The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution:
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.
The United State Supreme Court has upheld the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm such as self-defense within the home. We’re hearing a lot about–and much more to come–what’s “reasonable” gun control to protect society from whack jobs and snap jobs. How does anyone know when someone will snap?
Last week Mayor Bill Finch, who has spoken loud and often about gun control from the start of his political career more than 20 years ago, joined mayors and first selectman from across the state to announce in Hartford the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities’ 13-point agenda for state legislative action in the current session of the General Assembly.
The agenda includes:
· Limiting the capacity of rifle and handgun magazines to no more than 10 bullets.
· Requiring a rifle permit for those purchasing any long gun such as a hunting rifle.
· Requiring a firearm permit in order to purchase ammunition.
· Prohibiting individuals from buying more than one gun in a 30 day period.
· Requiring trigger locks to be provided with each fire arm sale.
· Outlawing the possession and purchasing of body armor.
Connecticut already features some of the toughest gun laws in the country, but Finch adds maximizing safety requires help from Washington. Finch stated as well that “President Obama has brought forward common sense actions that will keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals and will make our cities, communities and schools safer. As a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, I have urged our leadership in Washington and Hartford to work hard to fight for tougher background checks and close the loopholes that exist … and ensuring that what happened in Sandy Hook will not happen again.”
So what’s reasonable? The points made by the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities? The blowback by the National Rifle Association? Will Obama really be able to shepherd his proposals through Congress? The president says it cannot happen without the will of the American people weighing in. Will they?
Once again Bpt’s Mayor is trying to hog the limelight on an issue he has done NOTHING about, namely gun violence. When kids were being shot down in Bridgeport’s streets last year he was too busy trying to divert school funding to private companies and friends of his.
What did Finch do to you for you to produce so much venom?
He hired you.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words “necessary to”:
“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.”
On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the States.
I beg to differ. Finch has done something to combat gun violence in the city. He’s not Superman, you know. He cannot be all things to all people any more than you can be.
Bridgeport is a violent place, no question about it. Politicians accomplish things by building consensus. In this case Finch has joined up with the Conference of Municipalities to proffer proposed restrictions on weapons and ammunition purchases. I do not agree with much of Finch’s policies and behavior but he is doing some good here.
The key words in the second amendment are “Well regulated.” The NRA conveniently overlooks that phrase. They don’t want ANY regulation, even if it is common-sense practicality. Regulation is necessary. Five people were injured by weapons fire at three different gun shows this weekend. On man was taking a shotgun out of its case when it accidentally discharged. There are laws in all fifty states prohibiting the transportation of loaded firearms. That man should’ve been charged.
Bridgeport Kid, thank you for pointing out the point the Second Amendment says guns must be “well regulated.” I actually did not know that and it is a good argument for the new gun laws now being considered.
You’re incorrect. The NRA DOES support vetting licensees. True they have an agenda that doesn’t jive with those who want to just do away with weapons, but tell that to those who use illegal weapons for illicit purposes. Therein lies the true problem.
Don’t vilify the NRA for the mass killings or the multiple killings in the inner cities where the violence is due to illegal weapons, drugs and other crime.
I’m not “vilifying” the NRA for mass killings. I’m vilifying the NRA for standing in the way of common-sense regulation of firearms, background checks for ALL firearms and ammunition purchases for example. And why does the NRA support the private ownership of assault weapons by legal gun owners? If a hunter used an AR 15 to shoot a duck there would be nothing left of the carcass but bloody feathers.
I know a guy from Bridgeport who is a self-proclaimed ‘prominent politician.’ The man is abusive, a brute and a bully. He has been arrested at least three times for assault and battery since I have known him. He openly admits he likes to go out to his favorite bar on a weekend, get a buzz on and start “kicking the shit out of people.” The man owns guns. I want universal background check legislation that will identify a person like this and further legislation that will deny this person gun ownership.
yahooy, I know one thing. Bill Finch knows what bars he can go in to “get a buzz on” and start “kicking the shit out of people,” because I’m sure we all know some bars where he would get his ass kicked and he is smart enough not to go there.
But think about it, a mayor who openly admits that he likes to go out to his favorite bar on a weekend, get a buzz on and start “kicking the shit out of people.” I hope he didn’t say that because that is a big sign of someone out of control.
I wasn’t referring to the Mayor. I heard he gets a little ‘mouthy’ after a Calvert or two. Thing is that schmuck would get his ass hopped in a yogurt bar.
”I say to you, this morning, that if you have never found something so dear and so precious to you that you will die for it, then you aren’t fit to live. You may be thirty-eight years old, as I happen to be, and one day, some great opportunity stands before you and calls upon you to stand up for some great principle, some great issue, some great cause. And you refuse to do it because you are afraid. You refuse to do it because you want to live longer. You’re afraid that you will lose your job, or you are afraid that you will be criticized or that you will lose your popularity, or you’re afraid that somebody will stab you or shoot you or bomb your house. So you refuse to take the stand. Well, you may go on and live until you are ninety, but you are just as dead at thirty-eight as you would be at ninety. And the cessation of breathing in your life is but the belated announcement of an earlier death of the spirit. You died when you refused to stand up for right. You died when you refused to stand up for truth. You died when you refused to stand up for justice.”–Martin Luther King Jr.
“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”
Martin Luther King, Jr.
I’m surprised not to have heard anyone attacking Sylvester Stallone aka Rambo or Hollywood for the release and title of his latest movie. Bullet in the Head, starring Sylvester Stallone is coming to a theater near you. Unless you get a “bullet in the head” in the lobby of the theater, it’ll be a fun-filled, action-packed blockbuster.
Why is an organization that calls itself Mayors Against Illegal Guns pushing for legislation that affects legal gun owners?
“Limiting the capacity of rifle and handgun magazines to no more than 10 bullets.”
I would not limit legal gun owners to a specific number of bullets. Imagine being a legal gun owner limited by law to 10 bullets and no body armor and finding yourself in a gun battle facing three robbers with an unlimited number of bullets and wearing body armor. Illegal possession or criminal use of a gun should carry a mandatory two years per bullet, regardless if the gun was fired or not in addition to a seven-year minimum for the gun alone.
When the Black Panthers Challenged Gun Control
Damon W. Root|Aug. 15, 2011 2:59 pm
At The Atlantic, UCLA law professor Adam Winkler previews his forthcoming book Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America. Winkler’s whole essay is worth reading, but I thought I’d highlight his fascinating discussion of how the Black Panthers “launched the modern gun-rights movement” on May 2, 1967:
OPPOSITION TO GUN CONTROL was what drove the black militants to visit the California capitol with loaded weapons in hand. The Black Panther Party had been formed six months earlier, in Oakland, by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. Like many young African Americans, Newton and Seale were frustrated with the failed promise of the civil-rights movement. Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were legal landmarks, but they had yet to deliver equal opportunity. In Newton and Seale’s view, the only tangible outcome of the civil-rights movement had been more violence and oppression, much of it committed by the very entity meant to protect and serve the public: the police.
Inspired by the teachings of Malcolm X, Newton and Seale decided to fight back. Before he was assassinated in 1965, Malcolm X had preached against Martin Luther King Jr.’s brand of nonviolent resistance. Because the government was “either unable or unwilling to protect the lives and property” of blacks, he said, they had to defend themselves “by whatever means necessary.” Malcolm X illustrated the idea for Ebony magazine by posing for photographs in suit and tie, peering out a window with an M-1 carbine semiautomatic in hand. Malcolm X and the Panthers described their right to use guns in self-defense in constitutional terms. “Article number two of the constitutional amendments,” Malcolm X argued, “provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun.”
Guns became central to the Panthers’ identity, as they taught their early recruits that “the gun is the only thing that will free us–gain us our liberation.”
Since when do criminals follow laws? Tell me again how someone can’t go out and buy a bag of drugs. How about we focus on bettering the enforcement of existing gun laws and imposing harsher punishments for those who break them?
When we are living in a time that has seen violent crimes involving kids not even old enough to have criminal records, and unemployment at record highs causing desperation in our communities; HOW DARE YOU TELL ME HOW MANY BULLETS I CAN USE TO PROTECT MY HOME AND FAMILY! If three men broke into your home, are 10 rounds really enough? This scenario is not unheard of.
If security for our children is the real agenda here why not have armed plain-clothes guards at schools, similar to how they are currently used on airplanes or to protect the children of certain dignitaries. I feel the only reason this has not already happened is because current administrations are more concerned about appearance and perception than the reality of what security means. Part of what disgusts me most is certain politicians would exploit a terrible tragedy such as Sandy Hook for political grandstanding purposes and to prey on people’s emotions to create an image of a savior for themselves.
Let’s not forget the nut who walked into the movie theater and started shooting last year picked the only theater for miles that was a “gun-free” theater. Let us also not forget when the senseless tragedy at Columbine high school took place we were still under the assault weapon ban in effect from 1994-2000 which also limited citizens to 10-round magazines. Undeterred, the shooter simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines were found in the massacre’s aftermath. The Gunman fired 96 rounds before killing himself. FBI data shows “323 murders were committed with rifles of any kind in 2011. In comparison, 496 murders were committed with hammers and clubs, and 1,694 murders were perpetrated with knives.”
I am personally not against background checks for all weapons; however all Americans must be afforded the opportunity to lose this right as made clear in the Bill of Rights. I think people have forgotten the fact this country was won during the American Revolution on the backs of a militia that by definition is average citizens with guns. George Washington said, “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” Now, I’m not an extremist warning of impending revolution but disarming law-abiding people is usually not a friendly tactic.
Here we go again. Three injured in shooting at Lone Star College campus.
Absolutely. “Americans must be afforded the opportunity to LOSE the right…” Furthermore, clearly delineated rulemaking must be established that will deny the unsuitable (for want of a better word) to be permitted to own weapons.
I like this law that has been enacted somewhere. 10. 20. Life.
10 years for possessing a firearm while committing a crime.
20 years for showing a gun while committing a crime.
Life for firing a weapon while committing a crime.
Teeth. Lots of teeth. What do you think the NRA thinks about these sentencing mandates?
We cannot define today by words that were written to define yesterday.
So … The entire Constitution then?
Yes. They’re called amendments.