Second Amendment

Missing the poll.

No poll.

This is one of the few things I disagree with:
States do not seem to be able to do this without infringing on the right to bear arms. IL, NY, etc have all but banished handguns. Handguns existed when the 2nd Amendment was written. If our founding fathers meant "The right to bear arms shall not be infridged, unless it is a handgun, or you don't have a conceal carry permit, or it can fire consecutively"... then that's what they should have said.
IL and NY punish their entre state over NYC and Chicago. Would it not make more sense to make a city ordinance, and make a state law giving ordinances real power?
The word bear means "to carry, to transport, to harbor, to hold, to support" ... not: to own only at home, to place is a safe. Basically it is my opinion that the federal government has an obligation to safeguard law abiding citizens' right to carry a firearm of their choosing.
I generally lean liberal, but gun laws do not make sense to me. The only individuals which follow gun laws are law abiding citizens. Criminals, by definition, do not follow the law. So who ends up the firearms? The criminals.

Although handguns did exist at the time the 2ns amendment was written, they were only capable of a single shot. Revolvers didn't come along for another 50 years or so - at least. Repeating rifles came along around 1864. America was a largely agrarian society where every family had at least one rifle for protection from Indians, varmints and for hunting for food.

It is highly unlikely that the founding fathers cobbled the 2nd amendment together with AK-47s in mind or .50 caliber sniper rifles or handguns that can hold 15 rounds. Although there was substantal crime back then, punishment was somewhat of a deterrant. Hangings were not that uncommon and it didn't always require a court of law to arrange them. Therefore, it is also unlikely that they could foresee how crime-infested our society would become.

To 'bear' arms was usually meant in the context of carrying a weapon with the intent, probability, or liklihood of using them. That context was also cross-referenced with a well-trained militia.

My, how things have changed.

If I shoot an armed intruder inside the confines of my home, the same court that would normally have hanged or imprisoned that intruder, stands a pretty good chance of sending ME to prison.

We no longer shoot Indians and most varmints are pretty safe. Our great hunters kill more deer and moose with their pickups than they shoot.

I think that the greatest and most powerful argument in favor of gun ownership is our legal system. Criminals are given too many second chances. They are let back on the street after only a few weeks or months in the slammer. Unfortunately, rather than rehabilitate, that short time in that slammer has only produced a more knowledgeable criminal.

Eventually, that criminal will progress to the point where he no longer specializes in 'victimless' or petty crimes.

So, if you can't depend upon the court system, what does that leave you?

The poll should be visible now. Let me know if it isn't.

Self defense is a basic human right, "unalienable". The states have an interest in promoting public safety, but that has to be balanced against the right of the individual to defend themselves. What we've seen so far is many states actually reducing public safety in the name of promoting it.

If I had my way, the NRA's Eddie Eagle gun safety program would be a standard part of all pre-school and elementary programs. And we'd start actual firearms handling training in about the 7th or 8th grade. Take a lot of the TV and movie mystique away from guns and make them something familiar again.

Of course the whole public school system needs a lot of work, in part to promote the ideals of personal responsibility and merit, which have been undermined by policies such as grading on a curve and social promotion.

Given the current situation, perhaps the best we can hope for is "shall issue" concealed carry as a minimum standard, with required training.

Twitchy, I dont know whether that would play well in policy circles, but it clearly has the intended effect. As a dad, with a diverse battery under lock and key, ( p.s. I carry often) the best way to eliminate curiousity and the associated risk, is to train, which I did with with my sons. ( 10 and 14) Now they resepct them, know how to handle them, and the "curiousity" has become an informed interest. Training works. Eddie Eagle is an excellent program.

I agree that training young is important.

I was raised to believe that you only use a gun if you are going to kill someone or something. And you never draw a gun unless you intend to use it. A gun is a tool for a very specific job. Like any other tool, practice is essential for proper use and knowing when it is the right tool for the job.

My dad taught me to shoot with a BB rifle shooting bluejays (mom HATED those birds) when I was about 5 or so, and I moved up from there at a young age. I've raised my kids to have the same attitude.

Robinghood, your question was left unanswered. To me its easy; learn to use a gun and carry, or please allow folks like me to carry without y'all being too uptight about it. And please dont JUDGE me for it.

Do I not dream of a completely peaceful society? Sure, but its in my dreams, not out here. Assymetrical banning of nomenclature simply doesnt work. ( ban all you want, if I want a .50 BMG, am a law breaker and have the dough, brother, I'm gonna get one, but you law abiders wont - that's assymetry)

Brady Bill Bull Crap doesnt stop yellow bellied chickens from drawing down on unarmed civilians at Ihop or UVA. A good shot does.

If the position were to be cast in stone as is, I would be in full support of the Whig's position on this issue. But, that would also mean that "reasonable" in NYC is going to be a vastly different definition than one in rural Alabama, and that's OK. I fully support a law-abiding, mentally stable citizen's right to own a handgun or shotgun. What I do not support or even understand is why a person needs to own a cache of weapons. As another poster pointed out, our founding fathers would have probably never conceived the technological advances we have achieved which have transformed our society from an agrarian one to a post-industrial one. Thus, there is not a reasonable need for anyone to own more then a couple of arms for self-protection, sport, or hunting. We already have laws preventing people from owning bazookas or RPGs, so a precedent already exists. Thus, a common-sense approach (which, as usual, neither party is capable of delivering) would be one where owners would have to pass exhaustive background and psychological tests, there would be a reasonable waiting period, and limits on number of weapons owned put into place; and where criminals who possess/use firearms in the commission of their crimes would be severely punished. After all, many states require more scrutiny of people applying for a driver's license than to those wanting to purchase a deadly weapon.

I still don't see a poll.

I agree with the Whig's stance on this issue.

MDBuck - That makes sense. Then we should also treat all weapons the same way. Exhaustive background and psychological tests and limits on the number of kitchen knives, or any knives, that you can own. Limits on the number of marbles one can own, and prohibitions on minors owning them (ammunition for deadly slingshots). Waiting periods for deadly or potentially addicting medications, like aspirin.

Maybe we should have limits on the number of anything that people can own. After all, there must be something wrong with someone who owns a couple of hundred baseball cards. Nobody has a reasonable need for more than half-a-dozen or so.

Basically I don't see much sense to your "common-sense approach".

As I learned in 9th grade theology class ( that's right this "big", like 250 lbs Whig is referencing a high school theology class!)

You cannot have freedom without responsibility.

Many have not shown responsibility with firearms> Most if not all of them had broken the social contract before they were involved in a firearms crime. So I dont think we can teach them responsibility other than severe punishment for a crime committed with a gun, which doesnt really happen.

So, until we start cutting trigger fingers off ( which sha'ria law might allow!), we better really hammer down on illegal gun use in the act of a violent felony.

Another way is to help honest law abiding citizens MAINTAIN their social contract by making it easier for them to own, train and use firearms.

This notion flies in the face of the lefty utopian society that we are subject to here in NY, but there is no doubt in my military mind, if neighborhoods were armed with citizens that could actually hit their targets, the malcontents/criminals who cant hit their target would be forced to recalculate.

So far, the SCOTUS has done a good job of upholding 2nd Amendment rights. However, if you pay attention to the NRA-ILA letter in their magazines, there are cases the court wont hear yet that are contrary to 2nd Amendment guarantees.

So vigilance is ever required. And yes, I am the NRA and might have the most absolutist opinion about unfettered access to firearms amongst the MWP execs.

BTW, for your information, as a NY resident I have had a concealed carry permit since I was 16 years of age. :O)

P.S. Personal Note: Even as an absolutist, which is "danger zone" for a Whig, I still respect local laws that restrict this freedom, to wit, I never carry in NYC even though I have a few 'friends' there. The utter restrictions in the state of Illinois, however, I might take issue with if I was from the Land of Lincoln.

I was trained young, had guns fully accessible.. rifles and handguns. No Accidentally fires, no one ever got hurt by them and I think UNTIL someone is violent with a gun, it should be as acceptable as letting people get pregnant. Until they are found guilty of child abuse...no one requires them to do much of anything with a helpless life being in their care. Once someone screws up with a firearm... the justice systems and laws may come into affect.

So far, from varies posting.. I am still uncomfortable with the idea of being tied to the Whig Party here, but knowing there are members, in fact leading members, like Jim Bacon, has made me check out a bit more of the party. I also did like the fact that some discussions was rounded in to prevent attacking language. That is a big plus.