The Real Gun Guys

No Living Person Left Behind

I haven’t had time to Fisk their new 54 page treatise on “Guns Bad, Victims Good!” called “No Gun Left Behind”, but I do have some comments on the website that accompanies it.

Some salient quotes:

“Armed students? Armed teachers? That is the response of the gun lobby to the horrible massacre at Virginia Tech. Let’s give everyone a gun and start the crossfire. The gun lobby is pushing legislation modeled after a law in Utah that prohibits colleges and universities from barring possession or use of firearms on campus. As a result of the law, 18-year-old kids could carry handguns to class, and kids even younger than 18 could possess AK-47 assault rifles with high-capacity magazines on campus. The gun lobby also wants to arm K-12 teachers.”

Okay, let’s tone down the rhetoric here. As it stands currently, there is no crossfire. Teachers and students cannot defend themselves. They’re DYING instead!

Yes, let’s talk about Utah. How many mass shootings have taken place in a Utah school? Come on, I’m waiting… Times up!

I seriously doubt anyone at the NRA is suggesting that kids younger than 18 carry AK-47’s to school. But even if they were, there was a time in this country when school kids did take their guns to school, put them in a locker, and then took them home with them after school was done. Tell me how many school shootings happened back then. I’ll give you the answer, none.

I can think of a lot worse things than arming K-12 teachers. Like my kids dying because their teacher wasn’t able to protect them.

Take a lesson from the Israeli’s. After terrorists began targeting their schools, they armed their teachers and armed guards patrolled the perimeter. The terrorists soon learned that schools were no longer an easy target. And that is all a “Gun-Free Zone” is anyway, a target rich environment.

Sarah Brady, Paul Helmke, et, al. Pull your collective heads out of your butts and smell the coffee!

“Obviously, arming students and teachers is a bad idea.

Here are a few reasons why it would be insane to introduce guns into colleges and schools. The college age years — 18-24 — are the peak years for engaging in gun crimes, abusing drugs and alcohol, attempting suicide, and having other mental health problems. A binge-drinking, drug-using student is dangerous enough; let’s not give him or her a gun.”

Obvious to whom? But yet at the same time Sarah, you’re perfectly fine with heavily arming the same age group to go fight, kill and die for this country. Given your logic, a large portion of the armed forces should be disarmed and given pepper spray and keys to defend themselves with against the terrorists.

Positioned right next to this argument is a disgusting cartoon which includes, Lee Harvey Oswald, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and Seung-Hui Cho taking turns reciting parts of the second amendment. I will not post it on my blog on principal, but you can view it here. Any respect I may have had for these idiots evaporated on the spot. Sarah, which of the other rights should we make fun of and denigrate? How about free speech? How about freedom of the press? To peacefully assemble? How about the right against illegal search and seizure? You people disgust me!

“Do We Really Want Guns in K-12 Classrooms?

Even trained police officers, on average, hit their intended targets less than 20% of the time.

Arming teachers would likely make them the first targets in an attack, and could encourage attackers to increase their firepower or wear body armor.

More than 2,000 K-12 students are expelled each year for carrying guns to school. Do we really want armed teachers confronting them? What if a teacher shoots a student?”

Now they trot out the “Police officers are the only ones trained enough to handle a firearm safely and accurately” myth. Police officers are less likely to hit what they aim at simply because most of them only have to qualify once a year, with a limited number of rounds. The gun for them is just a part of the job and they take no interest in honing their skills further. Therefore, it is no surprise they can’t hit what they aim at. I personally asked an officer in my town what kind of gun he had and all he knew was that it was a Glock (stamped on the side of the gun) and that the bullets were the kind that expanded and wouldn’t pass through, hitting other people. From the small clues he awkwardly gave me, I deduced that it was a Glock in .45 ACP with hollowpoint bullets. I’m not trying to run down cops, merely demonstrating that holding them up as the paragon for weapons handling is goofy at best. I belong to a shooting range, and among the people I see there, 95% of them are very good with a handgun. The simple reason is, they practice. They practice many more times a year than most cops do.

Seriously, aren’t teachers usually the first targets of an attack anyway? They’re bigger and older and more able to resist than their children. This is a strawman and that’s all I’m going to comment.

Well, what if a teacher shoots a student? What if a wack-job storms into the school with a 9mm and a .22lr pistol and kills 32 people? Is one better than the other? Are the victims more righteous if they can’t or won’t fight back? Would a teacher be better off confronting the attacker or cowering in fear beneath their desk?

As soon as I have the time and a large supply of antiacid, I’ll peruse their little booklet and post the results.

Anyway, I’ve got some kids to feed…

Share/Save

Right to Carry Progress 1986-2006

This graphic from http://www.gun-nuttery.com illustrates the great strides made in the last twenty years in recognizing a law abiding citizens right to carry a concealed weapon for their, and their families, defense. Red is BAD and Blue is GOOD!

Share/Save

Appeals Court Strikes Down Washington, D.C. Handgun Ban

“WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court on Friday overturned the District of Columbia’s longstanding handgun ban, issuing a decision that will allow the city’s citizens to have working firearms in their homes.”

Share/Save

Is the second amendment a collective right or an individual right?

Consider the second amendment:

“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.”

In the appeal for SHELLY PARKER, ET AL., Vs. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND ADRIAN M. FENTY, MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, in regards to the Washington D.C. “gun ban”, the appeals court reverses the previous ruling finding that the second amendment refers to a collective right, rather than an individual right. For a summary see BREITBART.COM. Consider the following language from their decision:

“In determining whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the holders of the right—“the people.” That term is found in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has never been doubted that these provisions were designed to protect the interests of individuals against government intrusion,interference, or usurpation. We also note that the Tenth Amendment—“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”—indicates that the authors of the Bill of Rights were perfectly capable of distinguishing between “the people,” on the one hand, and “the states,” on the other. The natural reading of “the right of the people” in the Second Amendment would accord with usage elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.”

Notice how they, correctly, read the references to states rights vs. the rights of the people. The constitution doesn’t take a highly educated scholar to interpret folks, it’s written in plain english. Everywhere in the Bill of Rights, the language refering to states rights and the rights of the people is consistent.

The Supreme Court also interprets the language of the Bill of Rights this way. In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), the Court looked specifically at the Constitution and Bill of Rights’ use of “people” in the course of holding that the Fourth Amendment did not protect the rights of non-citizens on foreign soil:

‘“[T]he people” seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by “the People of the United States.” The Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to “the people.” See also U.S. CONST., amdt. 1; Art. I, § 2, cl. 1. While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that “the people” protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.’

So, is the second amendment a collective “state” right, or is it an individual right? Consider the case of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Miller, a rare Second Amendment precedent in the Supreme Court, the holding of which we discuss below, described the militia in the following terms:

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia—civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised 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 to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

According to Miller, the militia included “all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defence” who were “enrolled for military discipline.” And Miller’s expansive definition of the militia is in accord with the second Militia Act of 1792, passed by the Second Congress.

In reading the Federalist Papers and other documents concurrent with the Constitution and The Bill of Rights, it is quite clear that the second amendment is an “individual” right, and not a collective one.

Any questions?

Share/Save