Any time a firearms-related thread is created on FreeRepublic, please be sure to add the "banglist" keyword to it so that interested FReepers don't miss it.
Let Freedom Ring,
Any time a firearms-related thread is created on FreeRepublic, please be sure to add the "banglist" keyword to it so that interested FReepers don't miss it.
Let Freedom Ring,
Editor
Daily News
My name is not ‘Buford’. I am Jewish and reasonably well-educated. My parents remembered the holocaust, and taught me what the Nazis did to unarmed and helpless Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto and the abattoirs of the camps. One of my friends has children who attended the Jewish Community Center in Granada Hills.
I am also a gun owner. I own thirteen weapons. Suppose I decide to buy another. Before obtaining this gun, I will undergo, for the 14th time, a background check by the Attorney General to certify that I am reasonably sane, have no criminal record, and am not a danger to myself or others. How this 14th certification will prevent crimes of passion is a mystery: should I go mad and decide to kill my neighbor, one of my existing weapons will do the job admirably. It is clear that the “background check” for people who already own guns can serve no purpose other than pure harassment.
Now the Ninth “Circus” Court of Appeals has been allowed to render its inevitable wrong-headed verdict over lawsuits against gun makers and distributors. This is only the latest manipulation in a propaganda war designed to demonize gun-owners and supporters of the Second Amendment. One of the most effective propaganda techniques is to construct scare phrases such as “Cop Killer Bullet” or “Assault Weapon”. The enemies of the Bill of Rights are working assiduously to confuse the term “Semi-Automatic” with “Automatic”.
They pretend, for example, that “13 children a day” are “killed by guns”. In order to derive this number, they assume that everyone under 21 is a “child”. The vast majority of “children” who die by gunfire are gang members, who are murdering each other in wars over money, drugs, and turf. But the anti-gun zealots find it useful to invoke a false image of innocent six-year-olds being gunned down in the street.
For 229 years, the United States has had a large number of firearms without massacres like that at Littleton, or attempted massacres like those attempted by Furrow. Guns, in fact, were more readily available before 1960 than now—and such rampages were rare. This suggests that it is not guns but other factors that lead to these killings.
Now I know how smokers must feel. At a recent dinner party, I mentioned in conversation that I own guns and shoot them as a hobby. A shocked silence descended on the room. It was as if I had casually admitted a taste for human flesh, or a rare sexual perversion as yet unapproved by Hollywood. Guests eyed me suspiciously, as if I might at any moment produce a weapon and begin “spraying” bullets. In point of fact, having been repeatedly certified by the State A.G. as a solid citizen, sane and non-violent, I am one of the least likely to perpetrate an outrage. But all of the current gun-law frenzy is directed at me and other law-abiding gun owners.
The current uproar over “straw purchases” is truly amusing in a sad way. If straw purchasers—defined as persons with no criminal record who buy guns to resell to criminals—are indeed a problem, then the State Attorney General has not been doing his job. If I were to purchase, say, 12 handguns in May, and another 12 in June, one would expect Mr. Lockyer to inquire what I am doing with so many weapons. Evidently he has not been inquiring when others make repeated straw purchases. Has anyone accused the Attorney General of nonfeasance?
The Second Amendment says, “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.” This is plain language, and its meaning is clear. “Infringe,” says my dictionary, means “to break (a law or agreement); fail to observe the terms of; violate; trespass; encroach, meddle.”
Yet the Second Amendment, like those other step-children of the Bill of Rights, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, is simply ignored. A curious sort of blindness—of tunnel vision—infects those who want to “control” guns. They stridently adopt an absolutist position on the First Amendment, but avert their eyes when the Second is mentioned. (Ask the ACLU, “dedicated to upholding the Bill of Rights”, how many defenses of the Second Amendment they have mounted.)
If the gun-control crowd had an ounce of honesty and integrity, they would forthrightly admit that their goal is to outlaw all firearms and confiscate them. Then they would straightforwardly propose—and work to get ratified—an Amendment which repeals the Second Amendment. But they know the American people would never vote to abrogate a part of the Bill of Rights. So they prefer the incremental, “boiled frog” approach—achieving by stealth and gradualism what they cannot obtain openly.
--Boris
So --- the ssuckus scotus has decided to trash our Second Amendment out of fear for themselves?
As the old fool (rehnquist) himself admitted - they were afraid of Americans === communists were cool - Americans were radicals!
Another brilliant decision by the ninth circus court of La La land.
Just when you thought we had put this one to bed...
I think this may have a silver lining.
If it goes to SCOTUS, we will know exactly where we stand. The problem with so many of the attacks on the 2A is the studious silence from the high court. Depending on the administration, the enforcement of unjust laws and the creation of new ones ebbs and flows. To me, this is living in a fool's paradise.
A favorable verdict that kills this avenue of the left once and for all would be good, but a decision that holds the manufacturers liable for ensuing criminal use of arms will define the governments view on a slew of related cases. If that happens, 2A enemies will clearly define themselves even to those that now imagine 2A rights safe.
In these times, I prefer legal clarity and illuminated enemies to those that merely pretend to be pro-2A.
===============================================
Also: If Bush gets to appoint a couple of Supremes and it comes up on appeal...WHAMMO, or so I believe.