• Grizzled_Stranger

    Of the more than 57,763 restrictive gun laws called gun controls we know of,not one has made anyone safer, ot one has reduced crime, and not one has reduced the incidence of politically motivatged murders. Given tghat not one gun control law has produced the promised results, to cut crime, make people safer, or reduce politically motivated murders, perhaps it would be well to examine just what these wonderful laws that were going to eliminate crime, guarantee safety for all, and stop murders such as the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand actually do.

    For the more than 34,00 such laws where statistics were kept,the invariable result has been to drive property cirme, violent crime, forcible sexual assault, and murder rates sky high. Gun control has failed in t50 states, and the District of columbia. England’s violent crime rate is about the same as our overall crime rate. Gun control failed in Canada, in France, in Germany, in Poland, in Spain,in Italy, in Greece, in China,Australia, every country ins south and Central Americ a and more. If you want to sump a criminologist, ask him or her where gun control has cut crime.

    Given the facts, and that the facts are easy to obtain, why are we having this demand for gun control, a law that has never delivered on advocates promises, why the demand to add to the longst consecutive string of failures in human history?

  • Support passing mandatory criminal control!

    Step one.

    If charged with having/using a firearm unlawfully….

    No reduced bail, Subject to an automatic dangerousness hearing, No plea bargains, No reduced sentences, No early release from prison, and minimum state sentencing laws for assaults and/or robberies committed with a firearm.

    No need for step two.

    If you believe jails are over crowded and think most criminals should receive community service, go for it. But, when a criminal gets to the point of carrying a gun, a different and more serious ball game and mandated rules needed.

  • Ernie Goncalves

    all crap

  • fwilson

    The author needs to read the very extensive analysis in Scalia’s decision in Heller v DC. Then perhaps he would understand better what the founding fathers intended.

  • Daniel Lewis

    You might want to look into the words of the founding fathers themselves. You know original intent. It is extremely clear from their writings that this is an individual right full stop.

    This may be the most absurd statement I have ever read: Until the 1980s, there was no such thing as the “individual rights” theory of the Second Amendment. How on earth can you make such a stupid claim? Have you never once in your life cracked a history book?

    You might want to look into Presser vs Illinois not 1980’s but 1880’s the court ruled that the 2nd amendment was a right of individuals not militias. The main reason there were not rulings much earlier is that until the KKK starting pushing gun control after the civil war was that it was a simple known fact that it was an individual right.

    Did you jut hope no one would bother pointing our your clear and obvious inaccuracies? (we call them lies where I come from)

    Did you really not even know that there had been cases 100 years before you claim anyone thought of it being a individual right?

    Are you seriously unaware of all of the quotes from all of the signers of the constitution that are all clear as day about it being an individual right? You are either incredibly lazy and did not bother to do even a minutes research or were just hoping your lie would work.

  • Studies and Observations

    I find it Amusing that the Author demands that we look at “Historical Context” yet HE Either Negligently or Purposely OMITS the Historical Contest of the word “Regulated” as pertains to the 2nd Amendment. In the Parlance of the times “Well Regulated” Means “Properly EQUIPPED And Trained…NOT “Buried under crushing rules”. Then there is the term “Militia” which at the time meant “All Able-bodies men over the age of (IIRC 13)” Today that would be expanded to All Able-bodied persons who are capable of purporting themselves for the defense of the Nation if necessary. he goes on to make a Case because of Homicide and suicide, without noting that in MOST areas of Violent crime, including Homicide overall numbers have been trending down, He also FAILS to note that Despite a full Decade with a Federal level “Assault Weapon’ ban there was No discernible change in crime numbers..meaning Banning types of weapons doesnt work. He also fails to note that Suicide rates in countries with HEAVY gun control are in some cases (Japan for instance) as high or HIGHER than the US, nevermind when you look at the violent Crime rates in some nations with Heavy Gun Control, the numbers make ours here in the US look quite reasonable. What I find MOST amusing is that most of the same people who scram for Gun Control, Regulation, and Bans…..are the SAME people who have been screaming for years that “Prohibition Doesn’t work” when it comes to Drug Laws. Anf they are right, Speaking as a Retired LEO, our policies for the last 4 decades when it comes to Drugs HASNT Worked….Any more than attempting to do the same with Firearms will work. Gun laws are followed ONLY By the people who ALREADY Follow the Law. No Criminal has EVER Seen a “Gun Free Zone” sign and said.. “Ohh Id better not rob this place, my gun isnt allowed”. the REALITY is that there are Upwards of EIGHTY MILLION Gun Owners in the United States and the VAST Majority of crimes are committed by people who CANNOT Legally possess a firearm in the first place.

    • Jim_Macklin

      The First Congress wrote the first Militia Act to regulate the militia. The law specified that each member of the militia shall have a musket of a certain caliber and other details.
      Today if the militia acts were still being enforced each citizen would be required to have an AR15 with 30 round magazines, a functional bayonet and a several hundred rounds of military ammunition

      The National Guard is not the militia. The Spanish-American War made the limitation of the Militia Law apparent and the militia could not be sent outside the borders of the United States. The Army and Navy could go to Cuba and the Philippines. But ten Army was small. That is one reason why Teddy Roosevelt had Rough Rider volunteers.

  • UpItSideways

    Belief in favor of gun control is caused by brain maggots.

  • internettroll

    It would help if you cited actual sources when you say “look at the historical context”. There were tons of written work from the founding fathers and a vague statement like yours really means nothing.

    As for the 1886 law in Boston, that was one city 5 years before the Bill of Rights and the 2nd were added to the Constitution. A Boston law put in place 5 years before the 2nd was a Federal law does little to bolster your point.

    And to be quite honest, the Supreme Court has looked at the issue and decided that yes it is an individual right. It is now the precedent.

    • Class A

      The first SCOTUS decision to confirm the individual nature (and broad scope) of the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” was a very infamous case, Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1856. The majority decision discussed the consequences that would follow if they granted former slaves the rights of citizens: they would then possess “the right to…full liberty of speech in public and private upon all subjects which [a state’s] own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

      In all, SCOTUS addressed the 2nd Amendment 6 times in the 1800s, always as an individual right. Please see Kopel, D: “The Supreme Court’s Thirty-Five Other Gun Cases.”

    • Jim_Macklin

      In 1775 the British were writing laws in Boston.

  • MikeL_in_SD

    Your statement “Until the 1980s, there was no such thing as the “individual rights” theory of the Second Amendment.” is absolutely false. Funny how you neglected to include a single one of the dozens of pronouncements by Thomas Jefferson (assuming you even know who that is) and other drafters of the Second Amendment addressing the “individual right” of firearm ownership. You might also research the arguments and editorials covering the 1968 gun law. My personal favorite was the L.A Time’s “Nobody’s Trying to Take Your Guns Away”. The arguments of that time admitted the Second Amendemnt was, of course, an “individual right” but subject to “reasonable restraint” such as banning mail order purchasing. You are a liar, Baqir, nothing more. You destroy your own argument by having to resort to lying to support it…

    • Class A

      The “collective right” theory was (I believe) first proposed in the Government’s unopposed brief and argument in US v. Miller in 1939. The Court rejected that theory: it instead found that Miller–who was an individual and not a member of the National Guard–had standing to assert his 2nd Amendment right. The case then focused not on who had the right, but rather on which arms were covered by that right.

      The very first time a Supreme Court in the US accepted the “collective rights” theory was in 1968, when the NJ Supreme Court endorsed it in Burton v. Sills. Not surprisingly, that Court could cite NO case-law supporting its ruling, and relied instead on a then-new law review article. In 2008’s DC v. Heller, all nine justices–including the 4 libs who dissented from the majority opinion–rejected the “collective rights” theory.

      • Jim_Macklin

        The “collective right thery” was part of a Kansas Supreme Court case in 1905. [Blaksley vs. City of Salina]
        In 2010 the people of Kansas amended the State Constitution Article 4 to make it clear that the KS Court had misinterpreted the right of the people.

        • Class A

          Thanks. That decision is laughable, reading like old, doddering Stevens’s dissent in Heller. It uses as its main support “Mr. Bishop[‘s textbook] on Statutory Crimes”, which apparently claims that the right of the people to keep and bear arms applies “only to war and possibly also to insurrections…”. Seems to me that it would be supremely unwise to have to wait for your right to own a gun to suddenly appear once a war or insurrection has already begun; it completely defeats the idea of having an already-armed unorganized militia. The Court and Mr. Bishop also seem therefore to say that the right of self-defense (rather than common defense) simply does not exist.

          The decision’s sole (supposedly) supporting case-law is from Massachusetts, where the conviction of a man under a law prohibiting “drill or parade with fire-arms” was upheld, even though “[t]he guns, however, had been intentionally made so defective as to be incapable of being discharged.”

          Unlike in Kansas, in Massachusetts citizens continue without a meaningful right of the people to keep and bear arms, as mere ownership of firearms requires an arbitrary-criteria, full-discretion-of-the-issuer, “may-issue” license–again, that license is required just for ownership within your home.

  • Daniel Lewis

    Wow the Houstonian is blocking my complete debunking of this article what a shock.

  • David Miller

    The author be clowns herself with this public display of ignorance of U.S. history, 2nd Amendment jurisprudence, and firearms law. Did she do no research on this topic at all?

  • will ford

    ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT!

  • Bostonterrier97

    My post has been censored. Here it is without the links:

    Languages evolve over time, definitions of words and phrases
    change over time. In order to understand the 2nd Amendment not only must the
    historical context be taken into consideration but also the meaning of the
    words and phrases at the time the 2nd Amendment was adopted. To wit – the
    phrase “well regulated”. The meaning of this phrase in 1790 is
    different than the meaning assigned to it today. In 1790 “well
    regulated” meant “ORDERLY”. One can see for ones self by
    perusing “A Complete Dictionary of the English Language” by Thomas
    Sheridan printed in 1790 (Google English Dictionary 1790). The Bill of Rights
    was ratified in 1791. Furthermore the scope of the 2nd Amendment can be
    inferred from the 1792 Militia Act (Google 1792 Militia Act ). Able bodied men
    (and in today’s world this would include women) were expected to keep a weapon
    that was serviceable for military duty. In 1792 it would have been the Brown
    Bess Musket. Today it would be the M4A1 Carbine chambered in 5.56 NATO and
    capable of Select Fire. The Militia Act of 1792 covers the scope of the 2nd
    Amendment for military (militia) purposes. But what about Self Defense? We can
    deduce that the 2nd Amendment also covered weapons for self defense simply from
    the historical context (the first police department in America wasn’t
    established until 1838 in Boston). From 1791 (when the Bill of Rights was
    ratified) to 1838 (Google first police department in the United States) there
    wasn’t a cop to be found in America. People traveled with large sums of money
    on travel and to and from town on business. But…what about hunting? Most
    people on the frontier supplemented their larder by hunting game (there was a
    distinct lack of supermarkets in those days) and the nearest town may have been
    either hours away or several days away…The author should be forgiven for her
    gross ignorance, after all she is still young and a product of an educational
    system that has been dumbing down kids by increasing amounts over the past
    decades.

    • farmrdave

      There is one point I would like make. The second part of amendment two states, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This is accepting the pre-existing right to bear arms. Considered in that light it has nothing to do with a well regulated militia. A pre-existing right shall not be infringed.

      • Bostonterrier97

        Amazingly my very benign reply was censored. As stated there above, the breath of the 2nd Amendment was fairly broad, it covered militia duty, self defense, etc. The first gun control laws were racist and targeted Native and African Americans, with the aim of keeping those groups disarmed. During the reconstruction period following the Civil War, many southern states passed may issue carry laws where a sheriff could arbitrarily deny (without any reason) the application by a African American. New York’s Sullivan act was designed to keep firearms out of the hands of Italian and Chinese immigrants.

    • Class A

      I agree with your gist, which is the heart of the school of textualism for legal interpretation: look at what the law actually says, using the definitions either given in that particular law (if the law contains a set of definitions) or commonly understood at the time the law was adopted. Looking at the actual text means NO trying to impose your ideas regarding what the authors “really meant to write” or “should have written.”

      I’d offer a correction: in re: “In 1790 “well regulated” meant ‘ORDERLY'”, I’d say you’re not precisely correct: SCOTUS noted in 2008 that “the adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.” Of course, “well regulated” modifies “Militia,” not “the people”, and the phrase imposes no requirement.

      Re: “Able bodied men (and in today’s world this would include women) were expected to keep a weapon that was serviceable for military duty.” Please note that US v. Miller (1939) modified that by noting that, “ordinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

      The Court in DC v. Heller (2008) embraced that “common use” idea from Miller, going on to state that “the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.”

      • Bostonterrier97

        US v. Miller (1939) focused on the scope of weapons covered by the 2nd Amendment. However the Justices could not determine whether or not a short barrelled shotgun was suitable for militia duty and remanded the case back to the lower courts. Jack Miller who was a bootlegger disappeared and had stopped paying his attorney fees. In fact he did this prior to the case reaching the Supreme Court and only the US solicitor general argued the case before the court. Miller’s attorney wasn’t present.
        DC v. Heller (2008) the court extended the scope of the 2nd Amendment to recognize weapons that were common to self defense (namely the handgun) and ruled that a ban on weapons that were in common use for self defense was unconstitutional (as were requirements to lock up a weapon and/or have it dismantled and unloaded).
        Chicago v. MacDonald (2010) incorporated the 2nd Amendment to the States

        • Class A

          Re: “…and remanded the case back to the lower courts.” Yes, for Miller’s prosecution under the NFA. That prosecution had previously been halted when the trial judge rejected Miller’s guilty plea and instead quashed the indictment on 2nd Amendment grounds without further explication. As you say, that prosecution never resumed, as Miller was found dead 5 days after oral arguments.

          (The entire case seems to have been a craven yet successful attempt by the trial judge–who was pro-NFA and anti-2A–to tee up for appeal an easy case in which SCOTUS could uphold the NFA. Please see Brian L. Frye, “The Peculiar Story of U.S. v. Miller”.)

          Re: “…the court extended the scope of the 2nd Amendment…” Others would say that Heller narrowed that scope. The main test in Miller was that an arm have some “reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” As mentioned in Heller, that test would seemingly include for 2A protections machineguns, even though they were significantly restricted (by a licensing requirement and an onerous tax) by the NFA and then banned (with grandfathering) for private citizens via the Hughes Amendment in 1986.

          In an interesting move, the majority opinion “saved” the machinegun ban (and the NFA) by elevating the so-called “second prong of Miller”–whether the arm in question is “in common use at the time”–as the dispositive test.

          Handguns are of course used in the military, and therefore it would seem a rather low bar to show that handguns have some “reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” However, Heller has pretty much dropped that test, and now states that “the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.” Since handguns are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” and machineguns are not, that test provided the Court with the fine knife it needed to cut away the DC handgun and functional-firearm bans yet leave the NFA untouched.

        • Jim_Macklin

          The Supreme failed to issue an injunction against enforcement when they remanded the case. So the government and the media just pretend that the 1934 law was upheld. The only decision was from the Arkansas Federal Court which ruled the entire 1934 National Firearms Act to be unconstitutional.
          Long practice does not make a law constitutional or proper.
          Slavery was long standard human practice. That does not make it right.
          I hope that the Supreme Court will review all the “gun control” cases and laws going back to Dred Scott, Cruikshank, Presser in light of HELLER and McDonald.

          • Bostonterrier97

            I agree. However SCOTUS has been ducking 2nd Amendment cases like crazy and all it is doing is making the situation worse. Perhaps if more judges like Thomas and Gorsuch were appointed, 2nd Amendment cases could start to be resolved and the lower courts could start to have more guidance and our laws could become more uniform. As it currently stands it’s crazy.

  • Cpl_B

    “Until the 1980s, there was no such thing as the “individual rights” theory of the Second Amendment. This changed when right-wing think-tanks started an effort to rewrite the amendment’s history. ”
    This “think tank” responded to gun control’s invention of the phrase “collective right,” which does not exist and was an invention of these groups. The other was the “assault weapon” which was previously any object, including fists, that were used in an assault. Then later, the now infamous “assault rifle” which is another invented term.
    Now you know….

    • Class A

      The “collective right” theory was (I believe) first proposed in the Government’s unopposed brief and argument in US v. Miller in 1939. The Court rejected that theory: it instead found that Miller–who was an individual and not a member of the National Guard–had standing to assert his 2nd Amendment right. The case then focused not on who had the right, but rather on which arms were covered by that right.

      The very first time a Supreme Court in the US accepted the “collective rights” theory was in 1968, when the NJ Supreme Court endorsed it in the 1968 case Burton v. Sills. Not surprisingly, that Court could cite NO case-law supporting its ruling, and relied instead on a then-new law review article. In 2008’s DC v. Heller, all nine justices–including the 4 libs who dissented from the majority opinion–rejected the “collective rights” theory.

      “Assault rifle” (which is a solid translation of the German word “sturmgewehr”) does have an accepted military definition: a light rifle capable of full-auto fire which uses detachable magazines and fires an intermediate cartridge (that is, powered between pistol cartridges and battle-rifle cartridges). Thus, every semi-auto rifle is excluded from being an “assault rifle,” by definition.

      • Cpl_B

        Thanks for the history lesson on the “collective right” which I was unaware of until the ’80’s. I’ll do some homework on that.
        I am aware that the military now uses the term “Assault Rifle.” This was not the case when I was in the Marines. This became “in vogue” in the late ’90’s. My nephew told me this when he was in the Navy. My other nephew said the same when he was
        In the Marines in early millennia.
        So, when I say “invented term,” I mean the political term. By calling a semiautomatic rifle an “assault rifle,” people are trying to make the connection to “weapons of war,” which is not the same.

        • Class A

          I am indebted to Dave Kopel’s writings on the history of the “collective right” nonsense:
          “Cooking Up A Collective Right: How a mythical monster nearly swallowed the Second Amendment whole.”

  • I’ll leave it to others to debunk the historical nonsense that Tas is pushing to focus on something else of importance.

    We know absolutely one thing for certain. When the social deviant has targeted you and your family Tasneem here is not going to be there to throw her body between you and the danger that exists.She is more than willing to sacrifice your life for her beliefs.

    She believes law abiding citizens having firearms is a bad idea. So does the social deviant destroying the lives of innocent people

    According to her desires, innocent people should have be forced to surrender instead of facing down the social deviant. Got that?

    If you are minding your own business and are assaulted or threatened by a violent criminal she and the people-control, anti-freedom crowd wants the onus to be on you to surrender, flee, retreat, have your body violated, or even die — anything EXCEPT stand your ground with a firearm.

    She believes it’s better for society for a woman to be raped and strangled with her own pantyhose around her neck than for her to stand over the dead body of her would-be attacker with a smoking gun in her hand.

    How ethically and intellectually backwards can these folks be to adopt such an indefensible position? The duty and perfect right of law-abiding citizens is to defend themselves with deadly force if need be against criminals. That is the essence of the disagreement between the opposing sides on gun control.

    Which side better protects you and your family from those social deviants?

  • Anonymous

    I think if Tas had 51 votes, he would try to take them all.

  • Class A

    Re: “Guns are one of the leading causes of death by homicide and suicide.” No: guns are not a “cause” of anything. They are a MEANS often used by persons bent on killing themselves or others; and used even MORE often by lawful citizens for lawful purposes like self-defense, sport, competition, and practice.

    Re: “Incidents like the Orlando nightclub shooting…” That incident proved several things that we already knew:
    –“Gun-free zones” where licensed, lawful persons are prohibited from carrying guns for self-protection are EXTREMELY dangerous, because someone bent on mass-murder can come in and find lots of unarmed victims.
    –The police cannot protect you in “gun free zones”: it took the police 3 hours to stop the killer.
    –People with guns can and do defend themselves from murderers: there were two armed persons at the club who exchanged shots with the killer; neither was injured and both caused the shooter to retreat (unfortunately, he retreated away from them and deeper into the club, where he found more unarmed victims).
    –Gun-control laws are ineffective in preventing these crimes: the killer was a licensed professional armed security guard, the last type of person who would be barred by any gun restrictions from having a gun.

    Re: “Studies have shown that gun control does work. The largest study…” Wrong. NO studies have shown that gun-control reduces violent crime or the number of guns that violent criminals have. The study cited dealt ONLY with weak statistical associations and was severely criticized:
    “1) They consistently picked results that were the most favorable single result for gun control in the papers they surveyed; 2) they picked results that the authors of those papers rejected; 3) they gave equal weight to refereed and nonrefereed papers; 4) they left out papers from their surveys that have results that do not support gun control; and 5) they inaccurately reported some results.”

    Re: “For example, in Australia, they implemented gun control in 1996…This has helped bring down the rate of death by guns…” No, the evidence is that it may have INCREASED the rate of suicide and temporarily reversed the already-underway drop in violent crime.

    Re: “Gun control has worked for other nations…” A lie, as the above shows.

    • EpaL

      “No: guns are not a “cause” of anything. They are a MEANS often used by persons bent on killing themselves or others; and used even MORE often by lawful citizens for lawful purposes like self-defense, sport, competition, and practice.”

      Ignoring the larger point by arguing semantics. Guns are the most efficient, portable killing tool man has invented. They make it way too easy to kill someone else or yourself. Reducing the number of guns would reduce the number of deaths, as every other developed country’s experience shows. Arguing anything else is just disingenuous smoke and noise propagated by scared little gun-nuts who selfishly cling to their boom-boom toys while ensuring the country is a more dangerous place for everybody else.

      • Class A

        I am not ignoring any “larger point.” YOU are ignoring basic logic and facts.

        Guess what? The vast majority of those murdered in the US were UNARMED at the time they were murdered. By YOUR logic, that means that their being unarmed CAUSED their murder, and thus gun-control is the root cause of violent crime in America.

        Other countries? Sure, let’s look at Japan, where their suicide rate is higher than our suicide rate PLUS our murder rate. Almost NO suicides in Japan are committed via gun; the preferred method is hanging. At least the Japanese are smart enough not to call for “rope control” or run headlines that nonsensically claim “Ropes cause 20,000 deaths every year.”

        Only American gun-controllers are THAT dumb. Arguing that “guns cause death” is just more anti-gunner dishonesty and illogic.

      • Class A

        Re: “[Guns] make it way too easy to kill someone else or yourself.” Prove your point: pick one up and commit murder or suicide, since you claim it’s so easy. We’ll wait.

        No? I guess you just found out that killing is NOT easy; that the chief obstacle preventing suicide or homicide is NOT the absence of a lethal weapon. it is that the vast majority of people are not suicidal or homicidal; that our instincts and ethics about our own lives and the lives of others is what’s really important. Therefore, no, guns don’t make it any easier for us to murder: if it did, then with over 100 million adults living in households were guns are owning in the US, we’d see millions of “gun murders” every day.

        Now, guns ARE indeed the best way for you to defend yourself from attack; as the Obama-ordered joint report from the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council stated in 2013, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

        If it’s in fact true for YOU that the lack of a gun is the ONLY thing stopping you from committing murder or suicide, please stop typing and get help NOW!

      • rspock

        “…Reducing the number of guns would reduce the number of deaths, as every other developed country’s experience shows….”
        The only problem with that statement is that it is another bald-faced lie. Kate’s and Mauser showed the truth.

  • Fred Seaman

    Try being a victim of armed men with guns and badges making you do things you know are wrong.

    I have no criminal record, a very distinguished career in High Tech followed by a very successful business in providing services to America’s agricultural sector.

    Yet 4 armed men pulled me out of my house in my underwear and brow beat me for nearly 2 hours. Denied me access to medications. Constantly placing their hands on their guns. One even had a huge Bowie Knife strapped to his chest that he constantly fondled.

    The “probable cause” was a fraudulent report form a disgruntled business competitor and they new this. The last kicker was that they were operating outside their jurisdiction.

    • Class A

      File a complaint. If you were arrested without a warrant or with a fraudulently obtained warrant, take legal action.

  • Mike B

    Liberals hate freedom… obviously. They attack the 2nd Amendment constantly, they want you to be defenseless. They show up in mobs to shut down free speech rallies, they want you to be silent. They welcome 10s of millions of illegals and their anchor babies, they want your vote to be overridden.

    Liberalism is a cancer upon our free society.

  • medic5392

    The entire article ignores the writings and intent of the authors of the 2nd Amendment. Mason and Jefferson specifically intended the right to be an individual one.

    Levinson and Tribe, two highly respected attorneys, both liberal and anti-gun also came to the same conclusion. It’s an individual right.

    Reporters are increasingly lazy in thier research and lack critical thinking skills. The combination of those things tends to put out mistaken or false information, that in turn leads to credibility issues. The press continues to undermine itself and has no one to blame but themselves.

    • Jim_Macklin

      Patrick Henry made a long an impassioned speech against ratification of the basic United States Constitution because it did not protect the right of the people to keep and bear their private arms.
      Henry and Mason supported the Constitution only after being promised a Bill of Rights.

  • JRW40113

    another progressive alinskyite blather filled with lies, half truths and propaganda. Typical.

  • Same tired debunked talking points. I was kinda hoping you’d have something new but alas, I am not shocked.

    • Louis A Schwartz

      CR Williams says: “Same tired debunked talking points. I was kinda hoping you’d have something new but alas, I am not shocked”. Just like the “same tired debunked” anti-gun “talking points” presented in this article. This article opens with the oldest misinterpretation of the second amendment, ever. It is the original misread of the prefatory clause, sometimes juxtaposing its intent with the operative clause. This mistake is so old it is almost a cliche. It has been misused by every anti-gunner in the 20th century. The rest of the article is made up of misleading theories and is loaded with half-truths, debunked “studies” slanted and incomplete “statistics”, etc. Same old, same old.

  • Wes Bielinski

    Tasneem needs to look up some definitions. 1) Well-regulated – does NOT mean government controlled, a clock that kept the proper time was considered well-regulated. 2) Militia – is EVERYBODY. Also s/he/it might want to take an English class on clauses because the 2nd Amendment contains both a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The prefatory clause, a common feature at the time of drafting, does not limit the operative clause; rather, it explains its purpose.

    • rspock

      A perfect example of your point about what “well regulated” meant is Jules Verne’s Around the World in Eighty Days. Search for the well regulated clock referred to in the story. So… a translation of the 2A into modern day English would be:
      Because a well-equipped and proficient military-eligible citizenry is necessary to keep a nation free, the right of the citizenry to own and carry arms shall not be infringed.

  • Abdul Ibrahim

    We should turn in all our firearms so that we can feel safer like the people of Venezuela.

  • darrenlobo

    The Founders were thinking of April 19, 1775 when they wrote the 2A. That was when the Brits tried to disarm the Massachusetts militias. They protected the individual right to bear arms so there can be a militia. The idea that being in a militia gives one the right to arms is false, it’s the other way around. The 2A, in conjunction with other parts of the constitution, is actually about keeping the govt disarmed. Therefore, we should be shutting down military & law enforcement agencies while bringing back the militia.

  • rspock

    This is simply a bald-faced lie: “…Until the 1980s, there was no such thing as the “individual rights” theory of the Second Amendment. This changed when right-wing think-tanks started an effort to rewrite the amendment’s history. …”

    • John Galtius

      The right to bear arms was secured when we won the war for our independence. It was never granted to the federal government to regulate, because the founders did not trust the government. The 9th and 10th amendments clearly state that the right belongs to the individual. The 2nd says it is the right of the People. The 9th says that the right was not enumerated so it belongs to the people. The 10th says that the right was retained by The People, and not granted to the government. Open Carry is protected by the 1st, as a show of force, or a freedom of expression. The government is barred from regulating the right under the 2nd, and the 5th protects The People from illegal taking of weapons or rights by our government. There is NO WAY that under our Constitution, the government, from federal level to city courts, can take our rights.

      They do it anyway, and try like crazy to justify it.

  • rspock

    Clearly the author has a very confused notion of causality, as this statement demonstrates clearly: “…Guns are one of the leading causes of death by homicide and suicide. Between 2009 and 2013, Guns were the cause of 66.6 percent of all homicides, 52.2 percent of all suicides..”
    Guns caused none of this. Murderers and suicidal people caused the deaths. A gun is merely one of many ways of accomplishing the result.

  • Bob

    Yet another clueless attempt ton control the sheeple. This is simply WRONG on so many counts, I don’t know where to start.
    Ever read 10USC 311? It legally defines the militia, and the author is probably a member.
    The US Constitution was written as a restriction on the Federal Government, all of which confirm individual rights. The 10th Amendment is yet another misrepresented element of our government.
    The Federalist Papers discusses this topic, yet the author thinks this INDIVIDUAL right was created in the 1980s???

    The most disappointing part of this propaganda is not that the author believes this trash but that our schools are teaching these lies daily.

    • Jim_Macklin

      Don’t forget Dred Scott in 1859

  • Jim_Macklin

    Just to correct a few errors. The rights of individuals was a major part of the debate and passage of the fourth amendment. It was the Second Amendment ratified by the States. The First Amendment was actually the third amendment as passed by Congress.
    The right of the individual citizen was recognized by the U. S. Supreme Court in the 1859 Dred Scott case. It was not a creation of modern think-tanks.
    In 1939 the Supreme Court also recognized the individual right when they said about the only thing they knew for sure about the right to keep and bear arms was that “when summoned, the militia was expected to appear bearing their private arms” of the type then in current military service. The MILLER case was not decided since there was no evidence presented to the Court since the Federal Judge in Arkansas had dismissed the charges against Miller before the trial when he said the entire 1934 National Firearms Act was unconstitutional. The government immediately appealed to the Supreme Court and was the only party to appear.
    The Supreme Court remanded the case to Arkansas for the trial so that evidence would be “within judicial notice” and they could render an opinion. That trial never happened and the government has been enforcing the 1934 without the initial ruling of unconstitutionality being ruled upon.
    The Gun Free School Zone Law was found to be unconstitutional in the Lopez case before the Supreme Court. One reason the Court so ruled was because Congress did not show any authority to ban firearms in and near schools. Congress wrote a few unsubstantiated claims about how guns adversely effected schools and education, an area that the federal government was financially supporting.
    If the claims inserted into the preamble of Title 18§922(q) as justification are studied today, they would be shown to be false and without merit.

    • John Galtius

      None of these cases should exist, because there is no subject matter jurisdiction over bearing arms. The only time a case should appear in American Jurisprudence is when someone harms someone with a weapon, and that person should be punished according to the law concerning his actions, not his weapon. The courts take jurisdiction through the Interstate Commerce Clause, a clear misconstruction of an unrelated statute.

  • Jim_Macklin

    Outlaw bridges and building to control and prevent suicide.

  • henrybowman_az

    “Until the 1980s, there was no such thing as the “individual rights” theory of the Second Amendment”

    So when was it again that Dred Scott was decided? 1982? 1983?

    • John Galtius

      The 2nd does not grant any rights, individual or collective. The 2nd is a limitation on the federal government. The right to bear arms is secured by not being enumerated or a power granted to regulate it.

  • robscottw

    “former Supreme Court chief justice Warren Burger called the idea that an individual should be allowed to bear arms “one of the greatest pieces of fraud on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime”

    Good ol Warren Burger.

    A SC Justice who never participated in a 2nd Amendment decision nor wrote a law review article about it either.

    His claim to fame about it was an article in Parade Magazine from where this quote was taken.

    So, the kid that wrote this tripe is in good company when he quotes Burger – neither of them have any idea of what the 2A really means.

  • John Galtius

    You, like so many others, have the idea that the founders wrote the 2nd, and it was to protect militias. You are correct, and yet, not.

    Yes, the framers of the Constitution did want to protect militias, but from a federal government who they feared would create something like a National Guard, under federal control, and disband state level militias. But that is the extent of your correctness.

    The founders did not write the 2nd, the English did, years before. The Magna Carta, a check on Sovereign Power of the King, was the first time the 2nd was in print as far as I know. There were many editions of this document. But OUR version was penned by the states, and ratification of our Constitution on the state level denied unless it were included into our founding charter.

    The People demanded it, the People were not giving up the powers they so clearly won from England. They did not trust the founders, Mason, Madison, Franklin, to protect them from an out of control federal government. The Right to Bear Arms was not protected, enshrined, defined or controlled by the new government, at all, and no provision was granted within the founding charter to control that specific right. The founders wanted to leave it at that, afraid that something like the 2nd could be used against the very people who wrote it.

    Madison, when he penned the final version of the Bill of Rights, an addition to the federal charter, he wrote, “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

    The key here is the phrase, ” in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…” The 2nd was demanded by the states, penned by Madison, and included as the people’s check on federal power, but saying that under no circumstances will the Right to Bear Arms be limited, denied, disparaged, replaced, limited, hindered, Infringed, by the government. It was rock solid, written in stone, and the limitation was stomped on just about as soon as the ink was dry. The government does not like being told no, and the beast it becomes based on it’s documents requires that good men fight to keep it in line.

    So when you read the 2nd as a statute written by the government as a good will gesture toward state militias, somehow corrupted to allow the common man to own weapons, you spit on the rights of every American, you disarm, by force, the victims of many crimes. But when you try to justify the very laws that made the Pulse nightclub shooting possible, you make a mockery of the right, stand on the bodies of the dead to preach your agenda, you show your true colors as an enemy to Freedom and Liberty, and a friend to every murderer who has ever used a gun free zone to do his or her killing.

    The right to bear arms is not the 2nd, the 2nd is a limitation on the government, the same government you people use as a club against those who you find objectionable, because you are too much of a coward to come try to take our guns, yourself.

  • Bob Benett

    Not much you can say to an author that is so woefully ignorant of facts and history. There is only one way to interpret the 2nd amendment. I am personally prepared to give my life protecting my right to bear arms. Are you personally prepared to give your life trying to deprive me of that right? If not, then all you are spewing is worthless liberal diatribe.

    BTW, I am tired of immigrants over the last 50 years…coming to this country and instead of assimilating, continuously attempt to redefine or rewrite our history. I can remember when it first started…press one for English… press two for…

  • spencer60

    What absolute garbage. There isn’t a single paragraph in this essay that does not contain either a glaring error or an outright lie… in many cases both.

    It’s not even worth trying to respond to this kind of drivel. Do yourself a favor and get back 30 second of your life and give it a miss. You’ll be better off.

  • Attila Iskander – A Déplorable

    Justice Scalia completely debunked the so-called “arguments” of this article in his opinion in Heller v DC of 2008.

    And then let’s not bother with all the lies perpetrated with half-truths regarding gun control decreasing crimes with guns, but doing nothing against the increase of crimes without guns.
    This fallacy is even more visible with the claims of decreases of suicides with guns while ignoring the UNCHANGED total suicide numbers, which clearly show that without guns, people who committed suicide used other means. Ergo removing the guns
    a) did not reduce TOTAL suicides
    b) proof that guns are NOT the CAUSE of suicides, and eople do not commit suicide because a gun is available

    This is a really, really bad gun control propaganda re-hash.

    But the principle of the Big Lie is simple
    You keep repeating the same lie over and over, and after a time people will start believing it’s true, simply because it has been repeated so many times.

  • Mike Gibney

    As an Australian I can tell you that the author is being very selective regards the crime statistics here.
    The only real fall in Australian firearms deaths has been in suicides but the suicide rate itself has not fallen – in fact it has on occasion gone up a little – so the only noticeable/statistical effect of firearms regulation in Australia is that people have been gassing themselves with carbon monoxide in the garage rather than using the .22 rifle.
    Additionally, New Zealand had some gun massacres and they fixed the problem by concentrating on ensuring that only sane people without a criminal record had firearms and they did not concern themselves with changing the type of firearms that people owned, and it has given New Zealand a better and safer outcome than in Australia.
    The Australian experiment with stricter firearms regulation is a failure but the government and the gun-control nuts cannot bring themselves to admit it so they selectively put out one sided press statements and so-called statistics to prove to themselves that they are never wrong.

    • Attila Iskander – El Marrano

      Mike,

      Is there a site where the data you claim has been put together into a coherent display ?
      If not, then do you have cites supporting your position ?

      It’s very difficult to knock down the claims of the great success of gun control, unless one can show the claims to be false.

Copyrıght 2015 The Houstonian. All RIGHTS RESERVED.