A gun-owning liberal's perspective on gun control

[pax]

5. I would support a requirement that all firearms sold in the US have ballistics and case-marking information submitted to law enforcement. This should be the reponsibility of manufacturers and importers.

Someone else pointed out that this would be expensive. Let me try to put in perspective just how expensive.

First, you need to understand that criminals could deliberately and easily alter the gun's fingerprint. Every honest gun owner has also altered the fingerprint of every gun he or she has ever fired.

Let me explain how that works.

The idea behind "ballistic fingerprinting" is this: a fired case has unique marks from the extractor, ejector, and breechface. A bullet fired through a barrel also has unique rifling marks. If you store the information in a central database, you theoretically could link a firearm back to the owner. (I say "theoretically" because, to date, none of the ballistic databases has been instrumental in solving any actual crime.)

A ballistic fingerprint is only a one-time snapshot of a gun. Ejectors, extractors, and barrels all suffer wear through normal use, and all can (and should) be replaced at regular intervals. Change one part, and the fingerprint is useless.

But even absent this normal swapping of worn-out parts, every time a gun is fired, the fingerprint changes just a little bit. New scratches appear; old ones are worn away. As time goes on, the fingerprint is completely altered and the data in the files becomes useless. That is why I say that every honest gun owner has altered the fingerprint of every gun he or she has ever fired, and that no law can be passed to prevent it from happening.

Fact is, trying to track a single gun by this method is not like tracking people by their fingerprints. It's more like to trying to ID someone by their hairstyle. It'll work for awhile, but the person can either deliberately disguise themselves by dyeing or cutting their hair, or the normal passage of time will lengthen their hair, turn it grey, or cause it to fall out entirely. Either which way, a hairstyle cannot be considered a reliable method of identifying an individual, because it changes over time. And for the same reason, a ballistic fingerprint is not a reliable method of identifying a gun.

But even if the ballistic fingerprint were akin to a fingerprint and not a hairstyle, it is still a relatively useless tool. Consider the large number of factors which all must be present for ballistic fingerprinting to be useful. If any one is missing, it won't be useful.

1) You must recover a bullet and/or shell casing.

2) The bullet/casing must be in a condition to read. Bullets can be severely deformed, or fragmented into several pieces.

3) The print must not have been altered (purposely or through wear).

4) The gun must be in the system. If there is a government database, there will also be a black market of non-system guns.

4b) The gun must be owned legally. This knocks out a huge swath of crime guns -- in New York, D.C., Chicago, and other big gun-control areas, almost all guns will be outside the system. (Stop to appreciate the irony of that little tidbit; the highest-crime areas are the areas with the strictest gun laws already on the books, and would be least affected by any new laws.)

5) The gun still must be owned by the person who registered the fingerprint, and that person must be the perpetrator or tied to the perp.

6) The gun must be recovered in the possession of the perpetrating owner. "Gee officer, that gun was stolen six months ago" -- indeed, a savvy criminal will make such a report ahead of time to cover his tracks.

In order for ballistic fingerprinting to be instrumental in solving the crime, there must have been no witnesses who can identify the perpetrator. If there were such witnesses, then the fingerprint is really moot.

Of the unwitnessed crimes, there must be no other readily available ways to tie the perpetrator to the crime.

All of the above allows us to analyze the benefit we would receive from the anticipated cost of a nationwide ballistic fingerprint database. The benefit would be limited to a very narrow subset of all crimes: murders that involve guns, from which either an intact bullet or shell casing is recovered, and which crimes cannot be solved in any other fashion. Even when all elements are in place for a good match, the odds are very great that the gun has been fired enough to render those elements useless, and even greater odds are that a criminal will have deliberately altered the gun prior to using it for crime.

So finally we get to the issue of actual cost.

For comparison, consider the FBI's computerized (real) fingerprint database -- Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). It cost $640 million to just implement about 34-35 million records.

Thats about $19 per print just to set up the system. Just getting the estimated 200 million guns into the system would cost $3.8 billion (some estimates go up to 250 million guns = $4.75 billion).

Now let's talk maintenance costs.

While I can't find what FBI spends a year to maintain IAFIS, the system is significantly cheaper to maintain than a ballistic fingerprint system would be for two reasons:

1) Real fingerprints do not change form over time. There would have to be a system to update the ballistic fingerprints every so often, or the records will become useless (see number 3 above). That updating is unneeded with IAFIS.

2) Real fingerprints do not change owners. There would have to be a system to change the ownership records. (Yes, this would be de-facto national registration of gun owners, something that has been vociferously debated and has been ground to a halt every time gun owners have gotten wind of the possibility.)

Incidentally, the system would have to be run by the federal government. The reason we got IAFIS was that the state-level and regional fingerprint systems did not speak to each other.

Bottom line is, I am not convinced that the very limited usefulness of a federal ballistic fingerprinting database would be worth the 4 billion dollar price tag. Nor do I think that its limited usefulness justifies the intrusion into the lives of honest citizens that its implementation would require.

pax

 

[Danindetroit]

I think that the 2nd amendment has been a contentious subject for a long time.

"The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - SAMUEL ADAMS, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1786-87

I am not sure if Sam Adams was a Framer of the condtitution.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - THOMAS JEFFERSON, Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

"A free people ought...to be armed...." - GEORGE WASHINGTON. Speech of January 7, l790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, l790

I don't think the supreme court took up the debate about people owning guns until people forgot about history.

Can you ballistic fingerprint a shotgun? It seems easy enough for a criminal to saw off and make it easier to hid a shotgun in certain circumstances.

 

[Fred Hansen]

No one has answered my basic question yet, so I'll ask it again: Do I, a law-abiding citizen, have a need to know if you, a law-abiding citizen, are carrying a gun? My position is simply that I need that information to be able to make informed decisions about my own safety.

As has been pointed out already, the proposition that you need to know the particulars of another law-abiding citizen (as you put it) in order to make an informed decision about your own safety makes no sense. None whatsoever.

Let me add that unless we are doing business together, or I am breaking the law in some way, or marrying into your family, or some other interpersonal relationship of some consequence, that you need to know exactly NOTHING about me. Nothing personal, but it's none of your business.

One of the biggest problems I have with all liberals is their inability to distinguish between need and want. Your "need" to interfere in my affairs does not constitute an obligation on my part. The general "need" that liberals feel to steal my property, my money, and my rights also creates no obligation on my part. The British Empire found that out 229 years ago. Did liberals not get the memo???

 

[jefnvk]

Here's what I have to say:

1)

This is not an unlimited right, however. I see very few people arguing that civilians should be allowed to own machine guns, grenades, RPGs, sholder-launched missiles, etc.

The problem with that, is that we live in a society in which the majority of the people do not make decisions for the minority. These decisions have to be constitutional, or they are not allowed. At one time, the majority of people accepted that slavery was OK, but that has thankfully been overturned.

2) Reasonablee means that since you have no reason to believe that I will misuse the guns, I can have whatever I want.

3) You don't have to worry about the law abiding citizens. By definition, they aren't going to hurt you. I think CCW v. Open is a personal choice. If a gunman walks into the mall bent on shooting people, and he sees a pistol on my hip, I am probably going to become target #1.

4) I have no problem with requiring people to take a course before carrying. They should be taught SAFE firearm handling, to have somewhat reasonable accuracy (I cannot determine what is, as I am not informed enough to make that call), and legalities regarding appropriate use of deadly force, etc. HOWEVER, this class should not be cost prohibitive.

Here your numbers start to get off so I'll continue with points:

Legal consequences for crimes comitted with your gun: NO. For them to get that gun, it would mean it was stolen. I heard it best once before: It should not matter if my 'safe' is my 80 acres, the acre of land my house is on, if the gun is simply inside the house, if it is in a locked room, or if it is in a gun cabinet inside the locked room. The fact of the matter is, is that that gun was somewhere where someone else was not supposed to be, they stole the gun, they did the crimes, they are the guilty ones here. Now, if yuo leave it in a Toys 'R Us bathroom, and some kid shoots himself, that would be different, as the gun was in a public place that anyone could get to.

Ballistics and case markings: NO. These can easily be changed. Ineffective, why waste money on something that hasn't worked?

Magazine capacity: NO. Why should you be worried with how big a law-abiding citizen's magazine is? To me, a greater then 10 round magazine is a personal choice. You certainly wouldn't go around telling people that their Chevy 350 engine is too big, because all they really need is an Ecotec 2.2L.

Licensing and Registration: NO. You don't need a license to use an automobile on private property, why should you need to for a gun? Again, what purpose would it serve? The law abiding people will be registered, the criminals won't. That's why they're criminals, they don't follow the law.

 

[jefnvk]

And let me say that I am glad that you are involving gun owners. Too many times I see articles written by anti-gun writers who interview anti-gun people, simply because they were a victum of a crime, or something similiar. Just because you have had a tragic event in your life does not make one qualified to preach on gun safety and control.

If I might ask, what are your liberal views on smart guns?

 

[mvpel]

It's a date. Seriously, though, it would seem that, when it comes to the types of weapons a private citizen may own, we disagree. OK, that's fine, we're both free to hold our repective opinions.

The problem is, my friend, that the Democrats want to back up their opinions on the kinds of weapons a private citizen may own with the force of law, making it so that I am not free to exercise my respective opinion.

Having been in the military, I'm sure you laid hands on an M-16 before - some Democrats get a bad case of the vapors over the semi-automatic variant of that rifle (the AR-15) even though it operates in exactly the same way as a common hunting rifle, because it looks like an M-16 and is black and has a few scary features, like a bayonet lug or what have you, and they have passed laws prohibiting its possession.

The problem we get into when we completely ignore the meaning of the word "infringed" and start picking and choosing what we like and don't like and passing laws to that effect, we wind up with people like John Kerry supporting a ban on a semi-auto shotgun that he was given as a gift, because "who needs anything more than a finely engraved, gilded antique English over/under shotgun?"

Then you've got the muzzle-loaders who say that a five-round magazine on a bolt-action hunting rifle is unsporting. They'll never ban your hunting rifle - they'll just call it a "sniper gun" and then ban it.

Whose "opinion" do we base our laws on if we're going to ignore the Second Amendment?

Some law-abiding people, such as notorious anti-gun Senator Chuck Schumer, enjoy shooting machine guns:

Why should their safe enjoyment of this pastime bother anyone?

 

[k_dawg]

"local control" = any and even ALL jurisdictions can make lawfully owning a gun so burdensome, the reality is there is no lawful owning.

There must be at least, a minimum standard they are not able to go beyond. Such as it "Must" be issued within 60 days. Anyone with no felony convictions, no substance abuse, "must" qualify, etc.

and, perhaps one day.. our system of govn't will start to honor and obey the US constitution.. but not likely in my life time.

 

[RickD]

Oh boy. I got to this thread late...

Tubee, you said that the Supreme Court decisions are based on precidence, right? It appears they missed the words of the Framers...

First, the basics. Thomas Jefferson:

“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debate, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invested against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” [Letter to Justice William Johnson, June 12, 1821]

William W. Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125 (2d ed. 1829). His work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point. He is quoted by Stephen P. Halbrook in "That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Consitutional Right" as follows.

"In the Second Article, it is declared that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state: a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable, yet ... the militia form the palladium of the country... The corollary from the first position is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. THE PROHIBITION IS GENERAL. NO clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give Congress a right to DISARM THE PEOPLE." Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But, if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."

a bunch of armed individuals does not constitute a "Well-Regulated Militia".

Thomas Cooley, who was born in 1820 wrote the leading law school text for the latter 19th century -- “General Principles of Constitutional Law.” Here is an excerpt:

“The right of self defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.”

"...The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon...If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet in voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order.”

 

[RickD]

While I'm at it, since many have mentioned that "sixty-year old case," why not cite a passage or three?

US v Miller, 1939.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blusvmiller.htm

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Then, the common arms of the day were the Springfield rifle, Thompson submachine gun, shotguns, and the Browning Automatic Rifle BAR). Today? Toss me my M16 and a bandolier, please.

The other key passage of Miller is the following:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

The fact that saw-off shotguns were, indeed used by troops was known at the time, but since neither Miller (dead) nor his attorney (no pay) appeared before the Supreme Court to inform the Court of this fact (the only attorneys present were Federal prosecutors who didn't want to spoil their case), these Elite Justices remanded it back to the lower court (which originally found for Miller that the law was unconstitutional). Since Miller was dead and his accomplice had copped a plea, the point was moot and there was no decision rendered as to this fact.

So, as a result, gun owners have their rights infringed because of an attorney who didn't show, and Federal prosecutors who omitted facts. Kind of shows US v Miller in a different light, eh?

Rick

 

[tube_ee]

Very informative discussion. Truly. No minds were changed on either side, nor was I expecting them to be. Given the "demographics" around here, I am frankly quite surprised that the discussion was as civil as it was. If I'd tried this on FreeRepublic, I'd have been crucified, and probably kicked off the board. Thanks to all for that.

I think that I'll drop the idea of ballistic / extractor fingerprinting. I was not aware that these characteristics are so easily changeable. Hey, I'm not a cop. I do wonder, though, why such data can be used at all? I guess most people are like me, and thought that these were relatively fixed parameters for any given firearm. IOW, criminals don't know either. As to the cost, $4 billion isn't that much relative to many other things our governemtn spends money on. Interest on the debt, for example. It's not the amount of money, it's whether that money buys you what you were shopping for. This idea seems to fail that test.

As to qualifications for CCW permits, while I understand the "criminals won't so I shouldn't have to" argument, I disagree. I think it's a good idea. And as a matter practical politics, I think that a law with such a requirement would be easier to get passed where I live.

Vis-a-vis registration, again, I wasn't expecting to get much support for the idea around here. With the exception of "The government would use the lists to round us all up and herd us off to the showers", which is, I think, rather paranoid, the main argument against seems to be that it inhibits gun owners without providing any corresponding benefit. I'm not so sure that's correct. I don't really have a problem with filling out a form and paying a few bucks whenever I purchase a firearm, or with waiting until it is known that I am legally able to own that firearm. Others disagree. Either way, I don't think it's really that big of a deal.

Thanks again for the courteous discussion. Civil disagreement seems to be an all-too-rare commodity these days. If we all showed this kind of restraint and willingness to at least listen, even when we disagree, there'd be a whole bunch of AM radio talk show hosts, cable news "debate" show folks, and hack writers out of work. And we'd be a better country for it.

Peace, love, and tight groups...

--Shannon

 

[RickD]

Nobody changed your mind?

Okay, guys. Now that Shannon has logged off, we can stop the charade of niceness. I think I pulled a muscle. Heck the Freepers and the DemocraticUnderground are thinking we've gone wimpie.

The government would use the lists to round us all up and herd us off to the showers", which is, I think, rather paranoid, the main argument against seems to be that it inhibits gun owners without providing any corresponding benefit.

I didn't notice anyone connecting the registration argument of confiscation in Europe and Asia to the confiscation here in the USA. Disarming indian tribes was noted, but nobody mentioned that the Mayor Lindsey semi-auto rifle registration of 1960's New York turned into the door to door confiscation under Mayor David Dinkens in the early 1990s.

And then in 1989, SKS rifles were required to be registered (was that Roberti-Roos ?) while the state Attorney General said that SKSs with detachable mags were legal. A few years later the AG said, "Oops, I changed my mind." He gave all those banned-SKS owners a fixed amount of time to turn in their rifles under penalty of Law (prison and fines).

Shannon, every one of the gun-grabber's laws you have suggested have no purpose in reducing crime. From researchers Wright & Rossi to kleck to Lott, to Cook & Ludwig to CDC, all have said that these laws don't reduce crime. What they do is drive up the cost of gun ownership, which reduces the ranks of gun owners and hunters and weaves a web of regulation in which to tangle gun owners.

You were aware that felons are not required to register their guns due to the Supreme Court decision Haynes v US, 1968.

From www.gunlaws.com --"...a felon who has a gun cannot be compelled to complete such forms, because it violates the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. That's right, registration -- not in your case of course but in the case of a criminal -- is a self-indictment of a crime, and is therefore prohibited."

Shannon, the gun grabbers who propose these laws are all very well aware of the arguments you have read here (some of which have led to you changing your mind on some issues). They know because many of us have told them. But they don't care. Because crime reduction is not their aim. They realize that to control us they need to disarm us first. Would you like to see the quote of the Founding Father who first said that as well? Which? There were quite a few. Here's one from Noah Webster:

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense raised in the United States...”

Consider yourself edumicated.

Rick

 

[mvpel]

Hey, I'm not a cop. I do wonder, though, why such data can be used at all? I guess most people are like me, and thought that these were relatively fixed parameters for any given firearm.

They are, to a certain degree in a short enough span of time. Ballistic imaging can be used to convincingly link a particular gun recovered from a particular suspect to a particular crime scene, either by examining striations or spent casings on the crime bullet or shell casings with those test-fired from the suspect gun.

Ballistic imaging is certainly useful in that respect.

What they were thinking is that if they could plug the imprints into a national database like they do with human fingerprints, they could develop leads in an investigation rather than going out, pounding the pavement, and finding a suspect gun with which to compare it.

But they forgot that human fingerprints grow back the same as they were before if they're damaged, a trait that firearms don't share. They can spend tens of millions of dollars collecting images that would become useless over a span of time from either ordinary wear on the firearm or deliberate alteration.

They also forgot that criminals don't register their guns, so any investigative leads they might find would be nearly always useless anyway.

 

[Tamara]

tube_ee,

As to qualifications for CCW permits, while I understand the "criminals won't so I shouldn't have to" argument, I disagree. I think it's a good idea.

FWIW, having lived the vast majority of my life in a state where the only quals necessary for a CCW permit were $50, a clean record, and a pulse, I'd like to note that the lack of training requirements resulted in surprisingly few negligent discharges at Chuck E. Cheeze pizza emporiums.

And as a matter practical politics, I think that a law with such a requirement would be easier to get passed where I live.

Indeed. However, political necessity may be different in your state, as so many other things are. Ironically, working in the gun industry in both GA (no training requirement) and TN (eight hour class and range qualification necessary,) I haven't noticed much difference in the quals and skills of toter's permit holders in the two different demesnes. Most folks can pull their act together and feign competence in various audience participation activities like CCW or Police handgun qualification or motor vehicle operation long enough to obtain certification, and then go into the real world and neglect these skills that require a modicum of practice and attention-paying. Cynical of me? Perhaps. What it boils down to is that I no longer thing that testing guarantees much of anything except warm fuzzies for folks that worry about it. Either someone is going to take driving or shooting seriously, or they won't, and one generally won't find out which class they fall into until they drive into a bridge abutment while chatting on the cellphone and cueing up Barney and his Friends on the back seat DVD for the poppets, or they put a bullet in their own bunion. C'est la nature de la chose.

 

[IZinterrogator]

Most folks can pull their act together and feign competence in various audience participation activities like CCW or Police handgun qualification or motor vehicle operation long enough to obtain certification, and then go into the real world and neglect these skills that require a modicum of practice and attention-paying.

Amen. I have never seen anyone practice parallel parking just to keep their skills up.

 

[4thHorseman]

You were in the Navy. So you may not be able to distingish between a right and a privilage, as I wasn't until I was out for many years. Basically you had few rights in the Navy.
The founding fathers claimed it was a RIGHT. That means you were born with it, not given to you.

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." -- Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court, 2003

To me this is clear why we need the 2nd Ammendment. It's NOT to be tinkered with, even with liberals changing it to their whims. It is not about hunting.
And quite frankly, it makes me sick to my stomach when ever people want to start tinkering or wanting to change the Constitution/Bill of Rights.

 

[Big Ruger]

The problem as I see it , is that liberals in general, seem to feel that its ok to turn their rights over to some govt entity to administrate. What I believe they fail to understand is that in doing so they also surrender the freedom that goes with that right.Then when other more conservative people yell "I dont want to give up my rights, even a little bit of them", they are called unreasonable. You see it's a RIGHT. To say that changing it just a little is ok is just allowing leftist judges an lawmakers openings to take it away. I know you believe this is paranoid thinking, but I know the history involved.You can read the case files yourself.It aint paranoid if its really happening. Just in the last few years we heard Senator Diane Feinstein, D Calif. say on the senate floor,"if I had my way I'd say mister and mrs. America turn them in all of them". So paranoia? I think not. If liberals think I'm unreasonable because I WILL NOT compromise or trade my Rights for that warm fuzzy feeling that all I need to do I put my safety or myfamilies in the hands of someone who does not know me , and hope eveything turns out ok, well so be it. I will not give up my rights a little at a time. You Know Nikita Kruschev once said "The American people will never accept communism in one gulp. But if you feed them small bites of lberalism over time they will eventually be communist". Now I used that particular quote NOT as a shot at liberalism but because it easily demonstrates the gun grabber mentality. I hope you don't take this post as a shot at you, It is not intended that way. I feel you as a gun owner, are in the same boat as me, you just don,t see things the same way. I gotta quit now my hand hurts! E

 

[MeekAndMild]

I thought about replying to the points made, but then realized it was futile.

Tell you what, the day the Democratic Party comes forth with a reasonable, equitable, cost effective way of controlling crack cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana or internet spam (any one of the four, or failing that, find a way of either delivering the mail on time or balancing the social security budget) then I'll consider them competent to discuss what is reasonable and equitable in the way of gun control. Until then, I consider them to be a parliment of fools.

 

[mvpel]

The problem as I see it , is that liberals in general, seem to feel that its ok to turn their rights over to some govt entity to administrate.

I think what you percieve here is not a cavalier attitude towards individual rights, but a lack of belief in individual rights. Like the original poster starting from the premise that the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee an individual right, they seem to operate under the assumption that government, not the Creator (or nature or what have you), is the source of rights, and confuse the distinction between a right and a privelege.

 

[drinks]

@nd

Tube ee;
Dear Sir;
You have spouted off all the idiot nonsense of the Nazis , Commies and UN one worlders.
You are one of the most dangerous and Anti Constitutional persons I have read.
You make the swimming and diving champion of Chapadaquick, or however you spell that place Teddy killed his girl friend, Dianne Feinstein, Hitler's little handmaid of San Franscisco, Horse's a--- uh face Kerry and Scummer[sic], appear to be almost reasonable.
May I ask why you do not move to Canada or Great Britain?
Both of these Socialist Regimes are practicing reasonable restrictions on weapons.
Oz is not far behind.
Switzerland [Suisse], is the roll model for countries all over the world.Most households have a selectfire battle rifle in the closet with 200 rounds of ammo and the holder has an annual training period when they shoot several hundred rounds.
Shooting festivals are common and many people of both sexes participate and enjoy shooting.
Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.
What do you not understand about that and the Second Ammendment?
Why do you hate the Constitution ?
Why do you say such anti American PC crap?

Do not bother to respond, I have no intention of carrying on a discussion with a traitor and one worlder, you are beneath contempt.
I am not PC!

Don

 

[Tamara]

I apologize for the lack of manners, tube_ee...

Gosh, this had been such a good discussion up to this point, too.

I am not PC!

"PC" and "civilized manners" are not synonyms. Discuss.