Moms make case for gun control

Moms make case for gun control

There are 9277 comments on the usatoday.com story from Mar 16, 2013, titled Moms make case for gun control. In it, usatoday.com reports that:

Peg Paulson had never beaten a path through the halls of Congress before or met a U.S. senator's staffer or advocated for a controversial issue.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at usatoday.com.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#547 Apr 13, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>Bottom line is if we don't put up a deterrent to crime, then crime will continue and even increase. If our jails are not a deterrent, then our guns should be. Make jail like the movie Cook hand Luke, and now you're talking.
Exactly!
Look at the Middle East. Leave a wallet or a purse somewhere and the people scatter away from it. They don't want to risk being accused of theft. Thieves there get their hand chopped off. Their theft rate is extremely low.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#548 Apr 13, 2013
spocko wrote:
"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 2nd amendment starts with "A well regulated Militia ....." and this is the answer. A well regulated militia means a military group such as a National Guard unit. They are well regulated. A single individual is not a militia, nor are they well regulated. They should be the ones to own military style weapons, automatic or otherwise, for the sole reason "being necessary to the security of a free State". Normally an average citizen is not securing a free state when he goes out to shoot a poor animal just for the sport of it. So just on that statement alone, the National Guard and the police force, as well as the national army should be the only ones to have heavy, automatic weapons.

Now the second statement is the most quoted part of the second amendment that almost everybody thinks that is the whole the whole amendment. Nothing is said of what kind of arms we have the right to, but at that time all they had were muskets, revolvers, and bows and arrows. I would suggest that regular civilians have the right to bear rifles, revolvers, and bows and arrows, nothing automatic. What could a civilian use an automatic weapon for? Shredding the meat he is hunting, maybe, but then you could not use it for food. So, it is my analysis that the bill of rights is in two parts. One part for the state, one part for the civilian, if we are going to quote anything, we should quote all of it; otherwise, we will take it out of context.

So here is my solution to gun control: the government allows the States to have automatic and military weapons, the civilian keep rifles, guns, and bows and arrows. Maybe the massacres of the last decade would be almost non-existent. There will still be crimes, mind you, but the large massacres would be a thing of the past. Conservatives and liberals should be happy with that.
You just wasted a lot of time and space.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, independent of a militia. The phrase you refer to simply explains that if the need arises for a militia, it is the people who form that militia, with their own arms, qualifying the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
At the time the second amendment was written, there was already a US military. The militia was distinctly different, being comprised of civilians.
Since the US Government is who would possibly become tyrannical, it makes no sense to arm the National Guard ( a government military branch) to combat itself. That is why The People have the right to keep and bear arms.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#549 Apr 13, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly!
Look at the Middle East. Leave a wallet or a purse somewhere and the people scatter away from it. They don't want to risk being accused of theft. Thieves there get their hand chopped off. Their theft rate is extremely low.
Exactly. But they don't have liberals and liberal judges stopping the amputation of criminals. We do. The prisoners in our jails actually sue the state if they are given grape jelly instead of cherry.

Last year, our state was going to execute a murderer. His appeals claim was that he was so fat, it was inhuman to execute him because his fat made it difficult for the technicians to find a vein in his arm. He was on death row for 20 years. Question: how did he get so fat in the first place? He was in jail for crying out loud!

We got rid of firing squads, we got rid of electric chairs, we got rid of hangings, and some courts have ruled that putting you to sleep like a dog is cruel and unusual punishment.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#550 Apr 13, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly. But they don't have liberals and liberal judges stopping the amputation of criminals. We do. The prisoners in our jails actually sue the state if they are given grape jelly instead of cherry.

Last year, our state was going to execute a murderer. His appeals claim was that he was so fat, it was inhuman to execute him because his fat made it difficult for the technicians to find a vein in his arm. He was on death row for 20 years. Question: how did he get so fat in the first place? He was in jail for crying out loud!

We got rid of firing squads, we got rid of electric chairs, we got rid of hangings, and some courts have ruled that putting you to sleep like a dog is cruel and unusual punishment.
Exactly!
These murderers torture, or stab, or shoot, or mutilate their victims, then they get 3 meals a day, HBO, SHOWTIME, education, a gym, basketball courts, healthcare, conjugal visits, marriage behind bars... Then when the time comes, IF they were sentenced to death, rather than the cruelty they dished out, they basically go under anesthesia and simply don't wake up.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#551 Apr 13, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
You hit the nail on the head about prison today.
I think those people that commit crimes, pay their debt to society, and get out, should retain their gun rights.
HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

I guess that explains why you can't be bothered to do background checks before you sell deadly weapons to people you don't know.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#552 Apr 13, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
You just wasted a lot of time and space.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, independent of a militia.
The justice who wrote that opinion also wrote this:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Justice Scalia
Speaking for the SCOTUS majority
this century

I understand you gun gnutters want to demand the 'right' to sell firearms to anyone you please- including felons- but the SCOTUS has said absolutely that you don't.

And 90 percent of Americans are sick of it.

Tick Tock.

2 posts removed
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#555 Apr 14, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The justice who wrote that opinion also wrote this:
YOU quote OBITER DICTUM, i.e. THAT WHICH IS NOT BINDING, and which CANNOT BE USED to make, or enforce, any provision in law.

Here is the RATIO DECIDENDI, i.e., THE DECISION:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#556 Apr 14, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly!
These murderers torture, or stab, or shoot, or mutilate their victims, then they get 3 meals a day, HBO, SHOWTIME, education, a gym, basketball courts, healthcare, conjugal visits, marriage behind bars... Then when the time comes, IF they were sentenced to death, rather than the cruelty they dished out, they basically go under anesthesia and simply don't wake up.
In New Orleans, Political Brawl Over Police, Jail

A political brawl has broken out between the mayor and a sheriff who runs the city jail, which has come under scrutiny for a video showing inmates using drugs, drinking beer and one prisoner with a handgun.

Mayor Mitch Landrieu asked a judge last Tuesday to take the extraordinary step of placing the jail under federal oversight, effectively wresting control of it away from Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin Gusman. Landrieu is upset over an agreement Gusman reached with the U.S. Justice Department to reform the jail, saying the city, which funds the jail, can't afford the potential expense.

"Stated simply, the person at the top is neither accountable, nor capable of exercising leadership skills," the city said in court documents that cited the video and the recent guilty pleas of two jail officials in a bid-rigging bribery case.

Landrieu is trying to reform the much-maligned police department and reached a widely heralded agreement with the Justice Department last year to clean up the agency. Now he's trying to back out of it in light of Gusman's separate agreement. Landrieu said the city was making changes but can't afford all the requirements outlined in the jail and the police agreements.

Gusman believes the city has consistently underfunded the jail and suggested race may be behind the attacks. The African-American sheriff recently told reporters that Landrieu, who is white, was employing "Archie Bunker rhetoric," invoking the name of the fictional television bigot.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/orleans-po...
spocko

Oakland, CA

#557 Apr 14, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Well..... we could, if it worked. But it won't work. When you say civilians allowed to keep their guns, you are also including semi-automatic weapons. The mass shootings didn't have automatic weapons mentioned in the stories. They were all semi-automatics.
As you stated, back when the Constitution was written, the only firearms people had were muskets. So what they had is civilians just as armed as the militias. They all had the same kind of weapons.
Now that is pure genius - you figure that out all by yourself?
1 post removed
spocko

Oakland, CA

#559 Apr 14, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
<quoted text>
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
The Second Amendment is an antiquated anachronism belonging to the long and bygone days of the frontier. Nothing is said of what kind of arms we have the right to, but at that time all they had were muskets, revolvers, and bows and arrows.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#560 Apr 14, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>In New Orleans, Political Brawl Over Police, Jail

A political brawl has broken out between the mayor and a sheriff who runs the city jail, which has come under scrutiny for a video showing inmates using drugs, drinking beer and one prisoner with a handgun.

Mayor Mitch Landrieu asked a judge last Tuesday to take the extraordinary step of placing the jail under federal oversight, effectively wresting control of it away from Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin Gusman. Landrieu is upset over an agreement Gusman reached with the U.S. Justice Department to reform the jail, saying the city, which funds the jail, can't afford the potential expense.

"Stated simply, the person at the top is neither accountable, nor capable of exercising leadership skills," the city said in court documents that cited the video and the recent guilty pleas of two jail officials in a bid-rigging bribery case.

Landrieu is trying to reform the much-maligned police department and reached a widely heralded agreement with the Justice Department last year to clean up the agency. Now he's trying to back out of it in light of Gusman's separate agreement. Landrieu said the city was making changes but can't afford all the requirements outlined in the jail and the police agreements.

Gusman believes the city has consistently underfunded the jail and suggested race may be behind the attacks. The African-American sheriff recently told reporters that Landrieu, who is white, was employing "Archie Bunker rhetoric," invoking the name of the fictional television bigot.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/orleans-po...
It's the blind leading the blind.

Mayor Mitch Landrieu (D), is the brother of Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu (D), which just voted to end the Senate Gun Control Filibuster. Mary was also a big part of the Katrina chaos that was blamed on Bush.

I can tell you, this state as a whole, shows up red on the maps, but plays out blue because of Democrat run big cities, and those old timers that do not understand the dynamics of the New Democrat Party. Therefore continuing to vote Democrat based on inaccurate perceptions and family names.

“BILLARY 2016 ”

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

#561 Apr 14, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I do. Look at the Black population of those States, zippy.
I live in the one with the highest percentage of Blacks. Most of the State's murders occur in New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and Shreveport. All big cities that are Democrat run. Thus my points in the previous post. I notice you chose only one question to answer. I know the reason for that as well.
There are 310,000,000 people this country. 30,000,000, are black. There are more white people in prison and more white people in poverty in this country than black. Period.

The fact that you need someone, anyone, to look down on to make yourself feel superior is your problem, zippy, not mine. Sorry you feel inadequate and insecure. That's all on you, my friend. Not on liberals or 'the blacks'. You.

BTW, I don't care how black a city or state is. Typically, it's run by white politicians who hire their friends and give contracts to companies they invest in or they hire their unqualified relatives in high paying positions and the result is that schools suffer, the elderly suffer and in the end, we all suffer due to nepotism, narcissism and greed that permeate every aspect of local and federal governments. Stop blaming everyone else. It's our elected officials that have failed us and if you don't like your life, go back to school or get a 2nd or third job. The whining will get you no where fast. Just ask a whiny black person how the whining has helped them or a whiny Hispanic or a whiny woman or a whiny homosexual.....

“BILLARY 2016 ”

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

#562 Apr 14, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the blind leading the blind.
Mayor Mitch Landrieu (D), is the brother of Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu (D), which just voted to end the Senate Gun Control Filibuster. Mary was also a big part of the Katrina chaos that was blamed on Bush.
I can tell you, this state as a whole, shows up red on the maps, but plays out blue because of Democrat run big cities, and those old timers that do not understand the dynamics of the New Democrat Party. Therefore continuing to vote Democrat based on inaccurate perceptions and family names.
Unless you are color blind, everyone knows Louisiana and most of the south are red states. Seriously dude, if you are going to attempt to debate politics, don't say things a novice would say. Go read a newspaper and shut off FOX spews. You are not doing yourself any favors and you just sound like an uneducated idiot now.

“BILLARY 2016 ”

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

#563 Apr 14, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
The Second Amendment is an antiquated anachronism belonging to the long and bygone days of the frontier. Nothing is said of what kind of arms we have the right to, but at that time all they had were muskets, revolvers, and bows and arrows.
That's right. The 2nd amendment gives Americans the right to own a gun or a rifle, not a semi-automatic weapon or granades or drones. It's also supposed to be a 'well regulated militia'. Sorry, but when 32,000 Americans die every year at the end of the barrel of a gun, we are no longer 'well regulated'.

You can't tell these right wing idiots that. They don't have the ability to think for themselves. They let FOX and the NRA think for them.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#564 Apr 14, 2013
x0x0x wrote:
<quoted text>That's right. The 2nd amendment gives Americans the right to own a gun or a rifle, not a semi-automatic weapon or granades or drones. It's also supposed to be a 'well regulated militia'. Sorry, but when 32,000 Americans die every year at the end of the barrel of a gun, we are no longer 'well regulated'.
You can't tell these right wing idiots that. They don't have the ability to think for themselves. They let FOX and the NRA think for them.
Really now? Well Fox and the NRA would like to know how you determined what weapons the second amendment allows and doesn't allow?
serfs up

Kissimmee, FL

#565 Apr 14, 2013
x0x0x wrote:
<quoted text>That's right. The 2nd amendment gives Americans the right to own a gun or a rifle, not a semi-automatic weapon or granades or drones. It's also supposed to be a 'well regulated militia'. Sorry, but when 32,000 Americans die every year at the end of the barrel of a gun, we are no longer 'well regulated'.
You can't tell these right wing idiots that. They don't have the ability to think for themselves. They let FOX and the NRA think for them.
And the lovable government progressive controlled fascists for six years now are eliminating all the terroristic laws and mandates as the free for me idiots will have a big surprise when the self imposed evil comes for them.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#566 Apr 14, 2013
x0x0x wrote:
<quoted text>That's right. The 2nd amendment gives Americans the right to own a gun or a rifle, not a semi-automatic weapon or granades or drones. It's also supposed to be a 'well regulated militia'. Sorry, but when 32,000 Americans die every year at the end of the barrel of a gun, we are no longer 'well regulated'.
You can't tell these right wing idiots that. They don't have the ability to think for themselves. They let FOX and the NRA think for them.
Where does the second amendment exclude semi-auto firearms ?

“BILLARY 2016 ”

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

#567 Apr 14, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>Where does the second amendment exclude semi-auto firearms ?
Where does the second amendment INCLUDE semi-auto firearms?
30 round mags? Hell, how about grenades,
shoulder fired missile launchers, small nuke heads
that can be put on shoulder fired missiles, drones etc?

Remember, if the law allows you to possess these things in America, Al Qaeda can come here and purchase them too. They even have a video out now encouraging Al Qaeda operatives here to do just that.

Careful what you wish for, young lady, for you will surely get it.
The clock is ticking...tick tock tick tock....

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#568 Apr 14, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
STOP BOWING DOWN TO OUR HIRED 'servants'! MASTERS do NOT bow down to 'servants.
Reminds me... tin foil on sale at Freddy's today...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#569 Apr 14, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>Where does the second amendment exclude semi-auto firearms ?
You don't understand the US Constitution.

Not surprised, here.

Where does the US Constitution exclude possession of atomic bombs?

Where does the US Constitution exclude possession of kiddie porn?

Where does the US Constitution exclude possession of black jacks?

Where does the US Constitution exclude driving 150 MPH? marijuana? Heroin? fake Cartier watches?

The US Constitution says the states can regulate firearms and if the states want to ban the possession of firearms that fire more than one round in thirty seconds, they can do it if they are so inclined.

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min FYVM 1,394,719
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 7 min Jacques Orleans 216,585
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 8 min Abe 228,463
News Dueling groups to rally at Confederate landmark 12 min RMGHispanic Causi... 2,022
News Donald Trump: Brexit is sign of independence de... 16 min spud 101
News Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment righ... 20 min payme 993
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 36 min Aura Mytha 199,204
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 1 hr Memo From Turner 3,178
News African-Americans should start voting for Repub... 1 hr Sara 145
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 2 hr Brian_G 387,901
More from around the web