http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2013/01/31/gun-nuttery-quote-of-the-day Comments On: Gun nuttery quote of the day by Max Brantley en-us Copyright 2013 Arkansas Times. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Arkansas Times readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Arkansas Times. robert@arktimes.com (Arkansas Times Webmaster) Tue, 18 Jun 2013 00:00:01 -0500 Tue, 18 Jun 2013 21:30:00 -0500 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
From the time of the Founders, regulated meant trained, proficient, not control and limited by some bureaucracy. An individual was meant to be 'well regulated' in his use of that firearm. I endorse that. I believe everyone should know how to use a firearm. But the meaning, as written was never meant to provide for limits on a fundamental individual right. The Second is NOT about militias, it is about individuals who make up the militias. It is what they wrote later in defense of the Constitution that because militias were made up of the individual citizen, the individual citizen was born with a right of defense.

As for the full auto stuff, I am okay with how it is, with no additional additions of semi auto weapons.

You know what, the Founders DID know how the future would create things like machine guns and missiles and such. They were experts at history and had known of the evolution of everything but human nature. From their time, they knew such things as artillery were not within the provision of an individual, no matter the cool factor.
Posted by Steven E]]> Fri, 01 Feb 2013 07:51:57 -0600 Arkansas Times
Thanks for your answers, Steven E but I've been called worse things than an idiot, usually, before lunch, on most days. Which doesn't mean I won't defend myself. It IS an extreme progression from personal firearms all the way to atomic weapons, I'll admit, but seriously the founding fathers could have never imagined the type of firepower and technology which we have available today so we're just guessing at what they would mean if they were alive today. How could they have known? But I don't think the meaning of "well-regulated" or "militia" has changed over the years. "Well-regulated contains the term regulated, does it not? What do you make of that? How do you come to the conclusion that "well-regulated" means no restrictions at all, even if we rule out tanks, missiles and nuclear weapons? And what is a militia in your mind? Is it you and your friends? No offense, but those are English words and we both speak English and words DO have meaning. If those words are encoded and preserved in the Second Amendment, then I contend they can't be conveniently overlooked.

"As a practical thing for even groups, like legitimate militias, they have very limited practical use."

"Very limited use" is subjective, an opinion. I don't doubt your expertise on the subject but other militias might have a different opinion. Not to mention, that you dodged the question. Should the militias of which you speak have those restrictions imposed on them? Does "well-regulated militia" not have a direct and non-ambiguous meaning in this case? Again, we both use the English language.

"As for full auto stuff, there are already heavy regulations on those, so there is no need to regulate or ban them."

The full auto stuff requires, I think, a special license to own one and there are more extensive background checks. Do you agree with that requirement or are you saying that there should be no additional regulations? I'm OK with that, as it is, myself but I think it should be extended to lesser weapons such as semi-automatic "assault" style weapons as well.

"I don't live in fear of anyone or anything. That seems to be a popular fantasy by most."

I believe you and I consider it to be an admirable trait. When I used the term "afraid", I meant something more like "concern" more so than "fear". I should have been more exact and since I've already stated that words have meaning---I am hoisted on my own petard.

"Mother Jones notwithstanding, with their highly flawed responses to the so-called myths, one of the better examples of more guns less crime happened in Florida after the CCW laws went into affect. The Hoplophobes predicted high death rates, which never materialized. Likewise, since the number of CCWs in Arkansas has nearly doubles, thanks to data from Max, we will not see a nearly double death rates. Well, maybe you will, but it will be bad guys shot by good guys."

Frankly, there are so many "studies" and statistics floating around on this subject that it absolutely boggles the mind. I see many that I HOPE are true, those which reinforce my political beliefs but, in reality, I don't know if they can be trusted. It seems impossible that anyone could come to a concrete conclusion on the subject. For the same reason, I never watch the presidential debates, both candidates are armed with studies and statistics to counter the studies and statistics of the other. Aside from the occasional, heartwarming story about some orphan or widow encountered out on the campaign by BOTH of them, of course, it distills down to a wasted 2 hours. No minds are changed by crap like that. If you guys actually do double the death rate with all bad guys then we'll have no bad guys left after a while. If that happens, I'm on your side, I promise. But not yet, my gut says more guns just means more death for everybody.

Thanks for your answers.
Posted by Olphart]]> Fri, 01 Feb 2013 00:55:22 -0600 Arkansas Times
Again, the question of whether the Second cover tanks and missiles is an idiot question. The idea and intent of the Second is for personal arms. It is a practical phrasing of a basic right we all have at birth. A full auto weapon, like an M16, yes, I have a right to that, tanks, not even close.

As a practical thing for even groups, like legitimate militias, they have very limited practical use.

No, I don't believe in restrictions, but there can, and should be some regulation. We have these regulations in place now, such as background checks that should include nationalizing the mental health database. Folks that are on serious psyche drugs should be monitored for problems.

These are sensible things to do. Banning military style rifles and high capacity magazines ARE an infringement, and only affect those that are legal, making them less well equipped against the criminal element.

As for full auto stuff, there are already heavy regulations on those, so there is no need to regulate or ban them. I might like the idea of them, but I do have a prejudice against full auto. It often replaces accuracy in the shooter's mind, and hit probability suffers. At Vegas, one of many times, I cheerfully out shot guys with a machine gun. Just me and my little 13 shot Browning Hi-Power with two extra mags in one lane, and a guy with an MP5 in the other lane. Even after I tried to show the guys the benefits of short, controlled bursts, they would spray 30 rds all over the target. Meanwhile I could put all three mag loads no further beyond the 9-ring, with some double taps to the head just for grins.

I don't like full auto, though I don't begrudge my fellow American his right to one.

I don't live in fear of anyone or anything. That seems to be a popular fantasy by most. There are the tragically stupid like DBI who consider an armed person a paranoid person. Prepared is not paranoid. As far as fear of my GOtv, I think George Washington put it best, "Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty … Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire: a dangerous servant and a terrible master.” I believe, Olphart, that like me, your no fan of these crazy drug laws. TH\hey have extended the power and scope of Govt to an onerous level. Eureka Springs speaks sagely when he points out certain outrages of our govt, under both Dem and GOP leaders. No, I have no fear. Fear is a silly thing to endure. I do know, for a fact, that things can go south at any time, for any one of a number of reasons, and it pays to be prepared.

I do know that is MORE of us took our personal protection more seriously, and if more opted to carry and keep at LEAST one rifle, one shotgun and one handgun in their home, yes, murder rates would go down, along with rape and assault and robberies. Mother Jones notwithstanding, with their highly flawed responses to the so-called myths, one of the better examples of more guns less crime happened in Florida after the CCW laws went into affect. The Hoplophobes predicted high death rates, which never materialized. Likewise, since the number of CCWs in Arkansas has nearly doubles, thanks to data from Max, we will not see a nearly double death rates. Well, maybe you will, but it will be bad guys shot by good guys.

Olphart, the riots were NOT pivotal. You make a grave mistake, and a sadly erroneous assumption. I was a gun owner and an active and competitive shooter years BEFORE the riots. Those riots reinforced some of the conclusions I had come to about the utility of assault weapon bans and no available CCW laws in Kali. I had a lot of experience living in one of the most gun hostile cities in one of the most gun hostile states in the country. In Kali, with its coddling of criminals by keeping the citizenry disarmed, I had several occasions where my having a gun saved my life, and in one instance, saved the live of a couple. When I moved to states where they didn't have idiot gun laws, I had fewer problems. Point in fact, I had NO problems. My neighbors were armed, and we were respectful, friendly and very helpful to each other. I taught my wolves to help me keep the coyotes away from my neighbors livestock, and my neighbor would give us eggs and some meat from a cow he would occasionally slaughter. I found peace.

Yes, there are practical limitations, and I accept them as they exceed the intent of the Second.

Does that help, Olphart?
Posted by Steven E]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 23:05:03 -0600 Arkansas Times
The easy acceptance of the low numbers has not been accepted widely. Here is another historian that wrote a fairly detailed article on the Uprising.

http://www.historynet.com/world-war-ii-war…

The history of many things is usually fodder for lively debate. Hilberg and Gutman aren't entirely reliable, nor are they easy to dismiss, they do have serious flaws, and others have answered some of the nagging inconsistencies by those two authors.

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?…

I have read those books, and more. From what I was able to glean fom many of those books, including Nazis sources that were used at the Nuremburg trials, Nazi dead was at least almost a hundred, with almost a thousand wounded.

You also ignore another fact to revise history, that poorly armed and badly outnumbered Jews who were half starved had held off thousands of Nazi soldiers for more than a month. Against armored cars and flame throwers, these people fought with nothing but knives and pitchforks. Now, imagine if they had been armed as the Nazis had been armed. Imagine if they had been armed as Americans, now, are armed.

Different results.
Posted by Steven E]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 22:25:55 -0600 Arkansas Times
http://tinyurl.com/an2s84x
Posted by Hackett]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:11:49 -0600 Arkansas Times
Steven E seems to be a non-troll gun advocate who occasionally makes a little sense to me and, when he doesn't agree with me, he's merely misguided. He does know a lot about guns and there's nothing wrong with that. Being caught up in a big race riot was, understandably, a pivotal point in his lifetime views on gun ownership as was Jim Brady's and Ronald Reagan's as a result of getting shot. I think that Stephen E is someone we, at least, can talk to.

I've been buttering you up Steven E in order to ask you a few questions and they are sincere questions.

Do you think that there should be any restrictions of gun ownership at all, up to the level of what you could afford to buy? Fully automatic weapons? Hand grenades? RPG's? Flame throwers? Mortars? Tanks? Missiles? Atomic weapons?

The cost factor makes most of those items ridiculous for individual collectors but what about collective ownership? Should there be laws limiting formation of private armies? If not, should these armies be able to buy any weaponry which they might afford?

Are you really afraid of the government showing up at your house some fine day and confiscating all of your guns? Are you really afraid of being caught up in a big race riot where you live?

Do you think that if everybody was forced to wear a firearm, gun deaths would go down and not up, considering the fact that everybody is not as sane and rational as you or me?

Again, these are not trick questions, I'm just wondering if you have any limitations at all.
Posted by Olphart]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:04:47 -0600 Arkansas Times
As usual the, always prescient, Bob Lancaster, in his current column here, anticipated the arrival of the huge straw man with the little mustache.

I am also reposting the link from the 1st comment on that article with full credit going to topbuzz.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_…

On a related note are any male babies named "Adolph" any more, maybe "Adolphus"?
You don't hear of many "Lucifers" either.
Posted by Olphart]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:10:40 -0600 Arkansas Times >But you do make a good argument for why the Founding Fathers would probably think citizens should have access to heavy weapons... <<

I'm certain they would provided citizens are "well-regulated" members of the equivalent of "militia."
Posted by eLwood]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:52:11 -0600 Arkansas Times
And to those who think small arms aren't useful against a state army I think you only have to look to the Arab Spring to see that they can get you to where you have bigger firepower, either confiscated or donated by rival governments. But you do make a good argument for why the Founding Fathers would probably think citizens should have access to heavy weapons... ;-)
Posted by Theodosius]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:15:12 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by eLwood]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:37:12 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Troll_Alert (IMO)]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:34:26 -0600 Arkansas Times
Troll: "you still think the Jews shouldn't be allowed to have guns to defend themselves"

Still waiting for you to show me where I said that.
Posted by Infamous Amos]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:19:14 -0600 Arkansas Times
So who else do you want to disarm? Let's just clear the air about who else you want to disarm and put on boxcars.
Posted by Troll_Alert (IMO)]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:50:08 -0600 Arkansas Times
Yes, Anos, it did do them good to have a few weapons. Those were guns they got from soldiers after clubbing or stabbing them at close range.

Geez, of all the Holocaust revisionism, I never thought I would see two supposed liberals spout Neo-Nazi propaganda with such openly comtemptable ignorance.

http://www.ejpress.org/article/26175

300 Germans killed in action. 7000 dead Jews, most of which were NOT fighters.

If anything, this rpoves what happens when you have strict gun regulation that prefers one side to the expense of the other.
Posted by Steven E]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:38:31 -0600 Arkansas Times
War in 1776, on your home turf, against a country thousands of miles (and one ocean) away, in a pre-telephone age, is not even remotely comparable to a war against a tiny group of people in your own country. They were 1% of the population and had been living in ghettos for three to five years prior to this law. More importantly, even ignoring that this law didn't take away their guns, and that the expansion of gun rights to other Germans was not the cause of the genocide of the Jews, you're still talking like arming a group who had already been rounded up into ghettos and was oppressed economically and politically prior to 1938 would have somehow turned them into the cast of Red Dawn. I disagree with this completely.

"How did it turn out for the Jews by being unable to resist?"

Poorly. Of course, they were already "unable to resist" when Hitler took power, and had been since 1919. Doesn't change the fact that Hitler eased restrictions on gun ownership for the vast majority of Germans, which flies in the face of what Saline and Alex Jones and others have suggested.

"You keep suggesting that having no chance to resist and going to a concentration camp is preferable to being able to defend oneself. "

No, I don't. I never said it was preferable. Not a single time.

"Why do you think it is so wrong for a Jew to be able to defend himself even if he dies trying?"

I don't. Never said it was. I said that Hitler didn't take away that ability from them vis-a-vis confiscating guns.

"Why do you prefer to see Jews go to concentration camps?"

Never said that I did. You're mastering the art of poorly reasoned internet arguing, however. Congrats on that.

"Why do you prefer that Nazis are the only ones who are armed?"

Show me where I said that I preferred that.

"To use a gun control analogy, 'if it would have saved just one Jewish child, just one child, then the Jews should have had the right to bear arms.'"

Ok. But they didn't. And they lacked that right before Hitler took power. Which is what this discussion is about, no matter how much you try to twist it into something else.
Posted by Infamous Amos]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:29:51 -0600 Arkansas Times
This isn't some Red Dawn fantasy, and it sickens me that you would liken the Holocaust to a fantasy. Why do you hate Jews? Jews were disarmed and slaughtered by their countrymen. Jews who had arms fought back. They had a choice to defend themselves, to face their enemies with force and die on their own terms. I know you love the idea of rounding up disarmed Jews and throwing them in concentration camps "for their own good," but it isn't acceptable to me.
Posted by Troll_Alert (IMO)]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:21:52 -0600 Arkansas Times
Amos, you are a brownshirt. Jews HAVE guns. You have to go to their houses to round them up. Have fun.

This idea that small groups can't resist or are better off not resisting is ludicrous and ignores the effectiveness of many armed resistances and insurrections throughout history, including the American Revolution. How did it turn out for the Jews by being unable to resist? You keep suggesting that having no chance to resist and going to a concentration camp is preferable to being able to defend oneself. Why do you think it is so wrong for a Jew to be able to defend himself even if he dies trying? Why do you prefer to see Jews go to concentration camps? Why do you prefer that Nazis are the only ones who are armed? To use a gun control analogy, "if it would have saved just one Jewish child, just one child, then the Jews should have had the right to bear arms."
Posted by Troll_Alert (IMO)]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:05:48 -0600 Arkansas Times http://libertarianstandard.com/2013/01/14/…
Posted by SalineRepublican]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:56:27 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by SalineRepublican]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:51:24 -0600 Arkansas Times
The best available figures:
"13,000 Jews were killed in the ghetto during the uprising..."

"...German forces suffered 16 killed in action and 85 wounded in action listed by name..."

And while you're pleasuring yourself to your Red Dawn fantasies, just remember that it's your own countrymen you'll be fighting, not the Rooskies & Coobanos.
Posted by 70%er]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:43:33 -0600 Arkansas Times
As for the rest, and ignoring that you have changed the discussion beyond what is presented in that poster and is the subject of the debate, "if Steven's girlfriend has to fend off an entire riot by herself" is hardly the benchmark we should use in creating gun policy. More importantly, why should we not take steps to reduce the killing efficiency of people like Adam Lanza just on the off chance that a riot might break out in Little Rock at some point in the future?

---

Troll: "You are still holding out that Hitler was right to disarm the Jews because they really didn't have many guns anyway." No, I'm not. I'm saying that the law disarming them in 1938 (a) had no practical effect on their ability to fight the Nazis and (b) isn't relevant to the gun-control debate. But, by all means, continue proving Godwin correct.
Posted by Infamous Amos]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:37:27 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by mrprincipal07]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:57:03 -0600 Arkansas Times
As far as the woman in the ad, your right, nobody is trying t say she cannot have a handgun. ell, actually, they ARE, in fact trying to tell her she cannot have a handgun if it holds more than 10 rounds. Also, and here is the main point, your trying to tell her she cannot have that AK, which would be like telling my girlfriend she cannot have her AR15. That IS an assault on her rights to self defense. The lady with the AK may just need it if she lives in a big city and there is a riot going on. Farfetched and the words of the paranoid? Not hardly. Anyone that has survived a riot on the scale of the L.A. Riots knows anybody that claims your owning an AK is paranoid is a disingenuous fool. My girlfriend had need of the protection of her AR, and she would just call you an idiot (which you are) if you told her she couldn't handle or have the AR, that somehow she was more lethal or a danger merely for choosing a certain tool.

Second, sad little Amos, might want to read about the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, who held off the best efforts of the Wehrmacht for months.
Posted by Steven E]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:55:14 -0600 Arkansas Times
Arkansas would have to find new jobs for that 25% that work in agriculture since radioactivity will ruin that for 10,000 years, plus or minus a year or two.
Posted by couldn't be better]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:53:39 -0600 Arkansas Times
Insurgents don't fight armies on a battlefield until their insurgency reaches a point that an outside party provides logistical and material support. No, insurgents kill their enemies in the enemy's living room or on his way home from the market (watch Defiance or read about the Bielski brothers), and it doesn't take much of that to create absolute havoc. No boxcars for me.

Seriously, go back to stormfront. Your defense of Hitler is nauseating.
Posted by Troll_Alert (IMO)]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:46:59 -0600 Arkansas Times