United States & Gun Control discussion.

[dknob]

Personally I don't believe it was ever meant to be an individual right when they wrote the 2nd amendment. To me the text is cut and dry - "join a well regulated State militia not under Federal control and you can own weaponry with the purpose of combating the government if it was ever necessary". I'm pretty sure that's what they meant when they wrote it.

They should have been more specific when it came to right to bear arms for personal self defense or hunting. That's their fault for fouling it up. I have an AR, I have a Glock. I'm not in a militia obviously. I, like all American citizens who are gun owners take advantage of what I believe is to be a misinterpreted text. Simply because I can. But I'm a minority who can tell it to your face that I am taking advantage of it instead of lie to myself in the mirror and say "the fore fathers wanted me to have this M240B". So if I'm being a hypocrite, which I am, then so be it.

With every passing decade, the constitution is becoming more arcane. But for some reason it's impossible to make it obsolete. 200 years ago there was no Islamic extremism that sought out nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons that can destroy cities. The personal weaponry itself is something the forefathers never accounted for - one AR-15 with 200 rounds of ammo can decimate a 100 person column of musket carrying men with ease from a safe distance. And 200 years ago gun crime was almost nonexistent (please take note of the word almost). I'm not saying we should only be allowed to buy single shot rifles with a reload time of 15 seconds - that's pretty fn stupid. But you can't tell me that if gave the writers of the constitution a little glimpse of the 21st century, they wouldn't have slightly "tweaked" some of the texts.

But stop trying to justify today's gun requirements for self defense by saying its what the fore fathers would have wanted. That's arrogant and incredibly INCREDIBLY ignorant. Just admit the 2nd amendment is incredibly flawed and arcane - and change it all together. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, as well as the right of the population to keep and bear Arms to protect their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, shall not be infringed" - BAM! Problem solved. If only there was a "Update Software Version" button on the constitution. We are all running version 1.1.0 and it's incompatible with the year 2013.

I hate the fact that anybody can buy a weapon, I don't think it's their right unless you earn it (I definitely don't believe in a gun ban of any kind). The NRA is complete and utter shit, and the gun control lobby is complete and utter shit. Both are incredibly arrogant, and both are incredibly ignorant.

Simply put I don't believe in birthright of ANY kind. Hell I hate the fact that most people are allowed to fucking vote without earning that right. But what can you do except roll with it.

 

[Ranger Psych]

You're ignoring US Code...

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(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.


You joined the Militia when you turned 17, bub. You were in the Militia BEFORE you were in the army.

The 2nd amendment isn't rocket science. You're just reading into it entirely too much when it's very easy.

 

[Marauder06]

But you are in "the" militia brother. The militia is everyone (every male, technically) able to bear arms.

Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:

"(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."

The question of whether or not "keep and bear arms" is an individual right has already been settled by the Supreme Court. (Wiki follows:)

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]

Seeing that the Constitution grants all of its rights and privileges to all US citizens, you "earn" the right to keep and bear arms (and by extension to buy a gun) simply by being a US citizen living in the US. No further qualification is required.

The Constitution and its Amendments can be updated/added to/abrogated, it's just really really hard to do it. And that's probably a good thing. Otherwise, anytime a majority party had a firm grip on power, they could radically change... everything.

The Constitution is not perfect. But it has led to the development of the unambiguously most powerful and arguably most "free" country in the world. And that should count for something.

 

[dknob]

When you explain to me how this is considered "well regulated" as the 2nd Amendment calls for, then I'll take this US Code more seriously.

I don't consider a militia to be well regulated if the people don't know they are in it. Maybe your definition of well regulated is different from mine. Who knows.

 

[JBS]

Personally I don't believe it was ever meant to be an individual right when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

[snip]

They should have been more specific when it came to right to bear arms for personal self defense or hunting.

[snip]

[snip]

Simply put I don't believe in birthright of ANY kind. Hell I hate the fact that most people are allowed to fucking vote without earning that right. But what can you do except roll with it.

What do you make of all the other writings of the Framers regarding how necessary it is for the people to be governed by consent, and how important it was that they remain armed, so they could resist the resurgence of tyranny?

I 10,000% agree with you the Constitution itself doesn't come right out and say, "just in case we need a 1776 do-over". But every founding father has left other writings that give us crystal clear insight into their thinking- and into the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment.

Unlike vague documents open to interpretation, these other writings are almost always straightforward, not requiring any analysis, nor a working knowledge of Latin or anything else. We might be able to dick around with the language of the Constitution - I can twist it to justify owning a Howitzer, and others can twist it to justify high cap mag bans- but nobody can dick up what the Founding Fathers meant in their other writings (which are important for context):

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. "
Noah Webster

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison

If it is NOT today common knowledge WHO the militia is, and WHO was supposed to be armed and WHERE those arms were supposed to be kept (in the homes and hands and vaults of We The People), then you can thank our shit school system for not educating us on the things that matter most to this civilization. Instead of learning where our Liberty comes from, we are busy teaching our 14 year olds how to put condoms on bananas.

 

[dknob]

I completely agree with all those quotes. America should be armed. I personally don't believe that it is possible for the United States to become a tyrannical regime. There is too much oversight and barriers for an evil man to accomplish this. I think we can all agree that the president is not an evil person - just misguided. Not everybody is on the same road you are on.

And yes, you can interpret the constitution into allowing you a howitzer - which if it's meant to keep the population well armed so they are not subjugated. Then a howitzer is definitely well justified, right?

But back to the militia part - the moment "Well regulated" is inserted in the constitution: any talk of the entire population being a militia is rendered void.

 

[JBS]

I personally don't believe that it is possible for the United States to become a tyrannical regime.

What do you think is the guarantor of that 'belief' (which I share with you by the way)? Your opinion (which is the same as mine) is worthless if we can't back it up against those with unnatural power ambitions (history being replete with an infinite number of instances of them). We could be loud and pushy and stand on the corner with signs, but we will become subjects the same day we turn in our weapons, and no amount of protesting will change it. Protestors who are not ultimately backed by an armed 'militia' (i.e., population at large) .... well, let's just say they look kind of like that one really famous dead guy who stood in front of T-72's in Tienanmen Square.

What's the first thing we do when we want to liberate another nation that has fallen into tyranny? We arm them. And we do that because every time we encounter a nation that has fallen (key word) into tyranny, we always have to arm them... because to one degree or another, either by force, by stealth or by increments, they allowed themselves to be disarmed.

 

[Ranger Psych]

When you explain to me how this is considered "well regulated" as the 2nd Amendment calls for, then I'll take this US Code more seriously.

I don't consider a militia to be well regulated if the people don't know they are in it. Maybe your definition of well regulated is different from mine. Who knows.

I knew what the federal level militia was when I was 14. Granted, it was a 2nd amendment focused portion of my Rifle merit badge.... but hey, I was taught about it.

Here, learn some about state militias. Your position indicates you're in need of the information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

You can try to throw the blame at the constitution and think it needs revision all you want... but it doesn't. It's simple, it's just not being followed by so many tiers of government it's absurd.

Cases in point:
People, able-bodied, that can't f'ing treat a simple laceration
People, able-bodied, that can't protect themselves
People, able-bodied, that can't survive 72 hours away from home
People, able-bodied, that can't walk 10 miles


These are all skills I had blown out of the water in qualification......... when I was 12. I was a city boy too. Now the government's turning around and tossing up all these survival things... FEMA wants you to have a multi-month survival cache (since they know they don't help for shit)

No regulation for the unorganized militia? How about the Civilian Marksmanship Program? It's free choice to participate, but it's there if you want it. There's tons of other regulation and instruction out there that the government puts out. You can school yourself up with ICS courses from FEMA on communications, operations, etc etc etc.

but it's unorganized and takes someone who wants to take part to spend 30 seconds in front of google, or walk into your local governmental office and ask.

After all, while the last resort is everyone... wouldn't you much rather have someone who made a minimal effort to find out and volunteer to do something rather than someone who was told under threat of law that they had to be there? I mean... you did serve in a 3 time volunteer unit, as I did. It's nice when people actually WANT to be where they are.

 

[dknob]

The pieces needed for this to happen are all independent of each other: the military, local law enforcement, the department of justice, the house, the senate, the CIA, and the national guard would all have to join together to provide that person with tyrannical power. You really think all those pieces would come together regardless of whatever order is given? No of course not.

Nobody is going to take away people's weapons. 200 million guns out here - I think America is well armed against tyranny. Gun restrictions going on right now isn't going to do much to change the capability of the well armed American citizenry. Assault rifle bans? Fine, they could get away with that, it's not a crazy concept. Thinking that ATF, FBI, DEA, and local law enforcement will go door to door to confiscate weapons? That's a demented thought.

I feel like I'm the last realistic person left in the United States.

 

[Ranger Psych]

I completely agree with all those quotes. America should be armed. I personally don't believe that it is possible for the United States to become a tyrannical regime. There is too much oversight and barriers for an evil man to accomplish this. I think we can all agree that the president is not an evil person - just misguided. Not everybody is on the same road you are on.

Nope, the federal government has always treated everyone properly and with great care.

It's also treated it's veterans with great respect and appreciated their sacrifices.

 

[Servimus]

Personally I don't believe it was ever meant to be an individual right when they wrote the 2nd amendment. To me the text is cut and dry - "join a well regulated State militia not under Federal control and you can own weaponry with the purpose of combating the government if it was ever necessary". I'm pretty sure that's what they meant when they wrote it.

That's a possibility, but I think it highly unlikely given the pure amount of directly attributable quotations from the FF's and the authors of the Constitution that provide clear backing to the interpretation that the second amendment is most certainly an individual right.

I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.- George Mason

Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.- George Washington

As we all know, the current Constitution was not our first as a nation. The Articles of Confederation were passed first, and after proving themselves to be too weak in binding the nation they were replaced by the Constitution. The Constitution, however, was entirely controversial in that many thought that it made the central government too powerful and that it would infringe on the rights of individuals. My point, and the point of the Bill of Rights, are to enumerate the rights of INDIVIDUAL Americans and the States.The Constitution was ONLY politically possible after the guarantee was made that the first ten amendments would be made. I'd think that makes it pretty clear that the second amendment was most certainly written as a guarantee against government infringement on the right to bear arms by individuals.

With every passing decade, the constitution is becoming more arcane. But for some reason it's impossible to make it obsolete. 200 years ago there was no Islamic extremism that sought out nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons that can destroy cities. The personal weaponry itself is something the forefathers never accounted for - one AR-15 with 200 rounds of ammo can decimate a 100 person column of musket carrying men with ease from a safe distance.

How exactly has the Constitution become arcane? I'd argue that the Constitution will never be obsolete, because the enlightened political philosophy behind it is eternal. Freedom is eternal, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are eternal. These are rights that some believe to be rendered upon them by their creator while others, myself an atheist, believe them to be morally absolute.

Freedom and the aforementioned rights can only be guaranteed as long as the people are not subjects, but citizens. The second amendment guarantees us this by allowing us to be armed. What point is there to an armed populace if they aren't able to arm themselves with firearms at least similar to those currently used by the government and the military?

This attack on the "AR" is entirely disproportionate from a statistical point of view as well due to the fact that rifles of all sorts account for less the 2% of gun related deaths in the United States. There's no logical reason to be opposed to rifles. If opposing gun ownership was logical simply due to gun deaths, then handguns would be a more appropriate topic- yet all we see are "assault weapons bans" over and over again. Someone posted a quote regarding the political purpose of these bans and it made the statement that the only victory to be found in the AWB was a liberal victory in being one step close to making harsh gun control a reality in the USA. I couldn't agree more.

But stop trying to justify today's gun requirements for self defense by saying its what the fore fathers would have wanted. That's arrogant and incredibly INCREDIBLY ignorant. Just admit the 2nd amendment is incredibly flawed and arcane - and change it all together. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, as well as the right of the population to keep and bear Arms to protect their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, shall not be infringed" - BAM! Problem solved. If only there was a "Update Software Version" button on the constitution. We are all running version 1.1.0 and it's incompatible with the year 2013.

I'm apparently misunderstanding how it is ignorant to believe that firearm ownership circa 2013 is not exactly what the FF's prescribed. Also, your write-up for a new 2nd amendment sounds pretty good to me, in that in changes nothing. I see a right to form a militia as well as the right to keep and bear arms. How is that different from what we currently have in our second amendment?

 

[Th3 Maelstr0m]

Personally I don't believe it was ever meant to be an individual right when they wrote the 2nd amendment. To me the text is cut and dry - "join a well regulated State militia not under Federal control and you can own weaponry with the purpose of combating the government if it was ever necessary". I'm pretty sure that's what they meant when they wrote it.

While I understand this reading of the 2nd Amendment, it is a collective interpretation that is a 20th Century invention. It also shows a misunderstanding of the terminology of the day. As any Constitutional scholar will know, any time the Constitution mentions "rights" it applies on an individual basis. The term "powers" are linked specifically to the federal government

Most of your other views are addressed in detail in the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf , where it states that "the Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand in the scope of the second part, the operate clause."

All scholarly commentary from ratification to the late 19th century agrees with this reading. For example:

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constituion could by any of construction be conceived to give Congress a power to disarm the people. - William Rawle, "A View of the Constitution," 1829​

​

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams in the Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ​

Further reading on the development and interpretation of the 2nd Amendment can be found here:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Founders-Second-Amendment-Origins/dp/1566637929/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1358952258&sr=8-2&keywords=the founder's second amendment

They should have been more specific when it came to right to bear arms for personal self defense or hunting. That's their fault for fouling it up. I have an AR, I have a Glock. I'm not in a militia obviously. I, like all American citizens who are gun owners take advantage of what I believe is to be a misinterpreted text. Simply because I can. But I'm a minority who can tell it to your face that I am taking advantage of it instead of lie to myself in the mirror and say "the fore fathers wanted me to have this M240B". So if I'm being a hypocrite, which I am, then so be it.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you here as well. I'll cite just two cases for the sake of brevity:

• 1886 case of Presser v. People of Illinois- decided that "all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserve military force or reserve milita of the U.S. as well as the states." You later say you would give more consideration to the term "militia" if it were indeed regulated. I would respond in part by referring you to the above case of D.C. v. Miller, which states that the individual right to bear arms is not dependent on the existence of a militia. I would also refer you to the later statement in the Presser decision, which states "the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view prohibit the people from keeping & bearing arms..."
• The 1939 case of U.S. v. Miller- The Court made the case that weapons that the only weapons that could be regulated were those that did not contribute to the efficiency of the militia, thus putting military-style weapons under the umbrella of the 2nd Amendment. It also defined the militia as compromising "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense... 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." Furthermore:

This phrase does not conflict with the preceding sentence in the passage from Miller, for "enrollment" in the militia does not imply or depend on actual military service or training. Under the first Militia Act, for example, those subject to militia duty were enrolled by the local commanding officer, and then notified of that enrollment by a non-commissioned officer. § 1, 1 Stat. 271, 271 (1792). Whether the members carried out their duties or not, they were still "enrolled." Under the statute in effect at the time Miller was decided (as in the statute in force today), enrollment was accomplished by the operation of law alone, and most members of the militia were probably not even aware that they belonged to such a body. National Defense Act, ch. 134, § 57, 39 Stat. 166, 197 (1916); 10 U.S.C. § 311(a) (1994). Thus, neither the Miller opinion nor any of the various militia statutes can be used to shore up the insupportable notion that the Second Amendment protects only a right to serve in the National Guard. (Lund Nelson, The Past and Future of the Individual's Right to Arms, [Footnote 54], Georgia Law Review [1996].)​

With every passing decade, the constitution is becoming more arcane. But for some reason it's impossible to make it obsolete. 200 years ago there was no Islamic extremism that sought out nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons that can destroy cities. The personal weaponry itself is something the forefathers never accounted for - one AR-15 with 200 rounds of ammo can decimate a 100 person column of musket carrying men with ease from a safe distance. And 200 years ago gun crime was almost nonexistent (please take note of the word almost). I'm not saying we should only be allowed to buy single shot rifles with a reload time of 15 seconds - that's pretty fn stupid. But you can't tell me that if gave the writers of the constitution a little glimpse of the 21st century, they wouldn't have slightly "tweaked" some of the texts.


The idea that our 2nd Amendment rights are limited by advances in technology strikes me as odd.

What's more, the idea the fathers could not imagine such technology is erroneous as well. While they did not have an AK, they were aware of the potential for such technology. The Belton Flintlock rifle was presented to Congress in 1777. It was capable of shooting 16-20 balls in 16 seconds or less. Further info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock

Shortly later, the Giradoni Air Rifle was designed in 1779. It was carried on the Lewis & Clark expedition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

The thing that really perplexes me is all the concern over military style weapons to begin with. Statistically speaking, they are an infinitesimal portion of gun crime. More people are killed from hands & feet than are killed by ALL rifles.


But stop trying to justify today's gun requirements for self defense by saying its what the fore fathers would have wanted. That's arrogant and incredibly INCREDIBLY ignorant. Just admit the 2nd amendment is incredibly flawed and arcane - and change it all together. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, as well as the right of the population to keep and bear Arms to protect their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, shall not be infringed" - BAM! Problem solved. If only there was a "Update Software Version" button on the constitution. We are all running version 1.1.0 and it's incompatible with the year 2013.

The only evidence you have given for your personal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is your own personal opinion. Further evidence is needed for your to substantiate your case. I have have cited multiple Supreme Court decisions, scholarly works, and early commentaries to substantiate my understanding of the 2nd Amendment.

I agree that to us modern folk the 2nd Amendment may seem open to multiple interpretations, but it didn't seem that way to the founding fathers. If you read the commentaries and debates, the 2nd Amendment was one of the only Amendments that wasn't even really debated, because everyone saw it as a given. Multiple versions of the 2nd Amendment were submitted for review, but they decided on what we have today because the others versions seemed "redundant" to them.

I hate the fact that anybody can buy a weapon, I don't think it's their right unless you earn it (I definitely don't believe in a gun ban of any kind). The NRA is complete and utter shit, and the gun control lobby is complete and utter shit. Both are incredibly arrogant, and both are incredibly ignorant.

Simply put I don't believe in birthright of ANY kind. Hell I hate the fact that most people are allowed to fucking vote without earning that right. But what can you do except roll with it.

The topic of rights goes into a massive amount of philosophical territory, which would probably be a good topic for another thread, since it is one I am currently researching & not a 100% sure on, so I could benefit from the discussion.

The more I research the whole gun control issue, the more I realize we are wasting time. Through analyzing statistics, we can pinpoint where gun crime is the highest & with which group(s). We also have a plethora of studies that show the key factors that give rise to a violent society. But instead we focus on a symptom (gun crime), which will get us nowhere due to political climate, Constitutional ramifications, and the evidence that gun control doesn't work. We do all this at the expense of addressing the real problems. We should be addressing poor family structure, our broken criminal justice system, education, and poverty. At least in these area we have a chance of making some form of helpful legislation.

 

[Frank S.]

Did you know that back in the good old days (before 9/11 and in California), a foreigner with a temporary work permit (Employment Authorization Document) could go to the DMV, obtain a State ID under the name of their choice?
And with this, along with a utility or insurance bill showing their address, walk into a gun store, buy a handgun and obtain it fifteen days later?

Oh the good old days...

 

[JBS]

Ranger Psych

When you post stuff like that, although I love being reminded of the very recent past, I'm sure some people's eyes roll into the back of their heads. It's black and white photography, after all, which means it might as well be hieroglyphics from some long dead and forgotten ancient society.

Never mind many of those Japanese men and women- survivors - and their kids- are still walking around in Wal Mart and Chili's and Home Depot today, knowing what it's like to be a citizen and rounded up like cattle. We have a short memory in this country.

Great post.

 

[Brooklynben]

Did you know that back in the good old days (before 9/11 and in California), a foreigner with a temporary work permit (Employment Authorization Document) could go to the DMV, obtain a State ID under the name of their choice?
And with this, along with a utility or insurance bill showing their address, walk into a gun store, buy a handgun and obtain it fifteen days later?
Oh the good old days...

Don't you mean they could take their new name and credentials and run for public office?

 

[Frank S.]

Don't you mean they could take their new name and credentials and run for public office?

Didn't try that. I thought about doing it or the clergy but you know, pedos on one side and people who wee on each other while drinking Bailey's from Boy Scouts' shoes, it's all too rich even for my blood...

 

[Brooklynben]

Didn't try that. I thought about doing it or the clergy but you know, pedos on one side and people who wee on each other while drinking Bailey's from Boy Scouts' shoes, it's all too rich even for my blood...

Wake up man! I wrote "public" NOT "pubic" office!

 

[AWP]

The more I research the whole gun control issue, the more I realize we are wasting time. Through analyzing statistics, we can pinpoint where gun crime is the highest & with which group(s). We also have a plethora of studies that show the key factors that give rise to a violent society. But instead we focus on a symptom (gun crime), which will get us nowhere due to political climate, Constitutional ramifications, and the evidence that gun control doesn't work. We do all this at the expense of addressing the real problems. We should be addressing poor family structure, our broken criminal justice system, education, and poverty. At least in these area we have a chance of making some form of helpful legislation.

Silly rabbit, you and your logic...

Take away your guns and the children are safe. For the children!

 

[8654Maine]

Ranger Psych

When you post stuff like that, although I love being reminded of the very recent past, I'm sure some people's eyes roll into the back of their heads. It's black and white photography, after all, which means it might as well be hieroglyphics from some long dead and forgotten ancient society.

Never mind many of those Japanese men and women- survivors - and their kids- are still walking around in Wal Mart and Chili's and Home Depot today, knowing what it's like to be a citizen and rounded up like cattle. We have a short memory in this country.

Great post.

Thanks to you and Ranger Psych for that.

That shit could easily happen all over again: just change the ethnicity, color, religion, political leaning, hair color, language, etc...

 

[CDG]

Agreed. I contacted GEICO and am supposed to hear back within 24 hours.

I got this in response from GEICO:

"Thank you for contacting us and we appreciate your concern regarding this matter. There was some misunderstanding on our part in relation to the usage of the vehicle. We have reached out to the policyholder in an effort to clarify usage and continue his policy. We appreciate your business."

I e-mailed them asking for further clarification on their stance on insuring vehicles used for business purposes by those in the weapons industry. So we'll see.