Your grasp on reality and understanding of the American Constitution is such that any further explaination to you would be the same as showing a chicken a card trick.
I'll stay safe by staying armed. You keep 911 on your speed dial.
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.
Let's consider an equivalent of the times; sailing ships. Although no one would question the rights of the passengers & members of the crew to own & carry, once aboard they were under the command of the ship's Captain. Firearms were maintained in an armory or locker until Captain's orders (or mutiny conditions) distributed those weapons. At most, senior officers may have carried a pistol to keep sailors, a sometimes unruly lot, to help keep order. With that in mind, ships were frequently armed with crew served weapons, (cannon/weapons of mass destruction) to guard against attack by other ships, supporting a right and practice of keeping a class of weapons now banned as destructive devices.
This was very far from the case with many vessels especially those engaged in commerce on the reular shipping lanes or American costal commerce. Further absolutely every sailor carried a knife that would also be a weapon as could belaying pins (normally used for securing parts or the rigging). Swords and muskets were not normally locked away on many of the ships it very much depended upon the captain and the specific crew. I would suggest the archives in Mytic Seaport contain some very good information on this subject including some Captains logs of the times.
I like to keep tabs on myself!!!!
Stay safe; stay armed.
Eaker Freeper Status
I am not aware of any hijackings or passengers going berserk with these pistols. None.
Look at the effect of airplane disarmament on the events of 9-11: the 757s became pure victim zones, where a handful of fanatics with boxcutters were able to take complete control and kill thousands.
Which arms on planes paradigm was more effective at preventing hijacking and mass death?
On 9-11, if you were on one of those planes, would you have preferred to have been on a plane with a dozen screened and tested citizens who were carrying sidearms?
I can see how they could have prevented 9-11, how exactly could they have made the situation worse?
"Gun free zones", whether the zones are schools, churches, businesses or airplanes, invariably do nothing to increase safety, but only turn them into death traps. These "gun free zones" become murder magnets for maniacs bent on mass slaughter.
I have heard of deranged killers rampaging in "gun free" schools and businesses. I have NEVER heard of a shooting rampage at a rifle range or gun show.
Now why do you suppose that might be?
Just damn.©
© mhking
You gotta love the anti-gun rights crowd's fallacious arguments.
Actually, I don't believe it's guns that they have such a hate for. What I believe they hate is for citizens to have anything that they (the collectivist freak SOBs) don't have control over.
More great logic--comparing freedom fighters to murderous drug dealers. Were George Washingon and gang simple thugs then?
The problem is that it's difficult to argue from a position of logic with people who do not understand logic.
Your grasp on reality and understanding of the American Constitution is such that any further explaination to you would be the same as showing a chicken a card trick.
I'll stay safe by staying armed. You keep 911 on your speed dial.
You must be new around here, or you have learned your physics from watching James Bond movies.
Planes can be riddled with bullet holes, it just means the pilot slowly descends to below 10,000 feet and returns to land. 15 years ago an Aloha air jetliner lost 20 feet of the top of its fuselage and landed. Bullet holes in the fuselage mean nothing.
Well you just go on and pray for a speedy police response, I will defend my family in person.
And when your designated gun toters in uniform come to my house to enforce your unconstitutional gun ban, I will shoot them dead.
And then I will go hunting for craven bleating sheep.
Just because a state SAYS they have the power to pass and enforce a "reasonable" law, does not mean it will forever pass constitutional muster... and the dinosaurs of the communal movement are nearing extinction... reasonable or not.
You speak for millions of Americans when you say that.
And that is going to give the bootlicking contigent here nightmares. But that is their problem.
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.