We need a supreme jury - not a crooked court.  The Supreme Court has given us the civil war, corporate immunity, racial bigotry, a terrible president, and rule by rich filth.

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1762 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:53:18 AM

  (0+)

Well, lucky for us, we don’t have to figure out how to send them to Hell, they have bought their own ticket, and must walk through the path they have carved. “Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord”, to me, means we don’t have to get down in the muckity muck with the scum of the earth to make sure justice is served. The Universe has its own set of checks and balances that is far more reliable than any that mankind has thought up. So we can, hopefully, focus on something that feels more uplifting – such as our vision for a glorious new America, and invest our energies in that. And let karma take care of the rest. 

by Meryl Ann Butler (70 articles, 82 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 722 comments [29 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:10:44 PM

  (0+)

when was the last time a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN committed a crime with a gun?  Can you actually sit there and suggest that those who would actually follow the gun control laws are now, all of the sudden, start committing crime?

The notion is absurd.

here are some views from our founders..

"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."  -- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." -- The Federalist, No. 29 - Alexander Hamilton

The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- The Federalist, No. 46  - James Madison

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." - George Washington Address to 1st session of Congress

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington:

It is VERY clear How they perceived the Second Amendment, so when gun control advocates try to suggest that the founders did not mean this, or that, or that the founders could not predict the way our society is today...  I could refer you to the Declaration of Independence...  the royal government sent forth many bureaucracies to "harass our people and eat out their substance"

I have noticed many bureaucracies eating out my substance..  How bout you?

 Ciao, CZ

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:19:15 PM

  (0+)

simple question. Will more people die because of their decision?

The system is broken.  Blame whoever you want, but that's the reality. More will die. 

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:42:05 PM

  (0+)

Swimming Pool Accidents... people killed in traffic accidents, etc... More people will be dying as a result of the population increasing!

Yet, I do not hear the outcry to change the Constitution so that we can ban cars or to ban Cell Phones...

The only thing that I DO hear is outcry that the Supreme Court did not act as a legislative body and change the meaning of words so a gun ban could be justified.  A gun ban for a city, where despite the fact that there is a gun ban in effect more people are shot and killed illustrating one of most consistently high murder rates in the country... 

Ciao, CZ

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 7:21:19 AM

  (0+)

Excellent comment!  Rob's position on gun control is why I sometimes fear the left as much as I fear the right.  The nanny state can be just as cavalier with our Constitutional Rights as can the Nazi state. Never before in the history of the nation has the Second Amendment been more important than right now.  Only naive idealism could possibly cause one to believe that our rights will be restored without arms.  Ask the Jews.  

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:58:27 PM

  (0+)

What about Jews? I'm Jewish.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:14:01 PM

  (0+)

And I thought I read here on OEN at one time that you were Irish! Am I wrong on this account? Correct me.

I guess this means you won't approve my upcoming article on "the seeds of terror" which uses the word text of the old testament to make my points. But just in case, I'll send it in anyways because so many christians have told me how valid it is and let's see if you will 'approve' this Scotsman's opinion.

KG

by Levin Sheridan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 170 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 27, 2008 at 7:12:56 PM

  (0+)

I tend to leave that kind of article, which is questionable to them. What's the problem with old testament?

And before you make any assumptions or stereotype me, you might want to click on my name and check out my articles that I've written on Israel, AIPAC, etc.

Go to my articles page, hold down the control key, click on F for find, then type in ISrael or AIPAC and search. see what you find.  

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 27, 2008 at 7:55:01 PM

  (0+)

And they struggled mightily to obtain arms once the Nazi's came to power.  So you want to voluntarily disarm as we seem days within an attack on Iran and military rule?

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 27, 2008 at 7:15:00 PM

  (0+)

where did I say disarm? Show me? I just said they made a bad call and had a thousand other ways to protect the right to bear arms while still reducing urban violence.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:00:53 PM

  (0+)

where did I say disarm? Show me? I just said they made a bad call and had a thousand other ways to protect the right to bear arms while still reducing urban violence.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:01:09 PM

  (0+)

It is the logical implication from your conclusion demonizing the Court's decision striking down DC's ban on the ownership of handguns.  

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:55:14 PM

  (0+)

Yep! You nailed it! Rob's piece is about removing guns from the streets of America.

One of the bands I worked for named Lynyrd Skynyrd actually wrote a song about this same subject called "Saturday Night Special" about dumping handguns into the ocean.

I wrote a piece about how Ronnie Van Zant must of been one of those anti-gun liberals and in my piece on this subject I called him a communist for it and his daughter surrounded me with some of her toothless redneck friends to threaten my life for daring to call her daddy a communist for writing a suck ass song about gun control.

The way some of us feel about gun control is you give the government an inch and they will take a mile.

Give the government the handgun and they will take all of them.

I am not willing to give up not one firearm in the hands of law-abiding good Americans. I want them to be armed now and forever.

The moment this nation is disarmed is the moment this nation is truly dead. And I can not believe that Rob Kall would be calling on any of us to help kill our own nation going against the signed contract called the U.S. Constitution.

Like I said before, what Rob has done with this article is no different than me moving into Iran and writing articles for their citizens calling upon them to hand in their guns. It would stupid for anyone inside Iran to listen to me calling for their disarmament.

And likewise, I think it is a stupid idea for anyone inside America to be calling for any sort of gun control or disarmament of we the people. I can only look upon anyone who does this as someone who has a political agenda with the intent to destroy this nation and this is exactly how I think and feel about Rob Kall and his opinion.

If this angers some, then what can I say? This is my opinion and is the opinion of many millions upon millions of other Americans.

We will keep our guns- all of them. And this opinion will not be changing for anyone ever.

So please allow me to voice my opinion even if you don't like it.

I sit here and read your opinions and I don't like many of them, but you do not hear me running down the writer with personal attacks just because he or she wants to voice their opinion.

Have patience and consideration for all view points without personal attacks please.

KG

by Levin Sheridan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 170 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 7:49:55 AM

  (0+)

Then he took them to the concentration camps....

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 6:28:23 AM

  (0+)

thanks Steve ~ I agree with your argument, and WML's - we need to recognize what the past several bits of federal legislation have created in the US - and we need to prepare for the worst while hoping for the best (as Richard stated below)

by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 29, 2008 at 3:07:42 PM

  (0+)

The day when American cities and towns will become one open and bloody battle ground pitting millions of lethally/legally armed 'have-nots' against millions of Corporate run "cops" (Blackwater style) is not far away. How come? Put the jigsaw pieces together one by one, the first being the 9/11 conspiracy, followed by the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the fake War against Terrorism, warped justification of interrogation'torture', GITMO, rendition, FISA, aftermath of Katrina, the recent appointees at the Supreme Court, the 'privatization' of DoD, FISA and now THIS! I feel sorry for America and Americans! Hell is around the corner! Sorry, your prescription for this terminal cancer will not succeed. You Americans have been sitting on your butts for too long, dutifully paying your taxes like chicken,  getting 'entertained' by 'watch wolf' (opposite watch dog) Media, eating like gluttons, borrowing like kleptomaniacs and spending like idiots. America and Americans have become the laughing stock of the World! Stop hibernating and do something really serious now OR ........

by syed mahdi (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 156 comments [17 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:35:50 PM

  (0+)

even the supremes from hell acknowledged that handguns would do little against armoured vehicles and automatic weapons.

Their decision was strictly pandering to men who need guns to feel like men. The D.C. law didn't stop rifle owners from hunting. Get real.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:47:59 PM

  (0+)

The question is not just one of fighting against troops, but one of using the threat of force as a deterrence against an unjust intrusion into one's home. For example, if the U.S. were to strike Iran and food shortages thereafter occured in certain areas, a particular citizen and his or her family may run short of food themselves, but ration and hope for the best. Meanwhile, roving bands might feel free to enter into homes searching for food whether or not they know it is there. The mere showing of a shotgun could deter such a group from that citizen's home without the firing of a shot when other homes offer easier targets. Similarly, a neighborhood might organize itself into a defense force to protect the entire neighborhood as they learned to plant and grow their own produce. Again, without a defense, such efforts will only be stolen by those with superior power. You might enjoy reading Thomas Hobbes, the political theorist from whom the founding fathers probably derived their thinking on the Second Amendment.

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 27, 2008 at 8:52:53 PM

  (0+)

rob  lets see they banned handguns  from legal ownership  and the murder rate went up.

second  the first thing hitler did was take away guns from the people.

and third  you said handguns wont do much when fighting people with automatics and better tech.   We have the most advanced army in the world and so far a buch of bozos  with just aks and rpgs  are giving us fits.

by mike (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 92 comments) on Friday, Jun 27, 2008 at 3:02:56 PM

  (0+)

This is intense.

I know where Rob is coming from though I can not agree with him.

The U.S. Constitution is the document that defines by contract what it means to be an American. A signed contract Rob Kall does not have the authority to do away with.

The document says we as citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. This is what it means to be an American. And the U.S. Supreme Court just upheld this right and the liberals can't stand it! They lost another round in their march to destroying old America!

And yet here we have someone who is espousing unAmerican beliefs as though we should all jump on the bandwagon and agree with him that all America should be disarmed immediately so we can save lives.

We should all vote for that right? Let's just hand them the keys to this nation without a fight, is what they would like.

Is Rob Kall calling for the disarmament of all 80,000,000 gun owners inside America?

Is Rob Kall calling for the destruction of the U.S. Constitution? And calling for America to slide into tyranny without a fight?

Is this what the liberals really want? An unarmed America not able to defend itself from its own government or them?

This article is akin to someone like myself moving into Iran and writing articles on how they should disarm themselves so those I work for can clean their clocks without a fight. Who in their right mind would be so stupid as to fall for that?

Rob Kall goes on to say that tens of thousands of people are now going to lose their lives because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of constitutional rights for once!

I think Rob Kall's numbers are grossly exaggerated.

US Gun Statistics
Various Sources
2-2-5

 The above is from Rense.com.

It shows by the numbers that doctors actually kill far more humans than guns do, so why isn't Rob Kall calling for doctors to be outlawed by popular demand?

The bottom line here is plain for all to see... liberals do not align themselves with constitutional law. Liberals do not align themselves with what defines us as Americans.

Liberals continually want to change the definition of what it means to be an American every chance they get. Today many Americans no longer even recognize their own country and is it any wonder why?

The liberals who want to take our guns away and have us pay for every welfare recipient they can open our borders to are giving this nation away without a fight while their friends parade down the streets attached to each other in un-natural ways.

My ancestors fought bitterly for freedom on this land so 'outsiders' like Rob Kall can come into America and say the things he does here inside our nation. He can get away with it here- for now.

I am in favor of more guns on the streets of America! The more the better! But put them into law abiding responsible hands.

Funny thing about gun statistics... most of them are sold way down South... and any of you are welcome to come down here any time to try and take them away from us.

Southern Americans will defend this land with their very lives, while the northern liberal gives it away and expects everyone else to vote for it.

I can not agree Rob Kall. With this post you come across as an un-American big time.

KG

by Levin Sheridan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 170 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:38:19 PM

  (0+)

But it looks like you used a typical right wing spam approach, copying stupid propaganda that has been passed around among the right wing choir.

read what I said. I'm fine with people owning rifles for hunting or killing nazis in nazi germany or whatever they have the constitutional right to do (which I don't think includes killing US police, military, etc. as some here seem to suggest coming next week.

In urban areas, the SCOTUS decision will lead to deaths that didn't have to happen. That's what I said.  The rest, you, as a typical right-winger who doesn't do nuance, doesn't do what is actually said, made up.

You ought read and check before you wax on a right wing high.  

Now, let's get to your remark,

"outsiders' like Rob Kall can come into America and say the things he does here inside our nation. "

My grandfathers arrived here over 100 years ago.  My father was wounded in world war 2. My grandfather volunteered, at age 50, to serve in the war. I know, because the military had the papers run a story about his patriotism, though he was not born in the US. Your remark is despicable and shows your true character. I don't need to say the words to describe what you are. 

No. I'll tell you what you are. You're on review by the senior editorial management. I'll let them decide whether you're what I think you are. 

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 27, 2008 at 8:06:03 PM

  (0+)

I am despicable? Why? because we have a difference of opinion? I can no longer consider you as an American on the same page with me or my fellow Americans.

Americans don't call for disarmament plain and simple. Anyone who does is NOT an American in my viewpoint.

The contract gives us the right. That is what it means to be an American and I DO NOT welcome your opinion on these shores.

My family has been in this nation since the beginning. My family fought in the revolution and fought in the War For Southern Independence. My ancestors helped to create this nation while you and your family have enjoyed this nation and what it has to offer for 100 years.

I consider you an outsider to the ideas of the founding fathers, and you have brought into America strange and alien views which you publish here.

I am so conservative Rob I would round up illegals and escort them to the border and the liberals who said they could come here.

I am an American Rob and we do not see eye to eye on nothing.

You are a northern liberal and jewish, and I am a southern conservative and anti-religion- all of them.

We do not see eye to eye Rob and my ancestors gave yours the freedom to move here to say what you want to even if it is tearing this nation down from the inside out. You are a part of that destruction Rob if you dare to call for any kind of disarmament. Not acceptable to myself and many millions upon millions of others who would like to have shut down our borders long ago.

Look Rob, I am not challenging your citizenship to this nation. What I am challenging is your loyalty to this nation and what it means to be an American.

I think you should be ashamed to dare call for any kind of disarmament. Those are UN-American words Rob Kall whether you agree or not is beside the point.

My ancestors fought the wars which gave your ancestors the ability to move here and enjoy that freedom from which you bad mouth this nation and our contract which was WRITTEN by Southern men long before you or your family ever came to this shore.

Hear my words Rob Kall, I am an American of the old school- something you know nothing about. Nothing.

You can call me any name you want to, but I am a defender of America and I consider you and your liberal northern buddies as the ones who gave this nation away and sent the rest of us the bill while you dare to try and disarm us for whatever your future plans are with this nation.

It seems you have an agenda to help destroy America and call it news. And I am here to Kall you on it.

KG

PS: These are despicable words Rob that you should be ashamed of:

"I wish the worst for them-- not their families, but them. Their decision on guns will absolutely cause the deaths of thousands of innocent victims, more likely tens of thousands.  And I'm not exactly wishing the best for their families, either."

And then you claim this at the bottom:

"There are risks in going to the edges of the rights to free speech. So, to avoid recurrences of past visitations from government officials, let me be clear. I am only calling for actions and protests that are within the law."

I think your words and actions are unAmerican and I do not welcome them within my nation and I am saying so.

Rob Kall, sometime I think you go over the edge and way too far. Since it is your website you can get away with this kind of tyranny, but for people like me here on this website I am just your whipping boy so have at it.

by Levin Sheridan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 170 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 27, 2008 at 8:38:11 PM

  (0+)

You delude your self to think that your idea of america is anything the founding fathers might consider anything other than an embarassing foolishness at best, contemptible bad judgment and intolerance further down towards worse.

Again, I point out that I didn't call for banning weapons. I criticized the Supreme's decision. Read before you make things up.  

I assure you that even  the republican members of the house and senate would be embarassed by what you claim to be American. KKK yes. Not American. Your way of thinking is what has given Bush and his criminal henchmen the power to flush the US down the toilet for their corporate cronies.  

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:04:24 PM

  (0+)

I read your article as anti-gun, and I think you are trying to back off a little, but as to the racist rant this Southern psycho is on, I am all with you.  I have six great, great, great, uncles and a grandfather that fought for the union for no other reason than to make other men free, and a grandfather who was a hero in WWI as a machine gunner when only volunteers were machine gunners because their average life spans were six weeks.  The only immigrants the southerners were fighting for were the kind they turned into property, and it sounds like this commenter wants the good ole days to return.

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:08:39 AM

  (0+)

What I want is the America I know to return.

If 20,000,000 Mexicans cross over the border and begin living here, does that make them American?

And would it make any real American citizen a racist for saying "Go home?"

This is where we have come to here.

An American citizen can not open up his mouth in defense of this nation without being labeled as something negative from the left. Always negativity coming from the left. Hatred even. Calling for the President of the United States Of America to be put to death penalty. I call this unAmerican and irresponsible.

Rob is indeed trying to back away from his gun control stance.

Rob is saying he supports laws that are unconstitutional as long as they take any guns from Americans- his goal: removal of guns = disarmament.

I could not take this piece any other way. Rob was angry at the justices for actually supporting the U.S. Constitution- a document written by Southern men long before Rob and his family moved inside of this nation.

Rob said in his article he wished ill upon the justices! What kind of person does this? And is it wrong for other Americans to say to Rob that his opinion is not appreciated and is considered as UnAmerican? Where is the sin here?

Look my fellow Americans, what if this website was run by a Mexican??? And this Mexican was spouting his Mexican crap of taking back parts of America. Do any of you want to concede parts of this nation back to them just because they move in here and begin to run their mouths?

Are we suppose to listen to them forever and then cave in?

And will you label any American citizen who stands up to defend his nation as a racist scum for daring to defend his nation?

I guess my uncle Phil was a racist for doing his job in sending the Mexicans packing. I guess my uncle Phil was a horrible racist for killing Confederates and Indians for a career.

Some where along the line we all have to be something we might not agree with to save our nation.

This is exactly what is happening to me here though not with Mexicans obviously.

It is extremely difficult for a Southern conservative like myself to even open my mouth on this website. My opinion angers some people, especially Rob Kall for some reason.

I am not trying to anger Rob this morning, but I think that if Rob can dish it out there that he should be able to take it and understand that some Americans might see his attack upon the justices decision as unAmerican and I don't see anything wrong with stating my opinion.

I don't consider it a personal attack like the ones that have come my way on this website.

I am feeling like the lone Southern conservative whipping boy on this website and that I should be afraid to voice my opinion because of the wrath of people like Rob who want to dish it out there, but not take it without name calling and personal attacks.

I wish we could all get past that and have some real discussion here instead of one-sided propaganda.

I am not in favor of any gun control laws. Not in America. We already have some 22,000 of them on the books and maybe it is time the government enforced those instead of dreaming up new ones.

I am not here to cause anyone any problems. I am here to share opinions like any other, but it should be obvious I am not on the same page with liberals.

I am anti-homosexual. I am anti-feminist. I am anti-religion. I am anti-liberal, etc.

I am pro-heterosexual. I am pro-equality. I am pro-naturalism. I am pro-constitution. I am extremely conservative.

I come from an EXTREME family. I have lived an EXTREME life. My opinions are EXTREME. I am not your average follow-along politically correct mindless robot citizen.

I am different and some on this website can not handle my simple word arrangements.

I would call upon Rob to have more patience with differing opinions, even if that opinion labels him as unAmerican because of his own words as is the case here in my opinion.

If Americans are going to save this nation, then Americans will have to go far beyond politically correct verbiage to save it. And the vote won't save us either...

And I would hope some of you would understand where I am coming from.

My uncle Phil Sheridan marched around this nation- long before Rob and his family ever came here- with cannons, guns, and armies to blast into kingdom come any unwelcome enemies on this soil. This is the legacy of my family.

My uncle Phil could care less what the opinion was of anyone in front of his cannons. FIRE!

General Phil's son was a military aide to President Theodore Roosevelt. Captain Hugo Grocious Sheridan of South Carolina Confederate Infantry also marched cannons and guns around this country shooting down opposing opinions for a career.

My father went to Korea in 1954/1955 to also train military killers of the U.S. Army.

Sheridan men would rather shoot than discuss with the enemy. And here I am, a Sheridan man shooting with words only. A first.

What is wrong with asking immigrant invaders to leave? My ancestors gave their blood to create this nation for their posterity, not to give it away without a fight to anyone who wants to float over here and take America away from us.

Not going to happen.

KG

PS, as I write this another conservative Southerner just said to me:

"Are you still trying to teach the unteachable? Tell them if gun control actually worked, then why isn't NYC, London and Washington DC some of the safest cities on the planet?"

Apparently real Americans are not listening to the left any more, instead, many are out there purchasing items to defend themselves and their families... becauase they have that right and thank God the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with OLD America.

My camp commander standing here reading this says that today he will donate $100.00 to the NRA. I think I will join him. Today, $200.00 is being donated to the NRA on behalf of Rob Kall and this article.

Just yesterday my camp commander took a 7 year old boy and his father to the local shooting range to teach another American about being an American.

by Levin Sheridan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 170 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 6:46:34 AM

  (0+)

My camp commander standing here reading this says that today he will donate $100.00 to the NRA. I think I will join him. Today, $200.00 is being donated to the NRA on behalf of Rob Kall and this article.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

From one conservative Southern man to another, Donate to the Gun Owners of America or the Second Amendment Sisters instead. They don't compromise the Constitution the NRA does.

by Billy Coffey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 8:47:48 AM

  (0+)

I'm not anti gun, not even close. I'm anti Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas and bad judgment. They could have come up with other solutions that would have saved lives.

If anyone wants to give me a gun and more rifles as gifts, I'll take them. I'm all for people having the right to own a weapon, but there should be ways to cut gun violence in the cities, where things are out of control.

Right wingers just don't do nuance and that's what this is about. They should stay in their southern digs, doing what they need to do make up for feelings of masculine insecurity and not try to influence electioins of people who actually think and plan the future of the US-- a future where people have jobs and businesses are guided by regulations and taxes that are designed to protect the environment, the future and the long term economic and security  interests of the nation. Michael Moore wrote his book, Stupid White Men, for a good reason-- southern right wingers. 

I've written a bit about these stupid white men:

Friday, October 5, 2007
Wake Up Time for the "Stupid White Man"

Friday, August 18, 2006
I See Stupid White Men. What Makes Them That Way?

Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Diagnosis and Treatment of Right Wing Little Dick Syndrome

Saturday, February 18, 2006
Redneckville

Sunday, December 11, 2005
Some people aren't born stupid. They watch Fox and listen to right wing talk radio, and depend on their Ministers and Ra

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 9:45:02 AM

  (0+)

If your real goal is to cut crime then gun control isn't the answer. It's been proven to be a failure.

Better to start with things like ending the war on drugs, & privatizing roads & streets & turning them over to private security. 

by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 401 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1031 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 9:07:08 PM

  (0+)

Lining up to be led to the slaughter.

People with guns are not my concern. Zombies in uniform are the dangerous ones. 

Bulls don't eat meat, but they have horns for a damn good reason (video demonstration). This libertarian does not own a gun and would prefer be left alone, but do not be mistaken.. I can gore. 

by Ferdinand (17 articles, 4 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 259 comments) on Friday, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:04:31 PM

  (0+)

I can't make heads or tails of the news reports on this, http://www.mercurynews.com/southbaybaseball/ci_9712109

And apparently neither can the legal scholars on the SCOTUS decision.

But whatever SCOTUS said, I'm of the opinion that the 2nd Amendment allows us to protect ourselves from the government.  While they have all kinds of high tech gadgetry that can reduce a group of people to a quivering, pain-filled mass, and while my guns may do little to protect me from them, all the same, I'm glad I have them.

KG trolls our site merely to inflame; his misogyny has prompted me more than once to delete some of his venom.

Senior Editor chiming in.

by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:54:31 PM

  (0+)

Some may not be happy with the Supreme Court's ruling, but a careful reading of the Constitution, taken with the intent of its authors shows that the Supreme Court decided the case by the Constitution's literal meaning.

When the authors wrote it, their context was that the people would be the defenders of liberty, not to trust the government.  In fact, the authors had a healthy distrust of large government and knew that the citizenry would be best able to keep the government at bay.

Here's an axiom to go by:  When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.  When he government fears the people, there is liberty.

Furthermore, statistical averages bear out the fact that any state with a carry law usually has a decrease in violent crimes. 

by Michael Carl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:00:32 AM

  (0+)

Guns don't kill people the government does.

by Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 990 comments [34 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:16:49 AM

  (0+)

I therefore suggest ,very seriously, to only read William Kristol and other

great journalists of his ilk to get our information. They know how to be

certain in their diatribes. They can be sure because the voice of that

vengeful Old Testament God is whispering sweet nothings in their faun

like ears.

Us new Stepford ideologists will follow the right, The Right,  Righteous

and right on!

by Wolfie (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 1208 comments) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 1:00:01 AM

  (0+)

Radicalism, whether it comes from the right or left, is just as distasteful to the average American, even though both come with very valid reasonings for their particular position.

But, in all honesty, the Washington, DC Hand Gun Law was just too severe, the total banning of all such weapons to all citizens.  Even the idea that the law did not touch those who used shotguns and rifles for hunting, that same law which the Supreme Court struck down prohibited an owner of having any such hunting weapon even in their homes unless it was one, unloaded and two, equipped with a trigger lock.  It made the weapon completely useless in the event the homeowner needed to protect themself or their family from an all to frequent deadly home invasion.

Plainly, those engaged in heated debate over this subject from the extreme sides they have taken have done so without ever having "lived in the trenches".  I am old enough to span those years just before Congress passed what was to me the "infamous" Gun Control Law which they translated and took verbatum from the law enacted by Adolph Hitler when he took over political power in Germany, and the reason I suppose NRA types like to refer to Nazis governments and legislation.

Here is a brief glimpse into the world that existed in America before the Federal Gun Contol Law.  My first hand gun was an eight shot .22 revolver that cost me all of $8.  Had I been able to afford the model with the pearl handles, it would have set me back $12.  Down at our local Auto Repair/Hardware Store (Archer, Florida) you could put in an order for a semi-auto version of the famed Thompson Submachine Gun of gangster lore for the princely sum of $45.  Or, you could settle for a full automatic (not semi-auto) pearl handled .25 pocket gun for $25.  A good Remington .22 rifle was $18 at Sears with maybe a .308 (like they used in WWII) costing about $30, the same price as just about most caliber shotguns that were made.  My favorite was the 10 gauge.  For the gun buff out there, they even had a "Can" gun for $99 that actually looked like a large tin can with a pistol grip that spewed out hundreds of .22 rounds a minute.

Before I get too far, the year was 1963.  After they passed the Gun Control Law, all automatic weapons had to be registered with the Federal Government and the owner had to pay a huge $250 licensing fee.  And, for the first time, the number one home defense weapon was outlawed; the sawed-off shotgun.  I know because they confiscated mine when I was stopped outside of Brunswick, Georgia.  I was transporting some metal stampings for my employer in Florida, in my old "woody" station wagon, when Revenue Agents thought that I was hauling moonshine.  They found my shotgun under the seat and told me that it was against the new Federal Law to have one.  No fine.  No jail.  Just a laughing Revenue Agent walking off with my "open road protection".

I won't touch upon state laws concerning guns, their ownership and how they view "personal carry" because each state is different and constantly changing.  Today, in Georgia, they have what is called the "Castle Doctrine" which says I can use deadly force to protect myself, my property and others without the "fear of life" standard.  This law applies also to my vehicle and nullifies all laws pertaining to the carrying of weapons for self-defense if the person charged could have qualified under the law to obtain a carry permit.

In my youth, I lived in San Mateo, San Bruno and South San Francisco, California.  Our family moved to Northcentral Florida into a rural area, some 15 miles from Gainesville, Florida, home of the University of Florida.  In all those years, we never locked our doors at night.  Never.  But, at the age of 22, when I moved my family to Gainesville, we began to lock our doors both day and night.

What had changed?  Crime for one thing.  The city was rife with it; murders, muggings, rapes, home invasions; horrible things reported on a daily basis.  Now I don't have any statistics to back up what I am about to say, but it just seems to me that when I and my neighbors were armed and not under either state or Federal restrictions, we all seemed to live a more secure and safer life than we now have since Gun Control became the new dynamic in American society. 

Notice that I didn't label it either Liberal or Conservative because it is neither.  In my neck of the woods, Southeastern Georgia, speaking out for Gay Rights, the Poor, the Elderly and the Disabled and the way in which this state slights them at every opportunity, I am considered a Liberal.  But, having lived the life I have, seen the things I have, I become a Raging Conservative when others attempt to limit my most basic right, to protect and defend my person, my loved ones and my property from those who, by their actions, more resemble wild, untamable animals than they do human beings.

For the record, because Black Powder Firearms do not fall within the Federal Gun Control Law, at my front door I keep an 1851 civil war model .451 six shot revolver.  It's not meant to kill, but it will stop any attacker.  And, with my background in the Military Police, six rounds are enough to drop six people.  They used to put us on patrol with our .45, stateside, and give us 3 rounds.  The story was if you needed more than 3 bullets, you had better be engaged in WWIII.

As a final note, think the prices were cheap in 1963?  No, they weren't.  As late as the mid-90's, I knew a fellow who was an importer of firearms into this country whose residence was in Kentucky.  The reason for Kentucy was so he could engage in sales at Regional Gun Shows not only in Kentucky, but under Federal Law, the four adjoining states as well.  Anyone remember the Uzi?  He was selling them at $350 a pop.  His cost from the Ukraine?  $8 plus shipping.  That's not a misprint.  $8. 

So, does Gun Control work?  I don't know.  Are people more civilized since they restricted gun access?  I really wonder about that.  The only thing I do know, I don't feel as safe as I used to and all these laws and restrictions have served to make gun ownership a benefit only enjoyed by either the well-to-do or those engaged in illegal, high profit activities.  The average guy just doesn't stand a chance.

by Ernest Steadman (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 21 comments) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:59:20 AM

  (0+)

and the long perspective...

by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 29, 2008 at 5:21:35 PM

  (0+)

 JUST GOOGLE( DEBBIE O HARA, THE TRAGIC RESULTS OF GUN CONTROL) AND THIS MEANS YOU ROB KALL. SORRY DON'T HAVE THE LINK. GOOGLE AND RIGHT THERE.

by RICH SHA (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 106 comments) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 3:04:18 AM

  (0+)

Guns breed false security, complaisancy, and endless divide and conquer chaos.  Of course the crooks want suckers, and lazy cowards to have guns.  If only the cowards and bullies could knock each other off!

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1762 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 10:57:18 AM

  (0+)

 GOOGLE( THE BATTLE OF ATHENS TENNESSE)

by RICH SHA (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 106 comments) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 3:29:19 AM

  (0+)

Cretins?

by Rob Kall (716 articles, 3737 quicklinks, 301 diaries, 1432 comments) on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 at 6:55:08 PM

by Anton Grambihler (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 314 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 3:35:51 AM

  (0+)

Rob, Having read your "rant", I must say that I am torn by the content of your articule. Being a liberal like yourself I am deeply concerned by the Justices decision in regards to their decision allowing hand-guns in D.C. Because I believe as you do that thousands of people are going to suffer and die because of others need to act out their level of violence with the use of guns.

But, at the same time to be fair, our Fore-Fathers believed that citizens should have the right to carry guns for the protection of themselves, their family and perhaps for the country itself if needed.

Only if people could find a better way to settle their feuds without resorting to the gun, or for the criminal to do their mayhem without the need to shoot or be shot. The reality like it or not, is people are going to use guns and continue to create suffering and sorrow.

I do not own or will ever own a gun. I have gone hunting with a rifle and have had friends who own guns. These people are not criminals. They have not caused the death of a single person, yet the threat is there just as surely as I write this response.

It would be a wonderful world indeed if there was not a gun in the world. But, I would not like the idea that only criminals have the guns and the rest of us are left to their mercy without the means to protect ourselves and others. I would not like the idea that those in the govenment would come and take my constitutional right to protect myself if I choose to by owning a gun.

I believe that the Constitution is my gift, left by those who died for the right of liberty, freedom and the Pursuit of happiness. I'm more upset that the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights are being plundered by these same Justices of the Supreme Court and the President, Vice President and the members of the Legislative Branch of our government who have choosen to trample the 4th Amendment with the FISA bill.

I see the threat of my freedom being taken away faster than worries about the Gun Control issue create. We have seen our rights abandoned by those currently in power. I see America more worried about whose vote they will cast on American Idol, than what is going on in our country today.

Yes, Rob I think the Justices who reached this verdict will suffer. But I do not wish them any evil to befall them or their families. Instead, I hope they live long lives to see what their greed has wrought. As they near their deaths, I hope they understand that for all the money and power they have possessed in life it has not saved them from the death that countless thousands have experienced before them. Let that be the lesson they see and feel as they take that last long breath before going to the Great Unknown!

I think Rob you have a great idea, we need to make the leaders of this country feel very uncomfortable for the decisions they have reached. We need to hit them where they live, we need to follow them around, take pictures of the, make them feel like they are living under a microscope. All done within the legal limits allowed to us. Maybe, they need to be reminded who THE PEOPLE, are!!

by Tommytoons (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 4:20:18 AM

  (0+)

Americans own an lot of guns but that does not deter the govt from doing whaatever it wants to them. Americans claim that they use guns for hunting and to defend their homes. Hunting in this country is murder because unless you hunt for food there cannot me any reason for it and the only people who hunt for food are Indians and folks in Alaska. Defending their homes? That surely is a good call but we all know very well ( and that is what my gun instructor told me) that we kill innocent people due to paranoya much more often than we actually kill real, armed robbers. But, when it comes to guns Americans seem soooo tough. Why aren't you all tough, folks when your freedoms are taken away, your sustenance, your money? I wonder why did not you pick up all your guns and .. stop the war in Iraq- it kills your children. How about attacking some oil companies?

BTW, all that nonsense about Hitler taking guns from the Jews is idiocy. Jews in Germany had no guns. They were busy working. Neither did ordinary Germans. They also had to make ends meet.

The Supreme Court off this Country had decided that DC people can retain their right to buy guns. Heil for the gun industry. They have great lobbies. That surely will lead to more deaths as Rob predicted. But we should not worry about this, right? We, the tough ones should not worry that SCOTUS so far never had a case in front of it against Bush, the murderer. No one brought up a case against Cheney, the vampire. No one filed a suite on behalf of Katrina victims. But touch the guns- and we all are up in arms until TSA starts to strip us naked and we pay for it. Hey, tough men with big guns, you seem not so tough when your dignity and independence are trampled upon in the airports or when your children are killed in their schools by rabid cops who cannot do their jobs. Nope, you are not so tough, you, NRA members.

Cowards wave guns in the air and puff their cheeks. ' Just enter my house and see what happens'. I have news for you. They will not enter it. They will foreclose and you will sell your gun to the pawn store to cover the moving expenses. Then maybe you will understand that money can be spent better than to amuse yourself with high caliber and eat ostrich sandwiches in Cabela's.

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 6:57:11 AM

  (0+)

..."Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security.- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former System of Government."

From The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1793 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 7:52:39 AM

  (0+)

You, who are always so on point on your history, should read some of the history books on the anti-war and civil rights movements of the sixties and early seventies.  Particularly, you should read the history of the Black Panther movement and the Students for a Demoncratic Society (SDS) and its armed offspring, the Weathermen.  Few contemporary progressives realize that the United States was on the verge of armed revolution at the highwater mark of the resistance, with governmental operations sometimes being guarded by tanks and machine gun nests.  Americans do have their breaking point. 

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 9:17:03 PM

  (0+)

I agree with you 100%  our founders viewed gun ownership as a civic duty.  All  LAW ABIDING citizens need to own guns, and be proficient in their use.  The people, being the ultimate check and balance against tyranny were expected to be that check and balance.

The arguments used against gun ownership, are completely at odds with the Constitution.

Ciao, CZ

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 7:37:51 AM

  (0+)

Awesome!

Steve, you are an American I can be proud to stand next to and depend upon when the time comes. We are patriots loyal to our nation and the contract that defines us as such.

A wonderful comment and perfectly accurate!

Thank you!

KG

by Levin Sheridan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 170 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 8:05:51 AM

  (0+)

Guns are not a positive force in our society. They are meant to kill people, or animals. If you are in the woods, and need meat, they are great. If you live in DC, and bullets are flying everywhere, they don’t work out so well.

The idea that all Americans need guns, and need to practice with them, comes from a very paranoid mind. People tend to project their own inadequacies, fears and negative feelings on others because they assume that other people think just like them. But there are as many ways of thinking as there are people. 

I am not paranoid, and I don’t need a gun to assuage fears. I don’t think the government is coming for me, and even if they were, waving a gun at them is the quickest way to the grave I can think of.

People who live in the sticks don’t want city folk to tell them what they can and can’t do with guns. Us city folk don’t want those in the boonies telling us that everyone in DC can carry hidden sidearms. The SC has the power to strike down laws, but that doesn’t mean that their 5-4 split is a good, sound decision.

And to Steve who thinks that no one has ever been killed by a law abiding citizen with a gun, he is obviously in severe denial over the number of accidental gun killings every year by law abiding citizens. The number is in the hundreds per year. Also, the number of suicides committed with hand guns is very high each year (17,000 in 2005). 

If folks in the country want to carry guns because it makes them feel tough, fine. But the idea that a major US city can’t ban handguns when they are having a severe problem with handguns is absurd. 

Carrying handguns around town was very popular in the 1800’s. The practice was outlawed throughout the US due to the high death toll. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. 

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 8:31:36 AM

  (0+)

Drowning is the second leading cause of unintentional injury-related death among children ages 1 to 14.

Pools are legal in the United States.

The leading cause of DEATH, in the US, is caused by motor vehicles...  The average number of people masacred on our highways is around 42,000 + or -  

Automobiles are LEGAL in the US...

Now if you want to change the Constitution so that it bans guns, Like happened in Nazi Germany, Like In Pol Pott's Cambodia, Like in Stalin's Soviet Union, right before the genocide, there is a process.

However, the process, in this nation, is NOT to lean, politically on the Supreme Court of the US, instead, what you should be focussing on is finding 75% of the population who agree with you, because when ratification comes down, you will need at least that many people to cover the people who change their minds when they make their decision to have their rights ripped away

I would state simply that you will NEVER achieve the number of people required to ratify such an amendment, and you think you do, some of those personal attack words you used in your last post could easily be applied to your thinking. 

Ciao, CZ 

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 1:06:59 PM

  (0+)

No one who has ever been shot at and found themselves without a gun would ever make an argument for gun control.  The feeling cannot be described.  Nor can anyone who has been the victim of a home invasion who was without a gun make an argument for gun control.  Again, the feeling cannot be described.  Total nakedness, horror, helplessness, and rape, as you lay your body over your children trying to be a human sheild is as close as I can come. 

Yes, Steve, there are a lot of ad hominen attacks going on from people who should know better.

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 10:51:57 PM

  (0+)

now if I can just learn to deftly handle those heavy civil war swords my father inherited.

lol

by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 29, 2008 at 3:14:57 PM

  (0+)

From an international perspective, America's passion for guns seems really odd. A whole mythology has been built up around gun ownership. Rob, it is obvious you really touched a nerve. I know better than to comment before Americans on this topic, but oh well, here I go. In Japan, I could probably get a hunting rifle with enough patience, but my gender would make it difficult. The police have .39 caliber for men, .22 for women, but observe such strict rules that these guns are almost never used. The yakuza (organized criminals) have guns. They're noted for that. They use them mostly to shoot each other. I'm trying to think of a single place in Japan where I would not walk alone at night. Maybe Akihabara, because the latest thing is crazed loners with knives attacking pedestrians. You wouldn't have time to draw a gun even if you had one. The victims didn't have time to draw their cell phones! Japan's government has been corrupt for as long as anyone remembers, but the laws are generally lenient and I have the impression people enjoy much more American-type freedom in Japan than America since 911. As Mark Sashine has noted, I don't see how Americans' freedom to own guns has helped them at all with respect to an evil regime taking control of their lives. If anything, it is a distraction from the real issues! And I reckon Rob is right that relaxing hand gun restrictions in Washington D.C. will result in more deaths.

by Oh (7 articles, 5 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 321 comments [41 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 8:16:27 AM

  (0+)

"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 first part of this statement is an explanation for the second part, which is the recognition of an individual right. In the first part, the founders were justifying the recognition of that right by reasoning why it was necessary. They did not provide a requirement for the ownership of arms to be well regulated by a militia.

If the clause "being necessary to the security of a free state," could be eliminated, leaving a coherent statement behind, there might be arguments to the contrary, but as it stands, I see it as an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Of course, if my next door neighbor decided that his domicile was worth protecting with a 20mm Gatling gun, capable of a 6,000 round per minute rate of fire, I would be very concerned about the collateral damage he was capable of inflicting. That would be true even if the justification for pulling the trigger was inarguable. So I do agree that with the sorts of munitions that can be made available, reasonable regulation is in order.

Once again, we are tasked with finding an equitable balance. You'd think that we would have learned by now that it is the hardest thing for we poor creatures to do.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1793 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 8:31:40 AM

  (0+)

you try desperately to suggest that the founders meant something other than what they said...  reality is that you are against gun ownership, and you will read into something so that you can draw the conclusions you NEED to find to bolster your argument..

 When this fails, you attempt to suggest that the GOVERNMENT, the body that is supposed to be limited by the Constitution, should be the ultimate authority on what the Constitution means.  Which was predicted by the founders...

NOW, we have a Supreme Court  that says that your side's interpretation is wrong...

I never thought that the people of your side would become so visibly angry at having lost the argument.

Ciao, CZ 

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 29, 2008 at 2:48:00 PM

  (0+)

I said that I interpreted it to be the recognition of an individual right, which, by the way, the Supreme Court also did. I went on to say that it should not be considered to be an absolutely unrestricted right, which, if you read the Court's decision, the majority on the Court also said.

And as a matter of fact, I do own more than one gun.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1793 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:30:43 PM

  (0+)

would be all the "Constitutionalists" who are so zealous in the protection of the Second Amendment to put a little of that same fervor into the protection of all the rest of the amendments that have been abrogated by this administration.  I have no problems with adults owning guns of any kind, so long as they are properly licensed and educated in the necessity of keeping them secured from children and bad guys.  I do have a problem with those who yawn at articles about governmental spying on citizens and an Executive Branch who have totally neutered the Congress while holding our soldiers prisoner as perpetual gladiators in a fight to the death in a war without end.  Just as a hand gun will be no protection when the jack boots come for you, the Courts will be no salvation from the Inquisition.

by Mary Pitt (77 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 282 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 8:34:50 AM

  (0+)

when you bring up education for gun owners. The govenment would clearly be well within its bounds to require gun owners to demonstrate that they have completed training in gun safety, proficiency and security before allowing them to purchase a gun of any type. Indeed, there should be required training courses for for each general type of firearm. The recent Supreme Court decision acknowledged that the second amendment right is not absolute, nor is it to be universally applied.

Noone argues against the propriety of the government requiring training and licensing for an individual to drive a car. That is because there is a clear societal interest involved. There is no less a societal interest in responsible gun ownership. We need to simply keep in mind that there could arise an additional societal interest in citizens being able to own guns.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1793 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 9:21:06 AM

  (0+)

The law is well established that driving is a privilege extended by the state.  Gun ownership is a right under the Second Amendment.  Theoretically, the founders meant that the federal government could pass no law at all restricting the ability of a U.S. citizen to own firearms.  Also, a point of Constitutional Law we often miss is that the Constitution does not grant us rights.  It grants the federal government powers, and retains all powers and rights not explicitly granted the federal government to the states and citizens of the states.

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 11:02:27 PM

  (0+)

on a par with those recognized by the Constitution. I argued for the propriety of seeing to a societal interest in requiring training in both cases.

A requirement for training in the safety, proficiency of use, and security of firearms would not infringe the right to keep and bear arms any more than the requirement for a background check or an owner's identification card issued by the state. The benefits to society of such a requirement I see as inarguable.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1793 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 29, 2008 at 6:35:14 AM

  (0+)

for use by my son and I, I sought out training courses and I deem them to be of benefit to me, the firearm owner.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1793 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 29, 2008 at 6:40:04 AM

  (0+)

I reserve ALL of my rights. Increasingly, our government is all about "societal interests" "interpreting" that I have only the right to submit to my government masters.

Our society will be remembered as 'Wimpus Americanis Apologeticus".

by John Danforth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 98 comments) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 2:28:54 PM

  (0+)

Rob Kall is a gun grabber. He wants us defenseless against criminals. Gun bans increase crime since its makes law abiding people defenseless against armed criminals. The Supreme Court made the right decision but they used the wrong argument. Its the 9th amendment not the 2nd amendment that protects an individual's right to bear arms. I think the Supreme Court justices made the decision they made so they can promote the stereotype that conservatives support the right to bear arms and that liberals oppose the right to bear arms. The TPTB want to cause a war between liberals and conservatives.

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 9:29:00 AM

  (0+)

...but don't forget the 10th Amendment. See my diary entry:

Supreme Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 401 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1031 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 4:39:59 PM

  (0+)

Its the government who should be disarmed not law abiding people.

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 9:32:12 AM

  (0+)

from a discussion of the Supreme Court.

We have, as the nation has become more divided, seen court appointments that eschewed the ideological balance that makes for useful rulings. Fearful of democracy, both right and left have labored to pack the court.

Fear not, Rob. If we see a Democratic presidential victory this November, you will see a rapid retirement of the remaining liberals on the court, sighing with relief that they can finally enjoy what remains of their lives, comfortable in the security of liberal appointments and (we presume) liberal confirmations. Which doesn't mean we're going to get a great court. But it will surely be a different court and one unlikely to overturn the likes of Roe and other lberal (progressive?) icons.

by Jim Freeman (108 articles, 53 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 386 comments) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 10:28:10 AM

  (0+)

She wishes the decision would be reversed. She also came out in support of Ron Paul. Yay, the country will be great because there will be abortions for all! A great country would be one in which children are viewed as gifts from God, not parasites that need to be killed. There are a lot of rights I am glad to have (and wish I had back), but the ability to kill an unborn life is not one of them.

by Ferdinand (17 articles, 4 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 259 comments) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 11:03:21 AM

  (0+)

Then the undead do not?

This is not an argument. This is a question that I believe no one on Earth

can answer. Therefore if God is within us all , we each can morally answer it

with our own voices. Therefore, the right to choose is a God given right!

by Wolfie (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 1208 comments) on Sunday, Jun 29, 2008 at 5:42:10 PM

  (0+)

I tried adopting a pacifist stance back in '69 but realized a year later, newly married, that in the hypothetical situation of an intruder attacking her or me that I would use deadly force (if available .. kitchen knife, baseball bat or whatever came to hand) and probably not feel much guilt or regret. 

I had little inclination, however, to purchase a gun through all those intervening years - even though I was familiar with them and had been in a rifle club as a youth. I didn't like hunting particularly and feel rather, a kinship with all life. But I always knew that if I had to hunt to live.. I would. Further, as an aside, every hunter I've ever personally known utilized the animals they killed for food (that there are others who do not do so, I acknowledge and I despise them). But hunting for food always seemed somehow more honest than going down to the store and buying plastic wrapped animal burger... and never acknowledging just where that package came from nor the hideous practices of the meat industry. I remember sitting at the dinner table as one of four children who knew better than to remind my father that his hamburger had once been a living animal. He'd literally sicken visibly. To his credit, he became a vegan at age 87 and still is today at 96. Because he feels that kinship with living creatures. While I am verging in that direction, I know I still would hunt to live if necessary.

But, with the increasing fear I feel towards the government, its concentration camps, its Blackwater, it denigration of the Constitution and new laws and presidential directives designed to make martial law an 'easy' transition.. and because of its comprehensive 'List' of dissenters....  

...I decided to become educated in and own firearms.... not least because of the probable chaos that will result from the evident continuing descent into the black hole of economic and social destruction (can you see it? can you sense it coming?) pre-planned and purposeful by the 'elites' (or whatever you wish to call them)

If the chaos, if martial law, if the destruction of America's economic and social fabric do not occur.... well my guns will remain locked up. Hell, I even qualified for and obtained my concealed carry permit... but my Glock is locked up. I've yet to carry it anywhere. But in the wild but perhaps not so fanciful possibility that 'they' will come for me (as they may come for others who post here - and don't imagine that the list does not exist - I do not intend to go to a camp. 

And if there are later days and hunting is a necessity, I have an experienced 'good ole boy' and 'good not so old gal' hunters (actually very savvy and pretty knowledgeable folks) teaching my son and me how to hunt.

To be naive about what looks increasingly likely to happen in this country and not be as prepared as possible would be the height of idiocy from my point of view. To be prepared and never have to rely upon that preparedness would be a blessing.  I sincerely pray for that.

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 11:20:17 AM

  (0+)

I CAN FEEL IT AND SENSE IT AND ITS COMING SOON,  WE ARE AT THE POINT OF NO RETURN, AND  WITHOUT OUR GUNS TO PROTECT OUR FAMILY AND HOMES,WITH OPEN BORDERS WHO KNOWS WHO IS COMING INTO THIS COUNTRY.

by RICH SHA (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 106 comments) on Sunday, Jun 29, 2008 at 1:35:11 AM

  (0+)

According to Michael Moore's film, Bowling for Columbine, Canada has 9 million citizens and 7 million guns, yet its murder rate is nearly non-existent.

Disarming citizens isn't the proper solution (and it violates the 2nd Amendment); changing our culture from the bottom up will drive down murder rates.

imo 

by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 29, 2008 at 2:55:22 PM

  (0+)

Because you sound an awful lot like a Libertarian, to me, and I am LIKING it!

Spot on with your comment.

Ciao, CZ 

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 30, 2008 at 8:30:24 AM

  (0+)

Mexico is a perfect example of a ban on guns for citizens. Right now the drug cartels are SLAUGHTERING citizens because they obey their ban on guns. ONLY the criminals have them in mexico and the citizens are helpless because they obey their laws and face draconian punishments if they were to disobey. You are obviously a crook who is lusting for power over others, and only CROOKS can get so worked up when their will is thwarted. Law-abiding citizens don't go shooting other people with their guns and you CAN'T keep guns out of the hands of the criminals because they DON'T go by the law. You're disgusting because you are one of those people who tout reason over faith, yet you sound retarded on this issue. Get a life or change jobs, you sux at reasoning 101. I mark this article an 'F'.

by Zena Princess (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 89 comments) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 11:33:23 AM

  (0+)

The U.S. is considered to be a mature democracy. Countries such as Mexico have not yet gained that status. The mature democracies of Europe and countries like Canada and Australia do not need to have guns in every pantry why does the U.S. ? What is it in the national character of America that warrants hundreds of millions of guns proliferated across the social landscape? As one commentator above mentioned, the original framers of the Constitution did not envision each and every household being awash in arms but only that arms be available at all times for militia purposes. Why did that mutate into the situation the country is in today? America is in love with arms, not just rifles but semi-automatics and hanguns of all kinds. Why? Is it an offshoot of U.S. militarism, the love of the military for itself rather than the understanding that the military is a necessary evil? Maybe someone out there knows the answers to these questions, I sure don't.

by Archie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1755 comments [111 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 11:46:03 AM

  (0+)

It's people like this author with mindsets like his that makes it necessary to have guns to defend ourselves from their ideology. Unlike England or those old rich dictators, we have a constitution...and a country that foreign nations have ALWAYS lusted to control. Free Trade and traitors in our government are working on making that possible. Ya'll foreigners go ahead and bend over for your fat cat pedophiles....WE won't take it! And it's really NONE of ur business if we have guns or not. In fact, your public criticisms of our rights make me EXTREMELY suspicious of your motivations and agendas. Now more than any other time in our history I do not hesitate to advise you to BACK OFF or bite American bullets. Period. 

by Zena Princess (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 89 comments) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:11:50 PM

  (0+)

Rob,

Your email asked readers to read this exchange and give an opinion, so here it is.

Among my rights, I have a right to defend myself, with whatever weapon I choose to prepare myself with.

My rights are not granted by the government. Some of them were recognized by the first ten amendments, clearly to limit the power of government, the last two of which were included to make clear that rights are retained by the people and not granted by the government, and that the listing of a few of them does not constitute the list of all the rights that will be respected.

That said, this ruling was correct in that the banning of handguns is unconstitutional. It goes against the letter of the second amendment, which is the law of the land. It goes against the fully and clearly stated intentions of the founders of the country. And it directly violates the rights of citizens.

I retain my rights whether my government chooses to recognize them or not. If they outlaw me with the stroke of a pen, I will strive not to get caught, but I will not willingly submit. The most fundamental right is the right to my own life. Corollary to that is the right to protect my life. I will not allow the government to make it easier for thugs to end my life just because thugs and other idiots use guns to commit crimes or misuse them and cause accidents. My rights, my life, are not to be discarded just because there are idiots in society.

And the most important point here, about the loss of life: societies that have suffered disarmament by their governments have been the subject of genocide. The number of deaths that could have been avoided by an armed and beligerent citizenry must surely run into the hundreds of millions. An armed citizenry is a deterrent to ambitious tyrants. Yes, if armed conflict breaks out there are terrible consequences. But disarmed populations suffer a much worse fate when they can murder unopposed. I suppose most people would rather submit and hope for benevolence out of their masters. I won't.

Whether one is liberal or conservative or neither, I think everyone can agree that the rules of government throughout history are that the only thing restraining any government is the threat of losing their jobs or being violently overthrown. Any pretense at following rules and laws or constitutions is simply window dressing. Most politicians have contempt for our constitution, and their designs would have us all enslaved. And I am talking about politicians from either 'side'.

The second amendment wasn't put there to make sure our army can have guns - how ridiculous would it be to have an army without guns? It was put there to make sure our army follows the rules and doesn't get instructed to turn its guns on the citizenry.

So I will exercise that right whether it makes me an outlaw or not. It is with a sigh of relief that I see that the court has finally recognized what I consider to be plainly obvious. I consider it my patriotic duty to be armed, ready, and in practice.

I don't care about the lineage of any who agree or disagree with me. But the bottom line of any political stance or proposal is, do you have to send men with guns around to force people to comply with whatever it is you are proposing? And in this case, those who want me to be an unarmed victim want to make it easier to send those men around. I fear the day when there is no deterrent.

Rob, please realize that people who view gun bans as unconstitutional regard them as a potential threat to their own life. And to people who argue about it -- leave your lineage and that of others out of it. It's completely beside the point, it becomes a red herring, and it degrades into insults. And you are both guilty of that.

Furthermore, I consider it to be in extremely bad taste to wish ill upon the members of the court in a publication. We can easily guess what's in your heart by your position on the issue. Everyone harbors such feelings at one time or another, but publishing them does not serve to persuade anyone. It shows bad judgement to express these wishes because it degrades the argument away from reason, it can be interpreted as a call for some loony to harm them, and it hardens opposition not only to your position, but to you personally because it discredits you to express it this way. And their families are somehow to suffer as well? ("And I'm not exactly wishing the best for their families, either.")  Rob, you should be ashamed of that, and you should retract and apologize, and strive to stick to reason and logic with your editorials. Shoot down my opinions expressed above with extreme prejudice if you like. But will you wish ill fortune on me, too?

by John Danforth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 98 comments) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 2:20:02 PM

  (0+)

Congratulations John.  This is by far the best comment to Rob's article.  He is usually so convincing, and the attack on the families is beneath him.  I understand he probably wrote the article out of anger, but that is not an excuse.  The families of these justices are in no way responsible for their political leanings.  In fact, many of these men are personally very likeable.

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 11:22:23 PM

  (0+)

To keep and bear arms is a civil liberty. It allows you and me to protect ourselves.

These judges were on the right side *for once.* The problem is, they did not rule *for* the second amendment. They did not rule against it, sure, but they did not rule that every last federal gun law is unconstitutional.

They ruled that to keep and bear arms is an *individual* *privilege* not a *right.*

Well, it is a *right.* And it is *individual,* as, what other kind of right is there???

I am horrified that it was only 5 and not all 9.

Please see my blog essay as I cannot write all the necessary words here to explain it all.

Suffice it to say that if individuals are not allowed to have guns, and I mean without permission from Big Brother, then we are not a free country.

So...we are not a free country.

Can't figure out why the Left claims to be so gung-ho on civil liberties but wants Big Brother to disarm us.

See http://www.alicelillieandher.blogspot.com

by Alice Lillie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 72 comments [16 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 3:16:54 PM

  (0+)

Zena, you're no princess but you have really weird ideas! Either that or you're expressing irony. I prefer to think it's the latter.

by Archie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1755 comments [111 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 3:34:27 PM

  (0+)

...Article I, section 21 of the Commonwealth's Constitution reads:

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

****

Too bad the Framers of the fed Constitution weren't clearer about their intent.

BTW, I read our state Constitution as also allowing carrying guns. Requiringing gun registration or needing approval  for gun purchases are other ways of questioning the right to bear arms & are prohibited.

by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 401 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1031 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 28, 2008 at 4:58:00 PM

  (0+)

"Right wingers just don't do nuance and that's what this is about."

Where is the nuance in banning the possession of all handguns in all homes within an entire city? 

Where is the nuance in decaring any law that saves any lives to therefore be a "good" law?

In my view it's about time the Supreme Court affirmed an individual right to bear arms within the 2nd Amendment. And with the stated existence of such a right, though one that is not absolute such as would permit open carry everywhere, the SCOTUS really had no choice but to stirke down D.C.'s draconian gun laws.  

The SCOTUS has recognized that the 2nd Amendment allows for protecting oneself in ones home with a firearm. I say hooray for SCOTUS! It finally got one right. And calling for some of the Supremes to literally "go to hell" over this issue was in bad form. 

by Sam Adams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments) on Sunday, Jun 29, 2008 at 3:09:56 AM

  (0+)

I thought the personal attacks were disgusting.

by Scott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 744 comments [30 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 29, 2008 at 11:04:55 AM

  (0+)

Anybody who attempts to pull this harassment-style protest that you espouse will open themselves up for an equal counter-protest, measure for measure. Harass the justices and their wives?? You might get the same treatment, along with the rest of your family. Do you really want to go down that path? Be prepared to take what you dish out.

And let's get this clear: If some right-wing nuts tried to pull this harassment crap on the other four justices, then they would deserve the same counter-protest. How's that for "nuance"?

by Scott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 744 comments [30 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 29, 2008 at 1:43:57 PM

  (0+)

Rob, I can understand your wishing bad karma on these justices, but I don't see why you would do the same for their families. We are all responsible for our own actions, not those of our fathers, sons, or brothers. For all we know, these justices' family members could be advocates for responsible gun control. In that case, we can send them to Heaven....

by Kris Malmquist (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 108 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 1, 2008 at 7:33:27 AM

  (0+)