H.R.6257 - Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008

[jordan]

The "To be banned.." list.

I found it kind of funny a Remington 700 made the list...


`APPENDIX A

`Centerfire Rifles--Autoloaders
`Browning BAR Mark II Safari Semi-Auto Rifle
`Browning BAR Mark II Safari Magnum Rifle
`Browning High-Power Rifle
`Heckler & Koch Model 300 Rifle
`Iver Johnson M-1 Carbine
`Iver Johnson 50th Anniversary M-1 Carbine
`Marlin Model 9 Camp Carbine
`Marlin Model 45 Carbine
`Remington Nylon 66 Auto-Loading Rifle
`Remington Model 7400 Auto Rifle
`Remington Model 7400 Rifle
`Remington Model 7400 Special Purpose Auto Rifle
`Ruger Mini-14 Autoloading Rifle (w/o folding stock)
`Ruger Mini Thirty Rifle
`Centerfire Rifles--Lever & Slide
`Browning Model 81 BLR Lever-Action Rifle
`Browning Model 81 Long Action BLR
`Browning Model 1886 Lever-Action Carbine
`Browning Model 1886 High Grade Carbine
`Cimarron 1860 Henry Replica
`Cimarron 1866 Winchester Replica
`Cimarron 1873 Short Rifle
`Cimarron 1873 Sporting Rifle
`Cimarron 1873 30" Express Rifle
`Dixie Engraved 1873 Rifle
`E.M.F. 1866 Yellowboy Lever Actions
`E.M.F. 1860 Henry Rifle
`E.M.F. Model 73 Lever-Action Rifle
`Marlin Model 336CS Lever-Action Carbine
`Marlin Model 30AS Lever-Action Carbine
`Marlin Model 444SS Lever-Action Sporter
`Marlin Model 1894S Lever-Action Carbine
`Marlin Model 1894CS Carbine
`Marlin Model 1894CL Classic
`Marlin Model 1895SS Lever-Action Rifle
`Mitchell 1858 Henry Replica
`Mitchell 1866 Winchester Replica
`Mitchell 1873 Winchester Replica
`Navy Arms Military Henry Rifle
`Navy Arms Henry Trapper
`Navy Arms Iron Frame Henry
`Navy Arms Henry Carbine
`Navy Arms 1866 Yellowboy Rifle
`Navy Arms 1873 Winchester-Style Rifle
`Navy Arms 1873 Sporting Rifle
`Remington 7600 Slide Action
`Remington Model 7600 Special Purpose Slide Action
`Rossi M92 SRC Saddle-Ring Carbine
`Rossi M92 SRS Short Carbine
`Savage 99C Lever-Action Rifle
`Uberti Henry Rifle
`Uberti 1866 Sporting Rifle
`Uberti 1873 Sporting Rifle
`Winchester Model 94 Side Eject Lever-Action Rifle
`Winchester Model 94 Trapper Side Eject
`Winchester Model 94 Big Bore Side Eject
`Winchester Model 94 Ranger Side Eject Lever-Action Rifle
`Winchester Model 94 Wrangler Side Eject
`Centerfire Rifles--Bolt Action
`Alpine Bolt-Action Rifle
`A-Square Caesar Bolt-Action Rifle
`A-Square Hannibal Bolt-Action Rifle
`Anschutz 1700D Classic Rifle
`Anschutz 1700D Custom Rifle
`Anschutz 1700D Bavarian Bolt-Action Rifle
`Anschutz 1733D Mannlicher Rifle
`Barret Model 90 Bolt-Action Rifle
`Beeman/HW 60J Bolt-Action Rifle
`Blaser R84 Bolt-Action Rifle
`BRNO 537 Sporter Bolt-Action Rifle
`BRNO ZKB 527 Fox Bolt-Action Rifle
`BRNO ZKK 600, 601, and 602 Bolt-Action Rifles
`Browning A-Bolt Rifle
`Browning A-Bolt Stainless Stalker
`Browning A-Bolt Left Hand
`Browning A-Bolt Short Action
`Browning Euro-Bolt Rifle
`Browning A-Bolt Gold Medallion
`Browning A-Bolt Micro Medallion
`Century Centurion 14 Sporter
`Century Enfield Sporter #4
`Century Swedish Sporter #38
`Century Mauser 98 Sporter
`Cooper Model 38 Centerfire Sporter
`Dakota 22 Sporter Bolt-Action Rifle
`Dakota 76 Classic Bolt-Action Rifle
`Dakota 76 Short Action Rifle
`Dakota 76 Safari Bolt-Action Rifle
`Dakota 416 Rigby African
`E.A.A./Sabatti Rover 870 Bolt-Action Rifle
`Auguste Francotte Bolt-Action Rifle
`Carl Gustaf 2000 Bolt-Action Rifle
`Heym Magnum Express Series Rifle
`Howa Lightning Bolt-Action Rifle
`Howa Realtree Camo Rifle
`Interarms Mark X Viscount Bolt-Action Rifle
`Interarms Mini-Mark X Rifle
`Interarms Mark X Whitworth Bolt-Action Rifle
`Interarms Whitworth Express Rifle
`Iver Johnson Model 5100A1 Long-Range Rifle
`KDF K15 American Bolt-Action Rifle
`Krico Model 600 Bolt-Action Rifle
`Krico Model 700 Bolt-Action Rifle
`Mauser Model 66 Bolt-Action Rifle
`Mauser Model 99 Bolt-Action Rifle
`McMillan Signature Classic Sporter
`McMillan Signature Super Varminter
`McMillan Signature Alaskan
`McMillan Signature Titanium Mountain Rifle
`McMillan Classic Stainless Sporter
`McMillan Talon Safari Rifle
`McMillan Talon Sporter Rifle
`Midland 1500S Survivor Rifle
`Navy Arms TU-33/40 Carbine
`Parker-Hale Model 81 Classic Rifle
`Parker-Hale Model 81 Classic African Rifle
`Parker-Hale Model 1000 Rifle
`Parker-Hale Model 1100M African Magnum
`Parker-Hale Model 1100 Lightweight Rifle
`Parker-Hale Model 1200 Super Rifle
`Parker-Hale Model 1200 Super Clip Rifle
`Parker-Hale Model 1300C Scout Rifle
`Parker-Hale Model 2100 Midland Rifle
`Parker-Hale Model 2700 Lightweight Rifle
`Parker-Hale Model 2800 Midland Rifle
`Remington Model Seven Bolt-Action Rifle
`Remington Model Seven Youth Rifle
`Remington Model Seven Custom KS
`Remington Model Seven Custom MS Rifle
`Remington 700 ADL Bolt-Action Rifle
`Remington 700 BDL Bolt-Action Rifle
`Remington 700 BDL Varmint Special
`Remington 700 BDL European Bolt-Action Rifle
`Remington 700 Varmint Synthetic Rifle
`Remington 700 BDL SS Rifle
`Remington 700 Stainless Synthetic Rifle
`Remington 700 MTRSS Rifle
`Remington 700 BDL Left Hand
`Remington 700 Camo Synthetic Rifle
`Remington 700 Safari
`Remington 700 Mountain Rifle
`Remington 700 Custom KS Mountain Rifle
`Remington 700 Classic Rifle
`Ruger M77 Mark II Rifle
`Ruger M77 Mark II Magnum Rifle
`Ruger M77RL Ultra Light
`Ruger M77 Mark II All-Weather Stainless Rifle
`Ruger M77 RSI International Carbine
`Ruger M77 Mark II Express Rifle
`Ruger M77VT Target Rifle
`Sako Hunter Rifle
`Sako FiberClass Sporter
`Sako Safari Grade Bolt Action
`Sako Hunter Left-Hand Rifle
`Sako Classic Bolt Action
`Sako Hunter LS Rifle
`Sako Deluxe Lightweight
`Sako Super Deluxe Sporter
`Sako Mannlicher-Style Carbine
`Sako Varmint Heavy Barrel
`Sako TRG-S Bolt-Action Rifle
`Sauer 90 Bolt-Action Rifle
`Savage 110G Bolt-Action Rifle
`Savage 110CY Youth/Ladies Rifle
`Savage 110WLE One of One Thousand Limited Edition Rifle
`Savage 110GXP3 Bolt-Action Rifle
`Savage 110F Bolt-Action Rifle
`Savage 110FXP3 Bolt-Action Rifle
`Savage 110GV Varmint Rifle
`Savage 112FV Varmint Rifle
`Savage Model 112FVS Varmint Rifle
`Savage Model 112BV Heavy Barrel Varmint Rifle
`Savage 116FSS Bolt-Action Rifle
`Savage Model 116FSK Kodiak Rifle
`Savage 110FP Police Rifle
`Steyr-Mannlicher Sporter Models SL, L, M, S, and S/T
`Steyr-Mannlicher Luxus Models L, M, and S
`Steyr-Mannlicher Model M Professional Rifle
Tikka Bolt-Action Rifle
`Tikka Premium Grade Rifle
`Tikka Varmint/Continental Rifle
`Tikka Whitetail/Battue Rifle
`Ultra Light Arms Model 20 Rifle
`Ultra Light Arms Model 28 and Model 40 Rifles
`Voere VEC 91 Lightning Bolt-Action Rifle
`Voere Model 2165 Bolt-Action Rifle
`Voere Model 2155 and 2150 Bolt-Action Rifles
`Weatherby Mark V Deluxe Bolt-Action Rifle
`Weatherby Lasermark V Rifle
`Weatherby Mark V Crown Custom Rifle
`Weatherby Mark V Sporter Rifle
`Weatherby Mark V Safari Grade Custom Rifle
`Weatherby Weathermark Rifle
`Weatherby Weathermark Alaskan Rifle
`Weatherby Classicmark No.

 

[gits]

I guess I better pick up one of those POF rifles I've been wanting :cool:, but when would the best time to start stocking up on weapons? Or at what point of this bill have to reach before we start looking to pick up more weapons?

 

[pardus]

I guess I better pick up one of those POF rifles I've been wanting :cool:, but when would the best time to start stocking up on weapons? Or at what point of this bill have to reach before we start looking to pick up more weapons?

They aren't going to becoming down in price as things progress! ;)

 

[Cesser]

Are these people against crime? Or is it hunting and collectors they're worried about? :uhh:

 

[RackMaster]

The "To be banned.." list.

I found it kind of funny a Remington 700 made the list...

I actually find it funny that a majority of any of those firearms made it on the list. A good majority of those are still legal here in Canada and will doubtfully ever be banned up here.

I think who ever took the time to make that list, picked up a gun shop catalogue and listed whatever they currently were selling. Either that, or they've been smoking crack. Maybe even both.

Are these people against crime? Or is it hunting and collectors they're worried about? :uhh:

These people are against guns of any kind. They are the Utopian bleeding heart bastards that think every one should love each other.

 

[WillBrink]

Wow. WTF can you say to that.

Written by, supported by, people who don't know shit about guns, don't care about the Const., and think a INTRATEC TEC-9 is an assault weapon.....

 

[HoosierAnnie]

Damn look at all those historic replicas on the list. Hell, they even want the "Yellowboy". Louis L'Amour is spinnin in his grave.

 

[jordan]

I guess I better pick up one of those POF rifles I've been wanting :cool:, but when would the best time to start stocking up on weapons? Or at what point of this bill have to reach before we start looking to pick up more weapons?

Right now.

Are these people against crime? Or is it hunting and collectors they're worried about? :uhh:

They are worried about Law abiding citizens.

I actually find it funny that a majority of any of those firearms made it on the list. A good majority of those are still legal here in Canada and will doubtfully ever be banned up here.

I think who ever took the time to make that list, picked up a gun shop catalogue and listed whatever they currently were selling. Either that, or they've been smoking crack. Maybe even both.

Yea, its stupid.

Damn look at all those historic replicas on the list. Hell, they even want the "Yellowboy". Louis L'Amour is spinnin in his grave.

What really boggles my mind is a Marlin lever action is on the list.. Ive wanted a big bore cowboy lever action for years..

 

[skeeter]

This sucks I turn 18 in october. I have saved enough to buy my first AR-15, and some guy wants to tell me that I can't have one. When has a bolt action or a lever action became an assult weapon? there are certian things that were banned and the weapon had to have so many of these before being considered an assult weapon! This makes no sence.

 

[pardus]

This makes no sense.

It only makes sense if your'e an idiot, which these asshole republicans obviously are!

 

[8'Duece]

Why Liberals should love the 2nd Amendment

It's a long read but worth the 20 minutes to spend your time. It applies directly this situation, as it was intended.

Amazingly this is written by a self proclaimed liberal, and he or she actually embraces the 2nd Amendment. A first in my book.

Why Liberals should love the 2nd Amendment.

The Daly Kos.


by Angry Mouse
Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:01:33 PM PDT
Liberals love the Constitution.

Ask anyone on the street. They'll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization.

I know liberal couples who give each other pocket size copies of the Constitution for Christmas.

Ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they will invariably say the words "shredding" and "Constitution" in the same sentence. They might also add "Fourth Amendment" and "due process." It's possible they'll talk about "free speech zones" and "habeus corpus."

There's a good chance they will mention, probably in combination with several FCC-prohibited adjectives, the former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

So.

Liberals love the Constitution. They especially love the Bill of Rights. They love all the Amendments.

Except for one: the Second Amendment.

Angry Mouse's diary :: ::
When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check at the door their ability to think rationally. In discussing the importance of any other portion of the Bill of Rights, liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.

So why do liberals have such a problem with the Second Amendment? Why do they lump all gun owners in the category of "gun nuts"? Why do they complain about the "radical extremist agenda of the NRA"? Why do they argue for greater restrictions?

Why do they start performing mental gymnastics worthy of a position in Bush's Department of Justice to rationalize what they consider "reasonable" infringement of one of our most basic, fundamental, and revolutionary -- that's right, revolutionary -- civil liberties?

Why do they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote Democrat? Why are they so dismissive of approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns?

And why is their approach to the Second Amendment so different from their approach to all the others?

Well, if conversations on this blog about the issue of guns are in any way indicative of the way other liberals feel, maybe this stems from a basic misunderstanding.

So, allow me to attempt to explain the Second Amendment in a way that liberals should be able to endorse.

No. 1: The Bill of Rights protects individual rights.

If you've read the Bill of Rights -- and who among us hasn't? -- you will notice a phrase that appears in nearly all of them: "the people."

First Amendment:

...the right of the people peaceably to assemble

Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...

Ninth Amendment:

...shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Tenth Amendment:

...are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Certainly, no good liberal would argue that any of these rights are collective rights, and not individual rights. We believe that the First Amendment is an individual right to criticize our government.

We would not condone a state-regulated news organization. We certainly would not condone state regulation of religion. We talk about "separation of church and state," although there is no mention of "separation of church and state" in the First Amendment.

But we know what they meant. The anti-Federalists would not ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights; they intended for it to be interpreted expansively.

We know the Founding Fathers intended for us to be able to say damn near anything we want, protest damn near anything we want, print damn near anything we want, and believe damn near anything we want. Individually, without the interference or regulation of government.

So why, then, do liberals stumble at the idea of the Second Amendment as an individual right? Why do they talk about it as a collective right, as if the Founding Fathers intended an entirely different meaning by the phrase "the right of the people" in the Second Amendment, when we are so positively clear about what they meant by the exact same phrase in the First Amendment?

If we can agree that the First Amendment protects not only powerful organizations such as the New York Times or MSNBC, but also the individual commenter on the internet, the individual at the anti-war rally, the individual driving the car with the "Fuck Bush" bumper sticker, can we not also agree that the Second Amendment's use of "the people" has the same meaning?

But it's different! The Second Amendment is talking about the militia! If you want to "bear arms," join the National Guard!
Right?

Wrong.

The United States Militia Code:

(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.

Aside from the fact that the National Guard did not exist in the 1700s, the term "militia" does not mean "National Guard," even today. The code clearly states that two classes comprise the militia: the National Guard and Naval Militia, and everyone else.

Everyone else. Individuals. The People.

No. 2: We oppose restrictions to our civil liberties.

All of our rights, even the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are restricted. You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowd. You can't threaten to kill the president. You can't publish someone else's words as your own. We have copyright laws and libel laws and slander laws. We have the FCC to regulate our radio and television content. We have plenty of restrictions on our First Amendment rights.

But we don't like them. We fight them. Any card-carrying member of the ACLU will tell you that while we might agree that some restrictions are reasonable, we keep a close eye whenever anyone in government gets an itch to pass a new law that restricts our First Amendment rights. Or our Fourth. Or our Fifth, Sixth, or Eighth.

We complain about free speech zones. The whole country is supposed to be a free speech zone, after all. It says so right in the First Amendment.

But when it comes to the Second Amendment...You could hear a pin drop for all the protest you'll get from liberals when politicians talk about further restrictions on the manufacture, sale, or possession of firearms.

Suddenly, overly broad restrictions are "reasonable." The Washington D.C. ban on handguns -- all handguns -- is reasonable. (Later this year, the Supreme Court will quite likely issue an opinion to the contrary in the Heller case.)

Would we tolerate such a sweeping regulation of, say, the Thirteenth Amendment?

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

What if a politician -- say, a Republican from a red state in the south -- were to introduce a bill that permits enslaving black women? Would we consider that reasonable? It's not like the law would enslave all people, or even all black people. Just the women. There's no mention of enslaving women in the Thirteenth Amendment. Clearly, when Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, he didn't intend to free all the slaves. And we restrict all the other Amendments, so obviously the Thirteenth Amendment is not supposed to be absolute. What's the big deal?

Ridiculous, right? We'd take to the streets, we'd send angry letters to our representatives in Washington, we'd call our progressive radio programs to quote, verbatim, the Thirteenth Amendment. Quite bluntly, although not literally, we'd be up in arms. (Yeah, pun intended.)

And yet...A ban on all handguns seems reasonable to many liberals. Never mind that of 192 million firearms in America, 65 million -- about one third -- are handguns.

This hardly seems consistent.

No. 3: It's not 1776 anymore.

When the Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, drafted the Bill of Rights, they could not have imagined machine guns. Or armor-piercing bullets (which are not available to the public anyway, and are actually less lethal than conventional ammunition). Or handguns that hold 18 rounds. A drive-by shooting, back in 1776, would have been a guy on a horse with a musket.

Of course, they couldn't have imagined the internet, either. But do we question the right of our gracious host, Markos, to say whatever the hell he wants on his blog? (The wisdom, perhaps, but not the right.)

Similarly, the Founding Fathers could not have imagined 24-hour cable news networks. When they drafted the First Amendment, did they really mean to protect the rights of Bill O'Reilly to make incredibly stupid, and frequently inaccurate, statements for an entire hour, five nights a week?

Actually, yes. They did. Bill O'Reilly bilious ravings, and Keith Olbermann's Special Comments, and Bill Moyer's analysis of the corruption of the Bush Administration, and the insipid chatter of the entire cast of the Today show are, and were intended to be, protected by the First Amendment.

We liberals are supposed to understand that just because we don't agree with something doesn't mean it is not protected. At least when it comes to the First Amendment.

But as for the Second Amendment? When discussing the Second Amendment, liberals become obtuse in their literalism. The Second Amendment does not protect the right to own all guns. Or all ammunition. It doesn't protect the right of the people as individuals.

Liberals will defend the right of Cindy Sheehan to wear an anti-war T-shirt, even though the First Amendment says nothing about T-shirts.

They will defend the right of citizens to attend a Bush rally wearing an anti-Bush button, even though the First Amendment says nothing about buttons.

They will defend the rights of alleged terrorists to a public trial, even though, when writing the Sixth Amendment, the Founding Fathers certainly could not have imagined a world in which terrorists would plot to blow up building with airplanes. The notion of airplanes would have shocked most of them (with the possible exception of Thomas Jefferson. He was always inventing things.)

No. 4: It's not like you can use it anyway.

Fine, you say. Have your big, scary guns. It's not like you actually stand a chance in fighting against the United States government. The Army has bigger, badder weapons than any private citizen. Your most deadly gun is no match for their tanks, their helicopters, their atom bombs. Maybe two hundred years ago, citizens stood a chance in a fight against government, but not today. The Second Amendment is obsolete.

Tell that to the USSR, held at bay for about six years by pissed off Afghanis with WWI rifles.

Tell that to the Iraqi "insurgents" who are putting up a pretty good fight against our military might with fairly primitive weapons.

The Second Amendment is obsolete?

What other rights might be considered obsolete in today's day and age?

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

When was the last time a soldier showed up at your door and said, "I'll be staying with you for the indefinite future"?

I'm guessing it's been a while. But of course, were it to happen, you'd dust off your Third Amendment and say, "I don't think so, pal."

And you'd be right.

And hasn't our current administration made the Sixth Amendment obsolete?

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Shall we ask all of those "unlawful combatants" whether the Sixth Amendment still applies?

The President merely has to categorize you as an "unlawful combatant," and whoosh! No more rights to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, or even knowledge of the charges and identification of the witnesses who will testify against you. With one fell swoop of the pen, the President can suspend your Sixth Amendment rights.

Since it has no effect, whenever the President feels like it, why do we even need the Sixth Amendment anymore?

What about the Twenty-Sixth Amendment? How much use does that get?

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

We all know the youth vote is typically pretty abysmal. Those lazy kids can barely get out of bed before noon, let alone get themselves to the voting booth. If they're not going to use their Twenty-Sixth Amendment rights, shouldn't we just delete the damn thing altogether?

Of course not! I voted when I was eighteen, and I was proud to do so. In fact, most liberals will argue for greater enfranchisement. They support the rights of convicted felons to vote. Liberals are all about getting out the vote and rocking the vote. They sit at tables at their local farmer's market, trying to register new voters. They make calls to likely voters, even offering to give them a lift to the polling station.

For liberals, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment (for teens), the Fifteenth Amendment (for blacks), and the Nineteenth Amendment (for women) barely scratch the surface.

But the Second Amendment?

Crickets. Or, worse, loud calls for greater restrictions. More laws. Less access. Regulate, regulate, regulate -- until the Second Amendment is nearly regulated out of existence because no one needs to have a gun anyway.

And that, sadly, is the biggest mistake of all.

Because, to paraphrase a recent comment by mlandman:

The Second Amendment is not about hunting or even guns anymore than the First Amendment is about quill pens and hand-set type.

We do not quibble about the methods by which we practice our First Amendment rights because that is not the point. And red herring arguments about types of ammunition or handguns versus rifles (even scary looking ones) are just that -- red herrings. They distract us from what is at the true meaning of the Second Amendment. And that brings me to my final point.

No. 5: The Second Amendment is about revolution.

In no other country, at no other time, has such a right existed. It is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot at soda cans in an empty field. It is not even the right to shoot at a home invader in the middle of the night.

It is the right of revolution.

Let me say that again: It is the right of revolution.

Consider the words of that most forward thinking of Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson:

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Tyranny in government. That was Mr. Jefferson's concern. And he spoke from experience, of course. He knew the Revolutionary War was not won with hand-painted banners or people chanting slogans. It was a long and bloody war of attrition where the colonials took on the biggest military machine in the world.

And we all know how that turned out.

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.

To alter or abolish the government. These are not mild words; they are powerful. They are revolutionary.

Mr. Jefferson might never have imagined automatic weapons. But he probably also never imagined a total ban on handguns either.

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

We talk about the First Amendment as a unique and revolutionary concept -- that we have the right to criticize our government. Does it matter whether we do so while standing on a soapbox on the corner of the street, or on a blog? No. Because the concept, not the methodology, is what matters.

And the Second Amendment is no different. We liberals tend to get bogged down in the details at the expense of being able to understand, and appreciate, the larger idea.

The Second Amendment is not about how much ammunition is "excessive." Or what kinds of guns are and are not permissible. We should have learned by now that prohibition is ineffective. That's why we repealed the Eighteenth Amendment, prohibiting the "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors." It didn't work.

That's why our War on Drugs has been such an utter failure. Prohibition does not prevent people from smoking pot; it just turns pot smokers into criminals. (And what would our hemp-growing Founding Fathers think of that?)

And so it is with gun laws. They certainly don't prevent gun crimes. A total ban on handguns in DC has hardly eliminated violent crimes in DC. Although it may be correlation, rather than causation, crime tends to be lower in areas with more guns. After Florida and Texas passed concealed carry laws, crime rates went down.

So.

What is the point? Is this a rallying cry for liberals to rush right out and purchase a gun? Absolutely not. Guns are dangerous when used by people who are not trained to use them, just as cars are dangerous when driven by people who have not been taught how to drive.

No, this is a rallying cry for the Constitution. For the Bill of Rights. For all of our rights.

This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "I just don't like guns."

This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "No one needs that much ammunition."

This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "That's not what the Founding Fathers meant."

This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "Columbine and Virginia Tech prove we need more laws."

This is an appeal to every liberal who supports the ACLU.

This is an appeal to every liberal who has complained about the Bush Administration's trading of our civil liberties for the illusion of greater security. (I believe I’ve seen a T-shirt or two about Benjamin Franklin’s thoughts on that.)

This is an appeal to every liberal who believes in fighting against the abuses of government, against the infringement of our civil liberties, and for the greater expansion of our rights.

This is an appeal to every liberal who thinks, despite some poor judgment on the issues of, say, slavery or women's suffrage, the Founding Fathers actually had pretty good ideas about limiting government power and expanding individual rights.

This is an appeal to every liberal who never wants to lose another election to Republicans because they have successfully persuaded the voters that Democrats will take their guns away.

This is an appeal to you, my fellow liberals. Not merely to tolerate the Second Amendment, but to embrace it. To love it and defend it and guard it as carefully as you do all the others.

Because we are liberals. And fighting for our rights -- for all of our rights, for all people -- is what we do.

Because we are revolutionaries.

 

[HoosierAnnie]

HUZZAH!!!!!! Off to make copies for my goofy sister and all her lil yuppie mini van mom friends. (How in heavens name did the two of us ever crawl out of the same gene pool?)

Thanks 82nd. I will use this argument widely.

An honorable government has no need to fear a law abiding and armed citzenry.

 

[jordan]

This sucks I turn 18 in october. I have saved enough to buy my first AR-15, and some guy wants to tell me that I can't have one. When has a bolt action or a lever action became an assult weapon? there are certian things that were banned and the weapon had to have so many of these before being considered an assult weapon! This makes no sence.

Remington 700= our 24s..

And a Marlin, specifically, lever action, I am guessing, because its really short... I dont know.

 

[8'Duece]

Remington 700= our 24s..

And a Marlin, specifically, lever action, I am guessing, because its really short... I dont know.

It has nothing to do with either.

Liberals "gun grabbers" are not firearms experts, nor have they ever fired a weapon in their lives. The list of firearms, there make and models, is much like a smorgusboard and they will start with that list hoping that it can be negoitated down into at least some firearms being banned. In other words it's a smoke screen with the hopes that some Republicans on the hill will not realize the rediculusness of their proposal. It's the old "Look, we're only asking for these, but not those to be banned, can we agree on that" Any infringement is a direct infringement of the 2nd Amendment. (INFRINGE: To cut into, to slice away portions)

I believe their hoping for a "starting point" to which can expanded in the future. Look for more legislation that will include a firearm that some liberal suddenly saw on the internet and it looks like it can hold more ammunition or shells. Before long, anything that is not a common "Hunting gun" is going to be banned, but not before a wide spread opposition from the gun lobbyist and the NRA and other grass roots organizations.

God help us.

 

[jordan]

Hmm, Yes. I agree with you.. to an extent.

 

[Hitman2/3]

Just an update. I found it hilarious how the Mayor of Chicago said that this was "very frightening", because according to him the lifting of Chicago's gun restrictions would result in more gun violence and more taxes for more cops. I can understand this because obviously Chicago is already such a safe and model city thanks to the current gun laws .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
38 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Silent on central questions of gun control for two centuries, the Supreme Court found its voice Thursday in a decision affirming the right to have guns for self-defense in the home and addressing a constitutional riddle almost as old as the republic over what it means to say the people may keep and bear arms.

ADVERTISEMENT

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and imperiled similar prohibitions in other cities, Chicago and San Francisco among them. Federal gun restrictions, however, were expected to remain largely intact.

The court's historic awakening on the meaning of the Second Amendment brought a curiously mixed response, muted in some unexpected places.

The reaction broke less along party lines than along the divide between cities wracked with gun violence and rural areas where gun ownership is embedded in daily life. Democrats have all but abandoned their long push for stricter gun laws at the national level after deciding it's a losing issue for them. Republicans welcomed what they called a powerful precedent.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said merely that the court did not find an unfettered right to bear arms and that the ruling "will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country." But another Chicagoan, Democratic Mayor Richard Daley, called the ruling "very frightening" and predicted more violence and higher taxes to pay for extra police if his city's gun restrictions are lost.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia, a once-vital, now-archaic grouping of citizens. That's been the heart of the gun control debate for decades.

The answer: Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms exists and is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

President Bush said: "I applaud the Supreme Court's historic decision today confirming what has always been clear in the Constitution: the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear firearms."

The full implications of the decision, however, are not sorted out. Still to be seen, for example, is the extent to which the right to have a gun for protection in the home may extend outside the home.

Scalia said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home." The court also struck down D.C. requirements that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns. The district allows shotguns and rifles to be kept in homes if they are registered, kept unloaded and taken apart or equipped with trigger locks.

Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."

But he said nothing in the ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

And in a concluding paragraph to the 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty responded with a plan to require residents to register their handguns. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Fenty said.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

Gun rights advocates praised the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several Chicago suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

Some Democrats also welcomed the ruling.

"This opinion should usher in a new era in which the constitutionality of government regulations of firearms are reviewed against the backdrop of this important right," said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the district after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his Capitol Hill home a short distance from the Supreme Court.

"I'm thrilled I am now able to defend myself and my household in my home," Heller said shortly after the opinion was announced.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down the district's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

The last Supreme Court ruling on the matter came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

 

[8'Duece]

Hitman:

Yeah, I've heard this BS all day long on the airwaves. Mayor Fenty, obviously disheartened with the ruling, couldn't give Katy Curik a good answer when she asked him directly about having the ban on handguns since 1976 but had the largest crime rate during that same ban. He desperatley attempted to stir the interview back into a "more guns equal more crime" type rhetoric.

Mayor Daly of Chicago mentioned that "More children will be shot as a result of this courts ruling" Really Mayor Daly ? Last I checked, and I have, the rate of accidental discharges in the home resulting in a child being killed where virtually not even on the USDOJ's top list of homicides. In fact more children drown in the back yard pool than have ever been shot and or killed by a firearm in the house in any given year. :doh:

If the general public doesn't hear the truth behind such fear mongering, then the public at large is truely just sheep grazing the pasture.

I live in a city where practically every household has at least one firearm, if not two or three or four or more. We've had no shootings in 2008 thus far and the only shooting in 2007 was a domestic dispute between a wife and her husbund. She's now awaiting trial for his murder. So, that makes only two shootings in the last two years and we have a per capita firearm ownership of probably 2 for every houshold. Go figure.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but not everyone is entitled their own facts.

 

[pardus]

Good post 82nd.

This is an issue driven by liberals on belief and no facts.

Fuck them.

 

[8'Duece]

The hyprocrisy of Heller vs D.C. and Miller vs USA (1939) is that the Miller precedent revolved around a sawed off shotgun. The final ruling came with the language that "the sawed off shotgun was not a common military weapon"

Now with another AWB under way, the same precedent set in Miller vs USA is exactly the language that is being ignored. In other words, if the ruling in Miller was that his shotgun, being a short barrel, was not "of common military use" then what is an AR15, SKS, AK, AR10, M14/M1A etc ,etc, etc ? :uhh: Liberals get themselves caught between legal precedent and legal language, but I didn't expect them to really understand this ruling in the first place. As has been said "Liberalism is disease of the body and an obsession of the mind"

Liberals don't get it, or they simply can't stand gun owners and they want to infringe us of our rights at any costs, even if it means that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are shredded.

I'll give my firearms and assault weapons up when the Liberals are willing to give up their computers, pens, pencils, typewriters, banners, loud speakers, and signs of protest. If ya get my drift, I'll only give them up when they give up their right to the 1st Amendment. Fair enough huh ?

We live in troubling times.

 

[pardus]

Fucking A!

Well said I agree.