Town Square

Post a New Topic

The Details: Devils or Angels?

Original post made by Tom Cushing, Danville, on Jan 31, 2013

Last week, we learned that there is, indeed, now a fundamental right for individuals to keep and bear arms, supplied by the US Supreme Court in 2008 and 2010 (the precedents, not the arms). Beyond the broad outlines of the right, much remains to be defined about its application and any limits. The reasonable minds hereabouts differ on those matters; what we do know are two things: that there is considerable uncertainty lurking in the under-developed jurisprudence of this Amendment, and that anything that gets enacted into law in the current push will be tested against this right, and presumably provide some answers to fill the void.

This story contains 1055 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.

Comments (13)

Like this comment
Posted by Dave
a resident of Danville
on Jan 31, 2013 at 11:41 am

Just to clarify things a bit, Tom, the 23 "actions" that President Obama announced were not, in fact, Executive Orders. Executive Orders carry the force of law and are required to be published in the Federal Register.

Instead, President Obama issued three presidential memoranda, which directed others in the Executive Branch to take certain actions (kind of like Executive Orders, but without the formality of them). The other 20 were more like action items on a "to-do" list -- things that he planned to do or would recommend be done.

As usual, the congressional republicans' outrage was more than a little overblown, aided by their mischaracterizations of the nature of President Obama's actions.


Like this comment
Posted by Angel
a resident of Danville
on Jan 31, 2013 at 11:54 am

As reported last night during the NBC newscast,it is illegal to sell guns in the city of Chicago, but yet last year they had one of the highest increases in murder by guns rate of any city in the last 20 years.(Perhaps Mr.Obama's buddy, Mayor Ron Emanuel, should have spent more time working for the city that elected him Mayor, and less time getting Mr.Obama elected) One poor Chicago mother has lost all four of her children to different episodes of gun violence.

It would seem one way that perhaps liberals and conservatives would agree on to reduce gun violence, would be a surchase on all gun purchases, with those taxes specifically being used to hire more law enforcement agents to actively go out and make unnannounced visits to those on parole to search their residences to confirm there are no guns on the premises(as required by most parole orders)It is well known that most cities lack the resources to have their probation officers actively go out to check on those criminals on parole and confirm there are no guns on their premises, but yet often the same criminals do in fact have guns that are used again and again to commit crimes.

I would also think most liberals and conservatives would agree on implementing legislation that greatly increases crimes involving guns. Add another five years to every sentence that involves a gun in the commission of a crime, and put these repeat offenders behind bars where they belong.

Second Amendment does create a right to arms, but like any Amendment, there has to be some legitimare related rules and regulations.

How about the Federal Department of Education finally doing some thing worthwhile, and requiring that all public schools have a class during physical education concerning gun safety, similar to the hunter safety classes put on by Future Farmers of America, so teens learn to understand the dangers and responsibiliites pertaining to gun ownership.

Just having liberals trying to basically outlaw all guns will not solve the problems involving gun violence, as criminals will ultimately be the only ones with guns.(besides liberal politicians like Diane Feinstein who has her own permit to carry a concealed weapon) I remember Rosie O'Donnel having Tom Selleck(who is a proud member of the NRA) on her show, and she rudely and continuously ripped him, until he pointed out that it was easy for her to oppose gun ownership as she had her own bodyguards who carried weapons, unlike normal, law abiding citizens.

If you think our country is already increasingly being divided and broken, just wait till the liberals keep pushing for abolishing gun ownership. Both sides need to find a common ground, and I think my ideas noted above make a heck of alot of sense.


Like this comment
Posted by Tom Cushing
a resident of Alamo
on Feb 1, 2013 at 7:34 am

Thanks Dave -- it takes a village to keep me/this stuff straight.

Angel, thanks for your thoughtful response -- I saw that newscast, too, and canNot imagine the pain of losing all your kids to guns -- humans aren't set-up to endure the loss of any child -- but ALL four of them??!

That situation demonstrates the many facets of gun violence -- the nation is currently focused on massacres, especially of the most-innocent -- but I doubt that mother worries much about ARs or high-capacity magazines. Urban violence is conducted more often by cheap, rudimentary Saturday Night Special handguns. I wonder how many of those could be "retired" with a $1B/year buy-back/scrap program? (e.g., 20 million guns/year @ say $50/weapon).

I'm not sure how many gun buyers want to be surcharged, but I'd go for it, just on the Econ 101 principles. And while Crim Law was never my specialty (Dave?) I think there are enhancements for crimes using guns, at least in some jurisdictions.

The one thing I'd quibble-with is this notion that Leebruls are out to take away everybody's guns. That's not how I see it -- I just think that gun owners have gotten a very free pass on a matter that can-and-does have very lethal consequences for others in our current "gun culture." I would like to see more of the burden placed on those who bring these dangerous instrumentalities into the general American environment -- to ensure against the occurrence/reduce the risk of those consequences.

Finally, does that DiFi thing really hold-up to scrutiny? She shouldn't want to ban assault weapons because she has a permit for a handgun (after watching her colleagues gunned-down at SF City Hall) -- is that it? It's a complete and unhelpful non-sequitur for me.


Like this comment
Posted by Dave
a resident of Danville
on Feb 1, 2013 at 11:08 am

Well said, Tom.

The issue is not banning guns entirely (that is simply the straw man argument that that the right wing and the NRA use to deflect attention away from the real issues). The real issue is how to reduce the level of gun violence (especially the rapid rise in recent years of massacres by assault-type and high-capacity weapons designed for the military).

Requiring background checks for sales at gun shows; reducing the number of capacity of bullet clips, and banning assault-type weapons all seem like reasonable measures.


Like this comment
Posted by Angel
a resident of Danville
on Feb 1, 2013 at 11:23 am

Tom: Diane Feinstein comment is applicable, as politicians(both Republicans and Democrats)do not live in the world that us normal citizens live in. They have their own security(that we pay for)and yet Ms.Feinstein apparently thought enough of handguns that getting her own concealed permit was necessary, in addition to her armed security personnel. Before Ms.Feinstein(or any politician)votes on limiting guns to law abiding citizens, to quote Atticus Finch,"she needs to walk around in our shoes". By the way, I do not blame her for seeking her own concealed gun permit, and if I was in her shoes, after Mr. Milk was gunned down, I would also have obtained that permit.

It reminds me of a Neurosurgeon who I deposed years ago, who told me he was the only person in one year who was approved for a concealed weapon permit in Berkeley, because he was the surgeon who removed a bullet from a brave police officer who was shot in the line of duty, and thus got "special" attention. This Neurosurgeon often had to work late nights at Alta Bates ER, and was concerned about his safety, and felt he needed his hand gun for protection. Once again, I do not blame him for seeking to protect himself.

Tom, what do you think about my idea of requiring schools to teach gun safety classes during physical education classes, similar to the the hunters safety classes that Future Farmers of America have been teaching for years? I think it would educate our youth about the seriousness of guns, and need for safety and precautions, when around them.


Like this comment
Posted by Tom Cushing
a resident of Alamo
on Feb 1, 2013 at 5:20 pm

Hi Angel: I think you and I still part company on the DiFi thing, because her interest is not in banning guns, per se, but military style killing machines that are very good at their intended, limited purpose -- and aren't much good for any other traditional uses to which guns are put. They don't kill mockingbirds, or rabid dogs, very well, and I'm not sure what experiencing someone else's reality adds to that understanding.

I think the basic gun safety training idea is intriguing, and troubling. Doing my Kingsfieldian duties in trying to find an analogy, I keep coming back to sex ed -- of which I'm very much in-favor.

That part of me thinks it might be a good idea, especially if we were confronted with an epidemic of Accidental killings. But because the predominant majority of these killings are quite intentional, the analogy breaks down badly. I'd be more in favor of teaching tactics about how individuals and groups can prepare to avoid/escape/defend themselves from attack.

I guess I just don't think ignorance of gun handling techniques or safety goes to the crux of any of these problems. My two cents. Now, what about my billion for buy-backs?


Like this comment
Posted by Frank
a resident of Alamo
on Feb 3, 2013 at 10:23 am

Dave:

Your comments would have more meaning if you took out the "republicans-bad, democrats-good" notes. The issue isn't one of political party, it's one of common sense. If you think it's political party issue, then perhaps you can go back to your party's Great Society programs to find a probably cause to some of this problem.


Like this comment
Posted by Huh?
a resident of Danville
on Feb 4, 2013 at 8:55 am

Angel, California already has laws which add 10 years (or more) to the sentence of anyone who uses a gun during a crime, and repeat offenders get their sentence doubled (at least)under the "2-strikes, 3-strikes" law. The idea that California's criminal sentencing laws aren't strict enough is not reality-based. California law already specifies some of the longest sentences in the country for every crime imaginable. That's why we spent ourselves silly building more and more prisons, with less and less effort to actually rehabilitate the prisoners for when they eventually get out.


Like this comment
Posted by Philip
a resident of Walnut Creek
on Feb 4, 2013 at 11:55 am

My right to protect myself and property is protected by the Constitution. --obama's new toilet paper. Why no column about homeland security buying and stockpiling hollow point bullets by Obama? Is this part of his "civilian security forces" he is cooking up? They've stockpiled enough bullets to shoot each American citizen 4 times. Read---brown shirts- Germany--1930's.


Like this comment
Posted by Jim Mason
a resident of Walnut Creek
on Feb 4, 2013 at 12:14 pm

DHS Purchases 200 Million More Rounds of Ammunition

Additional purchase includes bullets designated for snipers
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Following controversy over its purchase of around 1.2 billion bullets in the last six months alone, the Department of Homeland Security has put out a new solicitation for over 200 million more rounds of ammunition, some of which are designated to be used by snipers.
A series of new solicitations posted on the FedBizOpps website show that the DHS is looking to purchase 200 million rounds of .223 rifle ammunition over the next four years, as well as 176,000 rounds of .308 caliber 168 grain hollow point boat tail (HPBT) rounds in addition to 25,000 rounds of blank .308 caliber bullets.
As James Smith over at the Prepper Podcast website highlights, “It is the type of ammunition and not necessarily the quantity that is troubling.”
Smith points out that the DHS’ acquisition of .308 rounds is of concern because they are set to be used by well-trained snipers.


Like this comment
Posted by Sybil
a resident of Alamo
on Feb 4, 2013 at 12:24 pm

Thanks for the link, Jim. At first read I thought Philip was making up stories. This is scary! I'm going to look into getting a gun and license. I'm from Ukraine. You Americans better wake up.


Like this comment
Posted by Diver Dan
a resident of Danville
on Feb 4, 2013 at 5:06 pm

There are so many stories about gun buy backs running out of money and there are so many politicians against guns (and many have very large war chests) the answer seems obvious. These politicians should step up and fund the gun buy backs with there campaign money, if they truly believe in this approach. Just think what funding with 1 or 2 million would do for a gun buyback in Oakland. The streets would be gun free and everyone would be safe. No criminal would have a gun etc. (LOL). Yes they would get a large number of guns off the streets, maybe even some of the ones owned by the 20,000 people that the State of CA knows should not have guns but are to cheap to fund programs to get them.


Like this comment
Posted by Dave
a resident of Danville
on Feb 4, 2013 at 11:54 pm

Frank -

Well, we can debate about which party will be obstructionist in trying to find some solutions that could reduce gun violence; but, I think you and I know which party that will be.

The other problem that I had with Republicans on this topic was that they were so quick to condemn President Obama's proposals (and to characterize them as "unconstitutional") that they hadn't even bothered to read them or to see that they weren't "executive orders" at all. So, they were being either lazy or mendacious -- neither one of which is an admirable trait. But, like the saying goes, "Play to your strength." And if that's all they've got,.............


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Mark Davis clearly is serious about Sin City Raiders
By Tim Hunt | 2 comments | 795 views

Next Up, The Election Props -- but first this word: We’re Number One!
By Tom Cushing | 3 comments | 411 views