[mccookgazette.com] Partly Cloudy and Windy ~ 45°F  
High: 48°F ~ Low: 25°F
Sunday, Nov. 23, 2014

The Second Amendment Myth

Posted Saturday, October 24, 2009, at 5:05 PM

Two blogs on this day (mostly because I'm not getting to watch the football game I am wanting to, and also to respond to some of the comments I've seen on the blogs in the last week or so), this one focuses on the second amendment.

A lot has been said over the last 10 months about how the Obama Administration is denying Americans their 1st (specifically freedom of speech, I have already addressed this so I won't discuss here, I will leave it open for debate in the comments, however) and 2nd Amendment rights. What those that are making this claim lack in their argument is facts.

Specifically when it comes to the second amendment their actual claim is that he is going to deny second amendment rights. What they do in sense, by claiming that he will, is claim that he already is. The facts however just don't back them up. The truth is, which is very contrary to the noise, Obama has actually extended gun rights in his presidency not denied them. In his first month as president he signed a bill that allows concealed firearms in the national parks. Not a single bill has come across his desk in his first year to restrict rights. A bill hasn't even been debated in Congress to restrict rights. A bill hasn't even made into discussion in a single committee to restrict rights. Yes, bills have been introduced on the record to restrict rights, but being introduced and actually being acted on are two totally different and worlds apart as they can get.

What the myth of the Obama Administration and second amendment does show is that the far right in this country is going to extremes to cook up controversy where there is none. My point, specifically here is, they have decided that since they believe that Obama will move to restrict rights then, in their mind, he already is.

Every week for ten months now, they have come up with a new controversy in order to drive Obama's numbers down. For the large part, it really hasn't worked. While his numbers did go down in August, those numbers have been coming up since September.

It also goes to further show that the extreme right is driving as hard as they can to create division in this country even going as far as attacking Republicans that don't cow tow to everything the Tea Partiers want.

In the end, Obama has three more years in his presidency and he is going to do things in that presidency that people on both sides aren't too happy about. In the end, complaining about something he hasn't even done is a waste of breath.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

fredd, while I am glad that you agree with me, please stop with the name calling. Don't drop down to that level.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, at 8:18 PM

Given Mike's great work on "The Faux Outrage Continues", I have to ask; what if his blog were true?

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Oct 25, 2009, at 10:04 PM

You ignore the fact that Obama's AG twice called for reinstatement of the Assault Weapons ban, as did his secretary of state.

-- Posted by Calpurnia on Mon, Oct 26, 2009, at 8:20 AM

Has anyone ever actually read the "Assault Weapons" ban?

-- Posted by Grandma B on Mon, Oct 26, 2009, at 10:47 AM

Clapurnia, calling for a reinstatement and it actually getting done are two totally different things. When did his attorney general and secretary of state call for this reinstatement to begin with?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Oct 26, 2009, at 11:33 AM

"calling for a reinstatement and it actually getting done are two totally different things"

Hmmm...sounds kind of like the argument against the President receiving the Nobel Peace prize...don't you think?

-- Posted by Husker23 on Mon, Oct 26, 2009, at 1:05 PM

Mike,

Back in February, AG Holder did say: "As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,"

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=...

However, you are correct. No action has been taken in this respect. But I can see why gun aficionados would be concerned with the current administration.

I'm a supporter of the second amendment. But it is a murky area for me. For a time, I lived with a roommate in college who had an assault weapon , and it really scared me alot more than it made me feel safe. Though I trusted my roommate completely, I could just imagine somebody getting drunk at a college party and doing something stupid with that gun.

And last year, an acquaintance of mine ruined his life and ended someone else's when he made the rash decision to pull out a handgun to settle a dispute. I expect him to be in jail for quite awhile. He was a bright, college-educated, young man with a good job and promising future. But because of his temper and one bad decision compounded by a firearm, he's destroyed his own life and the lives of an entire family.

-- Posted by jhat on Mon, Oct 26, 2009, at 1:40 PM

according to this article from April, Obama isn't going to pursue a reinstatement of the weapons ban.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/Obama-Ass...

Another article I was reading about this around the same time said to him the assault weapons ban still made sense, but he wouldn't pursue it.

Its not like the Weapons ban really did a whole lot other then make weapons manufacture's change a couple cosmetic designs, take of the grenade launchers ect. Was it needed, not at all.

here's a wikipedia article about the AWB. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Ass...

I think a the large magazine/clip capacity ban for hand guns is unneeded also. I mean, really, if you can't hit your target in the first 10 rounds, will 5 more help? I guess if your in a shoot out it probably would.

-- Posted by npwinder on Mon, Oct 26, 2009, at 1:52 PM

Husker, how do you make the leap from gun rights to the Nobel Peace Prize.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Oct 26, 2009, at 2:02 PM

Intent Mike...intent won him the Peace prize (as the argument goes), but evidently intent does not mean anything in this case.

I have read left wing bloggers and other letters on this and other web sites and media outlets from liberals proclaiming that Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize was because he "wants" peace, or because of his "intentions" for peace. Let's face facts...the award has nothing to do with actual accomplishments.

So when this administration "calls for the reinstatement of the Assault Weapons ban" and then you claim that calling for it and doing it are two different things...really just appears to be the same argument the right wing has taken against him winning the Nobel Peace prize.

Just my misguided, right wing, brainwashed, racist opinion...as I have been told.

-- Posted by Husker23 on Mon, Oct 26, 2009, at 2:19 PM

calling for world peace and getting it done are two different things also.

Much like calling for the reinstatement for the AWB and getting it done is.

-- Posted by npwinder on Mon, Oct 26, 2009, at 2:26 PM

Sorry, I had that typed up and then had to take a phone call before submitting.

I don't think anyone including Obama expected him to win. I also wonder if Obama truly thinks he deserved it.

-- Posted by npwinder on Mon, Oct 26, 2009, at 2:29 PM

Hold the Hysteria!!!

Before you continue raving about President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize, get on the web and find out what the rest of the world thinks --

At least check the major European countries, India, Japan, the African countries, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, even Russia and the various countries which came out of the Soviet Union.

Then attempt to justify the hysteria. Particularly those who love to refer to the "Hateful Michelle Obama" and the attacks they want to make against anyone connected to the President in any way.

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Mon, Oct 26, 2009, at 3:17 PM

Sorry Hank...must have been my brainwashed mind taking control. I don't know what I was thinking...should have checked into what the European Union and other countries thought before I conjured up my own opinion.

...must listen to Rush...must wait until O'Reilly...shutting down formal thought process until further instruction...

I wasn't aware that my opinions were inciting outright "hysteria". Again, my apologies.

-- Posted by Husker23 on Mon, Oct 26, 2009, at 3:32 PM

This is just amazing. Since, people are worried about what Obama might do with gun control. Mike believes that somehow we have twisted our minds into thinking he's already passed restrictions. Obama has not been shy about his support of gun control or ammunition control, depending on the issue. The fact is that people oppose that passionately and they protest because they don't want that to happen.

By the way, in what world is the justification, "he only said he would do it, he hasn't actually done it yet" supposed to alleviate anybody's concerns?

No, Obama has not passed any restrictions on gun control YET. However, it is not some far off idea that he will seek gun restrictions in the future. That's a very legitmate concern and people should continue to watch for any legislation in the future and keep up their opposition. They are letting their views be known so that hopefully, it will never even get to the point where we have to fight the legislation because we will have let our representatives that the people do not want it before they ever try drafting the legislation.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Oct 26, 2009, at 4:55 PM

The second ammendment is the most misconstrued of them all.

Here is what it actually say:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

To me, that doesn't sound like anyone who just wants a gun can go out and by one. But hey, I guess I'm not the supreme court.

And you have to remember when this was written, and what was going on. Today we don't need for jo bob and jim bob to dfend their homes against invading troops.

-- Posted by mccookreader on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, at 9:00 AM

Without guns it becomes easier for someone with them to take over the country. Then there would be a need for jim and jo bob to defend their homes against invading troops.

And if any country did decide to attack the US on US soil, do you really expect it to be just the army fighting the invaders?

I remember a quote from Japan saying something along the lines that they could never attack the US because once they hit the shore everyone would be there ready to fire.

And if the government really made a move away from democracy/republic, a well regulated militia would be necessary again for the security of the free state.

I guess we could make another amendment striking the 2nd amendment, but will we ever get 2/3rds of the state to ratify it? No. it won't happen.

-- Posted by npwinder on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, at 9:12 AM

Apparently Fredd is not getting the responses he is looking for...he has resorted to double postings.

-- Posted by Husker23 on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, at 1:36 PM

Regarding recent comments:

I think most reasonable people believe there is a line for gun and weapon ownership. We could probably all agree that people shouldn't have missiles, tanks, F-22s, etc. (at least I hope we can agree on that).

The argument is simply WHERE that line is drawn. Obviously some of us want it to be drawn at assault weapons. Some of us want it to be drawn after assault weapons, and some of us want it to be drawn just shy of heavy ordinance.

As far as the second amendment goes, it's the supreme court's job to interpret it for our time. Obviously the framers of the constitution never even imagined cruise missiles, let alone automatic rifles. So taking their opinions as gospel on the matter is a bit too dogmatic for my taste (and I'd wager that they would agree).

-- Posted by jhat on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, at 2:13 PM

I think the president made a statement concerning gun control simply to measure the public response. If it is to the administrations advantage to make a move on gun control, then he will. If it is to the administrations advantage to announce publicly that he will not take action, he will do that. What ever move that is thought to gain the most support will be done.

-- Posted by seentoomuch on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, at 2:48 PM

GI, let me find some numbers on gun deaths.

I will say, I believe in smart gun laws that protect the general public but also give gun owners broad rights.

from the little bit of non in-depth research roughly half of firearm related deaths is from suicide. That's a whole different animal that while extremely serious does skew gun deaths significantly and should be dealth with differently.

GI, can you post the source for 30,000 deaths? I'm not disputing the number, I just want to see if it breaks down the info any farther.

-- Posted by npwinder on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, at 3:42 PM

npwinder,

GI's number is pretty accurate. However, that number includes all manner of gun deaths including suicide, homicide, accidents and shootings for legal intervention.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, at 4:10 PM

npwinder,

GI's number is pretty accurate. However, that number includes all manner of gun deaths including suicide, homicide, accidents and shootings for legal intervention.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, at 4:10 PM

First, I do believe your stats by the way and did earlier, I was just seeing if you had a source that had the break downs without single searches on the CDC site.

It's hard to regulate who has access to guns. We already have background checks in place. if its clear you automatically are eligible to get a gun.

With suicide, I'm more worried about how to prevent it then what causes it. Guns do have a lot more chance of success. If someone really wants to commit it, they will. I would rather focus on helping those with suicidal thoughts then focus on how they have already killed themselves.

According to the stats, 853 deaths were unintentional. These were probably preventable. I think gun education is huge way to prevent deaths. Kids need to be taught to respect guns and what they can do.

Maybe we should have mandatory gun safety classes before the purchase of a first gun. Lets make sure the people buying guns are capable of handling them.

for the 323 of officers using legal force, i guess the bad guys need to learn not to get into shoot outs with cops.

Now how do we keep the guns out of criminal hands? Well, we have laws against felons having guns. They still get them. We need smart laws that go after the black market or maybe just a police force that can go after them. There isn't a thing we can do to keep guns out of peoples hands with no criminal record. Any law to go after the extremely small percentage of people buying a legal gun for a first time offense is going to intrude too much on people wanting to buy a legal gun for legal use.

As for the Assault weapons ban, there's no reason to put it back. Ok, maybe we should make grenade launcher attachments illegal. other then that there's not a real reason to enact the ban again. it didn't deter crime before. Assault weapons are used in an extremely small amount of overall gun violence. The criminals really don't like them, you can't hide them as well. When you hear an AK-47 going off down the street, then someone sees an man with an AK-47, its kind of obvious who did it. Now you hear a 9mm go off down the street, the person can hide it fast, it'll be unknown who did it.

I also am a huge supporter of laws allowing concealed weapons. there were two towns I was reading about a couple years ago in IL. one banned guns, the other made a law stating every head of household had to own one. the former had crime rates that kept going up, the latter, had lower crime rates before. There also seems to be that correlation between states. Now should everyone be given a permit for concealed carry? No, but there are a lot of people out there responsible enough to carry. the vast majority of people that take the time to get the concealed permit, do not want to lose it. they keep their noses clean.

Also keep in mind that yes there are 30,000 too many gun deaths a year, that comes from 44 million owners and 192 million owned guns. we need laws that work, not laws out there for the sake of making laws to try to appease people who are anti-gun.

Fredd, Missiles typically are not considered arms. nor tanks, nor RPGs. As much fun as it would be to go skeet shooting with a long range missile from a thousand miles away, that's the extreme.

An F-22 would be fun to have too. though, I don't see our military selling them anytime soon. I did however, see a polish fighter jet on ebaymotors for 50,000 dollars one time. it was based in florida of all places.

-- Posted by npwinder on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, at 11:37 PM

"Thus, if lax gun regulations increase the number of guns readily available, and guns increase the chances of successful suicide attempts, then strengthening gun regulations, and decreasing the number of guns readily available, would decrease the number of successful suicide attempts. These people may look to alternative means of committing suicide (pills for example), but they are likely to be less effective, and not close at hand, thus requiring more premeditation."

There are simply too many assumptions in that statement to justify its effectiveness. Reducing the number of guns available does not automatically mean that people who wish to commit suicide can't obtain them anyway after they make that decision or before that decision is made. Furthermore, you have to assume that only the people who were going to commit suicide are the ones not buying the guns. We already have restrictions that need to be enforced about people with a mental health history but you're right, no one knows who will and won't commit suicide, especially when that person buys it before they ever have any of those types of thoughts.

The best deterrant to suicide by any means does not lie in a government regulation. It lies with the people around that person every day. If they're truly someone who doesn't want to do it, then the people around them can help them through that time and direct them to professionals when needed. We, as a society, need to take responsibility for our own inaction as opposed to shifting blame and focus to guns or pills as being too accessible. It's seems everything is too accessible except for people willing to help those they think have a problem but would rather go about their lives ignoring the issue. So long as they can say, if that gun or those pills hadn't been so accessible maybe they would have a second chance to get help. Most people who overcome suicidal thoughts, never do it alone and they rarely seek out help for themselves. They have someone guiding them in that direction. Even taking a gun away from a suicidal person does not address the real issue and guarantees nothing. That's just my philosophy though. I believe the answer rests with the people not the government.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Wed, Oct 28, 2009, at 9:55 AM

How do you propose the stricter gun regulations to deal with suicides?

As for the two towns, I was wrong, one town is Morton Grove Il, the other is Kennesaw, Ga.

here's an article from 2007 about it http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTI...

here's another article with more information about the kennesaw article, I will have to admit, I probably gave wrong information earlier.

I also remember a dateline or 20/20 or something from several years as right to carry laws were becoming big. They interviewed inmates who said they weren't as afraid of the police with guns as they were of the people they were mugging turn a gun on them.

Also Vermont has a true concealed carry law where you don't need a permit to carry. http://www.kc3.com/CCDW_Stats/why_vermon...

-- Posted by npwinder on Wed, Oct 28, 2009, at 2:06 PM

"This is why I am open to possible legislation that endeavors to better restrict those undeserving of gun ownership."

Who do you want labeled as "undeserving" that are not already regulated under current law and how do you intend to allow the government to make that determination? Also, is this something that would address suicides and if so, how?

"Meaning, in a place like England, if you are drunk and feeling suicidal it typically isn't feasible to open the gun safe whip out a .45 and do yourself in."

It would be even less feasible to open the gun safe, whip out a .45 and protect yourself and your family if someone breaks into your home and threatens you and your family. That's why this is such a complicated issue. When you try to protect one group of people you endanger another. In this case, you try to protect the people who want to take their own life and endanger the people who want to keep their life.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Wed, Oct 28, 2009, at 3:41 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


And Now for Something Completely Different
Michael Hendricks
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
Hot topics
The More Things Change The More They Stay The Same
(6 ~ 8:37 PM, Sep 5)

Goodnight Sweet Prince
(3 ~ 11:45 AM, Aug 15)

Elections Matter
(14 ~ 2:15 AM, Aug 9)

Hodgepodgeiness
(262 ~ 6:55 AM, Jan 8)

It Begins ... Again
(24 ~ 11:41 PM, Oct 27)