Sen. Whitehouse used one specific example of an 18-year-old Oklahoma mom who shot and killed a home invader with a 12-gauge shotgun, which he said would not be banned under Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) gun control legislation.
“It proves the point that with ordinary firearms, not 100-magazine, peculiar types of artifacts — people are quite capable of defending themselves,” he added. For the record, no one is fighting for 100 round magazines and it’s unclear if he is referring to a specific incident.
More
11 comments:
Gayle Trotter acted like an idiot citing fantasy situations that have never occurred before. Suprised she didn't cite outer space aleins. Really a nut job.
Suprised she didn't cite outer space aleins. Really a nut job.
January 31, 2013 at 11:57 AM
And that's why you feel left out?
Most of the home invasions I have seen on the news, there is usually more than one person invading. I happen to own an old 12 gauge, single shot break down 1896 shotgun. It is in perfect working order but it takes time to reload. So if there is more than 1 intruder I had better do damage to 2 or 3 with the first shot or I'm dead. So that's why I have a 380 pistol with a 7 round clip. With proper training and practice it can be very efficient at 50ft.
I have different guns for different reasons but its my choice not the goverments on what I chose to protect my family
based on the quotes of the, ahem, "Honorable" Senator, one could surmise that he has absolutely no knowledge of the subject matter, but only having a deep-seated case of hoplophobia. as seems to be the case with 11:57.
Unfortunately, this well meaning woman was led into a classic false argument that fails to discuss the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment does allow you to defend yourself, your family, your home, your friends, etc. with a firearm from intruders. That's a side effect of its real purpose, though.
Intruders are just one example of a personal threat. And the real personal threat that was intended for the 2nd Ammendment was that of a tyrannical government. STOP TALKING ABOUT SELF-DEFENSE AND TALK ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONOPOLY OF POWER.
When the constitution was ratified, arms were defined as "the instruments of war." And it says that "the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." Back then, citizens could have war ships with cannons. Or muskets. Or any other object that could be used in war. There was the expectation that the citizens, at parity with the new government, would revoke the government's powers, through armed insurrection if necessary.
As it stands now, citizens are not allowed to own real tanks, rocket launchers, destroyers, war planes, armed drones, etc. They can't legally hack a government system, but they can hack ours. Parity has already been lost, and the assault rifle is the best equalizer that we have.
As it stands now, citizens are not allowed to own real tanks, rocket launchers,
Aside from tanks and anything else one could not hold in their hands, it is yet to be decided what the limit is on 'arms'.
At least one supreme court judge has said anything that could be held in two hands is covered by the 2nd amendment.
Rocket launchers, which can be held in two hands, may be covered by the 2nd amendment.
We won't know for sure until such a time it is brought before the supreme court.
While we still have one....
"Anonymous said...
Gayle Trotter acted like an idiot citing fantasy situations that have never occurred before. Suprised she didn't cite outer space aleins. Really a nut job.
January 31, 2013 at 11:57 AM"
20 yrs ago if you mentioned a mass school shooting many would have said that you are an idiot citing fantasy situations that have never occured before.
Heck 14 yrs ago if you said a bunch of 'religious' freaks could hijack a few airplanes and run them into NY sky scrapers and the Pentagon killing nearly 3000 people many would have said you are an idiot citing fantasy situations that have never occured before.
It's called anticipation. The criminal mind loves it when you take anticipation out of the picture. They sit around trying to figure out what hasn't been anticipated and expected and take advantage of it.
@4:37 -
You can't correctly say that what constitutes arms hasn't been decided. The writers made that decision when they created the document. And they chose their words carefully. They did not choose to let this go undecided for 200 years. That's silly.
In the 1770s, the quintessential dictionary of the day was Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language. Arms are "weaspons of offence, or armour of defense" or "war in general." So my summation was a bit off. I apologize. But I think the intent is there.
Furthermore, Federalist Paper #46, which was a supplemental argument advocating for adoption of the Constitution, describes how a citizen's militia with "arms in their hands" was designed to provide a check against the dangers of a standing army controlled by a strong federal government. It was described that a maximum sustainable army size of 1% of the population would be checked by a militia of half a million citizens, which I was about 25% of the population at the time. Madison also described this as the number of citizens competent in the ability to bear arms - ie, the entire citizenry. This argument was put forth by James Madison, who had intimate knowledge of the Declaration of Independence and the writing of the Constitution.
It seems so obvious to me why the 2nd Amendment was created and how it was expected to be practiced in our country.
I find it interesting that our number of active and reserve personnel is pretty close to 1% of our population. And the number of gun owners has been reported as nearly 25% of our total population.
@4:37 -
You can't correctly say that what constitutes arms hasn't been decided. The writers made that decision when they created the document. And they chose their words carefully. They did not choose to let this go undecided for 200 years. That's silly.
No, I DIDN'T. I was quoting a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.
Maybe I should have checked with you first?
You can't correctly say that what constitutes arms hasn't been decided. The writers made that decision when they created the document. And they chose their words carefully. They did not choose to let this go undecided for 200 years. That's silly.
It is not the definition of arms, it is the limit of arms in reference to citizens.
I wasn't trying to step on your toes or critique you statements. Just offering what I have read about the SCOTUS had to say on the matter.
Which is, unless I am mistaken, the law of the land.
Post a Comment