Boston Bombings

[Kaonohi]

At present, we don't know what or why such atrocities have been perpetrated.

As a connection to "Matapule's Gun Control," it gives us a new perspective. It is unbridled violence, not just guns. The bombers used guns to protect themselves, as well as explosives!!!

Obviously this is not just a gun issue, it is a terrorism issue.

What is wrong with people, with our society?
I'm pissed off that when Obama took office the national debt was about 100, trillion, and not 4 years later it is 160 trillion!!!!!!! Over 50% in 4 years. This is "CHANGE"? It sure is, but not GOOD change.

Plus, Obama, who promised to support 'second amendment rights' is now supporting laws that would take firearms away from legitimate gun owners.

The French knew when it was appropriate to change their government; I hope we are as smart, but I doubt it.

I think our society is too well programmed by TV and politicians rhetoric that we will go u der and become the next un-free country.

[Kalalau]

Re: Boston Bombings

That analysis explains so much!

Reports are the terrorists entered the US about 10 years ago during the Bush years.

Its a fluid situation. They seem to be of Chechnya origin, their gripes with Russia are well known and more or less understandable but I can't think of anything the US has done to bother them. Time will tell. I am watching the TV coverage from Boston, its pretty amazing.

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Boston Bombings

I'm pissed off that when Obama took office the national debt was about 100, trillion, and not 4 years later it is 160 trillion!!!!!!! Over 50% in 4 years. This is "CHANGE"? It sure is, but not GOOD change. Plus, Obama, who promised to support 'second amendment rights' is now supporting laws that would take firearms away from legitimate gun owners.

Suddenly, it's somehow now the Boston Obambings?

[Walkoff Balk]

Re: Boston Bombings

http://news.yahoo.com/pro-moscow-che...--finance.html

Huh?

[Kalalau]

Re: Boston Bombings

I guess I am pissed off that when the crooked judges on the supreme ct gave bush the presidency in 2000 the US had a $ 500 billion surplus with surpluses forecast to go on indefinitely into the future and the whole national debt on schedule to have been paid off in 2010 and an unqualified spoiled brat little idiot blew the whole surplus, put the country into debt, started 2 needless wars that have killed many thousands, etc etc etc. I am pissed off that for the entire bush "presidency" the Republican mantra was "deficits don't matter" and now, voila, suddenly they matter. Its like when they got the presidency handed to them in 2000 their whole attitude was oh boy lets storm in and wreck everything we have been hating since FDR. Well, they did succeed at that at least, didn't they. Even now the good old Republicans in Congress continue blocking every attempt stimulate recovery from the bush disaster. They cause a disaster then block recovery from it. Wow. Hard to read history any other way.

I remember how Gore got mocked for wanting a lock box on Social Security. And then bush borrowed the Social Security trust fund, deposited gvt debt notes. And that is why today Social Security is on the chopping block to settle the debts the Republicans ran up so gleefully and now care oh soooo much about. They always hated Social Security. Well, not sensible Republicans like Eisenhower but that entire wing of the GOP is ancient history now. Its so funny bush granted them their every wish including making it possible to dismantle Social Security and Medicare and yet they dare not speak his name in public, he might be the most unpopular former president in history. With good reason.

[Kalalau]

Re: Boston Bombings

The terrorists got in during the bush administration. As usual, bush dropped the ball. The same laziness slovenliness lack of attention to detail that allowed 9-11 to happen, that made Katrina far worse than it needed to be, was at work yet again when these malignant misfits were allowed to enter the country. But what else could you expect from bush.

[Kalalau]

Re: Boston Bombings

I had a conversation with a lawyer friend today about the Boston Marathon bombings, his take on it was that the police response of shutting down the whole city of Boston set a bad precedent. He often has interesting takes on situations, I see his point on this one too. Shutting down an entire city is a huge step, it abolishes loads of rights, fundamental rights. I guess it worked but its not hard to imagine this precedent as a dangerous slippery slope for police state power.

[GregLee]

Re: Boston Bombings

I guess it worked but its not hard to imagine this precedent as a dangerous slippery slope for police state power.

And that is the relationship between the Boston affair and the 2nd Amendment discussion. The founding fathers were worried about the State becoming all-powerful over individuals, and thought keeping guns in the hands of citizens would protect against that. That made sense, back then, but now we've gone way beyond the standing army the colonists feared. We've got standing armies in spades, now. Who could think that a scattering of guns in private hands would protect against the massive police power that was concentrated in Boston? Defending private gun ownership now as a 2nd Amendment right is merely nostalgic.

[Kalalau]

Re: Boston Bombings

In saying that a well regulateded militia is necessary to the security of the state the Amendment is making it very clear that the militia is of the state, an organ of the state, a tool of the state, a means of the state for preserving order, there is no hint in the Amendment that the people should be armed to enable them to resist the state, none, zero , not a hint. "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 Amendment comes very close to saying that ownership of arms be limited to people in the state militia. If the purpose of having arms available is to assure the security of the state, as the Amendment says it is, that argues 100 % against the concept of the people being armed in order to thwart the state. It says what it says.

[GregLee]

Re: Boston Bombings

"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 Amendment comes very close to saying that ownership of arms be limited to people in the state militia.

That is one interpretation, but you must know, it is not now the governing interpretation as decided by the Supreme Court in the Heller case. It is also not my interpretation.

By the way, the comma you put after "militia" is important to the meaning. According to the discussion here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution, it was there in the version passed by Congress, but not in the version ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson.

[Kalalau]

Re: Boston Bombings

"well regulated militia" : hard to see how background checks wouldn't fit in with that, to know who's available for or in the militia, so the state could know who had what weapons available when they were called up for service to preserve order for the state. You really don't want crazy people or criminals or gang members or terrorists getting ahold of weapons, they are a danger to the free society the state mentioned in the Amendment is there to preserve and they sure wouldn't fit into any well regulated militia, would they. If the whole point of having guns available to the people is so the state can preserve order, as the Amendment says it is, even the idea of the state coming around to seize guns shouldn't bother anybody. The Amendment clearly makes the power of the state to preserve order the cause for the availability of guns. So if the state determines that this or that individual should not have weapons that is the state's determination to make, not the individual's. It says what it says.

Could you give a brief run down of the Heller case please, help me understand your position a little better, thanks.

[GregLee]

Re: Boston Bombings

Could you give a brief run down of the Heller case please, help me understand your position a little better, thanks.

There is extensive discussion in the Wikipedia reference I gave previously. In summary,

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"[9][10] but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.[11]

[Walkoff Balk]

Re: Boston Bombings

http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/mi...ocid=ansnews11

Will the second bombing suspect get off on a technicality with the help of the ACLU?

[Kalalau]

Re: Boston Bombings

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"[9][10] but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.[11]

From that wikipedia entry. So if wikipedia is correct (often questionable) while the case says a gun owner doesn't need to be in a militia it also says limitations are permitted. It would take more legal research to see exactly how the Amendment which makes public order its aim has come to be applied to make possible mass slaughters at elementary schools, theaters, colleges, offices, malls, etc. We do not maintain order by enabling mass slaughter. In approving limitations on gun ownership the court is saying there is nothing inconsistent with the Amendment for regulations such as clip size and ownership registration, the NRA position would seem to be incorrect as this Heller case is presented in wikipedia. Far from endorsing mass slaughters the Founding Fathers were trying to prevent exactly that kind of disorder by writing the Second Amendment; preserving order was its purpose. But no, if wikipedia is correct Heller does say a person doesn't need to be in a militia, you are correct, I was merely reading what the Amendment says. The same court that brought you bush v. Gore and Citizens United wrote Heller, the court's bias has been apparent since 2000.

[GregLee]

Re: Boston Bombings

It would take more legal research to see exactly how the Amendment which makes public order its aim has come to be applied to make possible mass slaughters at elementary schools, theaters, colleges, offices, malls, etc.

No, it wouldn't take any legal research at all. The connection between the Second Amendment and the possibility of mass slaughters is obvious. People can use guns to perpetrate mass slaughters, and the Second Amendment says people can keep guns. What could be clearer? No research needed.

I've said that I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling in the Heller case. This does not mean I agree that people may keep guns -- it means I agree that the Second Amendment says people may keep guns. The Second Amendment is not my fault, and it's not the Supreme Court's fault, or Scalia's fault. Blame Thomas Jefferson and the other founders of our country.