Hard rain's gonna fall.
Thought that this should be presented again!!!
Stay safe; stay armed.
Posted on 02/16/2003 12:44:49 AM PST by Pat Bateman
perspective
Right to bear arms is not absolute
Gun control: Should we attach some strings?
By State Sen. Ken Gordon
Sunday, February 16, 2003 - As an elected official, I often find myself engaging in polite conversations with people with whom I disagree. Some of these discussions inevitably involve a member of the gun lobby asking me what I think the words "shall not be infringed" - which are found in the Second Amendment - mean. The question is asked with an air of confidence, as if it is unanswerable and therefore, once and for all, concludes a difficult and complex argument.
I have a response. I ask them if they think people should be able to carry guns on airplanes.
I usually win at least a draw with this answer, depending on the audience.
Both the question and answer involve the issue of whether the right to bear arms is absolute. Members of the gun lobby say that the order of the amendments in the Bill of Rights indicates their importance. This allows them to say that, after speech, the right to bear arms is paramount.
But even speech is not absolutely protected. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The right to free speech does not allow one to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater."
There are also laws against libel and slander, fighting words, and pornography. Permissible restrictions on firearms are the equivalent.
The gun issues currently pending in the legislature are concealed weapons and pre-emption of local ordinances.
Proponents of concealed carry talk in terms of "rights," but there is no "right" to carry a hidden gun in Colorado. The state Constitution, after setting forth our right to bear arms, continues: "... but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."
Nevertheless, although concealed carry is not a right, it is still a fair question as to whether it can be justified as a policy.
In any discussion of concealed carry, statistics compete. Proponents cite a study by John R. Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws," as proof that more guns equal less crime.
Opponents question his methodology and point to increases in murder in states that allow the practice.
My view is that the statistical argument is a wash. I don't believe that people who get permits commit very many crimes, and I don't believe that they stop very many. The philosophical argument, however, is profound.
Proponents feel that the world is a dangerous place and the organized legal community cannot protect them, that an individual can only depend on himself. Opponents feel that people carrying concealed weapons help to make the world more dangerous and that our best hope for safety is in the hands of a sane and just community. Since I have always felt that the solutions to our problems will result from us working together, I have never been tempted by the concealed-carry argument.
The two concealed-carry bills - Senate Bill 63 by Doug Lamborn and SB 24 by Ken Chlouber - vary. Lamborn feels that anyone who can own a gun should be able to get a permit to carry it concealed anywhere. Chlouber's bill requires training, bans on carrying weapons in schools and allows some limited discretion for local sheriffs.
Chlouber's bill is supported by the NRA, and Lamborn's bill is supported by the Gun Owners of America (a group that does the impossible, by making the NRA look moderate). Both bills do away with local control.
The pre-emption bill, SB 25 sponsored by Jim Dyer, will overturn local ordinances regulating guns. He argues that we need statewide uniformity. I don't see why. After 1993's "summer of violence," Denver passed ordinances that law enforcement feels helped deal with gang violence. These ordinances might not be necessary or desirable in Rifle, Leadville or Gunnison, but if we go to one-size-fits-all, these places might be over-regulated or, more likely - and this is what the gun lobby would prefer - Denver will be under-regulated.
Certainly, Americans have a right to bear arms. But what does that mean? Did it mean one thing in 1791 when a frontier nation won a revolution using muskets and another in 2003 when drug gangs use handguns? When the U.S. Constitution protects a specific right, it's clear that this is important and that the individual has some protection against the majority. It does not mean that the right is absolute.
After all, an absolute right for one is the end of rights for others.
Sen. Ken Gordon, a Democrat from Denver, represents District 35, which encompasses Southeast Denver, plus the Arapahoe County enclaves of Glendale and Holly Hills. He can be reached at 303-866-4875 or ken.gordon.senate@state.co.us.
Columbine was not about the second ammendment, criminals took weapons to school (against school laws) and killed. The second ammendment is not about authorizing crime. It is about self protection. The fact that teachers and other students were not armed, (and the guard who was, was not well trained) led to the tragedy. In a similar situation in Oregon, gun owners went to their car and returned with weapons and confronted the criminal. Is this not what you would like to see? after all in Columbine, the swat teams held their position and allowed the crime to continue for quite some time. do you believe the police are there to protect and serve?
How nice it would be if no students ever thought of killing their classmates, but the second ammendment does not make guns available for criminals. You are only interested in preventing law abiding persons from having access to weapons. I am afraid you believe that the second ammendment is standing in the way of a utopian paradise, or is it the whole bill of rights that is preventing utopia?
Hard rain's gonna fall.
Thought that this should be presented again!!!
Stay safe; stay armed.
And a simple "loss of cabin pressure" would be worse than what happened on 9/11?
They are too arrogant and power-hungry to fold quickly. They'll choose the latter option, which may even involve bringing foreign troops into the mix (there is an interesting provision in Patriot II which pertains to this-- section 427, I think).
The tyrants would rather allow a million of us peasants to die, rather than have one of the serfs prevent a terror attack using a gun.
You see, such a demonstration would prove that we really don't need the gov't to protect us (beyond a few basic functions at and beyond our borders).
Can you point to any law that forbids the private ownership of either a nuclear weapon, a battleship (or fleet thereof), or guided missile destroyer? And absent such a law there does not seem to be a rush to aquire them for some reason.
I think you intended to turn left and made a right by mistake ...........
The USA PATRIOT Act enacted a new forfeiture provision at 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(G) pertaining to the assets of any person planning or perpetrating an act of terrorism against the United States. This section adds a parallel provision pertaining to the assets of any person planning or perpetrating an act of terrorism against a foreign state or international organization while acting within the jurisdiction of the United States.
Exactly which "international organizations" do they intend to have acting within the US?
More likely our govt would allow mass immigration for the purposes of filling out an army of tyranny beholded to themselves and not the Constitution.
But any CW2 scenario is likely to be among ourselves, and there will be plenty of arms to go around from our own sources, on both sides.
If you think this ... fine, don'y buy or own guns and don't feel that you have a right to any gun. That is your right, to feel as you please and to feel safe in your ignorance.
Just don't try and force such a notion off on the rest of us who are not blind to history and the relevance of firearms in the hands of free citizens. Clearly, your knowledge of and understanding of history, particularly modern history, is fatally flawed from my perspective.
Such thinking, when pushed on those who understand that such a right is fundamental, that it is unalienable and that it does not derive from government at all, will lead to open conflict.
Fregards, Jeff
Yeah. What he said.
Or what he says I'd say. Just damn.
That's easy. Tribbles will become agitated when held in front of the bad guy. Each policeman will be issued a Tribble to carry around.
Well said.
That could certainly be the intial intent, but keep in mind that the same tyrants will be enforcing this provision, that turned the RICO statutes against anti-abortion protestors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.