New Haven Independent

Posted by: Cedar Hill Resident | January 30, 2007 9:11 AM

"The legislation almost passed last year"

Why would something like that not pass?? What would they lose if it did. It just seems like a common sence law.

Posted by: Ned | January 30, 2007 10:50 AM

"While she [Lisa Labella] says most gun owners are honest.." Probably more so than the average politician or preacher...

"Bill Barrett – seemed shocked that gun laws are so much more lenient than, say, motor vehicle laws, which require registration, license and insurance for a driver to operate a vehicle legally." Do you have to give fingerprints to the federal government and the local police to purchase a car? No. Do you have to give the local police full access to your personl history, your medical history, your employment history and your residence history to purchase a motor vehicle? No. Do you have to attend a class on motor vehicle operation, laws and safety to learn how to operate a motor vehicle? No. So how are gun laws more lenient than motor vehicle laws?

"A color graph dramatized the racial disparity in gun-related homicides in the state: while nine percent of the population is African American and ten percent is Latino, 61 percent of homicide victims in 2006 were black, and 15 percent were Latino." Do you think there might be a cultural element at work here? Hyper machismo, lack of legal or peaceful dispute resolution options? Wouldn't have anything to do with the "war on [some] drugs"? Please research Prohibition and organized crime.

According to Tracy L.M. Johnson "kids are afraid" which suggests a reason that some people own guns: to protect themselves, as they realize that the police can't or won't protect them from dangerous people in their communities.

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

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

Not to minimize the tragedy of gun violence, take a look at these figures:
http://www.childdeathreview.org/statisticsCT.htm

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | January 30, 2007 1:00 PM

To Cedar Hill Resident.The Reason That It Did Not Pass Is That The Politician Sold Us Out To The NRA
Lobbyist, Bill Dyson Vote Against This Bill, I Now Hear That The Speaker Of The House Jimm Anman
May Vote Against This Bill!!!

Posted by: vinnie | January 30, 2007 4:52 PM

Hey! Ive got an idea!! Lets make it against the law to commit a crime! Then, if somebody commits a crime, we put them in jail.
Criminals break laws. Making more laws will not stop that. That sound suspiciously like Dean Wormers "Double secret probation" More laws are not the answers. Removing guns from the hands of the law abiding will never curb crime.

Posted by: Christopher Johnson | January 30, 2007 9:16 PM

6 to 9 kids die from gun violence?

That is an outlandish lie!

When an 18 year old with a gun is shot after raping a woman and robbing a bank he is called a "gunman" by the press but his death is entered into the database as "another child killed by gun violence"

When they anti gun hysterics stop outright lying and
hyperbole they find all they are really interested is the "control" part of gun control.

It's not gun owners fault that some people have control issues, they should get a hobby.

Posted by: Cedar Hill Resident | January 31, 2007 1:09 PM

vinnie
They are not trying to take the guns out of law abiding peoples hands (but if I had my choose they would). What they are trying to do is make it so they can track where these guns are coming from. At one point in a little guns life it was bought leagaly but some "law abiding person" (I use that fraze lighty in this case). But .....that little gun ends up in a persons hands that did not get it the right way which adds up to crimes commited with a deadly weapon.
They are saying that the laws are lacking in reasonable common sense. Like ok, if you were a gun owner and your gun was stolen would you not report it right away?? That is one of the things they are asking for (how bad is that). Why is one person buying alot of guns were are they?? Is he a collector?? Law enforcement rarely prosecutes the crime of gun trafficking .....why?? These are all such simply requests
If you are a law abiding gun owner you should have no worries with any of the things they are asking for.

THREEFIFTHS I hope your wrong I hope it does pass. Is there a way to put pressure on this guy.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | January 31, 2007 4:48 PM

Cedar Hill Resident I Donot See This Bill Passing
And The Reason Why Is That You Have To Understand
That Politician Are Nothing More Than Political
Prostitutes Who Take There Orders From There Pimps
Who Are The Lobbyist And Corporatist. In This Case
It Is The National Rifle Association Who From My Source In Hartford Has Already Told Me That The Lobbyist Have Told Them How To Vote Against This Bill.The National Rifle Association Is A Very Powerfully Association, Like The Pharmaceutical
Industry!! To Show You How Powerfully These Two
Are Google The Bill H.R.218 That A bill That The
NRA Help Pass That Allows Retired And Active Law
Enforcement To Carry There Firearms In Any State
In This Country.Any Politician That Go Againist The NRA They Will Finance A Candidate To Run Against That Politician. Also Ask Your Self How
Many Of These Politican Are Handgun Owners Themselves, You Think They Are Going To Pass A Bill That Will Affect Them Two?

Posted by: Christopher Johnson | January 31, 2007 5:12 PM

"A lot of guns"
Having a problem with someone having 1000 guns is exactly the same as having a problem with someone
having 1000 books.

The history gun control in this country is the history of racism, gun control was enacted to keep
recently free slaves from defending themselves from the KKK. If you bother to read the entire Dread Scott decision you would see that the Supreme Court didn't want blacks to be recognized as citizens because that would mean they could own guns (& use them against the KKK)

The NRA was founded by the same soldiers who ended slavery (the Union Army).

The gun control movement besides spreading lie after lie are also responsible for filling the prisons with black men.

Ask your self why the majority of black men in prison for simple possession of a gun are black.

Posted by: Qwerty | January 31, 2007 5:21 PM

The day the government tries to take law abiding citizens weapons away should be very interesting. Lexington/Concord II anyone?

Posted by: Kevin | January 31, 2007 5:36 PM

Here's why the bill failed last year: the language in section I.

In any prosecution for a violation of subsection (c) of this section, it shall be an affirmative defense that the defendant (A) did not act with criminal negligence in storing or keeping the pistol or revolver, or (B) reported the theft or loss of the pistol or revolver to the organized local police department for the town in which the theft or loss occurred or, if such town does not have an organized local police department, to the state police troop having jurisdiction for such town prior to the seizure or recovery of such pistol or revolver by a law enforcement agency.

In other words in makes a criminal of anyone who 1)owns a gun 2)gets burglarized and 3)has a job/goes on vacation etc and doesn't report the weapon missing BECAUSE THEY AREN'T AWARE OF THE THEFT. Is that clear enough for you? I'm sure gun grabbing trolls like Vinnie don't give a whit about that language but gun owners do. And thats why the bill failed.

Posted by: Christopher Johnson | January 31, 2007 8:58 PM

The NRA is the oldest grass roots civil rights organization in the country.
It gets it's funding from regular working class
people like me.
It has 4 million voters and at least 8 million who agree with them meaning 12
people who will vote as a block.
Every time liars like John Kerry and John McCain
attack gun owners more people like me donate to the NRA.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | January 31, 2007 10:09 PM

Where Was the NRA At When The Black Panther Party
Storm The Capital Building In California With Firearms To Fight For The Right To Bear Arms. History Shows That The Good Old White Male Control
NRA Did Nothing To Surport The Black Panther Party
Maybe The NRA Surports The Right To Bear Arms For Some And Not Others?

Posted by: Christopher Johnson | February 1, 2007 1:09 AM

Well "threefiths" I guess all you have done is prove that responsible gun owners do not storm the CA Capital Building with their guns.
The working people of CA now have less gun rights thanks to the foolish actions of the Black Panther Party, not more gun rights.

Thanks to so called "liberals" many young black men languish in prison for simple possession of a gun.

So called "liberals" agree with the Dread Scott decision don't they? They do not want black folks to have a gun to protect their life and liberty?
Why is that?

"Threefiths" did you not comprehend who won the Civil War? I guess you do not know that the same Union Army that freed the slaves was the same Union Army that founded the NRA , guess what else is kept secret by your schoolbooks and Democrat party and "liberals"? The KKK was founded by Democrats like Nathan Forrest who fought for the Confederacy. (Do you even know the difference between the Confederacy and the Union?)

So go ahead with your racism, I hope the veil of ignorance is someday lifted from your eyes.

Posted by: jesse | February 1, 2007 4:06 AM

Actually, you should read Robert Williams' book "Negros with Guns". He was the inspiration for Huey Newton and the Black Panther party and was very proud to be an NRA member. They welcomed him with open arms and helped him organize a local NRA chapter to train blacks to defend themselves and their communities against the kkk.

Posted by: Cedar Hill Resident | February 1, 2007 9:24 AM

ok first I may get some hate from this next comment sorry if it makes anyone mad ... it is out of love...

ok I get the whole kkk thing and needing guns to protect yourself thing. But I would hope that in this day and age the kkk is looked at for what it is; and is notaround anymore, At least in most parts of the country .
Now men of color are killing each other not the KKK. You don't find that disturbing?

Christopher Let me ask you, the majority of of black men in jail for gun possession , was that the only reason they were there?? Or were there other crimes plus the gun possession that landed them there?? Were they in legal possession of the weapon in the first place?? Don't through race in this and that the NRA freed the slaves so what now every man of color needs to support the NRA. What distorted propaganda!

OK and then we talk about civil rights ...times change and with changing times laws need to change to fit the times....
Once upon a time in this great country of ours

slavery was legal, women were no more than a mans property, child labor laws did not exist, domestic violence was expectable, housing, employment discrimination was ok and the list goes on but all of these things were legal and expectable at the time, but it did not make them right. There for the new laws were fought for and changed.

Now we have illegal guns out there, people killing people, not because they are protecting there family from the kkk but because you are in the wrong part of town with the wrong color on, stray bullets going threw walls during this gun fire killing children, drug wars, turf wars, robberies, none of these reasons are as honorable as defending your family from evil people expect now the evil person is your neighbor who has a gun who should not have a gun because some idiot bought it and sold it illegally to someone.

Gun laws need to change because times are changing it is that simply. All these comments made here are about the civil war and the kkk although these are horrible things that have happened to a people in history it does not change the fact that people are killing people and there are people that are willing to sit back and say let them kill each other "right chris"!

Well some people are not willing to let that happen. Not one law suggest you do not have the right to bear arms. they are just extra safty nets to protect people. But why......"because times they are a changen' " and the laws need to fit the times.

THREEFIFTHS the whole things is just wrong it should not be so hard there should be ways of stoping this crap that Politician do. DC should not be about money it should be about protecting the people. But thanx for the info. The sad things is where are all the good politcans??

Posted by: Ned | February 1, 2007 4:35 PM

The Connecticut Constitution states that "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." (Article 1, section 15).

The current constitution was adopted in 1965.

The Connecticut State Library has a comprehensive page regarding the laws regulating firearms, in Connecticut:
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/LawLib/Law/firearms.htm

I suppose if people did not have guns that they would be using bows, spears, knives, rocks, their teeth or what have you, to kill one another - just like people did during the hundreds of thousands of years before the invention of gunpowder. The gun isn't the problem so much as the individual pulling the trigger. Violence is a mental illness.

Posted by: Christopher Johnson | February 1, 2007 4:59 PM

cedar.
Thank you for your level headed reply.
The last time I was on a jury it was a young black man being railroaded into jail for simple possession of a gun. He had neglected to use his turn signal and got pulled over and had an unregistered handgun in his car. He was from AZ and where he grew up that was not a crime. Most of the gun control laws are unconstitutional, there are millions of gun laws many law enforcement officers, lawyers,and the politicians who write them do not understand them.

It's like the old jim crow laws requiring black voters to pass a complex civil law test to vote, black people used to get arrested for "illegal" voting. Now they get arrested for "illegal" gun ownership.

You virtually need a law degree to understand how to legally own a gun in much of the North East.

Complex myriad laws and turning everyone into a criminal has never solved any problems.

The anti gun movement relies on half truths and hysteria and hyperbole to pass their laws.

In CA carry permits are issued by the Chief law enforcement officer of any particular county, somehow very few black men get the permit but plenty of rich white men do.

In NYC Navy Vet Ron Dixon, a legal immigrant from Jamica and a hard working tax payer all around model citizen , was given the red tape runaround for a whole year to register his hand gun.
(just to keep it in his house, not carry it where ever)
Donald trump got his carry permit in a few hours!
Ron Dixon was arrested after shooting a hardened criminal who broke into his house and threatened his one year old child!
Ron tried and tried to obey an unjust and unconstitutional law, a law that favors the wealthy and discriminates against working class and minority people.

Turning everyone into a criminal, unless they are wealthy will only create more criminals.

Lets put rapist, murderers, and muggers in jail and celebrate the Bill Of Rights.
Lets celebrate freedom not the prison industry.

Posted by: cedar hill resident | February 1, 2007 6:02 PM

ok guys...

Simple

This artical is not about not letting people have guns it is about being able to track were guns come from simple. Making it so if a gun is used in a crime were did it come from!

Not letting people who should not have guns get them!

very simple

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | February 1, 2007 8:47 PM

Christopher Johnson
You State That The Foolish Actions Of The Black Panther Party Is The Reason That The People Of California Have Less Gun Rights. Where Is The Proof Of This!!! Then If The Is The Case Then How Come The Foolish Actions Of David Koresh Of The Branch Davidians At Waco Texas Has Not Stop The People Of Texas From Have Less Gun Rights. In Fact
Texas Have Very Strong Gun Laws For The People. How About Miami Florida In Which You Had what Was
Call The FBI Miami Shoot Out Of 1986 In Which Two
FBI Agents Had Been Killed, Yet Jeb Bush Sign The
Bill Call The Castle Doctrine In Which You Do Not
Have To Retreat.So Please Show Me Proof That The
Black Panther Party Action Had Anything To Do With The People Gun Rights In California Being Less. You Talk About Slavery,But From My Readings
If A Slave Was Caught with A firearm He Was Hung
Due to The Fact That The He Stole This Firearm.Sir
I Do Comprehend As You Are The One Who Has Not Comprehend, Because If You Did You Would Know That
Both The Confederacy And Union Was Slave Owners.You Talk About Nathan Forrest Founded Of The KKK Being a Democratic, He was a Dixecrat Like
Jesse Helms And Strom Thurmond,To Me Both The Democratic Party and Republican Party Are Be Holding to The Grip of the Corporatist, I Notice
You Never Talk About The Republican Party!! Also The Real Reason Why Black Men Languish In Prison Is Because Of False Arrest High Bail,Racist Judges
Who Give More Prison Time To Blackmen Than Other Groups. Christopher You Donot Have To Worry Because As I Have Stated The Politician Have Been
Paid Off Allready to Vote Againist This Bill.

Posted by: DPeter | February 2, 2007 1:02 PM

FWIW ...

The NRA is considered the second most powerful lobby in Washignton (behind the AARP) not because gun and ammo manufacturers are big contributors.

It's actually a pretty small industry (about $3 Billion in total US sales in 2005) maybe $5 billion if you include clothing and accessories like binoculars etc. compared to the Fast Food industry with over $400 billion in sales for the same year.

But, as previously noted, they can get a bunch of folks that paid $35 each to join for a year, to get out and vote in every election.

4 to 12 million people that share a common interest AND put their votes behind it is political power.

It's kind of funny that the newspapers refer to the NRA as a "Speical Interest Group" when they lobby for something but don't use the same terminology when they write about NOW or Code Pink lobbying for something.

Posted by: Christopher Johnson | February 2, 2007 10:37 PM

threefiths.
Thank you for continuing the conversation.
After the Black Panther Party stormed the CA Capital building Governor Ronald Reagan changed the law so that it became illegal to carry a loaded gun.
Before then it was legal for the panthers or anyone else to walk around the neighbor hood with a rifle or handgun as long as you didn't threaten anyone.

Texas has ok gun laws, not as good as AZ or Vermont though.

Koresh was white but most of the Branch Davidians were from the 7th Day Adventist and were black and latino.
The raid was in response to a new law preventing ownership of certain gun parts (rent the movie "rules of engagement")

The Florida castle doctrine is exactly how you describe it, if you have a legal right to be somewhere then you do not have to retreat if some one tries to rob , rape or maim you.

Your right about slaves not being allowed to own or even carry guns. The Dread Scott Court case stated that black people can not be free BECAUSE then they could carry guns.

Liberals today are still trying to deny black folks those same rights.

Democrats give lip service to racial equality as long as rich white liberals have more power then blacks.
In reality they are quite threatened by black folks like Condi Rice and say all kinds of horrible things about her.

Clinton was proclaimed the "1st black president" without having black folks in important positions in his cabinet.

Some Republicans are awful, Rudy Guilianni for instance....he would be a terrible choice for president.

You spoke of black men in jail for false arrest, I AGREE with you. Any time a black man goes to jail for simple possession of a gun a grave injustice has been perpetuated.
Unfortunatley the black community voted for the people ( Democrats) who imprison them.

Posted by: Christopher Johnson | February 2, 2007 10:49 PM

cedar
Why should a gun owner go to jail simply for being on vacation?

This law you champion is lacking common sense!

A gun could be stolen while you are on you're summer vacation or on a tour of duty in Iraq.

And you would be arrested for not reporting it stolen? how is that fair?

Are you sure you want people thrown in jail for not being able to report a stolen gun because that is why this law failed!

Also criminals do not buy guns at the gun store, they steal them! just like they steal cars.

I say register sex offenders and criminals NOT gun owners.

Gun ownership is a CIVIL RIGHT, it is like saying you need a permit to write a letter to the editor, like saying you need a permit to own a Bible or a Koran.

Look at every single genocide in the last two hundred years.
The target population was disarmed before the genocide began.

The Nazi's believed only the police and army should have guns, why do liberals wish to emulate Nazis?

Sure some people misuse guns, I wish liberals would keep those folks in jail but for some reason they always let rapist and murderers free.

Posted by: nfjanette | February 5, 2007 3:23 PM

"Gun ownership is a CIVIL RIGHT, it is like saying you need a permit to write a letter to the editor, like saying you need a permit to own a Bible or a Koran.

"Look at every single genocide in the last two hundred years.
"The target population was disarmed before the genocide began.

"The Nazi's believed only the police and army should have guns, why do liberals wish to emulate Nazis?

"Sure some people misuse guns, I wish liberals would keep those folks in jail but for some reason they always let rapist and murderers free..."

This is standard NRA polemic - hyperbole at it's best. Common, think for yourself. Do you have anything that's not NRA party line to add to the discussion?

I've had significant exposure to firearms; back in the day I was a pretty highly rated small caliber long rifle competition shooter. I've also handled handguns in a more limited fashion. What I can tell you is that the NRA does not, for the most part, represent my views on the responsibilities of gun ownership and usage. They have swung strongly to the right over the course of my lifetime - no doubt in response to the hysterical leftward surge of the anti-gun activists. The stated, advertised, and lobbied positions of both sides are at times parodies of the real issues and people involved.

If, for example, the facts indicate that one vector being used to high quality handguns on the streets is through large quantity purchases of legal weapons, which are then "lost" or "stolen" and simply never accounted for, then we need to seriously limit the number of legal weapons that can be purchased over a given time. We can find ways to allow legitimate collectors to operate by more closely monitoring their operations, but we've got to find a way to shut the door on the volume of handguns making their way into the hands of average street criminals.

Posted by: Cedar Hill Resident | February 5, 2007 3:40 PM

Chris first , If you are on vacation and your gun is stolen when you get home and fined that it is stolen you report it. You have proof you were on vacation and you do not go get jail. If you are in Iraq you have a respect for firearms and would not even be so irresponsible to have that gun in a place were it could be stolen. Please.

I would hope that if you get a gun that you are intelligent enough to be able to have that kind of responsibility in the first place. Other wise you should not have one.

I think the present laws are what is lacking common since! And I could most definitely get a half a dozen cops who are gun owners that would say the same thing. When I was at a meeting with some city people and officers they had the complaint that they had to many gaps to be able to see where the guns were coming from.
Ya see, Chris we are not talking one stolen gun from a house robbery. We are talking about idiots (not for lack of a better word idiot is the perfect word) that buys guns legally for $100 dollars and then sells it to convicts, sex offenders or any other person that should by no means have a gun for $500.00. And this idiot keeps buying these guns and selling them because there are no laws to prevent this. We are talking about making it easier to hold that idiot at least partially responsible for trafficking the gun that was used to commit a crime! And yet with all the loop holes the law is unable to slow or stop the illegal trafficking of guns. And yes this is in New England!

And owning a gun is a civil right.....but selling one to someone that should not have one is a crime!

You are reading what you want chris god I hope you are not a gun owner!!

Again I will repeat because you did not read the article or comments made... .

NO one is trying to stop people from legally having a gun.

And as far a I know sex offenders are registered Chris and posted on the intenet for all to see.

Posted by: daniel sumrall | February 5, 2007 5:51 PM

we need to focus on getting rid of human killing weapons. the concerns of school safety are a smoke screen that prevents us from taking action that would hit at the root of gun violence. making schools more like prisons (police, metal detectors, searches, etc.) is idiotic and essentially useless.

In this day and age, in our nation, at our level of civilization--There is no reason to own a gun.

Rage that it's your right guaranteed by the Constitution--the Constitution also permitted slavery until we finally wised up and amended it. But let's ignore that--have your gun, it's your right. Dont forget though that every RIGHT implies a DUTY. Something can't be a right unless there is an accompanying duty. For example--Right to education/duty to teach.

what's your duty if you claim you have a right to own a gun? Have your gun, but you must guarantee the safety of those around you.

To this end, the board of aldermen here in new haven should pass and force the mayor to carry out the following ordinances:

1) all guns must be registered with the city of new haven

2) the list of gun owners must be made open and easily accessible to the public

3) all guns must be kept in a secure location (a "gun club") and not in a private residence that is within 100 yards of another private residence or school--penalty for failing to comply, $5000 fine for every gun

4) a $5-a-bullet city tax on all handgun ammunition

5) any gun can be turned in to the new haven police with no questions ask and the individual turning the gun in will get a $100 debit card to an area grocery/boxstore Shaw's, Stop n Shop, Target, WalMart, Lowes or home depot

you cant force people to not hate one another but you can make committing violent acts more difficult. until we commit to get rid of guns, we deserve what we get.

Posted by: Christopher Johnson | February 5, 2007 8:25 PM

Well I have thrown a football but I do not presume to tell Peyton Manning how to play.

If you legally buy one pistol in VT and you move to NY with it without jumping through the nearly insurmountable red tape (especially for a working person) then you are a FELON even though the right to own that pistol is enumerated by the Constitution of the United Sates.

The whole concept of an illegal gun is authoritarian and fascist.

People like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Sir William Blackstone, George Mason, & Patrick Henry were not NRA members their thinking and writing paved the way for the freedom we enjoy today.

More then half of the States have legal concealed carry and the press always screeches how this will lead to blood in the streets and shootings over "fenderbenders" when this has been proven false they never retract their statements.

No sir, your ill thought out registration schemes have never stopped crimes or made it easier for law abiding to be secure in their parks and streets and their homes.

Your gun laws have made it easy for the rapist and the predators, I say lets stop all the foolish red tape, all the illegal schemes and stop all the lying and obfuscation.

Gun control is people control, it's only goal is the banning of all handguns and increasing the profits of the prison industry.

It has never made any street safer and has never reduced crime.

Do not let murderers and robbers and rapist out of jail, that will have a good effect on the crime rate.

Posted by: jlbraun | February 5, 2007 10:19 PM

@daniel sumrall
"In this day and age, in our nation, at our level of civilization--There is no reason to own a gun."

Are you kidding? At "our level of civilization" we have MORE reason to own a gun - not less! We have more to lose!

If you're going to put forth a list of proposed restrictions like you just did, the burden is on you to prove that they will be effective. You brought this on yourself, now you have to answer some questions relative to your laws.

Therefore:

"all guns must be registered with the city of new haven"

Please provide a citation that registering guns reduces crime.

"2) the list of gun owners must be made open and easily accessible to the public"

Please provide a detailed justification for publishing a handy list of gun owners for criminals to rob, how this would reduce crime, and the potential liability this exposes the city to.

"3) all guns must be kept in a secure location (a "gun club") and not in a private residence that is within 100 yards of another private residence or school--penalty for failing to comply, $5000 fine for every gun"

Please provide a detailed justification for this law, including how the "gun club" will be funded. Please provide a justification for your 100 yard definition. Please provide a method of enforcing compliance, and how it would be carried out.

"4) a $5-a-bullet city tax on all handgun ammunition"

Please provide a citation on how this would actually reduce crime, taking into account the wide availability of reloading components - not to mention that one could simply go one town over and buy ammo. Would you make that illegal? How would your law be enforced? Mandatory checkpoints at the entrance to the city?

"5) any gun can be turned in to the new haven police with no questions ask and the individual turning the gun in will get a $100 debit card to an area grocery/boxstore Shaw's, Stop n Shop, Target, WalMart, Lowes or home depot"

Please provide a link to a study showing that "gun buy backs" actually reduce crime. Please provide a funding source for the buyback funds.

Again, the burden is on you to prove that your laws are viable in a public forum. Additionally, you must also pass a simple test to show that you are familiar with the items you are legislating. If you cannot answer these correctly with 10 minutes of Google, your proposed laws aren't worth listening to at all. You brought this on yourself, so answer the questions and prove your knowledge to all.

1. What is the difference between full-automatic and semi-automatic? Is there one?
2. Are machine guns legal to own in the United States? Can they be easily bought over the counter?
3. How many legally owned machineguns have been used in a crime by civilians since 1934, when they were restricted by Federal law?
4. What percentage of American homes have firearms in them? a)10% b)25% c)45%
5. Is there any such thing as a 45mm handgun?
6. Is the crime rate by concealed carry holders greater or lesser than the general population?
7. Are there a greater or lesser number of crimes committed with firearms than defensive uses of firearms?
8. What did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban actually ban?
9. What is the average income of a gun owner? a)$20K b) $30K c) $50K
10. Are you more or less likely to be injured a) resisting a violent assault with a firearm or b) resisting a violent assault without a firearm c) not resisting at all?
11. If you are a male citizen of the US, between the ages of 17 and 45, and not in the National Guard or other armed forces, are you in the militia according to the United States Code?
12. Are accidental shootings in the top 5 causes of deaths for children?
13. What is the ratio between homicides and democides (killed by your own government) in the 20th Century?
14. What is the correlation between restricting firearms and the violent crime rate on a state-by-state basis?

Again. If you can't or won't answer these very simple questions, your opinion is not worth listening to at all.

Posted by: jlbraun | February 5, 2007 10:22 PM

True Liberals would never support anything as antithetical to Liberal principles as gun control. Gun control is elitist, classist, statist, and racist.

Posted by: Patrick R | February 5, 2007 10:30 PM

Mr. Sumrall,
I will make an assumption that you or your family has never fallen victim to violent crime, else you would not be so cavalier in suggesting people make themselves defenseless against violent predators. You speak of duty, I take the duty to protect my wife and family very seriously, and with the best tools available. Who will protect your family since you cannot?

Additionally, I am compelled to point out the Bill of Rights protects our natural rights; it does not grant them. Assuming you could amass the votes to amend the Constitution as you wish, such an amendment would be no more binding than one to strip women of the vote, or ban free speech. I believe you would find most of this country would not stand for it.

Respectfully,
Pat Reavey

Posted by: Alexander Rivera | February 5, 2007 10:46 PM

I agree with Christopher. Anyone who seriously thinks banning a law-abiding citizen's Kimber 1911 is going to reduce crime has been brainwashed and cannot think for themselves.

Posted by: geekWithA.45 | February 5, 2007 11:47 PM

This article goes on at length about how shocked people are that law abiding citizens can buy as many guns as they want, after jumping through all the hoops, and passing a background check each and every time they excercise their right to buy a gun. (Yes, that's how the national instant check system works.)

And yet, they never consider what it would be like to have to do all that every time they excercise their right to vote.

To get a voter's card, they'd have to be fingerprinted and background checked. The state and/or FBI would look into their criminal and mental health records.

Each time they went to vote, they would have to show definitive ID, and sign an affidavit in the form of a questionaire, under penalty of perjury that they were eligible. They would then have to pay a fee for a phone call to the national and state database to make sure they weren't on the list of people inneligible to vote. It's entirely possible that system might be down or swamped that day, and be forced to cast a provisional vote. If they came back from this check as "inneligible", at best, they would have to spend a lot of time straightening it out, and it wouldn't be far fetched that the police would take an interest and have a chat with them.

Posted by: physician in AL | February 5, 2007 11:48 PM

This kind of thought is the new plague of our society. Instead of addressing the more complex social issues causing the increases in violent crime, childhood obesity, poverty, drug use, irresponsibility we choose to attack inanimate objects and attempt to legislate common sense.

In doing so we keep teaching our very own children that they aren't to blame for anything they do. It's no longer the poor choices a child or young adult makes but rather the gun or tool they use in perpetrating a crime. It's no longer the lack of parenting and erosion of values that is at fault but rather the drugs. Everyone wants to point the finger somewhere else.

This law that is being proposed has nothing to do with "common sense" or adressing the real problems. Instead of punishing those who would break into our homes and steal our property, it says that we should make criminals of those who are victims.

Someone above said that no one wants to take your legal guns away. You have obviously not researched the voting records and public platforms of some of these legislators who like to use that new buzzword "common sense gun laws." Many of their agendas (on various websites they sponsor and groups they endorse) include proposals like complete ban on handguns, confiscation of all firearms. They are using this language to attract the moderate voters. They realize that it is much easier to chip away at our rights incrementally than to try and propose sweeping legislation. Of course the cumulative effect is the same. A great example is England where it was first registration, then ban, then confiscation.

Daniel Sumrall above wants to believe that our civilization is too "advanced" for the need for self protection. Of course reading your draconian proposals below we are aparently so advanced we cannot seem to secure within our own homes a simple tool. No such perfect and safe civilization exists, nor will your proposals have any effect on crime or public safety. A truely advanced and FREE society is one where its citizens are capable of exercising their rights

1) "all guns must be registered with the city of new haven"

I can see droves of gang-bangers and theives lining up for this one .

How does this make you or anyone else more safe? Please quote for me the numbers of crimes commited with firearms by those who possess them legally.

2) "the list of gun owners must be made open and easily accessible to the public."

Please explain what good this will do?

It will be a great way to help thieves hand pick their unarmed victims. If I were a criminal this is just the kind of list I would want.

3) "all guns must be kept in a secure location (a "gun club") and not in a private residence that is within 100 yards of another private residence or school--penalty for failing to comply, $5000 fine for every gun"

Again please show me the numbers of law abiding citizens who own guns who have commited crimes. Please compare this to the number of times a gun is legally used to stop a crime.

4) a $5-a-bullet city tax on all handgun ammunition

So you would deny all poor citizens from participating in firearm sports or self defense? Are you an elitist? So what next a 500 dollar city tax per gallon of water because people drown, how about for deadly baseball bats, knives, other objects that are used far more often than bullets in crimes.

5) any gun can be turned in to the new haven police with no questions ask and the individual turning the gun in will get a $100 debit card to an area grocery/boxstore Shaw's, Stop n Shop, Target, WalMart, Lowes or home depot

Again blame a tool instead of disecting and getting to the bottom of much more complex problem. This must be the superior reasoning from citizens of a very advanced civilization.

Of course legislators love these types of bills.

-They can look "tough" on crime, poverty, drugs while really doing much of nothing.

-They can completely avoid the hard answers to these problems and continue to be empty suits.

-They can attract hoards of people whose understanding of the issue is only surface deep.

Our great America is going to die a slow death to the incrementalists who will continue to chip away at our natural rights

Posted by: Garry Hamilton | February 5, 2007 11:59 PM

Oh, Lord, where to start.

What an amazing amount of bias and disinformation.

Let's take a few points:

" . . . reality is that six to nine kids die every day from one on one incidents of gun violence . . . "

That would be "six to nine gang bangers" -- the fact that they're under 21 or even 18 doesn't mitigate that fact.

Solution: eliminate gangs.

" . . . shocked that gun laws are so much more lenient than, say, motor vehicle laws . . . "

Well, that would have something to do with the fact that, unlike cars, guns (arms) are guaranteed to all citizens. Any "gun laws" that restrict ownership are, in fact, violations of the supreme law of the land: the Constitution.

" . . . racial disparity in gun-related homicides . . . "

Which is a red herring. You think a piece of machinery cares what race is using it? If you are worried about racial violence, then go deal with the racial tensions and social conditions that lead to them.

"Guns don’t fall off trees. There’s a source, and gun trafficking is the crime behind the crime."

And this has precisely what to do with violence? If a guy buys a weapon to commit a crime, and you focus on the weapon, you have already lost.

It's NOT the weapons! It's the criminal who plans the crime and commits the violence.

More crime is committed with keyboards, ruining more lives, costing more treasure, and causing more devastation in human terms than guns ever do. And yet, no one seems to be inclined to outlaw keyboards -- instead, amazingly, they prosecute the actual criminal. But when a gun is involved, the focus is the gun, with the completely wrong-headed idea that a) guns can be eliminated, and b) that disarming the law-abiding will have any effect on crime at all.

The politics of gun control is the politics of human control.

Every major genocide in the last century was preceded by the disarmament of the population.

Britain provides us with a contemporary and frankly stunning portrayal of what happens when you lose the ability to reason from cause to effect, and attempt to fix crime by outlawing the tools of self defense.

Criminals in Britain are now free to commit pretty much any sort of violence they wish against the unarmed populace, confident that in the event a citizen DOES have the bad taste to defend himself, the courts will deal harshly with that citizen.

Finally, there is this other not insignificant point: America's founders knew full well the hazards of disarming the population and enshrined in the Constitution -- in fact, in the first set of amendments to it, which were a condition of ratification -- that: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It's a right. It's guaranteed.

Dishonest questions, like: "who NEEDS a gun in this day and age," quite apart from being stupid on their face, miss this other thing:

IT'S NOT THE BILL OF NEEDS.
IT'S THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

You don't daily wake up and ask, "who needs free speech in this day and age?" Why not? Because it's a right. You have that right regardless of whether someone else thinks it's a bad idea. Someone else's fear of your exercise of your rights is their problem, not yours.

For all of those of you who insist that the population MUST be disarmed, and recalling that every major genocide in the past century has been preceded by such disarmament, I have this question:

What horror is it that you plan for us which makes you so afraid that we will defend ourselves?

~~ Garry

Posted by: Christopher Johnson | February 6, 2007 2:38 AM

CedarHills
I see you failed to comprehend my point, sex offenders are criminals, that is why they should be registered.
As a gun owner I refuse to register my guns because
I am not a criminal.

If you do not like crime then the simple remedy is to lock up criminals.

Turning citizens into criminals does not reduce crime, I can not understand why the anti gun folks want to increase our already overburdened prison system

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | February 6, 2007 5:23 AM

I Notice That Most Post Are Saying That Guns Are Need For Selfdefense Against Criminals. So My Question Is If The Criminals Are Police Officer
Who I Have A Record Of Brutality And Murder Of
African Americans IE: Rodney King, Sean Bell Shot
50 Times Amadou Diallo Also Shot 50 Times And A
90 Year Old African American Granmother In Georgia
Who Police Storm Her home Based On Lies That drugs
Was Being Sold In Her House, She Shot Back In Selfdefense.So my Question To All Is If Criminal
Police fire On You Would You Defend Youself. After
All A Criminal Is A Criminal.

Posted by: Cedar Hill Resident | February 6, 2007 8:27 AM

Wow what was the NRA informed of this article???

Are you people reading??? Or just cut and pasting your propaganda???

No one wants to take your rights away!! Get over it!
We want laws to protect children and innocent people from illegal guns.

If you are such true gun lovers you would be supporting this, unless you have an illegal gun or two in your personal arsenals.

Just like everything else in the world there are people that follow the rules and ones that don't. The ones that don't ruin it for the rest so if you gun toten' preachers want to be angry with anyone it should be the people that are selling the guns illegally and giving the rest of you a bad name!

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | February 6, 2007 9:28 AM

Christopher
A Good Friend Who Is a Hand Gun Owner E-Mail Me a Website Call Packing.Org According To This Website
All Fifty States Have A Hand Gun Licensing Process
Before One Can Purchase a Hand Gun. On You Posting You State That You Refuse To Register Your Guns Because You are Not a Criminal!! But According to the Laws Of This State You Do not Have To Register Your Guns. But My Question To You Is That Some States You Do So The People That
Do Not Register there Hand Guns Are They Not Criminal And Should They Not Be Put In Jail?

Posted by: Cedar Hill Resident | February 6, 2007 9:42 AM

ps... Both my children belonged to the Junior Rifle Club.

Posted by: shield20 | February 6, 2007 10:08 AM

Wow. Thanks Daniel, for setting back the cause of liberty, and the recogition of natural rights (you know, little things like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and property) atleast 250 years! It was a novel argument, redefining unalienable rights to include some mystical “duty”. That is a new one. The duty associated with natural rights is this: that when the people form a government to SECURE THOSE RIGHTS, it is the duty of the people to change the government when that end is no longer met. It is THE very purpose of the 1st 10 amendments, to further secure the rights of the people, ALL the rights of ALL the people, from infringment.

Our right as people is the right of self defense. Our duty as Americans is to fullfill the obligation of ALL able-bodied citizens (including you) – to be armed and prepared to serve as a member of what has become the unorganized militia, so we can fight for the common defense, or the common good, when called out by our executives. Now, and this is important, the one has nothing to do with the other; except that in both cases, and for both excellent reasons - the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed! Yes, it is our duty to extend the basic natural unalienable inherent right of self-defense, to include the state and the country if deemed necessary. As it is also our duty to NOT burden society or our government with our individual safety and security. (which they readily & consistently agree with by the way).

What do YOU depend on for your safety and those of your loved ones? The good-will of the bad guy? The odds of not being a victim? The ‘speedy’ response of the police, or the government? Devine intervention? Hey - your right, your choice. Just don’t disparage or infringe upon MY right, and MY choice…you are not worthy of such powers.

Posted by: shield20 | February 6, 2007 12:15 PM

We ARE angry with the people that don't follow the rules. That's one reason why there are 20,000 laws in place to deal with them. And one reason why we take natural and proper steps to guard ourselves and our loved ones from criminal actions, and take those rights that allow that so seriously. For that reason, we are also angry with those who INSIST on blaming us - the legal gun owners, the NRA - who represents us, and especially inanimate objects, for the actions of criminals; those who, as you just said yourself, WON'T FOLLOW THE RULES, NO MATTER HOW MANY MORE YOU ADD.

Get over yourself and accept the truth, guns are NOT the problem!

Posted by: nfjanette | February 6, 2007 12:41 PM

As I alluded to in my previous comment, it should now be completely clear to the reader why I believe there are two radically divergent "sides" on the gun control issues. Both sides whack away at the other with rhetoric and various "facts" culled from a wide variety of sources and then put together any which way that seems to make sense, but often fails careful checking.

Once again, the issue is not the average legal gun owner; the issue is that legally purchased guns are often showing up in the hands of criminals, procured by various illegal methods. We should try to control those vectors by focusing on the most common paths with appropriate legislation and enforcement. That's the current Big Issue.

For NRA/anti-NRA geeks only: no, there is no such thing as a 45mm handgun, either automatic or semi-automatic, given that the shell from such a weapon is more than 1-1/2" in diameter and is more suited for anti-aircraft purposes, historically famous for use in the Bofors 40mm cannon used on American navy ships in WWII in single, twin, and quad mounts. The NRA supporter that wrote the pop quiz is making the point that anti-gun media reporters often confused the various terms describing different size and types of weapons, in this case millimeters (mm) vs. caliber (used in two separate ways to measure weapon size). A .45 caliber handgun, first made famous by the "Colt .45", also known more formally as the "Colt 1911/1911A", is about the largest caliber normal handgun found in general usage. Although called - even by Colt, the manufacturer - an "Automatic", it is in fact a semi-automatic weapon that required a pull of the trigger for each shot fired. The real question is, does it matter that most people are confused by these terms? Who wouldn't be if they are not interested in firearms/weapons?

Posted by: Garry Hamilton | February 6, 2007 12:51 PM

Illegal Guns.

I keep seeing references to "illegal guns" and how people want to protect their kids from "illegal" guns.

Here we go again.

An illegal gun is that that has been outlawed. As it happens, since they're already outlawed, nobody can buy one of those, so NEW laws to protect people from something no one can buy is worse than pointless.

Of course, that isn't what is meant by those who would disarm us. They actually mean "illegal owners." People who aren't allowed to own guns, and who yet do possess them, are breaking the law. The gun isn't breaking the law.

I stolen car isn't an illegal car. Nor are stolen golf clubs "illegal" clubs. Stolen property is . . . stolen.

Adding another six layers of red tape to the ownership of anything will not prevent criminals from stealing them, but rather encourage more of that theft.

"Illegal guns" is a dishonest term. It seeks to demonize an inanimate object.

This folly is at once evident if we reframe various headlines so that "Man Arrested With Stolen Car" is reworded as "Man Arrested With Illegal Car" which now makes the car a "bad" thing. In fact, it tends to cast suspicion on ALL cars -- after all, you never know which cars are "illegal" and bad.

If you see a guy wearing a revolver on his hip or rifle on his shoulder, it should raise no more interest than a man carrying a golf bag.

And yet, people have been gradually conditioned to respond with fear to something our founders EXPECTED us to have with us at all times.

What's next, "illegal phones?" Well, the First Amendment is outmoded; we have big media to take care of our information needs now. People who have private conversations -- especially with another unseen individual -- are probably up to no good. We need to restrict the use of phones -- especially cell phones -- to official personnel only.

Mom! Look! That Man! He's got a CELL PHONE!

The Second Amendment guards the First, and all the others. If you value your rights, you will cease tearing down the Bill of Rights one clause at a time.

You want to go after something illegal? How about illegal residents? How about people who aren't supposed to be here in the first place, and whose actual presence breaks the law?

But no, we'd rather cocoon ourselves in Nerf foam and hope the "authorities" will keep the "bad things" away from us, while training our children to be frightened of the tools of self defense.

The logic itself is scary: "I don't want to exercise my rights, so nobody else should be allowed to, either." Accompanied by, "I'm afraid of those things, so no one should be allowed to have one."

Stop writing Nerf laws and get a grip on reality. Deal with the criminals and stop trying to blame THINGS.

Things don't do crime. Criminals do.

Posted by: jlbraun | February 6, 2007 1:39 PM

@Cedar Hill Resident
"Wow what was the NRA informed of this article???"

If by NRA you mean gun owners then yes, we have been made aware and are coming in here to correct some of your attitudes, misconceptions, and lies. Gun control cannot exist without an accompanying sea of disinformation.

I'm a Liberal first, a gun owner second, and not a member of the NRA.

We are educated, we cite our sources, we do not engage in empty emotional rhetoric to push people's buttons, and above all, we are Liberals!

@nfjanette

"culled from a wide variety of sources and then put together any which way that seems to make sense, but often fails careful checking."

Please provide the statistics you are referring to. We gun owners use government statistics, government studies, and the anti-gunners' own studies!

"Once again, the issue is not the average legal gun owner; the issue is that legally purchased guns are often showing up in the hands of criminals, procured by various illegal methods. We should try to control those vectors by focusing on the most common paths with appropriate legislation and enforcement. That's the current Big Issue."

Wrong. The "problem" is indeed the legal gun owner, from the anti point of view. "If only we could get rid of all these guns!"

Here is where guns used in crime came from (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm)
# a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
# a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
# family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

Felons owning guns is already illegal. Selling to a felon is illegal. Stealing is illegal. Do you suggest we make more laws to make them "extra special illegal" in the hopes that it will solve the problem? Do you suggest we create more legislation like "safe storage" laws and "assault weapons bans" which don't work?

The only enforcement/legislative combination proven to reduce gun crime is mandatory sentencing if a gun is used in a violent crime. (source: National Institute of Justice, http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/161839.txt)

"An evaluation of
mandatory gun-use sentencing enhancements in six
large cities (Detroit, Jacksonville, Tampa, Miami,
Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh) indicated that the
laws deterred homicide but not other violent
crimes."

All other avenues of gun control have zero correlation with the violent crime rate.

(source: Brady Campaign to Reduce Handgun Violence, http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/brady_effectiveness.pdf)
"The correlation between your state’s Brady grade, and its actual murder or violent crime rate is absolutely no better than you would get if you ran pairs of random numbers through the analysis."

(source: CDC, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm)

"The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes."

"does it matter that most people are confused by these terms?"

ABSOLUTELY! Remember Sen. Ted Stevens who made the famous gaffe referring to the Internet as "a series of tubes"? That man was responsible for legislation that governed a system he didn't understand!

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

Just as Stevens is incompetent to vote on, criticize, or propose legislation having to do with the Internet, anyone that can't answer these very simple questions is incompetent to propose, vote on, or enforce gun control laws. We have 20,000 gun laws on the books, and most of them contradict each other. Do you really think we need to make MORE?

Posted by: jlbraun | February 6, 2007 1:42 PM

Answers to the above questions, because Daniel Sumrall by his silence affirms his utter incompetence to discuss this matter:

1. What is the difference between full-automatic and semi-automatic? Is there one?
2. Are machine guns legal to own in the United States? Can they be easily bought over the counter?
3. How many legally owned machineguns have been used in a crime by civilians since 1934, when they were restricted by Federal law?
4. What percentage of American homes have firearms in them? a)10% b)25% c)45%
5. Is there any such thing as a 45mm handgun?
6. Is the crime rate by concealed carry holders greater or lesser than the general population?
7. Are there a greater or lesser number of crimes committed with firearms than defensive uses of firearms?
8. What did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban actually ban?
9. What is the average income of a gun owner? a)$20K b) $30K c) $50K
10. Are you more or less likely to be injured a) resisting a violent assault with a firearm or b) resisting a violent assault without a firearm c) not resisting at all?
11. If you are a male citizen of the US, between the ages of 17 and 45, and not in the National Guard or other armed forces, are you in the militia according to the United States Code?
12. Are accidental shootings in the top 5 causes of deaths for children?
13. What is the ratio between homicides and democides (killed by your own government) in the 20th Century?
14. What is the correlation between restricting firearms and the violent crime rate on a state-by-state basis?

ANSWERS:
1. full-auto fires continuously, semi-auto fires one shot with each pull of the trigger.
2. Yes, they're legal. No, you can't buy one without an EXTENSIVE federal background check.
3. Zero of the 300,000 legally owned machineguns have been used in a crime by a citizen since 1934, when they were first regulated. No legally owned silencer, howitzer, or grenade has ever been used in a crime either.
4. C, 45%. Private American citizens own 300 million guns and shoot 9 billion rounds of ammunition a year.
5. No, but a lot of journalists get this one wrong. 45mm is in anti-tank weapon territory.
6. CCW holders are 20 times less likely to be arrested for any crime (source: Texas DOJ).
7. There are 20x more defensive uses than criminal uses (source: Clinton DOJ).
8. Magazine capacities over ten rounds, and certain cosmetic features of military-style rifles. It had NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING to do with banning machine guns.
9. C, $50K. The average education level is a Bachelor's degree. (source: NRA-ILA survey).
10. From most to least likely, b, c, a. You are least likely to be injured while resisting with a firearm (source: UK Home Office).
11. Unequivocally. If you meet these criteria, you are in the militia BY LAW under USC 10 Sec. 311. Therefore, you're in a "well-regulated" militia. There's no POSSIBLE argument on this point. Where's my M4?
12. No. This uses the proper definition of "children" being 0-14 years of age. Accidental death by firearm accounted for 72 child accidental deaths in 2001 in the entire USA. (source: CDC)
13. The instance of democide is 200 times greater than that of homicide.
14. The correlation is zero. Firearms restrictions do not impact the violent crime rate in any way. (source: Brady Campaign to Reduce Handgun Violence)

Posted by: jlbraun | February 6, 2007 2:06 PM

@cedar hill resident
"Are you people reading??? Or just cut and pasting your propaganda???"

It isn't propaganda if it's from a primary source, dearie.

"No one wants to take your rights away!! Get over it!"

Wrong. You do. And it looks like you're outnumbered here. Shouldn't you run along?

"We want laws to protect children and innocent people from illegal guns."

Laws don't protect squat. Enforcement and education protects children, not your stupid laws. Guns are just inanimate objects, yet you seem to be scared of them.

"If you are such true gun lovers you would be supporting this, unless you have an illegal gun or two in your personal arsenals."

As said above, the notion of an "illegal gun" is specious. You are also using shaming language to disguise the fact that you don't have a rational argument to put forth.

Posted by: Christopher Johnson | February 6, 2007 3:18 PM

threefiths.
Actually gun owners agree with you about most of the police abuse cases you mentioned.
They work to end the "no knock" warrants and were loud and clear in telling the police they were wrong to kill that 90 year old grandma in Atlanta, and that she was right to shoot at anyone breaking into her house.
This is why Americans have guns, if only the police and army have guns it is a dictatorship.

cedarhills, you are using an "illegal keyboard" and you have an "unregistered computer."
If you were in China, which has the gun control you prefer and no crime, you could be sent to jail for expressing your opinion! The anti gun crusaders want that kind of society, they want control over the people "by any means necessary"
Wouldn't be easier for you to just move to China or Cuba where guns are strictly controlled? of course they also "control" speech, beliefs, & assembly...but hey! you would have more security!

Posted by: Cedar Hill Resident | February 6, 2007 3:25 PM

I can not even get angry at this it is so sad.

I am not anti-gun I am anti-stupid people. I think that a lot of hot tempered people out there own guns and should not, I think that it is a power thing it makes them feel all big and bad and it is just plain ridiculous! Even a bit pitiful. You keep typing that we want to take the right to bear arms away from people.......get a grip you might shoot yourself in the foot. We know it is bad people that kill not a guns.

We want it so the bad people can not get the guns.
We can not but bad people in jail because we think they will use a gun. But if they can not get the guns or it is harder maybe that one life saved will be yours or a family member of yours.

Posted by: Physician in AL | February 6, 2007 4:40 PM

"Wow what was the NRA informed of this article???

Are you people reading??? Or just cut and pasting your propaganda???"

Reading is the easy, using critical thinking to evaluate and weigh what you read is the difficult part. Those who have propaganda are unable to back up or support their ideas as evidenced by your rant. If you want to talk about the issues then provide us something besides "you just support the NRA" or "no one wants to take away your rights." Neither of your statements further your point or even address what has been said by the pro 2nd amendment comments.

I guess you didn't bother to read that whole section I wrote about incrementalism.... did you? Instead you run around with your hands over your ears because you have made up your mind with half truths.

Do you even pay attention to the news?

Despite their gun laws in Australia:
"Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent.
In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent.
In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily.
There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly."

"No one wants to take your rights away!! Get over it!
We want laws to protect children and innocent people from illegal guns. "

Sorry, I wont get over it, and neither will 45 million law abiding gun owners. I refuse to sit and watch while our country turns into some criminal cesspool nanny police state. I and every other law-abiding citizen should not have to ask permission from our government for our natural rights.

If you want to protect your children and other innocents I highly suggest going to your local FFL licensed dealer and picking up the firearm of your choice. I also suggest you take a firearms safety course and learn how to properly use your newly acquired tool. The police are here to clean up after the crime, not to come relieve us of our own duty to protect ourselves and our families. The police have absolutely no duty to protect you.

I was raised in a household that valued responsibility, independence, and self-reliance. Too many people desire to be subjects and serfs and allow the government or some authority figure to make all the right decisions for them. I don't need the government to tell me how to rear my children, what religion to practice or how to defend my own home.

"ps... Both my children belonged to the Junior Rifle Club."

Good for you "Cedar Hill Resident." This little fact however does nothing to disprove your hatred for your own natural rights. Should I prove that I am no racist by listing the number of my friends who are African American, Asian, Indian or otherwise?

Every month I make it a point to atleast take 2-3 non-shooters to the pistol or rifle range with me to introduce them to this sport. I've yet to find one who didn't realize how responsible and how structured these establishments are. I've also taken a few along when I've purchased a rifle or pistol and again they couldn't believe all the paperwork and background check necessary to obtain a firearm. They often comment that they thought it would be so much easier because they have been told so by the media and anti second amendment rights groups. Are you too ignorant of what a law abiding citizen must go through to purchase a firearm?

Posted by: Robn | February 6, 2007 5:50 PM

Guns don't kill people...people kill people.

However, guns can be extremely useful to people considering a homicidal endeavor.

Posted by: shield20 | February 6, 2007 9:47 PM

Cedar,

I think most of us understand what you are saying, what you are hoping for - really! But you must understand that we have heard it all before...we read the article - and a thousand ones just like it - same exact points - big bad gun lobby, too easy to get guns, too many "kids" hurt, need more sensible gun laws, no need for this or that, registration required like cars (which kill/hurt WAAYYY more then criminals w/guns), ban "assault weapons" (whatever they are), statistics show this, study shows that, etc. etc. etc.

Yet NOT ONCE has any one of these articles EVER told us HOW making it harder for legal gun owners to purchase and carry guns will reduce crime. NOT ONCE has one told us HOW keeping people like me (a married parent with 2 kids, a job, a house, family, friends etc. who never hurt ANYONE) from carrying my licensed pistol concealed on school grounds will reduce school shootings. NOT ONCE has any one told me HOW THEY intend to protect MY kids, when I am not allowed to. NOT ONCE have they even tried to explained WHY, if more guns are so bad, the crime rates steadily DECLINED from 1994-2004 as gun ownership steadily INCREASED - yet they go up last year, and they are all over it.

Yes, illegal use of guns should be prosecuted. Yes, criminals should not have guns. But not until an article or two, or twenty, tells the truth - that targeting guns instead of criminals is the wrong way to fight crime, will we listen. Until then, it is all lost in the same anti-gun biased noise we have been hearing for years, the end result of which we know has ALWAYS been the same - taking away our guns, and our rights.

Posted by: jlbraun | February 6, 2007 10:02 PM

@robn

"However, guns can be extremely useful to people considering a homicidal endeavor."

Or protecting someone FROM a homicidal endeavor. That's the problem with anti-gunners - they don't see the difference between protective violence and murderous violence - it's all violence, and therefore all bad and scary.

Dividing the world into "violent" and "passive" like you just did is empty emotional rhetoric.

Posted by: jlbraun | February 6, 2007 10:13 PM

@cedar hill resident

You're a liar. First you say:

"No one wants to take your rights away!! Get over it!"

Then you say:

"They are not trying to take the guns out of law abiding peoples hands (but if I had my choose they would)."

You're a liar, you contradict yourself, you have no knowledge of the law, a simplistic childish view of the world, and really should just turn off the computer and go watch TV or something. You're not qualified to participate here. Honestly. Run along now.

What they are trying to do is make it so they can track where these guns are coming from. At one point in a little guns life it was bought leagaly but some "law abiding person" (I use that fraze lighty in this case). But .....that little gun ends up in a persons hands that did not get it the right way which adds up to crimes commited with a deadly weapon.

Posted by: cedar hill resident | February 6, 2007 10:28 PM

Physician in AL

You know what I have to back me up!!!! I was chased down my street by a pimp with a gun...I have watched children in my city killed, shot and robbed with guns. I am talking children!!! Several weeks ago one street over 2 drug dealer were shot in a drive-by when a friend of mine had kids out side 3 night s before that a man was shot on that same corner. The store on the corner was robbed with a gun a week later when another neighbors kids were in it. I am living in the middle of a war zone!!!
Doctor were do you live!!!!!!! My community is in the middle of this right now and we are talking about ways to stop this war that we have in our streets right now!!! And you tell me I have no right to rant OHHH whats that

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

See I cut and paste to!!

My life and were I live and the children that are living in the middle of it are my proof!!

It is easy for you to say lock up the criminals but guess what that is not happening unless the dang gun laws are changed so our cops can do there dang jobs!!! Stay in AL were it is safe!!! and you all own guns!! What am I suppose to do go and by all the kids in the area a hand gun to protect them selfs?? While I am at I will get all the people in the city one and post on Yales web site before coming to Yale you need to buy a gun because some guy in AL wants his right to own a gun protected!! would that make you happy!!!

What would make me happy is making it so our police can do there jobs they have told us what needs to be done to stop it and untill then there is nothing we can do because the laws that protect you also protect the criminals! We can pray that no other children are killed!! We are taking steps to educate the children we are doing what we can.

We owe it to the mothers of the 2 13 year old baby's resently killed to fight with everything we have to make it so the police are able to put the criminals behind bars!

ohhh but god forbid you have to fill out a few more forms or wait an extra month to get you gun.

Sorry for the inconvence!!

I Rant therefore I am!!! that and guess what it is my right! But my right does not kill people

Posted by: pinkbicycle | February 6, 2007 11:34 PM

Robin you are right! Guns don't jump up and decide to shoot someone! People have to pick it up and load it, point and pull the trigger. I mean guns are the mode, but knives are dangerous too, so are cars and no one advocates curtailing car use. What's my point--kids are getting their hands on guns. More laws ain't going to make a bit of difference. There is money to be made. And someone is profiting from selling guns to gang bangers and kids who wouldn't other wise have access. We are not paying attention--follow the money. All this emotional diatribe is useless and pointless at best. Follow the fucking money and see who is bringing guns in. If your gun is stolen you ought to report it right off--so if people aren't doing that then hhhm why? No one talkes about organized crime--no, we are focusing on urban youth--code for Balck/Latino. Nobody is talking about white surban kids going to school and shooting their classmates--Parents uanware of their kids activities. But that is another issue. The issue of kids accessing guns is about straw sales and adults making money on supplying kids, gangs etc. with guns. The power of the NRA is about ensuring that gov't doesn't restrain people from buying and stockpiling firearms. Like it or not guns are here to stay! Change the paradigm of the conversation--how to minimize the damage of guns falling into the wrong hands.

Posted by: Garry Hamilton | February 7, 2007 1:33 AM

". . . maybe that one life saved . . ."

Sad. Very sad. "If it just saves one life."

Pathetic.

Guns save (conservatively) a million lives a year.

Most of those without a shot ever having been fired.

So, let's do some "if it just saves one" math with this: bad guys with guns kill hundreds of people a year, maybe thousands; good guys with guns prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths, maybe millions, per year.

No contest. Using the "if is just saves one" approach, firearms should be compulsory, the way seatbelts and airbags and child seats are now. They save way more lives than they take, so using conventional "anything good must be legislated as compulsory" reasoning, it must now be mandated that every household have at least one gun per adult.

Yes, I know, nobody wants to revert to the laws that we had in the early 1700s, when households were indeed mandated to have weapons. It wasn't optional. Today, because we've outsourced community "protection" to police and national "protection" to a standing army, it doesn't (seem to) make sense to REQUIRE every householder to be armed.

Although, when you examine crime figures in communities where householders have been encouraged by local ordinance to possess arms, you can easily conclude that an armed community is significantly safer.

Of course, much is implied by this. It implies that people learn safe handling, learn marksmanship, and learn respect for a rifle or pistol and what it can do.

This isn't really a big deal. We shove kids through driver's training without giving it a second thought. Why? Because a normal part of our lives is the use of a two-ton hunk of wheeled metal and glass that will do upwards of a hundred miles per hour and will kill a dozen people at a single stroke. We have no problem with putting a deadly weapon in the hands of sixteen-year-olds, but we like them to be trained and tested first.

Gun safety & marksmanship requires fewer hours, less risk, less cost, and imparts a skill that parlays into a lifesaving resource.

And, while car ownership may lead to increased affluence, gun ownership leads to increased security. The two are quite complementary.

While we're here, let's address the "protecting our kids" thing.

My mother took the time to advise me of the consequences of the stupid things I did growing up. My dad was somewhat less tactful in that kind of instruction, but the end result was that I tend to think from cause to effect.

I'm still alive today. I can, as it happens, cope with life, thanks to the lessons of my parents. My kids, too, can cope with life. Hardly surprising: I used the same model to raise them. You are responsible for the outcomes of the choices you make.

Kids, when taught consequences and cause-and-effect reasoning, can cope pretty well with life. They don't need to be coddled. They're pretty tough and resourceful, given half a chance.

The more you "protect" them, the more you impair their ability to deal with real life.

Teach them real life. Teach them right and wrong. Teach them responsibility and consequences. Teach them cause and effect. Teach them to reason.

Teach them skill at arms, safety with arms, and self protection with arms.

If they really understand that they own the results of their choices, none of this will be a problem.

Of course, you may run into trouble with any school that insists that "self esteem" is king, and kids are "entitled" to things in life.

Guns are their heritage. Prepare them properly for that aspect of their lives.

They actually can handle this.

They'll be fine. Really.

Posted by: jlbraun | February 7, 2007 1:54 AM

@cedar hill resident
"You know what I have to back me up!!!! I was chased down my street by a pimp with a gun..."

And you blame the gun?

"I have watched children in my city killed, shot and robbed with guns. I am talking children!!!"

And you blame the gun?

"Several weeks ago one street over 2 drug dealer were shot in a drive-by when a friend of mine had kids out side 3 night s before that a man was shot on that same corner. "

And you blame the gun?

"The store on the corner was robbed with a gun a week later when another neighbors kids were in it."

And you blame the gun?

Lunacy.

Posted by: Christopher Johnson | February 7, 2007 2:27 AM

Cedar, the woman in the article, Lisa Labella
is a liar. She is lying about the number of children
dying by gun homocide, and it is easily provable.

Why should public policy be decided by liars?
She is lying because if she told the truth, she wouldn't have a case.

Are you being held hostage in your neighborhood?
Is it illegal for you to move?

I was born in Harlem and I know what a ghetto is like from first hand experience, you need to (to quote Bob Marley) "pick yourself up,dust your self off" and move out of what you living in.
A college course in logic and remedial spelling would also go a long way in how you present your ideas.
Have a nice life! this is my last post here.

Posted by: Matt Uva | February 7, 2007 7:25 AM

Laws to protect the public from stolen/illegally purchased guns are already in place. Why write new laws, when the old laws are not being enforced?

Any responsible gun owner is not going to have a problem reporting a stolen gun. The issue most gun owners have with any law of this type is in the amount of time was is given in which to report the theft. In many cases, it may not be apparent a theft has occurred until after the deadline.

Guns that have been stolen will remain in circulation almost indefinitely. Eventually, someone will give/sell/otherwise trade their stolen gun, and it will end up in the hands of a new "owner".
Any thought that taking away a citizen's right to bear arms will eventually lead to ZERO guns on the street is preposterous. The thought that this would be effective within 100 years is equally illogical. (When the IRA "gave up" their guns to the British Gov't, many were WWI relics -- most were in working order.)

Let's stop attacking "guns" as the source of the problem.

Posted by: shield20 | February 7, 2007 8:46 AM

Cedar,

You are DAMN RIGHT if I lived in an area such as you described I would have my own gun - several of them in fact. I would learn how to use them, I would teach my kids how to handle them properly, and I would make damn sure to have atleast 1 on me at all times. Now, can you do that legally in your town? Can you legally defend yourself and your kids from the gangbangers who ILLEGALLY committ crime? Can you legally get other concerned parents legally armed? [if you can't, you better find out why, because keeping you (or me) from having guns is obviously not helping stop gun crime] That would be a start. Getting the police to do their jobs, and prosecuters to do theirs, would also help. Getting parents to do their job of raising their kids right seems the biggest step to take.

IN the mean time, New Haven KNOWS what the problem is:

"In the Summer of 1999, the New Haven Gun Project implemented several new strategies to attack violent gun crime in the City of New Haven. Currently, the project is fully operational in the Fair Haven, Newhallville, Hill North and Dwight/Chapel neighborhoods.

The selection of strategies relied in significant part on extensive research into the specific nature and dimensions of incidents of murder, assault with a firearm, armed robbery, the unlawful firing of firearms and unlawful firearm possession. Data from this research, conducted by Spectrum Associates of Farmington, Connecticut, was presented to a wide array of law enforcement, government and community representatives in order to solicit ideas for strategies to reduce violent gun crimes and illegal gun possession. Some of the data presented included:

A LARGE PERCENTAGE of offenders and victims were 15-21 years of age.

MOST OFFENDERS HAD SERIOUS CRIMINAL HISTORIES.

ONE FIFTH OF OFFENDERS HAD BEEN ARRESTED FOR A PRIOR GUN OFFENSE, AND THREE-FIFTHS HAD A HISTORY OF DRUG CHARGES. [4/5 of ALL gun crimes covered right here! WHY are they on the street???]

OVER ONE THRID OF THE OFFENDERS WERE ON PROBATION AT THE TIME OF THE NEW GUN-RELATED OFFENSE.

APPROX. ONE-THIRD OF OFFENDERS AND VICTIMS ASSOCIATED WITH MURDERS AND ARMED ASSAULTS WERE MEMBERS OF NEIGHBOORHOOD "GROUPS" INVOLVED IN OTHER ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES."

Over and over again what we have been saying all along becomes even more evident, GUNS AIN'T THE PROBLEM, CRIMINALS ARE!!!! ENFORCE THE LAWS, PROSECUTE THE CRIMINALS, AND ATLEAST 4/5 OF THESE CRIMES GO AWAY - INSTANTLY!

Posted by: Physician in AL | February 7, 2007 9:21 AM

You know what I have to back me up!!!! I was chased down my street by a pimp with a gun...I have watched children in my city killed, shot and robbed with guns. I am talking children!!! Several weeks ago one street over 2 drug dealer were shot in a drive-by when a friend of mine had kids out side 3 night s before that a man was shot on that same corner. The store on the corner was robbed with a gun a week later when another neighbors kids were in it. I am living in the middle of a war zone!!!
Doctor were do you live!!!!!!! My community is in the middle of this right now and we are talking about ways to stop this war that we have in our streets right now!!! And you tell me I have no right to rant OHHH whats that

You are absolutely hysterical. Again no reason, no facts, only emotion. You are a victim of the slimy politicians who like to like to give lip service to being "tough on crime" but do nothing. Because you have some emotional connection to the issue you are easily swayed and unfortunately poorly informed.

As a physician I constantly have to reevaluate how I treat and diagnose. If the medical community treated patients with purely anecdotal experiences we would truely be the laughing stock of the scientific community. . I must rely on the preponderance of EVIDENCE in deciding what I prescribe, how long to treat, and even when not to treat. It is unfortunate that the media and other avenues of information do not receive the same scruitiny by the public. This is of course a sign of the times. We no longer teach real critical thinking skills in our school, so most go and assimilate information that best fits their own prejudices without looking at both sides of the equation.

I also find it rather hysterical that you embrace emotion and anecdotal evidence for your proof. Imagine if the scientific or medical community were to hold themselves to the same standard.

You say that police desire for the public to be unarmed so they can "do their job." These statements truely prove to me that you have a very poor understanding of the entire issue. Given a choice between giving prison sentencing real teeth or taking away law abiding citizens right to protect themselves you choose the latter?? I do agree with you that the police are truely understaffed. Disarming the public only furthers that problem. There are already court rulings and case law that support the notion that the police HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT you. This means that YOU and no one else are the first responder. The response time for the police to show is abysmal at best.

The politicians love your line of reasoning because they can inact legislation that makes them look as if they are tough on crime. They love people who can be easily swayed by emotional stories and no proof. They enjoy having a public who are easily swindled. They love inacting legislation that doesn't address the tough problems because they don't have to tell their dependents "NO."

Where I live is irrelevant (though we do have our share of violent crime). I do see many more victims of violent crime than you ever will. Strangely enough, you rarely see any armed "victims" in the Emergency Department. It's always the ones without any way of defending themselves. Coincidence? I think not.

Posted by: Cedar Hill Resident | February 7, 2007 10:16 AM

ok this is my last post on this article...

It has been great arguing with you guys you are very well informed gun owners. I love a good debate they are such great learning tools.

But as we all no there will always be a battle over this.

I wish I knew the gun laws to be able to give you a better fight. The only thing I know is what the NHPD has told us on why it is so hard to get the guns off the street and what there road blocks are in doing so. And if a cop tells me that the laws do not help them with there fight I have to stand with them and say they need to be fixed so the police can do there jobs.

It would be great if we could get the criminals off the street the only problem with that is our jails are filled we are sending criminals to other states because they are so filled. You have people that should be in jail for years only doing months because there is no room for them.

So I realize that guns on the street is a small part of a bigger problem but in the article we were address gun trafficking not the right to own a gun.
As I said before I am not anti-gun. Both my kids were trained and taught to use a rifle in the Junior Rifle Club which was not my choose but I suppose it was good for them to know how dangerous a gun can be. But because of the abuse of the gun laws people are profiting and endangering the lives of others.

But what I do not understand (nor will I probably ever understand) is that to stop that is also to protect your right to own a gun. Because of these people (profiteers) they are making it so that people who are responsible gun owners have there rights jeopardized it makes it so that people have to fight for the right to own guns. I can not understand why gun owners would not want to help the police to stop the trafficking so that these people do not ruin it for everyone else.

Well with that said thanx for the great debate and thank you for the knowledge on the gun laws. And even some history facts.
Here's to hoping for a better world for all.

Posted by: shield20 | February 7, 2007 11:22 AM

Cheers Cedar,

And good luck - really. I do not envy your situation in the least. Thanks for listening, and for arguing civily with us. We the people, CAN solve this problem, as long as we are honest, and realsitic, and strong!

Posted by: jlbraun | February 7, 2007 12:25 PM

"I wish I knew the gun laws to be able to give you a better fight. The only thing I know is what the NHPD has told us on why it is so hard to get the guns off the street and what there road blocks are in doing so."

There you have it. After all that, you admit that you have no knowledge of the law and are easily swayed by emotional, anecdotal arguments.

You lose, have a nice day.

Posted by: nfjanette | February 7, 2007 1:18 PM

You lose, have a nice day.

This is, unfortunately, classic NRA slander, and it makes me feel embarrassed to have been associated with the organization in my target shooting days. Rather than addressing the issue - which is that legally purchased firearms are being sold and/or stolen at high rates and making their way into the hands of criminals - the commentators approach is to use slander and rhetoric to divert attention from the stated issue.

The issue is not legal gun ownership.

The issue is not an incorrectly perceived attack on the second amendment.

The issue is not whether non-gun owners know all of the proper terms to describe various firearms.

The issue is not the emotional state of people writing to express their fear and rage at being victims of violent crime in which guns are the preferred tool.

The issue is trying to control the flow of those preferred tools. Let's stick to the issue.

The solution to that issue offered by the NRA members is that everyone should be trained to use firearms and should have them available whenever needed. It's left as an exercise to the public to imagine the results of such a policy. From my direct experience dealing with owners of firearms at the range over many years, I've met enough scary people coming out of the "handgun class" to know there are just some people that shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. There's nothing like being downrange changing a target when some idiot opens fire a few stalls away, or like when people are excitedly talking about how they can't wait for someone to try "something" on them now they they have their new 9mm. We need better ways to screen out these lunatics and to dramatically increase the required safety training for citizens that want to own firearms.

Posted by: Garry Hamilton | February 7, 2007 2:32 PM

nfjanette:
I've met enough scary people coming out of the "handgun class" to know there are just some people that shouldn't be allowed to own firearms.

And there are people that shouldn't be allowed to own a car, a large bucket, or a swimming pool, since all of these things kill more kids annually than guns.

You're fixing the wrong problem.

The reason you see "idiots" coming out classes is (wait for it) that there are idiots going into those classes.

How does one, in this day and age of "enlightened" education, manage to get out into society and still be an idiot?

Where is the hue and cry about a school system that does not educate, leading to ruined lives, career criminals, and burgeoning welfare roles?

The "idiots" of which you speak have learned that whatever feels good is what is "right" for them, that they are "entitled" to good things, that they "deserve" a better life, yet somehow they never learned a) that they have to earn that stuff, and b) HOW to earn that stuff.

Cast into society without a clue or a hope, they do what is entirely predictable: they turn to crime.

The school system actually CREATES criminals, but nobody wants to confront that. Instead, they look at the things criminals USE in their crimes, and figure that if all the "tools" are removed, so will the crime be.

Oh, yeah. That'll work. Those "idiots" can be pretty resourceful. Take away one tool, they'll find another. In the meantime, though, you will have condemned thousands of elderly folk, young women, and disabled persons to a life as prey for these hooligans.

The U.K. is our current shining example of the consequence of enacting progressively more and more idiotic disarmament legislation, to the point where it is pretty much illegal to defend yourself in Britain and more, even with so much as a wooden stick or a steak knife that happens to be at hand when you're attacked.

Disarming victims never disarms the bad guys.

Never.

Making it harder for good guys to be armed just disarms more victims.

Nice going.

The problem is a social one, not one of technologies used in attack or defense.

You're already not keeping the bad guys in jail.

WTF?

You create "idiots" in school, who go on to become criminals, who are then (briefly) jailed, then turned loose time after time to prey upon the innocent, and you figure making it "hard to get guns" is going to mitigate that in the least?

Dream on!

("Personally, I think the real problem is that criminals have far too much opportunity to collaborate and plan using modern communications technology. We have to restrict criminal access to unrestricted speech. Starting now, we need to fingerprint everyone who buys a cell phone. Anyone buying more than one cell phone a month should be flagged to an active watch list. Pagers fall into this same class and must be restricted. A program of registering owners of cell phones and pagers needs to be instituted.

We don't want to deprive anyone of their legitimate phones, but unrestricted access to free speech has to be reined in.")

Fix the schools. Get the stinking psychologists out of there: they've had more than 40 years to prove they can do a better job, and they've blown it -- impressively I might add.

Teach kids the stuff that will prepare them for real life, and make it possible for them to cope when they enter society. There goes the bulk of your criminal element, right there.

Then deal with criminals. Really deal with them. Quit turning them back out into society to do more damage.

Amazingly, your "gun" problem has disappeared. Why? Because the people who want to cause harm have been contained or eliminated.

After all these years I continue to be astounded at the inability of "educated" folk to reason from cause to effect.

Fix the real causes. Inanimate things are not causes.

And abridging and abrogating the constitutionally guaranteed rights of law-abiding citizens will NOT fix the causes.

Fix the real causes.

Posted by: jlbraun | February 7, 2007 3:03 PM

@nfjanette

"This is, unfortunately, classic NRA slander, and it makes me feel embarrassed to have been associated with the organization in my target shooting days. Rather than addressing the issue - which is that legally purchased firearms are being sold and/or stolen at high rates and making their way into the hands of criminals - the commentators approach is to use slander and rhetoric to divert attention from the stated issue."

First, I'm not a member of the NRA - they don't support enough Democrats with good pro-gun records.

Second, I don't resort to that kind of thing with people who are capable of discussing the issue rationally. Cedar Hill Resident has demonstrated a complete ignorance of the law, the research surrounding the issue, and firearms in general. The empty emotional rhetoric (not to mention the excessive use of exclamation points) used by Cedar Hill Resident is useless and counterproductive, therefore it's best for that person to admit defeat and go home rather that further demonstrating ignorance and clouding the issue.

That said, let's look at what you said in a rational matter.

"The issue is trying to control the flow of those preferred tools. Let's stick to the issue."

OK, let's.

Please provide evidence that "controlling the flow" actually impacts violent crime where it has been tried in the US - it will likely contradict every major study out there (USDOJ, NIJ, CDC) that concludes gun laws don't affect violent crime at all.

Please provide the justification for controlling inanimate obejcts rather than punishing the perpetrator of the crime.

Please provide support for your contention that more firearms training is somehow a bad thing.

Please explain how Vermont, with zero training or licensing requirement to carry a concealed handgun wherever you go, ranks 48th in the nation in violent crime.

I await your answers. I hope that you're not resorting to the tactics you deplore of throwing out empty rhetoric. Here is your chance to support your position, so support it.

Posted by: robn | February 7, 2007 6:26 PM

There once was a man from Verdun.
Shot off his left $&Â¥ with a gun.
He exclaimed,"I'm amazed!"
"These were supposed to be safe!"
Then oops...shot off the other one.

Posted by: greg | February 8, 2007 12:00 PM

pinkbicycle: Sir/Madam, Its not necessary for you to use the "fuc----money" language in this debate. you diminish the subject with this language. also,its suburban, not surban.

Posted by: Cedar Hill Resident | February 8, 2007 1:11 PM

Lets just say I had to do one more post. The devil made me do it :) before this diappared.

The 2nd Amendment states:
"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 Supreme Court has always said that the 2nd Amendment protects the states' militia's rights to bear arms, and that this protection does not extend to individuals.

In fact, legal scholars consider the issue "settled law." For this reason, the gun lobby does not fight for its perceived constitutional right to keep and bear arms before the Supreme Court, but in Congress.

not my reaseach but I never claimed to be a book smart just regular person that knows alot of law students :0

Posted by: James | February 8, 2007 5:16 PM

What foolishness from the NRA supporters.

The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of guns used in crimes started out as legal purchases. For every 100 law abiding gun owners, there is one evil scumbag selling guns illegally to criminals. This law would simply provide some sort of sanction against the scumbag. When a gun he purchased is found to have been used by a criminal, it stops him from simply saying "it must have been stolen" and getting off scot free.

I don't at all endorse taking away our constitutional rights to bear arms, but why is every common sense measure seen as some sort of slippery slope toward this.

If you own guns, you should be responsible enough to secure and check them regularly. If one of your guns is missing for a few days and you don't know it, you haven't demonstrated the capacity for responsible ownership. If one of your guns is missing and you are unaware, how do you know the neighbor's kid doesn't have it?

And don't get me started on the stupid argument about "we already have enough gun control laws". In practice, our state laws are only as strong as the weakest laws in other states. Many of the crime guns making their way into the Northeast started out being purchased in southern states with ridiculously weak gun laws. So we have to do everything we can.

Why does a law intended If you own guns

Posted by: Physician in AL | February 9, 2007 12:46 AM

"The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of guns used in crimes started out as legal purchases. For every 100 law abiding gun owners, there is one evil scumbag selling guns illegally to criminals. This law would simply provide some sort of sanction against the scumbag. When a gun he purchased is found to have been used by a criminal, it stops him from simply saying "it must have been stolen" and getting off scot free."

James the problem here is that the anti second amendment rights group would like to make yet another law that could potentially make many law abiding citizens criminals. That citizen becomes a criminal if they are burglarized and have left their house for more than 72 hours. Stealing a firearm, burglary, illegal firearms trafficking are already felonious crimes that have severe penalties. The police and court systems already have all the tools necessary to prosecute criminals who perpetrate these crimes.

All people who sell firearms illegally are criminals, all people who have been burgled of a firearm and cannot report it for 72 hrs (because they are on vacation, did not notice) are not necessarily criminals.

Also, please stop using the phrase "common sense laws." This is just a phrase that legislators like to use to sway the opinion of the general public who have a very superficial understanding of the consequences of their legislation. You must think several steps ahead. Like others said above, it would be like requiring you to report your vehicle stolen withing 72 hours our suffer criminal charges. After all that car could be used in the commision of a crime. I guess none of us will be taking vacations longer than 72 hours eh?

I want to nail these illegal gun dealers as badly as you do but the problem isn't with the existing law. Try voting for judges who really make sentences stick. Vote for judges who put violent crimnals in jail for the maximum sentence. We can convict people all day long but if you let them off with probation, your "conviction" is meaningless. Pass a law like this one and you are just going to continue to clog the already congested court system with meaningless convictions of people who simply were on vacation and were burgled or were unaware they were burgled. For every 100 honest people you convict, you might catch one crook.

Let's stop chasing our tails

"If you own guns, you should be responsible enough to secure and check them regularly. If one of your guns is missing for a few days and you don't know it, you haven't demonstrated the capacity for responsible ownership. If one of your guns is missing and you are unaware, how do you know the neighbor's kid doesn't have it? "

This is completely unreasonable. Again I guess you expect that every gun owner never be more than 72 hrs from his collection. Why should we expect to be robbed. It's now the firearm owners fault that he was robbed (I guess you think that being robbed is a normal state of affairs...) My firearms are shot perhaps 2-3 times per month. You honestly think I should inventory my collection every 72 hrs? I guess we should also all be required to inventory every knife, potential sharp object, and potential bludgeoning instrument every 72 hrs as each of these objects account for the majority of injuries in violent crime.

Your law isn't so "common sense" any more is it?

"And don't get me started on the stupid argument about "we already have enough gun control laws". In practice, our state laws are only as strong as the weakest laws in other states. Many of the crime guns making their way into the Northeast started out being purchased in southern states with ridiculously weak gun laws. So we have to do everything we can. "

I'm happy to entertain you with this argument. You would rather blame everyone else for the increasing crime in your place of residence than blame poor parenting, hopelessness among citizens in impoverished communities, poor relationships between police and citizens, social programs that encourage dependance. Austrailia already made the same argument and experimented with your "strong gun laws." The results were dramatically increased rape, murder, theft, and other violent crimes.

Please educate me on your "superior northern gun laws." Assault weapons ban's on firearms almost never used in violent crime, One firearm a month purchasing limits that only affect people who legally purchase firearms, "High Capacity" magazine limitations when the average number of shots fired in a violent crime are less than 5.

Only the foolish believe that gun control is the magic bullet to reduce crime. Elect some officials who aren't empty suits and will give more than lip service to reducing crime. Volunteer some of your time to help underpriveledged children feel less hopeless. Take some pride and ownership in your community and stop pointing fingers everywhere else.

Posted by: Physician in AL | February 9, 2007 12:54 AM

Cedar Hill Resident.
Here is a list with citations included as well as brief explanation of the case law, supreme court rulings, and writings of the constitutional authors explaining in plain english that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

Whomever thinks that the pro second amendment advocates do not fight for supreme court rulings have obviously only scratched the surface.

You might want to sit down for this. My list is long and extensive:

Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. — James Madison
Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion. — James Madison
James Madison: “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms.” (Federalist Paper #46)
Comment by A Bonvie at 9:53 pm on January 28, 2007
The Supreme Court recognized that the right to arms is an individual right in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), U.S. v. Miller (1939) and U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990). In U.S. v. Cruikshank, the nation’s highest court also recognized that the right preexisted the Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall be debarred the use of arms.” Patrick Henry said, “The great object is, that every man be armed.” Richard Henry Lee wrote, “To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms.” Thomas Paine noted, “[A]rms . . . discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.”
Comment by JD Bateman at 4:10 am on January 29, 2007
• Prominent Federalist Tench Coxe asked, “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?. . . Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. . . . [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
In introducing the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives, James Madison noted that the amendments “relate first to private rights.” Sen. William Grayson observed that they “altogether respected personal liberty.” Tench Coxe wrote, “[T]he people are confirmed by the next article [of amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
Constitutional scholars have noted that there is no historical basis for the claim that the Second Amendment only protects a so-called “collective right” of the states to arm militias. Author, attorney and constitutional expert Stephen P. Halbrook sums it up succinctly, writing: “If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis.” (That Every Man Be Armed, Univ. of N.M. Press, 1984)
Historian Joyce Lee Malcolm, testifying before Congress in 1995, told Rep. John Conyers, “It is very hard, sir, to find a historian who now believes it is only a ‘collective right.’ [T]here is a general consensus that in fact it is an individual right.”
The Supreme Court recognized that the right to arms is an individual right in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), U.S. v. Miller (1939) and U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990). In U.S. v. Cruikshank, the nation’s highest court also recognized that the right preexisted the Constitution.
In U.S. v. Emerson (2001) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that this right is subject only to “limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions” that “are not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this country. . . . All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans.” Other federal court decisions have been divided on the nature of the right.
During the Bush Administration, the Attorney General and the Department of Justice have recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is an individually-held right. (www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm).
The National Guard, established in 1903, is not the militia referred to in the Second Amendment. For more than 400 years, the term “well regulated militia” has meant the people, with privately owned weapons, led by officers chosen by themselves. Tench Coxe said that the militia “are in fact the effective part of the people at large.” Richard Henry Lee said that the militia “are in fact the people themselves.” George Mason said that the militia consist “of the whole people.”
The Guard is subject to absolute federal control (Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 1990) and thus is not the “well regulated militia” referred to in the Second Amendment. “The Militia of the United States” is defined under federal law to include all able-bodied males of age and some other males and females (10 U.S.C., §311; 32 U.S.C., §313), with the Guard established as only its “organized” element.
Comment by Jeff at 10:37 pm on January 29, 2007
In introducing the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives, James Madison noted that the amendments “relate first to private rights.” Sen. William Grayson observed that they “altogether respected personal liberty.” Tench Coxe wrote, “[T]he people are confirmed by the next article [of amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
Comment by Jeff at 10:44 pm on January 29, 2007
The United States Supreme Court discussed the meaning of the militia in a 1939 decision which was based on traditional views ex-pressed in state court decisions. “The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Constitutional Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of ap-proved commenta-tors. These show plainly enough that the Militia com-prised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. . . . In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult males inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defense. The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former.”
The sentimental role of the citizen-soldier is found in the parallel to the Roman Cincinnatus who left his plow in the field to answer his country’s call. The Supreme Court in one of the very few rulings rendered on the right to keep and bear arms, looked at the historical context in which forces consisting of citizen-soldiers had developed. “It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource from maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.”
Most of the political writers of the colonial and federal periods were intimately familiar with the liberal political writings of the Enlight-enment. One of the most writers who exercised great influence on the development of the American mind was James Harring-ton (1611-1677), the philosopher of property rights and economic determinism. Harring-ton called the militia, “the vast body of citizens in arms, both elders and youth.” Harrington also noted that the militia consisted of “Men accustomed to their arms and their liberties.” Commenting on Harrington’s thought, Sir Henry Vance the Younger wrote that the militia comprised those who “have deserved to be trusted with the keeping or bearing Their own Armes in publick defense.”
A more contemporary writer was the first great economic philosopher, Adam Smith (1723-1790), author of the influential treatise, The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776. Smith defined the term militia as, “either all the citizens of military age, or a certain number of them, to join in some measure the trade of a soldier to whatever other trade or profession they may happen to carry on. If this is found to be the policy of a nation, its military force is then said to consist of a militia.”
A French contemporary of Smith’s, Hilliard d’Auberteuil, observed that “a well regulated militia [is] drawn from the body of the people.” It is “accustomed to arms” and “is the proper, natural and sure defense of a free state.” He cautioned his readers that a standing army, on the other hand, was destructive of liberty. French military theorist Comte de Guibert expressed little admiration for militiamen who were not well disciplined. Having witnessed American militiamen in action, he described the citizen-soldier a as “real barbarian” who is
terrible when angered, he will carry flame and fire to the enemy. He will terrify, with his vengeance, any people who may be tempted to trouble his repose. And let no one call barbarous these reprisals based on laws of nature [although] they may be violations of so-called laws of war. . . . He arises, leaves his fireside, he will perish, in the end, if neces-sary; but he will obtain satisfaction, he will avenge himself, he will assure himself, by the magnificence of this vengeance, of his future tranquility.
Sir James A. H. Murray in his New English Dictionary of Historical Principles, defined the militia as, “a military force, especially the body of soldiers in the service of the sovereign of the state, [who are] the whole body of men amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether drilled or not . . . . A citizen army as distinguished from a body of mercenaries or professional soldiers.”
Simeon Howard (1733-1804), writing in Boston in 1773, said that a militia was “the power of defense in the body of the people . . . [that is], a well-regulated and well-disciplined militia. This is placing the sword in hands that will not be likely to betray their trust, and who will have the strongest motives to act their part well, in defence of their country.”
Justice Story in his Commentaries defended the militia system. He wrote, “The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic usurpation of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military estab-lishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expense with which they afford ambitious and unprincipled rulers to subvert the government, or trammel upon the rights of the people. The rights of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary powers of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
Benjamin Franklin defined the militia as a voluntary association of extra-governmental armed troops acting under their own authority. Franklin wrote that a militia is a “voluntary Assembling of great Bodies of armed Men, from different Parts of the Province, on occasional Alarm, whether true or false, . . . without Call or Authority from the Government, and without due Order and Direction among themselves . . . which cannot be done where compulsive Means are used to force Men into Military Service. . . . ”
Source document: Militia Treatises
by
James B. Whisker
Professor of Political Science
West Virginia University
In every case, no definition of the militia may be
said to preclude the individual citizen acting on
behalf of himself, his neighbors, or his family, to use force of arms in their defense, or for any other lawful purpose.
Brady lies. It is the very wellspring of misinformation, disinformation, distortions, untruths, and simple, bald-faced lies.
Only a fool would look to the Brady Campaign for guidance as only a fool follows a liar.
Comment by Groucho Marxist at 10:46 pm on January 29, 2007
In U.S. v. Emerson (2001) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that this right is subject only to “limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions” that “are not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this country. . . . All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans.” Other federal court decisions have been divided on the nature of the right.
The National Guard, established in 1903, is not the militia referred to in the Second Amendment. For more than 400 years, the term “well regulated militia” has meant the people, with privately owned weapons, led by officers chosen by themselves. Tench Coxe said that the militia “are in fact the effective part of the people at large.” Richard Henry Lee said that the militia “are in fact the people themselves.” George Mason said that the militia consist “of the whole people.”
In introducing the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives, James Madison noted that the amendments “relate first to private rights.” Sen. William Grayson observed that they “altogether respected personal liberty.” Tench Coxe wrote, “[T]he people are confirmed by the next article [of amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

Posted by: James | February 9, 2007 11:31 AM

Physician in AL:

"That citizen becomes a criminal if they are burglarized and have left their house for more than 72 hours."

So your whole basis of argument against the law is this weak specious "what if you were away on vacation" scenario? It would be a simple matter to report it when you came back from vacation. The clock would start when you returned home. No one is going to be prosecuted if they can establish that they were away.

"This is completely unreasonable. Again I guess you expect that every gun owner never be more than 72 hrs from his collection. Why should we expect to be robbed. It's now the firearm owners fault that he was robbed (I guess you think that being robbed is a normal state of affairs...) My firearms are shot perhaps 2-3 times per month. You honestly think I should inventory my collection every 72 hrs?"

Absolutely I expect you to inventory your collection every 72 hours. What's the big deal? Lock the room where you keep the gun collection and if the room gets broken into, REPORT it to the police. If you have so many guns that you can't keep track of them all, don't you see that as a problem? Let's face it, the only way someone is going to be prosecuted under this law is if one of their guns ends up in the hands of a child or a criminal. And that is a problem which the gun owner should be called to account for.

Why are you so eager as a gun owner to shift the responsibility for dealing with your stolen firearm on to the police? Yes, unfortunately our society has plenty of criminals. That doesn't absolve you of the responsibility for securing and accounting for your firearms.

"You would rather blame everyone else for the increasing crime in your place of residence than blame poor parenting, hopelessness among citizens in impoverished communities, poor relationships between police and citizens, social programs that encourage dependance."

So because I don't have an answer for all of the ills of our society, I can't insist that a fellow citizen secure his guns? Please.

Again, since you choose to have a collection of weapons in your house and admit that you may go for three days, a week, a month, without knowing the specific whereabouts of each of the weapons, how do you know the neighbor's kid doesn't have one? Don't you consider that a problem?

Conflating this proposed legislation with attacks on the Second Amendment itself is just an obfuscation tactic.

Posted by: jlbraun | February 9, 2007 12:09 PM

@james

The things you said need some justification. You have advocated sweeping law changes in a public forum, yet have provided no primary sources and no legal justification, only emotional platitudes and empty rhetoric. Here is your chance to justify what you have been saying, you can't just throw stuff out there and hope some of it sticks.

"The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of guns used in crimes started out as legal purchases. For every 100 law abiding gun owners, there is one evil scumbag selling guns illegally to criminals. This law would simply provide some sort of sanction against the scumbag."

Please provide justification for this new law, when selling guns to felons is already illegal. Do we make them "extra special illegal"?

"When a gun he purchased is found to have been used by a criminal, it stops him from simply saying "it must have been stolen" and getting off scot free."

Please provide justification for punishing the person that did not commit the crime. Selling guns to felons is already illegal.

"I don't at all endorse taking away our constitutional rights to bear arms, but why is every common sense measure seen as some sort of slippery slope toward this."

Please provide a citation that you can "take away" rights at all. You seem to have missed the whole idea of inherent human rights.

"If you own guns, you should be responsible enough to secure and check them regularly. If one of your guns is missing for a few days and you don't know it, you haven't demonstrated the capacity for responsible ownership. If one of your guns is missing and you are unaware, how do you know the neighbor's kid doesn't have it?"

Please provide justification for requiring legal gun owners to inventory their collections every 72 hours. Please provide justification along with a primary source citation that this would actually reduce crime.

"And don't get me started on the stupid argument about "we already have enough gun control laws". In practice, our state laws are only as strong as the weakest laws in other states. Many of the crime guns making their way into the Northeast started out being purchased in southern states with ridiculously weak gun laws. So we have to do everything we can."

Please provide justification for blaming other states for a given state's problems.

Please anser the question "If these guns are being so easily purchased in their home states, why aren't they being used in crimes there?" A pirimary example cited by gun-grabbers is "Virginia has lax gun laws, and guns bought or stolen in Virgina are being used in crimes in Washington DC. Therefore, Virginia should tighten its gun laws." Arlington, VA has a murder rate crime rate OVER TWENTY TIMES LOWER and it's only a few miles away! (source: FBI Uniform Crime Rate Report, 2002) Could it be that the problem isn't places with permissive gun laws, it's places with gun laws that are too restrictive?

Please provide a primary source that says definitively that restrictions on firearms reduce crime anywhere it has been tried in the United States. Please justify your implied contention that "The 20,000 gun laws that we have aren't working, so we have to make more!"

@cedar hill resident
ets just say I had to do one more post. The devil made me do it :) before this diappared.

The 2nd Amendment states:
"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 Supreme Court has always said that the 2nd Amendment protects the states' militia's rights to bear arms, and that this protection does not extend to individuals."

Please provide a detailed citation indicating which cases, the dates, and the relative assents and dissents.

Please provide justification for your implication that "the people" as used everywhere else in the document refers to individuals, but "the people" used in the 2nd somehow refers to the collective.

Please justify your implication that the 2nd Amendment refers to the "right of the state not to disarm, um, itself."

Please also justify your interpretation of the 2nd (it's yours alone, no one else including the Supreme Court agrees with you) as securing a collective right, when that conflicts with the right to keep and bear arms as laid out in every STATE Constitution, INCLUDING Conneticut's!

"Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Conneticut State Constitution, Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17)."

Please answer this question: "Even if the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution secures some mythical collective right, doesn't your STATE constitution EXPLICITLY spell it out as an individual right?"

Please justify your implication that the Connecticut State Constitution secures a "collective" right.

"In fact, legal scholars consider the issue "settled law." For this reason, the gun lobby does not fight for its perceived constitutional right to keep and bear arms before the Supreme Court, but in Congress."

Please provide a detailed definition of "settled law" as it applies to the 2nd.

"not my reaseach but I never claimed to be a book smart just regular person that knows alot of law students :0"

Please provide justification for your contention that the uneducated opinion of a few 1L students supersedes 200 years of case law as well as the highest law of the land.

If you can not or will not answer these questions, that shows everyone that you prefer to operate on emotional pretense and innuendo rather than address the facts and the law, and you have no place in this discussion amongst rational people.

Posted by: Physician in AL | February 9, 2007 2:25 PM

"So your whole basis of argument against the law is this weak specious "what if you were away on vacation" scenario? It would be a simple matter to report it when you came back from vacation. The clock would start when you returned home. No one is going to be prosecuted if they can establish that they were away."

I've only given one of a dozen different scenerios that might play out where an unknowing individual might be burgled and unable to report to the police. The suggestion that my argument is weak because I only have given you one example speaks volumes of your own debate tactics. My example was to inspire you to use a little creative thinking and imagine for yourself other situations where someone might inadvertantly become a criminal. If you honestly don't think zealous prosecutors will use the FULL latitude of such a law you obviously haven't been watching any of the news lately. It happens all the time.

"Absolutely I expect you to inventory your collection every 72 hours. What's the big deal? Lock the room where you keep the gun collection and if the room gets broken into, REPORT it to the police. If you have so many guns that you can't keep track of them all, don't you see that as a problem? Let's face it, the only way someone is going to be prosecuted under this law is if one of their guns ends up in the hands of a child or a criminal. And that is a problem which the gun owner should be called to account for."

Again, completely unreasonable. I tried to connect the dots for you earlier by showing how it would also be unreasonable for us to try and inventory every potentially deadly object in our house every 72 hrs. I don't know what other kind of Orwellian dreams you have for the rest of us but it is frightening that you would hold a property owner responsible for whatever crime a piece of stolen property might be used in later. Again you never answered if we should also hold the owner of a car, knife, or other potentially dangerous item responsible if that too is stolen.

"Why are you so eager as a gun owner to shift the responsibility for dealing with your stolen firearm on to the police? Yes, unfortunately our society has plenty of criminals. That doesn't absolve you of the responsibility for securing and accounting for your firearms."

Another example of your dead end reasoning. You would suggest that I am commiting a crime by being burglarized. I almost can't believe you have typed these words. This statement is wrong for the same reasons I listed in my above paragraph. When will people learn that it is impossible to fully secure anything that a criminal might want. Even extremely expensive commercial safes (the type used by jewelry stores) can be opened with the proper tools in about 20-30 minutes. You will never be able to stop crimes before they happen by attempting to control objects, speech, or thought. To think so is incredibly foolish.

"So because I don't have an answer for all of the ills of our society, I can't insist that a fellow citizen secure his guns? Please. "

No one asked you for the solution, nor did I imply that your request was invalid for that reason. Your "answer" is invalid because you suggest legislation that would make criminals of real victims. To think that any of your personal effects are "secure," from a criminal is rather foolish.

"Again, since you choose to have a collection of weapons in your house and admit that you may go for three days, a week, a month, without knowing the specific whereabouts of each of the weapons, how do you know the neighbor's kid doesn't have one? Don't you consider that a problem?
Conflating this proposed legislation with attacks on the Second Amendment itself is just an obfuscation tactic. "

I consider it a problem rather that people like you think it is the normal state of affairs for your own unsecured children to wander around in my personel effects and property.

I and others have already outlined how this is yet another of a thousand cuts to our second amendment rights

Posted by: Garry Hamilton | February 9, 2007 3:04 PM

Cedar Hill:
The Supreme Court has always said that the 2nd Amendment protects the states' militia's rights to bear arms, and that this protection does not extend to individuals.
In fact, legal scholars consider the issue "settled law." For this reason, the gun lobby does not fight for its perceived constitutional right to keep and bear arms before the Supreme Court, but in Congress.
No. FALSE

1) No, the Supreme Court has not "always" said any such thing.
2) No, the fight hasn't been before the SCOTUS because they've ducked every confrontation with the 2nd Amendment for decades.

However, rather than have you misquote history, and do the old dance of "people means collective" when it clearly means individuals in all cases in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, how about this instead: read the writings of an actual Constitutional scholar -- one with a real law degree -- who has made more than a passing study of the issues for years. An eminently qualified gentleman, David Hardy (specializing in First & Second Amendment issues), has gone to some pains to extensively document the 2nd Amendment and its foundation and issues in a video documentary (see http://www.secondamendmentdocumentary.com/ for more).

You see, dishonesty and mischaracterization are the common tools of those who wish to disarm the population.

Plausible-sounding arguments begining with lies like "we don't want to take away your guns" followed by such catch phrases as "common sense gun laws" are proffered to deflect the objections of those folks who point out that the 2nd Amendment didn't stutter, it's not ambiguous, and it's not about duck hunting.

Arrogant people, desperate to control the lives of those they feel are beneath them, assert that "we need stronger laws" to keep us all safe.

James, above says:
"The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of guns used in crimes started out as legal purchases."
James is pretending that guns are the real criminals. Guns gone bad. He's overlooking the fact that every single tool a criminal uses, from his clothes to his car to his knife to his cell phone and his house, all started out as "legal purchases." Of course, this has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the criminal is A CRIMINAL.

James says further:
I don't at all endorse taking away our constitutional rights to bear arms, but why is every common sense measure seen as some sort of slippery slope toward this.
Well, James, that's because there have never been any common sense measures. Making it hard for honest folk to buy guns while letting hardened criminals out on the street is right at the top of "stupid things we do to pretend to control crime."

That's right: let the criminal go free, and make a magic rule that will "keep him from getting guns." HELLO? COMMON BLOODY SENSE??

Here's some common sense for you: criminals are only able to ply their trade and escape when they're mobile. The overwhelming majority of criminals either own cars or have access to them. Therefore, as a COMMON SENSE measure to curtail the use of cars in crime (we'll call this "car crime" for short), we will fingerprint and do background checks on everyone who buys a car and everyone who register a car or applies for a driver's license. Further, if your car is used in a crime after it's stolen, you get charged with "criminal negligence" or some such asinine thing.

I believe I already mentioned the COMMON SENSE licensing and restriction of cell phones, since criminals use those to coordinate and plan. And while we're at it, we'd better tap the phones of anyone we believe might be up to no good. It's just COMMON SENSE.

James, the "stupid argument" about gun control laws? James, there aren't supposed to be any laws that control ownership of guns. At all.

"Ridiculously weak" gun laws? Dude. Hello? If I write a "ridiculously weak" law restricting your right to own a car, and add extra fees and taxes to that process, and harass you about features of the car that "might" be used for "car crimes" will it ever enter your mind that the "ridiculously weak" car restriction law SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN WRITTEN IN THE FIRST PLACE??

SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED. Can't get any clearer. And yet, we have fools who say, "unless you live in a town of more than a million people."

No, damn it! It doesn't say "unless you can think of a good reason to infringe."

James, you'd better check all knives in your kitchen, because the neighbor kids might have them. While you're at it, inventory your power tools as well.

In fact, tell you what: you pass a law that makes everyone but the criminal responsible for the criminal's use of their stolen goods -- provided those goods are not the subject of Constitutional protections -- in the commission of a crime, then, after reviewing how effective THAT is, we can talk about why you personally are responsible for the loss of life in a building burned down by a firebug who used your stolen lighter to start the fire.

You're fixing the wrong problem. The whole problem domain is wrong.

Explain to me why, under any kind of sane justice system, we have people, violent people, whom we already know (from past performance) can't be trusted, out loose on the streets.

You want to restrict access to defensive weapons while letting violent offenders wander loose among us. That's just plain nuts.

There isn't an ounce of common sense to be found there.

Stronger laws will accomplish only the disarmament of honest people. The crooks have their own supply channels, and I can assure you those don't include a Form 4473 and a quick call to NICS for a background check.

What the hell are they teaching in schools nowadays, anyway?

Why is it so hard to recognize cause and effect?! Cause, process, effect.

Inanimate objects are never cause. They are never process. They are only means to an effect.

Look. Firearms ownership is a RIGHT.

Walking around free after a string of felonies is NOT a right.

Let go of this idiotic compulsion to fix causes by twiddling the means and effects.

Identify the right problem (like, where are we getting all these criminals?) and solve THAT.

Deal with the felons. For real.

Disarming the common citizen doesn't work.

Quit "organizing" our rights.

Don't tell me I have to give up "a reasonable amount of freedom" so that some jackass murdering rapist can walk the streets.

Screw that.

Get the bad guy off the streets. Keep the bad guy off the streets.

If he's not on the streets, you don't have to worry about whether he'll buy a gun.

Your "collective responsibility" argument and "group punishment" proposal is a thinly disguised regurgitation of the Soviet gulag and military/fascist principle that if we punish everyone, eventually "everyone" will make the miscreants behave.

It presumes guilt.

It's wrong-headed and intellectually dishonest.

It's also morally dishonest: in recent years, the minions of "law enforcement" have found it much easier to seize the property and holdings of people completely uninvolved in a crime by "prosecuting" the property!

This new trend in "law enforcement" blames everybody but the guy committing the crime!

And through it all, despite the protestations of the various actors, a common thread of universal disarmament of citizens can be seen.

Quit blaming THINGS. Quit blaming the innocent.

Catch bad guys. Put them away. Keep them out of circulation until you KNOW they can be trusted.

There really are plenty of real criminals out there. You don't need to fabricate whole new populations of "criminals" to keep law enforcement busy.

Now, a law criminalizing JUDGES who let criminals back into society so they can reprise their crimes?

I could get behind that.