The Dirty Thirty – March 2012 Edition

If you’re ready to read more from the unbossed and unbought Politicus team, sign up for our newsletter here!

34 Replies to “The Dirty Thirty – March 2012 Edition”

  1. “The War on ‘Gun Control'”? Where do I enlist, and how can I contribute to the noble war effort against state-mandated defenselessness?

  2. Why is someone taking your guns? Or are you the one that’s left that wants loons to have guns? Just curious

  3. Since gun ownership gets easier and easier and has become even easier during Obama’s presidency, I cannot imagine who Kurt thinks are after his guns, unless perhaps it is space aliens

  4. This is an excellent tool for dealing with the “Dominionists/Religious Right/Conservatives are dying” pundits. All they have to do is look at this list to see how they are WINNING.

    I think they’ve been watching the national elections and how the Republican candidates keep shooting themselves in their feet… not realizing that most of the battle is on the local and state fronts.

    In fact, I wonder if that might be in some way deliberate – keep the focus on the national elections so people miss what’s happening right in their own area.

  5. Hmm–don’t remember saying anything about anyone “taking [my] guns,” but there are still tens of thousands of gun laws in this country, and I oppose every last one of them.

  6. Uh… Shiva… I’m almost as scared of gun control as I am of the dominionists. I cringe every time I see liberals advocating taking away someone’s rights (and yes, freedom to own and bear arms SHOULD BE a liberal cause).

    Isn’t liberalism based on the idea that a person is free as long as their freedom doesn’t impact others? That freedom needs to be protected… and believe me, laws and especially the police WILL NOT PROTECT ANYONE (except maybe the rich and powerful). In fact… who is going to protect us from the police???

    I really don’t want to go into the reasons why gun control will be a failure AGAIN.

  7. How has “gun ownership gotten easier and easier” (aside from handgun bans struck down in D.C. and Chicago)? Has any previous class of “prohibited purchaser” now become eligible to legally possess firearms? Have background check requirements been dropped for any kind of gun sale? Have any hyper-oppressively regulated firearms (fully-automatic, larger than .50 caliber, etc.) become less regulated?

  8. You’re barking up the wrong tree if you want to start talking about felons owning guns. There are good reasons certain people should not have guns and good reasons no people should have certain guns. The Founding Fathers weren’t thinking in terms of anti-tank guns and automatic weapons and they were thinking in terms of militias now replaced by National Guard and Army Reserve units.

    For record numbers of gun owners: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life/t/record-numbers-licensed-pack-heat/#.T1t3VjEgdm0

  9. So basically you are in favor of loonies having guns. Got it. I think everyone should have a gun, we just cant kill enough people to satisfy the constitution can we.

  10. Yes, yes, and yes. The GOP traveling reality show exists to siphon off media time from the kinds of state action listed above–state action that was front and center in the media this time last year.

  11. “o   The U.S. House of Representatives wants to undermine state gun controls by forcing each state to honor the gun-carrying permits of other states. H.R. 822 the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 “would require all states to allow out-of-state visitors to carry concealed firearms as long as the laws of the visitors’’ home states allow them to do so” which would override protections that other states citizens want. So much for Republicans opposing the federal government riding roughshod over states rights. If it’s something the GOP wants, the feds can lord it all they want. . . . “
    So much wrong, so little space! Let’s start with the US Constitution:
    “ · · · THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED [Amendment II].” This statement does not create, limit or endow a right; it is an affirmation of a people’s right. It also does not delegate to the Federal Government the power to infringe upon that right. Instead, it prohibits any infringement of that right by any entity, not just the Federal Government of the United States, but also the States or any political subdivision thereof. “THIS CONSTITUTION . . . SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; AND THE JUDGES IN EVERY STATE SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY, ANY THING IN THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING [Article VI].” All the States have reviewed and ratified the US Constitution, in its entirety, and are thereby bound by it. “THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE [Amendment X].” The right (and the power) to “keep and bear arms” is reserved to (and belongs to) the people and the power to infringe on that right is prohibited by Amendment II without any qualification or limitation. Further, “· · · NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES · · ·” [Amendment XIV, Section 1]. Not only are some States abridging their own citizens’ Amendment II rights, but by refusing to recognize out-of-State Concealed Weapons Permits, States are also denying citizens of other States their Amendment II rights to “keep and bear arms”. Finally, “THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO ENFORCE, BY APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE.” [Amendment XIV, Section 5].

    As regards Concealed Weapons Permits, “FULL FAITH AND CREDIT SHALL BE GIVEN IN EACH STATE TO THE PUBLIC ACTS, RECORDS, AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF EVERY OTHER STATE. AND THE CONGRESS MAY BY GENERAL LAWS PRESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH ACTS, RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE PROVED, AND THE EFFECT THEREOF.” [Article IV, Section 1]. Finally, “NO STATE SHALL, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS, · · · , ENTER INTO ANY AGREEMENT OR COMPACT WITH ANOTHER STATE, · · · [Article I, Section 10, Clause 3].” prohibits States from entering into agreements with other States, such as “Reciprocity Agreements” for the carrying of concealed weapons, without the specific consent of the US Congress.
    (infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another)

    This is not an issue of States’ rights but rather is an issue of the Federal Government fulfilling its obligations [Amendment XIV and Article IV, Section 1] to prevent States from denying citizens’ US Constitutional rights!

  12. “o   In Florida, a new law passed in June 2011 by the Republican-controlled legislature (of course), mandates penalties against local communities and officials for not dropping their gun control laws in obedience to a 1987 act that, as the New York Times reports, “allowed the state to pre-empt the whole field of gun and ammunition controls” but which since then has been largely ignored. The deadline is now October 1. From the Daytona Beach News-Journal:  State Rep. Fred Costello said the strong language in the new law — 790.33 of the Florida Statues — assumes full control of all gun regulation. No local government can override state laws or make more restrictive laws regarding guns. . . .”
    Let me get this right. States are supreme to the Federal Government, and localities are supreme to the States??? I guess I am seeing different US and State Constitutions than the author because I thought it was the other way around!

  13. “o   The State of Virginia wants guns, lots of guns, in the hands of pretty much anybody . . .”
    “Shiva, March 10, 2012 at 4:12 pm, So basically you are in favor of loonies having guns.”

    HR 822 states: ‘‘§ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
    (a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)), a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law
    of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, . . .”

    Under Federal Law, the following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:
    o Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
    o Fugitives from justice.
    o Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
    o Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
    o Illegal aliens.
    o Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
    o Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
    o Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
    o Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
    o Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
    o Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
    Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition. Under limited conditions, relief from disability may be obtained from the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, or through a pardon, expungement, restoration of rights, or setting aside of a conviction.

  14. Why do writers like this defend every other right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights except the 2nd Amendment rights, and then turn around and try to take away our 2nd Amendment rights? The anti-gun groups have drastically stepped up their unfounded assaults on H.R. 822. Don’t believe the lies and half-truths of the antigun lobby. If H.R. 822 is so obviously wrong why do all these groups have to resort to false and misleading statements to try to convince us how bad it is?
    Instead of constant attacks on our 2nd Amendment Rights, maybe there should be a national drive to take 1st Amendment Rights away from liars. Lies are dangerous! Lies got us into a war in Iraq, caused the current financial crisis, and are depriving law-abiding citizens of their Constitutional Rights. Let’s see how NY Mayor Bloomers and his Mayors Against Anyone But Criminals [or the rich and famous] Having Guns Campaign, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Lawful Citizens From Protecting Themselves, The National Association Against Gun Rights, the Press, and almost all Democratic politicians, like having their cherished US Constitutional, 1st Amendment Right to free speech constantly under attack!
    Support H.R. 822 and demand your Senators do also.

  15. in my opinion it’s incredibly stupid that in the year 2012 the right to own weapons in some people’s most important right. No one is trying to take your guns away.

    Maybe there should be a law that people who protest too much shouldn’t be able to own weapons

  16. The author quoted I think three different items that are being passed in states. For instance the right to carry weapons into bars. In my mind would’ve that Almightiest stupidest things you could ever dream up. isn’t that just for you want to take a weapon? Into a bar or someone is going to start shooting even if you are armed you stand a higher chance of being killed?

    The intent of the author was not to be anti-gun, but the laws allowqing guns in places like bars where it is incredibly stupid. At no time did the author state that he was anti-gun or guns should be done away with. I think you jumped on that camels back just a little bit too quickly.

    If I were you I would be far more concerned about the people you know Or the people around you having weapons because the odds are vastly in the favor of them killing you long before any criminal or burglar. No one will ever do away with guns, I am a firm believer in hunting and sport shooting. President Obama has done more for gun owners than the NRA has in its history.

  17. With the way the dominionists are winning, maybe it’s not so stupid after all.

    They don’t respond to reason, or pleas for common decency, or anything like that. I am sure that the writers for Star Trek modeled the Borg on the dominionists.

    We may need that 2nd amendment to protect and keep our freedom.

  18. FAIL (although I suspect it was intentional)

    “A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    Don’t just cut out text you don’t like, or perhaps that you are concerned weakens your case. Be brave, have some cajones and make the whole statement. Then make your case. Don’t take the cowards way out.

    The above text of the second amendment was not made in a vacuum either. If we want to know EXACTLY what our founding fathers were talking about all we need to do is review the records of the debates which took place at the time or the personal letters, tracts and books that they left to the public record because they thought that someday people might want to know what their thinking was at that time.

    They did not want the Federal government to have a monopoly on arms to protect the people from outside enemies. In particular they were addressing the case which was a major point of contest in the American Revolution. That the British had withheld protection of the army from places they felt need to be taught a lesson. And since the British had a monopoly on the use of force they didn’t want to exchange reliance on the British army for reliance on a Federal army. The demanded the right to keep a state’s militia to protect the citizens of that state from differential enforcement.

    Now I can legitimately argue from that the case that by extension a citizen might feel that he have the right to protect himself from internal enemies because the state was denying him equal protection under the law. But you’re going to have to allow for some activist judging there.

    You can also make the case that the 10th amendment allows for some rights not enumerated in the constitution as belonging “to the States or to the People”. This has been used to infer a “right to privacy” for instance.

    But to state the the 2nd amendment explicitly states the right of an individual citizen the right to carry a firearm in all situations is clearly false based on the text of the 2nd itself. ( And yes the SCOTUS is more than willing to be unable to read when it chooses to do so.)

    Personally I’m in favor of the rights of an individual to own firearms and operate them responsibly. Where I grew up I could own a firearm starting at age 14 if I had the consent of my parents and had passed a firearms safety course which was given by the NRA. For some reason when I was around 17 or 18 the NRA decided that teaching you to hit what you were aiming at and only what you were aiming at, was somehow unconstitutional and wrong. Even though they had been the one’s who were teaching me how to shoot safely?

    When can we start to see the average middle of the road guy start to have a right to participate in the whole process of decision making? Personally I think that a friend of mine can say to me, “Mike we don’t want firearms around the kids so don’t bring your pistol into my house please.” Okay fine by me, a man’s home is his castle he isn’t trying to “deny my sacred 2nd amendment rights”, he’s simply stating that in HIS place the rules are X. A bar owner should be able to say what you can do in HIS bar. It’s his castle, even if he lets the public in to eat his food and drink his beer, for profit. Still his place and if he wants to be the only one who’s allowed to keep a gun there then common sense and common decency say that he can.

    At least half our problems are that we’ve replaced common sense with “there ought to be a law” and the next thing you know the laws are all over the place being tugged to and fro by every wingnut crazy on both extremes. And we reward them for this by electing them to public office too.

Comments are closed.