In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Never Never Land: Second Amendment Exceptions?By Deborah Venable
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Never Never Land: Second Amendment Exceptions?By Deborah Venable 12.11.01
If there is a priest available, I need to unburden myself. I'm not Catholic, but I still need a confessional, okay? Forgive me for I have sinned. I didn't hit the off switch on the television last Friday night quickly enough. I actually listened to a few minutes of Bill Mahr and company discussing the Senate questioning of John Ashcroft. I thought that show, Politically Incorrect, was broadcast from somewhere in the Tinsel Town area, but now I know it was coming from Never Never Land. They were discussing the obfuscation of the Constitution via liberties taken, (literally), by Ashcroft wanting more and more "tools" available to hunt down terrorists. Translated that means fewer individual protections from the Bill Of Rights. However, Bill said something to the effect that he found it odd the Second Amendment was always considered "untouchable." What???? Good grief, there have been so many holes blown in that thing that it leaks like a sieve! It doesn't even slightly resemble the original intent of the Founders! I found the off switch right after I realized that everyone was agreeing with him - including the token Republican that seemed to be only interested in shipping O.J. back to California from her home state of Florida. Okay, so maybe she didn't agree with him, but she never wiped the smile off her face, and she sure as heck didn't ask him if he was feeling okay. What happened after that, I don't know and I don't really care. The damage was done.I take Bill Mahr for what he is - an entertainer. Therefore, I haven't agreed with much of the outcry against him after his ill-fated remarks about the suicide killers being brave compared to our long range bombing efforts. Many other entertainers have said much worse things in my opinion. The man just stepped on his tongue that time, but his ignorance wasn't quite so visible even then as it was with Friday night's remarks. Thousands of anti-gun laws are in existence, Bill and anybody else who think the Second Amendment is "always untouchable." There shouldn't be a single solitary anti-gun law anywhere in this country. As soon as one infringement was recorded against the Second Amendment for any reason, the door was opened for all the others and it hasn't been closed yet. And it won't be until they all declared unconstitutional. The frightening thing is that very few people see it that way. Most of the staunchest supporters of the Second Amendment still think that some infringements are perfectly fine. No wonder they are ineffective at solving the problem. Maintaining the status quo of our limited protection of the right to keep and bear arms just isn't good enough. It never will be.I've had people argue with me that just anybody shouldn't be allowed to own certain types of weapons. I say if they are available to anyone, they should be available to everyone. But what about people with a criminal record? If they have been released from prison, their rights should be restored. If we cannot do that, then the whole idea of "rehabilitation" is a joke! We would have fewer repeat offenders if we were a whole lot more careful about releasing folks into society that we aren't really sure about. Either they've paid their debt or they haven't. They will get a gun if they want one anyway. That is another thing - the black market in weapons could all but be eliminated. Of course this all depends on good citizens doing their duty and protecting themselves from being crime victims in the first place.But what about the children - they certainly shouldn't have access to guns, right? That should be up to their parents. You see, the way it is supposed to work is that parents are responsible for their children's actions. Wow! What a concept!Anybody with a mental disorder or history of drug abuse shouldn't be able to own a gun, though, right? Same thing goes for these folks as for the ex-cons. If a person is too mentally unstable to own a firearm, why is he or she walking around free?I have a book in my library called, How To Own A Gun And Stay Out Of Jail - California 1999. It is now very outdated I'm sure, thanks to all the new anti-gun laws passed since then. Among other things, the book goes into tedious detail about what will be considered legal self-defense, and what actions could land you in jail. The author, John Machtinger, points out: "Most of the laws that let you use force in self-defense were written a long time ago, and are rambling and unclear. Over the years, the courts have interpreted these laws, and court opinions are now an important part of the law of self-defense. The basic rule of self-defense is a combination of different rules the courts have added to the law."It boils down to proving an "honest and reasonable belief" that you had the right to defend yourself. I have known of folks who spent time in jail because a court decided that these criteria weren't met. Some of these cases are truly remarkable. I knew one woman personally who spent time in prison because she killed her estranged husband with a shotgun as he was trying to fulfill his threat to kill her for leaving him. She had been a long suffering, battered wife who decided one day to leave the abuse, even though he had told her that he would kill her if she ever left him. The court decided that since she purchased the shotgun and took steps to actually learn how to use it, and she was able to get to it quickly enough when he broke her door down to come after her, then she was guilty of premeditation. Duh! So you see where the "honest and reasonable" belief your life is in danger can be construed against you. So much for all the "years of interpreted laws and opinions." This woman used an evil gun instead of her bare hands to defend herself. He wasn't armed with a gun, but he outweighed her by at least a hundred pounds and he towered over her in height and strength. I know this subject has been beaten to death, but I have seen very few commentaries that didn't attempt to put an "except" in the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment. Hearing Bill Mahr's comments just brought it home to me where the crux of this problem lies. You cannot defend the Second Amendment without leaving out the exceptions. There are none. Not for free Americans who wish to reside in a free America. Everyone else will meet up in Never Never Land and never grow older or wiser. Deborah Venable's book is now available. Check out "The Professional Parent" now online exclusively at the Roadhouse http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/dec/11/venable.htm
If there is a priest available, I need to unburden myself. I'm not Catholic, but I still need a confessional, okay? Forgive me for I have sinned. I didn't hit the off switch on the television last Friday night quickly enough. I actually listened to a few minutes of Bill Mahr and company discussing the Senate questioning of John Ashcroft. I thought that show, Politically Incorrect, was broadcast from somewhere in the Tinsel Town area, but now I know it was coming from Never Never Land. They were discussing the obfuscation of the Constitution via liberties taken, (literally), by Ashcroft wanting more and more "tools" available to hunt down terrorists. Translated that means fewer individual protections from the Bill Of Rights. However, Bill said something to the effect that he found it odd the Second Amendment was always considered "untouchable." What???? Good grief, there have been so many holes blown in that thing that it leaks like a sieve! It doesn't even slightly resemble the original intent of the Founders! I found the off switch right after I realized that everyone was agreeing with him - including the token Republican that seemed to be only interested in shipping O.J. back to California from her home state of Florida. Okay, so maybe she didn't agree with him, but she never wiped the smile off her face, and she sure as heck didn't ask him if he was feeling okay. What happened after that, I don't know and I don't really care. The damage was done.I take Bill Mahr for what he is - an entertainer. Therefore, I haven't agreed with much of the outcry against him after his ill-fated remarks about the suicide killers being brave compared to our long range bombing efforts. Many other entertainers have said much worse things in my opinion. The man just stepped on his tongue that time, but his ignorance wasn't quite so visible even then as it was with Friday night's remarks. Thousands of anti-gun laws are in existence, Bill and anybody else who think the Second Amendment is "always untouchable." There shouldn't be a single solitary anti-gun law anywhere in this country. As soon as one infringement was recorded against the Second Amendment for any reason, the door was opened for all the others and it hasn't been closed yet. And it won't be until they all declared unconstitutional. The frightening thing is that very few people see it that way. Most of the staunchest supporters of the Second Amendment still think that some infringements are perfectly fine. No wonder they are ineffective at solving the problem. Maintaining the status quo of our limited protection of the right to keep and bear arms just isn't good enough. It never will be.I've had people argue with me that just anybody shouldn't be allowed to own certain types of weapons. I say if they are available to anyone, they should be available to everyone. But what about people with a criminal record? If they have been released from prison, their rights should be restored. If we cannot do that, then the whole idea of "rehabilitation" is a joke! We would have fewer repeat offenders if we were a whole lot more careful about releasing folks into society that we aren't really sure about. Either they've paid their debt or they haven't. They will get a gun if they want one anyway. That is another thing - the black market in weapons could all but be eliminated. Of course this all depends on good citizens doing their duty and protecting themselves from being crime victims in the first place.But what about the children - they certainly shouldn't have access to guns, right? That should be up to their parents. You see, the way it is supposed to work is that parents are responsible for their children's actions. Wow! What a concept!Anybody with a mental disorder or history of drug abuse shouldn't be able to own a gun, though, right? Same thing goes for these folks as for the ex-cons. If a person is too mentally unstable to own a firearm, why is he or she walking around free?I have a book in my library called, How To Own A Gun And Stay Out Of Jail - California 1999. It is now very outdated I'm sure, thanks to all the new anti-gun laws passed since then. Among other things, the book goes into tedious detail about what will be considered legal self-defense, and what actions could land you in jail. The author, John Machtinger, points out: "Most of the laws that let you use force in self-defense were written a long time ago, and are rambling and unclear. Over the years, the courts have interpreted these laws, and court opinions are now an important part of the law of self-defense. The basic rule of self-defense is a combination of different rules the courts have added to the law."It boils down to proving an "honest and reasonable belief" that you had the right to defend yourself. I have known of folks who spent time in jail because a court decided that these criteria weren't met. Some of these cases are truly remarkable. I knew one woman personally who spent time in prison because she killed her estranged husband with a shotgun as he was trying to fulfill his threat to kill her for leaving him. She had been a long suffering, battered wife who decided one day to leave the abuse, even though he had told her that he would kill her if she ever left him. The court decided that since she purchased the shotgun and took steps to actually learn how to use it, and she was able to get to it quickly enough when he broke her door down to come after her, then she was guilty of premeditation. Duh! So you see where the "honest and reasonable" belief your life is in danger can be construed against you. So much for all the "years of interpreted laws and opinions." This woman used an evil gun instead of her bare hands to defend herself. He wasn't armed with a gun, but he outweighed her by at least a hundred pounds and he towered over her in height and strength. I know this subject has been beaten to death, but I have seen very few commentaries that didn't attempt to put an "except" in the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment. Hearing Bill Mahr's comments just brought it home to me where the crux of this problem lies. You cannot defend the Second Amendment without leaving out the exceptions. There are none. Not for free Americans who wish to reside in a free America. Everyone else will meet up in Never Never Land and never grow older or wiser. Deborah Venable's book is now available. Check out "The Professional Parent" now online exclusively at the Roadhouse http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/dec/11/venable.htm
Comments
Happiness is a warm gun