I got an email today from a group called the Georgia Gun Owners announcing that their pet legislation, the Constitutional Carry Act, has been “pre-filed” in the Georgia legislature. According to the email, the Act will —
- Eliminate the mandatory intrusive government requirement for background checks of law-abiding Georgia gun owners;
Um, then how would you know they are law-abiding? Because they say so?
- Eliminate the mandatory requirement for taxes or “fees†be paid to county governments across the state, some of which add up to more than $100;
But if they can’t afford that, how can they afford to buy firearms?
- Eliminate mandatory government fingerprinting requirements;
- Eliminate mandatory trips to county probate courts in order to carry openly or concealed;
- Eliminate mandatory county government-imposed weapons license waiting periods;
- Leave the current Georgia Weapons Carry License in place as a voluntary license, for the sake of reciprocity; the license will no longer be mandatory to carry open or concealed in Georgia.
So, in other words, never mind if you are an escaped convict or are on a terrorist watch list. If this thing passes (and I have no idea what its chances are), you can waltz into any gun shop in Georgia, declare yourself to be a law-abiding citizen, and get yourself armed.
“Law-abiding citizens should not have to be fingerprinted and cataloged like common criminals just to be able to defend themselves, their family and their property.
In this day and age, with our firearms rights under full-fledged attack from Washington, and even here in the State, it’s time to finally remove the government-imposed barriers to private protection and self-defense,” said State Rep. Jason Spencer.
It must be rough on the mean streets of Marietta these days. But I don’t know what “full-fledged attack from Washington” he’s talking about; there’s been no movement from either Congress or the White House to pass any sort of firearm restriction for some time. The only “attack” has been concocted in the paranoid imagination of Wayne LaPierre.
As I’ve written in the past, in the U.S. there really isn’t a robust correlation between firearm fatality rates and firearm laws, one way or another. However, there is a correlation between firearm ownership rates and firearm fatalities. Higher rates of gun ownership within a state mean higher rates of gun fatalities.
So, while an armed society may or may not be a polite society, it is certainly a more dangerous society than a less armed one, even for the law-abiding citizens.
But while a prospective gun buyer must be presumed law-abiding until he shoots somebody, higher and higher standards of certification are being piled on prospective voters. Kay Dilday writes,
The NAACP will be sending a delegation to the United Nations Commissioner of Human Rights alleging a concerted effort to deny voting rights to black and hispanic Americans. Given how rarely anyone in the United States looks to the United Nations for justice, and how often the United States ignores the UN, this is both a significant and futile effort. But what’s at issue is so egregious that the NAACP has chosen to shout it from a global stage.
You know the story — in order to combat a phony “voter fraud” crisis, states are writing laws demanding that voters jump through more and more hoops to prove they are legitimate voters. And, of course, the populations most affected are poor, black, and latino. And if taxes and fees required of gun purchasers are outrageous, what about requirements to purchase a state ID card (for a fee), for which you need a certified copy of your birth certificate (another fee)?
See also:
“League of Women Voters takes on ‘myths about voter impersonation’”
“Robert Ehrlich Aide Guilty Of Conspiring To Suppress Black Voter Turnout”
“Students hit by voter ID restrictions”
“Voter ID Laws ‘Assault’ On Minority Voters, Says DNC Chair (VIDEO)”
Rep. Hank Johnson, “Suppressing Votes Is Not Right”
Luntz framing language in full effect. The fatal shootings around here are usually alcohol-fueled or kids “playing around” with guns available in the home. I have not heard of any self-defense cases. I have no problem with hunting. (Somebody please shoot that deer that raises her twins in my garden! Every year!) Note that I did not use “doe” and “fawns” so that framing would be evident in its effect.
Some more goodies:
George Lakoff, Words That Don’t Work
Mike Lofgren (remember him from a few months ago? The GOP operative who left the cult?), I Know How to Beat Republicans
Michael Moore, The Winter of Our Occupation.
I looked it up – rate of gun deaths in the US is 8 times higher than in its economic counterparts in the world. Firearm related death rate among US children younger than 15 nearly 12 times higher than 25 other similar countries combined. US has highest rate of youth homicides and suicides among the 26 wealthiest nations world-wide.
What exactly is the argument for increasing our access to guns? (A few years ago Florida had a proposal before its House that shooting and killing someone on the street was defensible if that person was attacking you. I immediately thought what a convenient way to get rid of an ‘enemy’ – just get him to walk down the street with you. After all, he’d be dead so couldn’t testify in his own behalf.)
I am a gun toting liberal, self proclaimed gun nut but I do not belong to the NRA. The “gun rights war” much like everything else today’s conservative movement rallies about is all about profits. These stripping of firearm regulations are not about freedom they are about increasing profits for the firearms industry. But as with just about everything today’s conservative movement cannot be truthful about their motives, they are shills, pimped out to any cause with cash in hand nothing more.
I’m fighting this, but, let’s face it, Liberals – we’re losing the 2nd Amendment wars because of gutless, RED Dog Democrats (I’m SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO f’in tired of calling them “Blue Dogs,” because there’s nothing BLUE about them).
And I’m tired of the same bullshit because of them over choice.
I loved the ” 50 State” initiative by the Democrats. But, let’s face it, they’re not worth having “with us” if they’re going to vote against clear-cut Democratic issues like choice, immigration, and the 2nd Amendment. They’re as useful as mammaries on a male bovine when those issues, and war, come up for legistlation.
We are a country divided.
I spent the day with my (in exactly two weeks, 86 year-old) “Pop”, who’s having gall bladder problems at the VA, and CNN was on in one of the Waiting Rooms, (and I thanked Heaven that it wasn’t FOX), and had some very interesting conversations with the Vet’s while my Dad and Mom went to see his primary VA physician.
I had to fend off a lot of anti-Obama Vet’s who’ve been brainwashed by Ruah and Fox. Lord, do they hate him! Never mind that he’s done more for them and the VA than any Republicans in the last 40 years.
My Father , unlike them, knows it was Little Boots who increased his med’s from $2 to $7 in the early 2000’s, and then increased them to $8, and more! But, you know, Bush LOOOOOVED the military – just not the Vet’s. Or, helping anyone actually serving. He loved the “idea” and the “ideal” of the military – but not paying for any of it!
It was amazing how much BS these guy’s all believed.
And yet, to this day, Ruah is broadcast at all military bases, and, I remember back when Al Franken was an “Air America” broadcaster, but couldn’t get the military to put him on, despite how many more time Al, and other Liberals, had risked their lives, going over there to entertain them – far MORE than the Right-wing “Amen to war” chorus!
I did, I think, a pretty good job of defending President Obama.
I mean, after all – I DID walk out of there alive with two other potential Liberal hostages – My Mom and Pop!
It’s sad – no, TRAGIC, the lies that these men and women have been fed, an believe. But then, what’s the purpose of propaganda, if that’s not the goal.
GOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLL!!!!
Sad…
Tragic….
The Constitution does not in any way sanction private ownership of guns, unless one is in a “well-organized militia” (the army or national guard).
I WORRY about psychos with guns. It’s easier to get guns than a driver’s license, a voter registration card, an abortion, health insurance, pre-natal care, unemployment benefits, a passport. It’s a miracle they haven’t REQUIRED gun ownership yet– though I know a few communities have floated that idea. Ironically, it’s easier to carry a gun than a knife into various state legislatures.
Nobody is speaking for US on this issue. If you need a Big Weapon to prove your manliness– or for target practice– fine. But, the laws are SO loose you get people “off their meds” like the VT guy and the Arizona shooter getting weapons unimpeded.
Originally “the militia” was all able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 45, excepting (as I remember) clergymen, merchant seamen, and some elected officials. This was automatic, although state governors were supposed to keep the names of men who would be required to muster if called. Most of ’em didn’t bother, though. And it was also the case that in some emergencies men older than 45 would show up and be considered “militia.” The point is that for a long time “the militia” was a kind of amorphous thing that didn’t have sharp boundaries.
Men who were subject to being called to militia duty were required by law to own a working firearm for that purpose, but most of ’em didn’t bother about that, either. History says the guys would show up for drills with axe handles and such and drill with those.
My reading of early American documents suggests no one thought real hard about what the 2nd Amendment actually protected. It seems to have been assumed that firearm ownership was an individual right not necessarily connected to militia enlistment — strictly speaking, men weren’t really “enlisted” most of the time — yet laws prohibiting gun carrying within city limits or within certain kinds of establishments were common, and it doesn’t seem to have occurred to anyone that rights were being violated.
“Originally “the militia†was all able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 45, excepting (as I remember) clergymen, merchant seamen, and some elected officials. This was automatic”
There were no federal taxes back then; many functions were like our current-day volunteer fire departments–ad hoc. They obviously thought VERY much about quartering troops in people’s homes, though– something that wouldn’t even occur to us. It was a different world.
Yes, and in fact this ad hoc group was the official militia, as established in Article I Section 8, and subject to state and federal call-up, and they were required by federal law (the Militia Act of 1792) to acquire their own firearms and keep them ready for use in militia activity.
My point is that the well-organized militia thing doesn’t necessarily refer to a formally organized military unit as we would think of it today. I wouldn’t be too quick to declare that the 2nd does not protect an individual right to own firearms. Reasonable and well-educated people have differing views. However, there is precedent for reasonable regulation of firearms. The NRA contention that the Constitution forbids government from any regulation or restriction on ownership or use of firearms whatsoever doesn’t hold historical water, I don’t think.
they were required by federal law (the Militia Act of 1792) to acquire their own firearms and keep them ready for use in militia activity.
They were required to have their front teeth also. Not for cosmetic reasons, but for utility..powder charges were pre- measured and rolled in paper beforehand and one end of the powder charge wrapping was bitten off so that the powder could be poured down the muzzle for a reload.
I don’t think it says anything about teeth in the Militia Act of 1792.
OK..maybe it was just us of the New York State militia.
twtfltrd …..You got it!
The NRA has become one of the most powerful lobbying groups in DC – if not the most powerful. And a lot of the 2nd Amendment supporters are single-issue voters. They want their guns, whatever kind, and whenever they want. And these people listen to the NRA, and vote the way they’re told.
The NRA’s job is to maintain and increase the market for guns.
The problem for gun manufacturers that guns last for decades. Hell, I bet you could find some working antique rifles and handguns that are well over a hundred years old. Many are passed down from father to son, or, in some cases, maybe even mother to daughter.
So, how do you increase the market for a product that can easily last a lifetime? Make newer models faster, lighter, be more lethal, have larger magazines, etc.. They other thing is bullets – you need to sell them too. And, unused, they too last for awhile. So you have to make them different, and create a market for them, too.
And so, since most people who want to have guns already have guns, the only thing you can do to make money is sell more of guns to them. “Yeah, we know we told you that that last handgun was ‘the bomb,’ but now the N*ggers ‘n Sp*c’s got ’em too, so you need more firepower than them. So, here’s our new ‘Smith & Wesson Obliterator.’ And you need our new ‘Drone’ bullets. Guaranteed to filet whoever you shoot, and then leave nothing but a spray of blood! No body! And 30 rounds a second!!! And it comes with a bandolier that’ll hold 500 bullets, for only $XXX.XX extra!”
Think about the shelves that were emptied after Obama was elected. The vast majority of those purchases weren’t made by new buyers who looked at Obama and said, “Oh, a Schwartze President – I better buy me a gun.” No, it was the usual suspicious morons who were told by the NRA and Conservatives that it ain’t ‘Annie gonna get your gun,’ but Obama! “Run out and up-arm yourselves – we’ve got ourselves a Democrat N*gger as President.”
In the word of the immortal American scumbag and moron Phil Gramm, who acknowledged already having more than 30 handguns and rifles at home – “I hee-ave mo-ah guuuhnz than Ah nee-ad, buuuht no-wat ahz maaahny guuuhnz ahz Ah wa-want.”
What Phil, are you expecting a home-invasion by a battalion of Chinese, or ALL of the Crips and Bloods to come over trying to see ‘where da white women are at?”
That’s who the NRA’s marketing to.
And you know – maybe Gramm’s got a point. If the 99% figure out that he’s one of the people most responsible for the economic shithole that this country has become, he may not have enough!
Believe it or not, the Supreme Court has ruled twice that the Second Amendment does not apply to individual gun ownership. Obviously, that was a different Court – a very sad commentary on today’s Court.
The history of the Supreme Courts vis a vis the 2nd amendment and firearm ownership rights is really, really complicated and involves a lot of hair splitting, and there are some old cases that could be interpreted in more than one way, but I don’t think they ever ruled unequivocally that the 2nd protected no individual right whatsoever. If you know the names of the cases to which you refer, I’d like to check this out.