Here is an op-ed from right after the Newtown shooting that I neglected to note. It's from Larry Allen Burns, the conservative judge who sentenced Jared Loughner to prison for his shooting spreed in Tuscon in 2011.
So what's the alternative? Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it.
Are we sure he's not a liberal plant?
I say all of this as a gun owner. I say it as a conservative who was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president. I say it as someone who prefers Fox News to MSNBC, and National Review Online to the Daily Kos. I say it as someone who thinks the Supreme Court got it right in District of Columbia vs. Heller, when it held that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to possess guns for self-defense. (That's why I have mine.) I say it as someone who, generally speaking, is not a big fan of the regulatory state.
I even say it as someone whose feelings about the NRA mirror the left's feelings about Planned Parenthood: It has a useful advocacy function in our deliberative democracy, and much of what it does should not be controversial at all.
Wow. I really am being short sighted in looking at conservatives and guns. And this line actually made me laugh out loud.
There is just no reason civilians need to own assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Gun enthusiasts can still have their venison chili, shoot for sport and competition, and make a home invader flee for his life without pretending they are a part of the SEAL team that took out Osama bin Laden.
No shit.
10 comments:
You spend an awful lot of time finding and espousing stupid thoughts and ideas from all over the spectrum.
Given the following…
This first part of the 2nd Amendment establishes the intention to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and locally enforce the law.
— Markadelphia
and this…
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
… how is the militia supposed to "repel invasion, suppress insurrection" and prevent "representatives of the people [from] betray[ing] their constituents" (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 28) if you have taken away the weapons they need to succeed at those purposes? (53 days and counting)
The judge is simply wrong about this. The 2nd Amendment isn't primarily about hunting or personal defense (it doesn't limit it's purpose ONLY to militia), though many state constitutions do also list these in addition to militia purposes.
Nor did it state that the militia could only use inferior weapons no longer used by the military, such as crossbows, longbows, or just possibly antique matchlocks.
The judge is a Fudd that doesn't really understand what he's opining about.
As I have stated previously, the reason why I won't answer your questions (and I have actually answered some of them but you ignored what I wrote and continued with your psychosis) is because you're an asshole. You don't really want to have a serious debate on this stuff so you act like a 12 year old and frame the questions in a very childishly dishonest way. Everything is geared towards a "win" via semantics and traps. But that's what you conservatives are all about these days because you don't have anything to stand behind of your own. It's all about commentary or dissent...dysentery, if you will:)
You refuse to elaborate on your own questions and continue to answer my questions with more questions. That's why cowardly dickheads do, NMN. Usually, I don't go in for such personal and pointed statements directed at one person but it really does seem to matter to you what I think and write so now you and all the imaginary people that you think read the comments section (and are hoping to sway into the bubble) know where I am at.
Take a look at Larry's comment, NMN. I don't agree with it but it is exactly the type of comments I'd like to see on here. He made his point succinctly and did not have to resort to trollness to do so.
Well, if you want to back away from as far as we got and run back over the same ground again (for the 1,000th time), we can do that. (Or you could just go back and read the first link.)
What is the PURPOSE of the Second Amendment as stated by the men who put it in the Constitution? (This is an open book question. Feel free to look up the answer.) (January 3rd, 2013)
That is the point of this post. Is the Second Amendment mean to protect hunting arms? Or military arms?
And here I thought you might want to avoid running through that whole argument yet again. But apparently you really only want to avoid the rubber meeting the road.
Consider this:
Of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trial by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms.... If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny.
— James Monroe, written during the debate over whether or not there should be a Bill of Rights
Two things: First, W was no conservative, or if he was, so is Obama. Second, the good judge does not say on what basis Congress may enact such a ban.
Sadly what this shows is that the progressive conceit of "the law is what I want it to be", particularly applied to the Constitution, is now a 'conservative' conceit as well. Y'all are gonna end up sorry for pushing the living Constitution bullshit.
Besides which, the ban isn't even going to make it out of the Senate, much less through the House. So politically, all you are doing here M is masturbating in public.
My main reason for putting this up was to show that my generalizations about the Right are, at times, wrong. Consider this post a sister post to the CSM from Friday. I don't really know if I agree with him or not. Of course, this will likely fall on deaf ears as all liberals are gun grabbers:)
And here is the best analysis I've read yet.
Once again, our lawmakers cloak unpassable legislation in base-pleasing rhetoric
My main reason for putting this up was to show that my generalizations about the Right are, at times, wrong.
I really did laugh out loud. You are so generous with yourself it is ridiculous.
Post a Comment