Quote of the day
SIH:
What does it means when you have an editorial in the US News and World Report that says gun control is unconstitutional, period, and the Baltimore Sun runs an article about the ineffectiveness of the gun control movement?
10 Responses to “Quote of the day”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
April 24th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
It means we’re on the right track, even if we have a long way yet to go.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
From Sebastian in comments at SIH:
“I think it’s reasonable to presume there are limits to the Second Amendment, and certain classes of arms that are not protected by it.”
Why do people keep saying that which “shall not be infringed” is probably, yeah, subject to reasonable infringement? The US News and World runs an editorial that (correctly) recognizes that no means no. But a gun blogger still says their are um maybe, yeah probably some exceptions to the fundamental human right?
April 24th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
I’ve been on Ron Smith’s show a couple times. Good guy. A bit rough around the edges on some issues, he certainly won’t pad the ego of someone he finds irrational or not well thought out in their arguments…but hey this isn’t a popularity contest.
He and I don’t agree as often as we disagree, but we need more voices like his.
April 25th, 2009 at 3:17 am
Whoa! HTown, are you sure that was Sebastian who said that?
April 25th, 2009 at 6:59 am
It means that pro gun attitudes are more socially acceptable. Both of these writers have been pro gun before.
The real battle is social attitudes since laws follows social attitudes. Heller helped a lot since it was a final decision that gun rights belong to the individual not the state or community.
The other change that has helped a lot is CCW in many states that blew away the myths that regular people carrying guns would increase mayhem and shootings over minor arguements.
April 25th, 2009 at 7:04 am
The push to change attitudes is why I support OC, beside it seems more convenient. I have been leary about getting my name in a databse or defacto registration when you apply for CCW.
I have always believed that the less any government knows what guns you have is better.
Hopefully we never have to have violence to maintain our freedom,but the possibility has always existed.
April 25th, 2009 at 7:06 am
The reasonable limit is violent felons can not own guns. Even that is subject to change.
April 25th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Just to show hoe the arguement is changing see this on how to protect against sea robbers(pirates)
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_PIRACY?SITE=TNKNN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Petraeus: Shippers should consider armed guards
Joe Cox, president of the Chamber of Shipping of America, cautioned that deploying armed guards aboard cargo ships could escalate violence if pirates expect a gunfight.
“If you asked us two weeks ago, we would say, ‘No guns on ships,'” Cox said Friday. “Now the reaction is, ‘Let’s talk.’ That’s not a ringing endorsement of going in that direction. But we know, under the current circumstances, something has to be done.”
April 25th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Quoth the Sun article:
“Contrast this with Pennsylvania, where any citizen with a clean record can apply for a permit, pay a small fee and pick up the license from sheriff’s deputies who are happy to take your picture, put it on the card and hand it over to you.”
He should check the permit application for Philadelphia.
Two references need to fill out a questionnaire, at the end of which is the question, ‘If it were up to you, would you issue a gun permit to this person?’
At that, it’s better than it was under Timoney, who changed the application to require three pieces of .gov-issued ID with picture and address.
Driver’s license? Check
Passport? Check
Third ID?
As difficult as possible is right.
April 25th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
It means more than just the gun issue, everyone. It means Americans are starting to get increasingly worried about their government.
If people, lots of people from all walks of life and unexpected demographics, are thinking: hm, best make sure we keep our guns – gotta ask why are they thinking that?