The Gun Control Bandwagon

[MechAg94]

I can't believe that besides the fact it's a gov ID, that none of the comments mentioned that it's relatively a burden to get, with a much more extensive review than any other state ID. I mean, you guys in TX still have to get printed, right?

If it were me, I'd just be making it clear to the knucklehead reporter and every sheep that reads him just how much background checking goes into a CCW. Because I'm pretty sure those people think you get one like you're buying a lottery ticket or something. If any of them had to jump through a tenth the hoops that someone does for a CCW (even in an "easy" state) they would be marching in the streets crying about the unfairness of it all.

We get printed getting a driver's license.  I am pretty sure the same prints and photo I gave at the DMV to get my license renewed were used to renew my LTC the next year. 

[dogmush]

I'm sure a lot of them would be fine with that. There, after all, ought to be some way of keeping every knuckle-dragging conservative from spreading his facts fake news micro-aggressions from every corner of the internet.

Actually I've seen several leftists and "journalists" calling for it on the internet.  To combat "fake News".

[Ben]

We get printed getting a driver's license.  I am pretty sure the same prints and photo I gave at the DMV to get my license renewed were used to renew my LTC the next year. 

Fully printed for the driver's license? In CA it's just the thumb print, or at least it was the last time I had to go in seven or so years ago.

Hey, also, we have to pay to get printed for the CCW, on top of paying for the "ID". That's voter repression!!!!!

[TechMan]

Fully printed for the driver's license? In CA it's just the thumb print, or at least it was the last time I had to go in seven or so years ago.

Hey, also, we have to pay to get printed for the CCW, on top of paying for the "ID". That's voter repression!!!!!

The last time I got my Ohio driver's license, no finger/thumb prints necessary.  Now for the CHL, full 10 print and they were run through the Ohio BCI and FBI databases. 

[Hawkmoon]

Indeed, Mr. Halbrook contends that there is NO SUCH THING AS A COLLECTIVE RIGHT.

Except in Massachusetts.

Okay, it's not exactly a "collective right," it's an individual right to defend the collective. I've always found it perversely ironic that Massachusetts, the seat of the American Revolution, has a state constitution in which the right to keep and bear arms is limited to the purpose of defending the state. Got an individual problem with a maniacal stalker? Tough noogies.

Article XVII.

The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution

[MikeB]

Except in Massachusetts.

Okay, it's not exactly a "collective right," it's an individual right to defend the collective. I've always found it perversely ironic that Massachusetts, the seat of the American Revolution, has a state constitution in which the right to keep and bear arms is limited to the purpose of defending the state. Got an individual problem with a maniacal stalker? Tough noogies.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution

I don't even seeing a collective right in there without a tortured reading. It basically says the people have a right to keep and bear arms, then qualifies for the common defense, which would be any defense by anyone. Especially the way language was used when it was written. The rest of it refers to any military being controlled by the government and is a separate statement from the right of the people.

[Perd Hapley]

Actually I've seen several leftists and "journalists" calling for it on the internet.  To combat "fake News".

Yup.

[Perd Hapley]

Now the Broward County Sheriff's Department has set up a fact-checking website.    I don't even want to look.

[Ben]

The least self-aware statement of the month, courtesy Shannon Watts:

The problem with America right now is that people are making gun laws based on emotion, not data.

https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2018/03/07/triple-face-palm-shannon-watts-self-own-may-be-the-funniest-thing-youll-read-all-day/

Also funny is that Watts has been brutally attacking Dana Loesch with tweets, but has blocked Dana, so she never sees the tweets unless someone sends them to her.

[MechAg94]

The least self-aware statement of the month, courtesy Shannon Watts:

https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2018/03/07/triple-face-palm-shannon-watts-self-own-may-be-the-funniest-thing-youll-read-all-day/

Also funny is that Watts has been brutally attacking Dana Loesch with tweets, but has blocked Dana, so she never sees the tweets unless someone sends them to her.

I started following Dana Loesch.  There are a lot of really nasty tweets directed at her.  Her responses have been very measured.

[Hawkmoon]

I don't even seeing a collective right in there without a tortured reading. It basically says the people have a right to keep and bear arms, then qualifies for the common defense, which would be any defense by anyone. Especially the way language was used when it was written.

No, both when it was written and now, "for the common defence" meant (and means) for the defense of the state.

[Perd Hapley]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/27997/connecticut-governor-calls-nra-terrorist-hank-berrien

Maybe I'm just one of those Republicans that mistakenly believes that we can win by sticking to facts, instead of telling a good story. Sorry, Andrew Klavan. But I don't understand why those pushing back on the "NRA are terrorists" line don't spend more time pointing out what a terrorist actually is. Terrorists murder innocents to achieve some political, religious, or ideological goal. Since the NRA doesn't do this...   

[bedlamite]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/27997/connecticut-governor-calls-nra-terrorist-hank-berrien

Maybe I'm just one of those Republicans that mistakenly believes that we can win by sticking to facts, instead of telling a good story. Sorry, Andrew Klavan. But I don't understand why those pushing back on the "NRA are terrorists" line don't spend more time pointing out what a terrorist actually is. Terrorists murder innocents to achieve some political, religious, or ideological goal. Since the NRA doesn't do this...   

Duh, facts are irrelevant. Now do your two minutes hate.

[Ben]

Wow. So Colin Noir (sidenote - I did not know he's an attorney) is being attacked, apparently for being some kind of unwitting NRA Uncle Tom. Because his name is Noir (black) and thus he is being used by the NRA as a black man whose name is "black". Or something like that - it's very over the edge.

https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2018/03/08/ouchville-colion-noir-takes-gun-grabber-to-the-shed-for-whining-that-his-last-name-means-black/

[Angel Eyes]

"Colion Noir" is a pseudonym, presumably one he chose himself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colion_Noir

Colion Noir is the pseudonym of Collins Idehen, a gun rights activist, lawyer, and member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the host of the web series NOIR on the NRA's online video channel NRA Freestyle.

[Perd Hapley]

He was using that name back when he was just another guy on YouTube, so I think it predates his work with the NRA.

[MikeB]

No, both when it was written and now, "for the common defence" meant (and means) for the defense of the state.

No. The common defense of the time was the average person showing up to defend against attacks by Indians(as referred to at the time), the French, Brigands what have you with the arms they possessed. If they intended the common defense to include an organized force by the government they would not have excluded a standing army in the next statement. That "common defense" being a collective was a more modern construction. Those people could not have shown up armed without their own privately owned arms. Now you could argue that many firearms and more specifically crew served weapons(cannons and what not) at the time were collectively owned; but that ignores that arms are not specifically defined as firearms and unfortunately that is something ignored even today with various laws in some places against knives, swords, what have you.

[zxcvbob]

No. The common defense of the time was the average person showing up to defend against attacks by Indians(as referred to at the time), the French, Brigands what have you with the arms they possessed. If they intended the common defense to include an organized force by the government they would not have excluded a standing army in the next statement. That "common defense" being a collective was a more modern construction. Those people could not have shown up armed without their own privately owned arms. Now you could argue that many firearms and more specifically crew served weapons(cannons and what not) at the time were collectively owned; but that ignores that arms are not specifically defined as firearms and unfortunately that is something ignored even today with various laws in some places against knives, swords, what have you.

There was also privately-owned warships back then, and the Founders were fine with that.  That's what Letters of Marque and Reprisal (sp?) were all about, mentioned in Article 1 of the Constitution.

[Perd Hapley]

No, both when it was written and now, "for the common defence" meant (and means) for the defense of the state.

I don't know if this distinction existed at the time, but are you talking about the state, as in the state of Connecticut, New Hampshire, etc.; or the state, as in the government?

[Perd Hapley]

If this thread is going to be a repository for anti-gun FUD, it's going to be longer than that other really long thread, and that right soon.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/constitution-gun-rights-women-rights_us_5a9ef7e0e4b002df2c5e7080?4ie

I would quote it, but it's just full of so much idiocy, dishonesty, and ignorance...


Also, see this article, about how crazy the NRA is to want women to be armed.

[Ben]

Looks like FL passed "21 and over" and a three day wait. Doesn't say if that's for all guns or what.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/09/florida-gov-rick-scott-signs-gun-bill-following-parkland-massacre-in-break-with-nra-allies.html

[Perd Hapley]

Looks like FL passed "21 and over" and a three day wait. Doesn't say if that's for all guns or what.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/09/florida-gov-rick-scott-signs-gun-bill-following-parkland-massacre-in-break-with-nra-allies.html

That's a shame, and very troubling. Colorado redux.

[MillCreek]

^^^And much to my surprise, a similar bill in Washington did not make it out of the Senate.  We are banning bump stocks in the state.

[Hawkmoon]

I don't know if this distinction existed at the time, but are you talking about the state, as in the state of Connecticut, New Hampshire, etc.; or the state, as in the government?

It's a state constitution, and a couple of the other 13 original states used the term "defense of the state," so I believe "state" meant "state," not "federal" government and populace. For example, the Pennsylvania state constitution of 1776 included the following for the RKBA:

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Note the difference between PA and MA. PA recognizes the RKBA for denese of the the self as well as of the state -- MA recognizes it ONLY for defense of the state.

[MikeB]

It's a state constitution, and a couple of the other 13 original states used the term "defense of the state," so I believe "state" meant "state," not "federal" government and populace. For example, the Pennsylvania state constitution of 1776 included the following for the RKBA:

Note the difference between PA and MA. PA recognizes the RKBA for denese of the the self as well as of the state -- MA recognizes it ONLY for defense of the state.

Common defense = defense of self and state. When I was growing up in MA in the 70’s this is more or less what we were taught in school. No one ever talked about any collective or state only right. At various historic sites where firearms rights were appropriately referenced it was always treated as an individual right. Now granted the militia component was also referenced; that was part of the history with the Minutemen and Lexington and Concord and all.

Even today MA isn’t the most terrible state for gunowners though it’s far from  Pennsylvania which arguably is one of the best states. Most of my relatives still live in MA and all have unrestricted carry licenses. Granted they are in more central/western MA not the Boston area.