Wednesday, May 16, 2012

More calls to repeal the 2nd Amendment

There is another debate going on re. whether to repeal the 2nd Amendment with a pro/con between Steve Zorbaugh and Elizabeth Roberts, both Pennsylvanians, and both very eloquent.  However, Roberts places much of her reasoning against repeal in her interpretation of what the Founding Fathers intended in their amendment plus a general distrust in the American government.  Zorbaugh shoots all this NRA malarkey down and makes a very strong case in favor.

But Zorbaugh starts with an interesting statement that I had to research further.  He said: “There are 788,258 words in a standard King James Bible. The word ‘gun’ isn't one of them.”  That would indicate a direct connection between religion and guns, and I found that there is.  At least in the minds of the gun worshippers.  There is a lawyer by the name of Herb Titus who is part of the Gun Owners of America who draws this parallel between the 2nd Amendment and religion.

The article in the second site, above, exclaims that “…the Tea Party movement emerges out of the confluence of different strands of the far right, including Christian Reconstructionism.”  We all know that TPers are staunch gun rights supporters and gun toters.  Further, “The militia movement and Christian Reconstructionism both contend that our current civil government, most especially the federal government, is illegitimate.” At the very least, scary.

Cass Sunstein, Constitutional Lawyer and U.S. Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on repealing 2nd Amendment:

Larry Pratt, Exec. Dir. of GOA said: “we’re not really talking about a right but an obligation, as creatures of God, to protect the life that was given them.”  Now we don’t just go back to biblical days where there is a fantasized association between gun and religion, but according to Pratt it came right from the mouth of God.  More on this in a later post.  It is beyond me where these maniacs come up with this crap but of course the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) comes to mind.

Zorbaugh refutes Roberts’ Founding Fathers drivel in one compact, precise statement: “The justification for gun ownership that existed in 1787 no longer exists today.”  But he follows up with a multitude of other refutations that should make a brainwashed NRA membership think.  But it won’t.  He does acknowledge the need then to have protection against the King of England and against unfriendly Native American tribes that we confiscated our land from. 

But that was over two-hundred years ago.  Things have changed.  The only thing outside one’s God worshipped today is guns, not thrones.

Zorbaugh proclaims: “After 225 years, the Second Amendment has clearly outlived its original purpose.”  He is looking for a new Constitutional Amendment that will value the community’s right to being safe over the demands of the gun bubbas that want to carry their weapons anywhere they want to at anytime they want to.  And the only way this can be accomplished is with stronger gun control. 

One good reason for more control is Philip Cook’s statement that the cost our society pays each year to guarantee gun ownership exceeds $100 billion and is growing annually at an alarming rate.”  This comes from Cook’s book, “Gun Violence: The Real Costs.”

There is one solution affirms the pro-repeal author.  Require gun owners to carry insurance on their weapons just like they are required to do on their automobiles, for potential death and injuries.  This would at least mandate registration which we all know would send the NRA into its next aberration.  It would be worth the try just to see Wayne LaPierre, the organization’s CEO and Exec, Vice President, come off the spool…again.


  1. The statement regarding the communities right to being safe is interesting. Have you written about all the homeowner lives which have been saved from harm by having a gun in the home? Or have you reported on any attempted carjackings, robberies, and assaults which have been foiled by citizens who are carrying a gun? Just recently police officials who initially were against concealed carry in Wisconsin are now pleasantly surprized that they see a slight decrease in violence directed at individuals. FBI studies, as well as others have shown crime rates drop in concealed carry communities. In the hands of responsible citizens guns are a tool used for protection, shooting recreation, hunting and other activities, all of which should be protected. The gun laws on the books now can serve us well if only they were properly enforced. There is much truth in the statement that outlaws will always have guns if we outlaw them. Responsibility is the key as with the driver of a vehicle. To make the statement, "yes guns kill people" is as acurate as saying, yes cars kill people, yes knives kill people, yes chain saws kill people, etc.

    1. Although you are just shy of "Anonymous," you have some good points that need answering. I haven't written about those incidents you ask about because I have yet to read a valid case where something was actually 'foiled" due to a gun toter. Maybe I missed it but I do several Google Alerts on shootings and cannot remember it coming up. If you have something, put it in a comment and I will consider further research and posting on it.

      I am pretty heavy into the FBI stats and do not remember the fact you give. Why don't you post that plus the info on Wisconsin and I'll look at it. But the key words here are "responsible citizens," and that is where your claim is at fault. In a state like Arizona where anyone can own a gun and carry it anywhere they want to WITHOUT ANY TRAINING, you nor I have a clue whether these people are responsible.

      And I do not want you or any other gun toter protecting me on the street because it is just as likely that I would be injured as the bad guy. I quoted FBI stats in my article where in most cases it is the gun toter that is hurt.

      It's the gun laws that aren't on the books that we need. Like closing the "gun show loophole," requiring complete background checks for weapons ownership, registration of all weapons and minimum required training established by law enforcement. Anyone denying this need is simply NRA brain-washed.

      Cars, knives, chain saws do kill people but as I found recently and published in one of my posts, gun toters become more aggressive when they carry a firearm openly or concealed. For example, George Zimmerman's pursuit of Trayvon Martin rather than remaining in his vehicle as advised by the 911 operator.

      Thank you for your comment and look forward to more. I do appreciate respectful comments like yours as compared to many that are plain hateful, which usually raise my ire and result in somewhat nasty replies.

      Jack E. Dunning
      Nasty Jack Blog

    2. Except of course, there is NO gun show loophole (there is a private sale exemption), background checks are already required, registration is a dangerous non-starter that would have no positive impacts anyway, and training has no impact either (though I don't have a problem with such a requirement, I acknowledge that it accomplishes nothing overall).

    3. I find this to be among the most avaricious of the statements made by pro gun people. There is, indeed, a loophole in the Brady Law that exempts private sellers from requiring background checks for people to whom they sell their wares. When the law was written, there were not near as many private sellers at gun shows as we now see. That is why we need to complete the law by requiring that the 40% of gun sales that take place with no background checks at gun shows ( mostly), flea markets, over the internet and in parking lots, also require background checks. That is a simple matter than can be taken care of with no infringement on rights. Unless, of course, you think criminals, domestic abusers, drug abusers, and adjudicated mentally ill people to name a few, have unfettered rights to buy and own guns. Maybe they can get them somewhere else- like stealing them, or bought on the streets in an illegal purchase. But all guns start out as legal sales. Even those sold to felons without background checks by private sellers because he haven't made them illegal. Guns purchased legally from private sellers can become illegal in a hurry when trafficked to those who shouldn't have them. This is the dangerous web the gun lobby has woven and then tries to tell us it isn't happening. It is happening. To say otherwise is simply not true and is cynical. Some states have closed the private seller loophole. Many have not, thereby leading to problems in states that have. That is why there needs to be a national law to be consistent and so we can stop this bad policy. Thanks for this post, Jack. Well done.

    4. Excellent statement, Joan! This gun nut has been spewing this crap for close to a year now on this blog; sounds like he might be someone to watch closely in the future. It is utterly irrational to make a statement like he has.


      Jack E. Dunning
      Nasty Jack Blog


    Ask and you shall receive. Plenty more where that came from but 5 is my limit for one post, just google ccw holder defends... and follow the links. It mostly just gets reported at the local news levels as you can see, but it does happen.

    I will agree that the god argument is weak and has no bearing in a secular society. But how about the evolutionary element. All animals, including humans, have innate defenses and a natural right to protect themselves. Cats have claws, rams have horns, dogs have teeth. Humans being relatively weak primates have always relied on out superior intellect and thumbs to construct weapons with which to protect ourselves and obtain food, it is through this construct we have become the worlds apex predator.

    As for the Zimmerman and Martin case, the vast majority CCW carriers such as myself will tell you Zimmerman was dead wrong. He's a bad representation of CCW carriers. Period. I find most of us who do carry actually see it as a reason to cool our heels and avoid conflict because we now have the ability to escalate a conflict to deadly force quite easily.

    I find myself in the unique position of being a liberal gun owner(and carrier)and I won't espouse the belief that all gun control is bad. For example I fully support closing gun show loopholes, re-emplementing the old assault weapons ban, and imposing stricter training requirements for training for Concealed carry licenses(possibly with national CCW reciprocity as a result). However, taking away a persons right to defend themselves is a step in the wrong direction, and a gross violation of the social contract between free animals living in a society.

    1. Thanks for this imput. Let me check out your sites and we'll take it from there.

      Jack E. Dunning
      Nasty Jack Blog

  3. I wrote about this insanity on my site as well. Of course, I used facts in my writings:

    1. Well, CJ, I have several problems with your “writing” and “facts.” Among them this “God-given right to self protection.” Have you given up on the NRA and feel you must go to God so you can tote that gun anywhere you want to? That’s not a “fact” CJ, it’s a stupid remark. Anyway, I thought your gun was your God.

      And the one thing you gun jocks continue to ignore is the difference in law enforcement when the 2nd Amendment was created and today. It was enacted then for the purpose of protection because they didn’t have the level—or any level at all—of police protection that we do today. You people are just misplaced dreamers who will attach themselves to anything that will promote your ridiculous cause.

      And the 2nd Amendment the “SOLE” reason the North won the war. Even Gen. Grant, in his inebriated state would laugh uncontrollably at that.

      But your comment that you “love shooting pigs and coyotes” is SICK. Anyone who “loves” taking another life needs help! Get it CJ!

      Jack E. Dunning
      Nasty Jack Blog

    2. CJ,

      Let me start off by saying I am a CCW holder, and I do carry my 5 shot J-Frame relatively often for personal defense. I'm pro-ccw as evidenced by my earlier post which I came to check up on...

      However I after reading the post in your link, you need some enlightenment dude. If you wanted to justify carrying a firearm because cops can't be there to personally protect you all the time I'd absolutely agree...

      But lets make no mistakes about it a carry permit DOES NOT make you a defacto law enforcement officer, nor does it make us so called "sheepdogs" as many insultingly put it. It makes you nothing more than an armed citizen with a force multiplier when all else fails. CCW carriers have no business acting as quasi law enforcement, this mindset is exactly how we get in trouble when dumb@$$es decide to do something like follow a kid who looks suspicious. You have no business confronting someone who isn't a direct threat to you or a loved ones safety. period. You're not a cop, you're not batman, you're a citizen who decides to carry a pistol. The only time you should ever even think about using that pistol is when someone is displaying opportunity, ability and intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, and you are unable to reasonably escape, and even then you should only use it until you can escape. If you see a criminal or suspicious act that isn't threatening you and you want to be a good Samaritan then call the cops and let them deal with it. Its not your place.

      Trust me I'm a Marine Infantry veteran of OIF III and a career Paramedic. You DO NOT want to deal with the aftermath of a shooting unless you absolutely have to. I don't care what Dirty Harry fantasies you may have, taking a life is nothing like its cracked up to be. There will be blood, screaming, and you will have to watch another human being start to die. I will reiterate YOU DO NOT WANT TO USE YOUR WEAPON UNLESS YOU ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY HAVE TO.

      I recommend you go on ride along's at an EMS/Fire and Rescue agency until you see someone who's actually experienced significant trauma. Once you do ask yourself if you really want to inflict that on another person if you really don't have to. If you really want to be a "sheepdog" after that then go join the police force, otherwise please rethink why you carry a gun and do so accordingly.

    3. Adam H., I was in OIF1 and just returned from Afghanistan in March. I fully understand the weight of pulling that trigger and what it does to another human life. I do make that decision lightly nor do I seek out instances to exercise my right to self-defense without prejudice. I'm still in the Army and will be going back to Afghanistan next year barring any changes in mission.

      Now, on to Jack's nonsense...

      "Have you given up on the NRA and feel you must go to God so you can tote that gun anywhere you want to? That’s not a “fact” CJ, it’s a stupid remark. Anyway, I thought your gun was your God."

      Jack, let's try to keep the rhetoric to a minimum. I am a life member of the NRA. They are more relevant today than ever. Period. Otherwise, you wouldn't feel the need to attack the organization made up of millions of law-abiding, firearm-carrying American citizens. My gun is not my God. My God is my God. I never said or even inferred such a thing to invite your stawman.

      "And the one thing you gun jocks continue to ignore is the difference in law enforcement when the 2nd Amendment was created and today. It was enacted then for the purpose of protection because they didn’t have the level—or any level at all—of police protection that we do today. You people are just misplaced dreamers who will attach themselves to anything that will promote your ridiculous cause."

      Another factually incorrect assumption made my liberal gun-grabbers. You can't reinvent history no matter how hard you try. If you want to convince those with guns to give them up, try using facts to influence your argument. Using lies and made up innuendo only shows that you're desperate and grasping at straws. The FACT is that the co-author of the 2nd Amendment already told us why we have a 2nd Amendment and it had NOTHING to do with police. ""I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

      During the constitutional convention, Zachariah Johnson even stated that "the people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them." He never mentioned anything about the lack of law enforcement capability. As a matter of fact, there were enough during those times. We have more per capita law enforcement personnel in the United States today than we did in the late 18th century, so your argument goes nowhere and is completely void of that work you use without the proper definition.

      Finally, I leave you with one more inconvenient truth from our 1st President, though I know that you liberals don't believe in the concept of "peace through superior firepower." Washington said, "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable...the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

      Wait a minute?! Halt the presses. People don't hunt with pistols! Liberals are constantly trying to take pistols from us because they are dangerous and have no part in hunting - which they falsely think is the sole purpose behind the 2nd Amendment.

      "But your comment that you “love shooting pigs and coyotes” is SICK. Anyone who “loves” taking another life needs help! Get it CJ!"

      I see the error in my ways. I forgot to also mention I love shooting snakes, skunks, and raccoons too. Do you mourn every time you drive your car and a bug is splattered across your windshield. Maybe you shouldn't drive due to the enormous number of lives you take every time you sit behind that wheel.

    4. Your advice to keep the rhetoric to a minimum is completely ludicrous when you consider your series of rhetorical quotes above, gladly supplied through your lifetime NRA membership. It's all drivel, a bunch of bogus gibberish designed to cover up the fact that the 2nd Amendment is out of date and needs updating.

      And anyone who "loves" to kill anything is sick. Many mental health professionals say this desire can eventually transfer to humans. You do need help!

      Jack E. Dunning
      Nasty Jack Blog

  4. All of the academic debate, while interesting, is pointless. The bottom line is, ANY attempt to repeal the 2nd or through onerous requirements render it ineffective would result in immediate, total revolution which must lead to countless deaths and the total destruction of our way of life (which would then snowball to have world impacts, especially on fragile economies).

  5. Note all the following numbers come from the Department of Justice I won't use independent research about the number of crimes prevented by firearms because the methodology used to create those statistics is the counting incidences based on self reporting by individuals in local media. The supposed 2 million instances of defense gun use per year vs the 6,000 to 8,000 homicides, defined in the US as murder, self defense, and accidental, is interesting but without hard data it is not a substantiated claim.

    You ever wonder why the Democratic party essentially became progun?

    Because the inclusion of guns in public life in the US has correlated to a decrease in violent crime rates not an increase. Concealed Carry permits started being "shall issue" rather than may "may issue" in the 90s, and rates of handgun ownership also increased from the 90s onward. After 1993 the crime rate has steadily decreased, even with two recessions, a decrease in the number of law enforcement officers per capita, and the expiration of useless gun control laws, specifically the Assault Weapon Ban, the rate of decrease has not altered to the point that our crime rates are as low as they were in late 50s. Though this correlation does not prove the ubiquitous presence guns in our society has a preventative effect on crime

    And you need to examine what crimes are actually occurring. Total violent crime and property crime is actually lower in the US then relatively antigun Western European nations as well as relatively progun Switzerland and Canada. Even extremely non-violent Japan has more property crime than we do. Meanwhile we have a higher murder rate, once adjusting for the different definitions of homicide so that we are counting the same crimes as "murder", than any of those nations. We have also always had more murder per capita than Europe even before any gun control measures were enacted.

    And you need to examine where the crimes are being committed and who is committing them. 75 percent of all murders occur in 1 percent of the counties. Often in small urban subsections of those counties, most with prior histories of gun control or gun control measures on the books. While rural areas of the US and Canada where firearms are more common actually have less murder per capita than rural areas of Western Europe. 80 percent of murder victims and 85 percent of murders were previously convicted of a felony, excluding felony misdemeanors. While this does not mean they were all career criminals or even involved in crime, a criminal background and criminal on criminal conflict in strongly associated with murder.

    So frankly I can see no convincing argument for illeglization or regulation of firearms for the sake of public safety and frankly I have always valued the ability of the public to do as they please over their safety which feel is their personal responsibility.

  6. continued

    Here are some tenured Princeton Professors explaining it in more detail.

    The only thing they kinda strawman is what a militia is in the context of modern society. Basically it could be seen as any able bodied citizen between 17 and 50 that could assist in the maintenance of law and the Constitution by preventing a public servant or private citizen from violating their rights or the rights of others.

    Nobody but retarded Turner Diaries readers think you can fight the army alone with a rifle, though in some hypothetical civil war the armed forces would likely also be fractionated and more than 300 million firearms with a caliber larger than .22 would cause serious problems for an army of only 800,000. Rather most just think you can fight a police officer or soldier who intentionally or otherwise violates your rights and creates a situation where you perceive an imminent threat to life and limb.

    As an example a couple of years back in western St Marys Pennsylvania this guy was being hassled by a cop. Apparently their was some love triangle bullshit between them and some woman. The cop eventually tried to get in his house without a warrant. When the cop broke in the guy shot him because the cop had be screaming at him and had drawn his gun, as was corroborated by neighbors. They cop died from a shotgun wound. The guy was not charged or tried. He acted within the writ of the law for his self defense and defense of his property.

    It's not that the government just flips a Nazi switch one day and starts arresting people, it's that sometimes a public servant or governmental organization at any level gets a little crazy and steps over the line. That is what you are defending against.

    And firearms are very easy to make so I question if this is even possible in a society like the US which has so many small machine shops and so many machining enthusiasts.

    So my points are this:

    1. There is no indication that the restriction or regulation of firearms will have any positive effect on public safety.

    2. There is no practical way to enforce or instate such regulations even if the Second Amendment is abolished. People will not change just because you want them to.

    3. Firearms and weapons in general represent an ability for people to protect themselves from other citizens and government officials acting outside the law or by malicious manipulation of the legal system in violation of intent of the law.



Animals to Humans: All we want is to live

When you look at a kitten or a puppy and its cuteness just makes you melt, it can also make your day. But what about their day...and futur...