barred by the GCA of 1968, I agree with those restrictions on certain peoples.
From who would you entertain taking firearms from?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#107 May 19, 2013
What part of "public safety trumps enumerated rights" escapes you, baby-raper?
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do you NOT understand, traitor-troll?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#108 May 19, 2013
So, he hated native americans and thought rifles came from his god.

Funny that you bring up lincoln, the president who most openly ignored the constitution.

It's not the 1800's anymore.
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Really, Sir, has it come to this? The rifle has ever been the companion of the pioneer, and, under God, his tutelary protector against the red man and the beast of the forest. Never was this efficient weapon more needed in just self-defence than now in Kansas; and at least one article in our National Constitution must be blotted out before the complete right to it can be in any way impeached. And yet such is the madness of the hour, that, in defiance of the solemn guaranty in the Amendments to the Constitution, that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," the people of Kansas are arraigned for keeping and bearing arms, and the Senator from South Carolina has the face to say openly on this floor that they should be disarmed,--of course that the fanatics of Slavery, his allies and constituents, may meet no impediment. Sir, the Senator is venererable with years; he is reputed also to have worn at home, in the State he represents, judicial honors; and he is placed here at the head of an important Committee occupied particularly with questions of law; but neither his years, nor his position, past or present, can give respectability to the demand he makes, or save him from indignant condemnation, when, to compass the wretched purposes of a wretched cause, he thus proposes to trample on one of the plainest provisions of Constitutional Liberty."
- Senator Charles Sumner, Speech Delivered in the U.S. Senate, May 19-20, 1856.[Life and Public Services of Charles Sumner, By Charles Edwards Lester, Pg. 292](Charles Sumner,(Jan. 6, 1811 – March 11, 1874), was a firmly Anti-slavery senator from Massachusetts. An academic lawyer, powerful orator, and one of the most learned statesmen of the era. Specializing in foreign affairs, he worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in order to keep the British and the French from intervening on the side of the Confederacy during the Civil War. Sumnerwas also the powerful chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations).

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#109 May 19, 2013
Wake me when you get to the 21st century.
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Rights of Citizens of the United States.
SPEECH of HON. A. G. THURMAN, OF OHIO.
DELIVERED
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,
FEBRUARY 6, 1872.
[WASHINGTON; F. & J. RIVES & GEO. A. BAILEY, REPORTERS AND PRINTERS OP THE DEBATES OP CONGRESS. 1872.]
42d Cong....2d Sess.
"Here is another great right recognized and secured. Again:
""article II.
""A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"Here is another right of a citizen of the United States, expressly declared to be his right— the right to bear arms; and this right, says the Constitution, shall not be infringed. "
FormerParatroope r

United States

#110 May 20, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Aside from felons and the mentally ill?
People who have a history of non-felonious violent crime (including threatening behavior), and known gang members . I think there should be at least a temporary ban for people with restraining orders and people going through divorce (two groups known for violent interactions.)
<quoted text>
Violent crime, gang bangers makes sense.
Restraining orders, iffy it because many are done in spite.
People going thru divorce is also iffy because the majority are amicable.

If we were to preclude people going thru divorce, at what point would we no longer restrict them?
Remember that all are innocent until proven guilty.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#111 May 20, 2013
Restraining order may be iffy, but are still legal restrictions. Many women have been shot by men they have restraining orders against.

In the case of divorce, I think if one party has concerns, then all guns should be removed until at least 6 months after the divorce is finalized.
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
Violent crime, gang bangers makes sense.
Restraining orders, iffy it because many are done in spite.
People going thru divorce is also iffy because the majority are amicable.
If we were to preclude people going thru divorce, at what point would we no longer restrict them?
Remember that all are innocent until proven guilty.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#112 May 20, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Aside from felons and the mentally ill?
People who have a history of non-felonious violent crime (including threatening behavior), and known gang members . I think there should be at least a temporary ban for people with restraining orders and people going through divorce (two groups known for violent interactions.)
<quoted text>
No one cares what you [supposedly] "think", traitor-troll. That's the real beauty of a Constitutional Republic. The ignorant can be totally ignored and dismissed. And the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND continues in full force.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#113 May 20, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Wake me when you get to the 21st century.
<quoted text>
Hardly my fault you don't understand what a Constitutional Republic is, traitor-troll. From the looks of it, I don't believe you'll EVER have the ability to "wake up". As you have drank to much of your 'masters' kool-aid. Your communist-socialist indoctrination is apparently completed. Ever thought of moving to Cuba or China? Your views would be readily accepted in those countries.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#114 May 20, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
What part of "public safety trumps enumerated rights" escapes you, baby-raper?
<quoted text>
Show us the where the right to "public safety" is in the constitution, traitor-troll.

Here you go, O' woefully dull one:

"If, then, the arms-bearing right of the people is, as Blackstone says, an integral and inseparable part of their absolute rights as individuals, it follows that any and every constitution which assumes to protect life, liberty and property, necessarily insures the right of all the people to keep and bear arms, unless the contrary intention is clearly expressed, Hence the right is in nowise dependent upon the clause asserting that a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The right exists whether the constitution contains that clause or not...."

"...But "these instruments," he says, "measure the power of the rulers; they do not measure the rights of the governed:" Cooley's Constitutional Limitations 37. "Neither military nor civil law," says the same high authority, "can take from the citizen the right to bear arms for the common defence. This is an inherited and traditionary right, guaranteed, also, by state and federal constitutions...."

"....... For all these repugnances of our statute to the acts of congress, I must pronounce the former unauthorized legislation in all its parts. Let the relator be discharged."

- Judge William Henry Barnum,[People, Ex. Rel. Bielfeld, v. Affelt. Illinois--Cook County Circuit Court. 1879.]
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2013/05/t...

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#115 May 20, 2013
"The ignorant can be totally ignored and dismissed."

Consider yourself ignored and dismissed...by your own theory.
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No one cares what you [supposedly] "think", traitor-troll. That's the real beauty of a Constitutional Republic. The ignorant can be totally ignored and dismissed. And the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND continues in full force.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#116 May 20, 2013
Go yell "fire" in a crowded theatre and see how much the 1st amendment saves you. Your ignorance of constitutional law disserves you.
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Show us the where the right to "public safety" is in the constitution, traitor-troll.
Here you go, O' woefully dull one:
"If, then, the arms-bearing right of the people is, as Blackstone says, an integral and inseparable part of their absolute rights as individuals, it follows that any and every constitution which assumes to protect life, liberty and property, necessarily insures the right of all the people to keep and bear arms, unless the contrary intention is clearly expressed, Hence the right is in nowise dependent upon the clause asserting that a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The right exists whether the constitution contains that clause or not...."
"...But "these instruments," he says, "measure the power of the rulers; they do not measure the rights of the governed:" Cooley's Constitutional Limitations 37. "Neither military nor civil law," says the same high authority, "can take from the citizen the right to bear arms for the common defence. This is an inherited and traditionary right, guaranteed, also, by state and federal constitutions...."
"....... For all these repugnances of our statute to the acts of congress, I must pronounce the former unauthorized legislation in all its parts. Let the relator be discharged."
- Judge William Henry Barnum,[People, Ex. Rel. Bielfeld, v. Affelt. Illinois--Cook County Circuit Court. 1879.]
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2013/05/t...

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#117 May 20, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
"The ignorant can be totally ignored and dismissed."
Consider yourself ignored and dismissed...by your own theory.
<quoted text>
Just as I thought, you still have NOTHING. LOSER.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#118 May 20, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Go yell "fire" in a crowded theatre and see how much the 1st amendment saves you. Your ignorance of constitutional law disserves you.
<quoted text>
Yet I STILL CAN "yell fire", can I not, traitor-troll? Take a hike, woefully deaf, dumb, and blind one.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#119 May 20, 2013
And then you will be arrested, o dim one.
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet I STILL CAN "yell fire", can I not, traitor-troll? Take a hike, woefully deaf, dumb, and blind one.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#120 May 20, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
And then you will be arrested, o dim one.
<quoted text>
"There is an important distinction between firearms and fireworks. Some general knowledge of firearms is important to the public welfare; because it would be impossible, in case of war to organize promptly an efficient force of volunteers unless the people had some familiarity with weapons of war. The Constitution secures the right of the people to keep and bear arms. No doubt, a citizen who keeps a gun or pistol under judicious precautions practises in safe places the use of it, and in due time teaches his sons to do the same, exercises his individual right. No doubt a person whose residence or duties involve peculiar peril may keep a pistol for prudent self-defence...."

"...As to guns and pistols, then the citizen who practises with them is in the exercise of a constitutional right; and to mulct him for any unfortunate consequences, proof is needed that he was careless. He must exercise due care to avoid doing mischief. Sic utere tuo ut alienum non loedas--use your gun so as not to hurt another man--is a time honored maxim."

- Benjamin Vaughan Abbott, Judge and Jury: A Popular Explanation of Leading Topics in the Law of the Land. NEW YORK HARPER & BROTHERS, FRANKLIN SQUARE [1880](Mr. Abbott graduated from New York University in 1850, and Harvard Law School in 1851. He was the secretary of the New York Code Commission, which drew up the state's penal code in 1864. He also served on a commission created to revise the statutes of the United States from 1870-1872).

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#121 May 20, 2013
Still trapped in the 1800's, I see.
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"There is an important distinction between firearms and fireworks. Some general knowledge of firearms is important to the public welfare; because it would be impossible, in case of war to organize promptly an efficient force of volunteers unless the people had some familiarity with weapons of war. The Constitution secures the right of the people to keep and bear arms. No doubt, a citizen who keeps a gun or pistol under judicious precautions practises in safe places the use of it, and in due time teaches his sons to do the same, exercises his individual right. No doubt a person whose residence or duties involve peculiar peril may keep a pistol for prudent self-defence...."
"...As to guns and pistols, then the citizen who practises with them is in the exercise of a constitutional right; and to mulct him for any unfortunate consequences, proof is needed that he was careless. He must exercise due care to avoid doing mischief. Sic utere tuo ut alienum non loedas--use your gun so as not to hurt another man--is a time honored maxim."
- Benjamin Vaughan Abbott, Judge and Jury: A Popular Explanation of Leading Topics in the Law of the Land. NEW YORK HARPER & BROTHERS, FRANKLIN SQUARE [1880](Mr. Abbott graduated from New York University in 1850, and Harvard Law School in 1851. He was the secretary of the New York Code Commission, which drew up the state's penal code in 1864. He also served on a commission created to revise the statutes of the United States from 1870-1872).

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#122 May 20, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Still trapped in the 1800's, I see.
<quoted text>
It matters NOT what time period it is in our Constitutional Republic. The Constitution, and the rights it secures, are to remain INVIOLATE. Unless the document is changed by the will of the whole people by amendment.

Do you even know the bare basics of our intended form of government?

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#123 May 21, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Aside from felons and the mentally ill?
People who have a history of non-felonious violent crime (including threatening behavior), and known gang members . I think there should be at least a temporary ban for people with restraining orders and people going through divorce (two groups known for violent interactions.)
<quoted text>
If someone is seen as unfit to exercise individual liberty, then =WHY= even allow him to be out and about without someone attending him?

YOU —apparently— are given to believe that infringing upon the individual liberties of =>EVERYONE<= merely that you don't trust them, so why even trust them to drive a deadly mechanical device daily?

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#124 May 21, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Still trapped in the 1800's, I see.
<quoted text>
And =>YOU<= are trapped in your own mind, I see.

Yes, and that mind is closed just as tightly as a bear trap!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Law Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Former teacher at Hayward Catholic school order... (Sep '14) 38 min The hand of God 4
News Hillview man arrested for shooting down drone; ... 1 hr Ho-tep 3
News Fitchburg man held without bail in severe child... 2 hr Fleitas 2
News Judge adds 54 years to sentence of Albuquerque ... 3 hr No pudding here 11
News Health care co-ops awash in red ink, lacking mo... 7 hr goonsquad 7
News Trump aide Cohen apologizes for 'rape' comment 8 hr Responsibility 60
News Suspect in Charleston church shooting expected ... 9 hr goonsquad 1
More from around the web