« First « Previous Comments 1,454 - 1,493 of 1,495 Next » Last » Search these comments
White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention Goes Dark
The Biden administration's White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention is no more—at least that is what it looks like.
The small staff of the office resigned in the days leading up to President Donald Trump's (R) inauguration, and within hours of President Trump taking office on January 20, 2025, the department was seemingly shut down, and its White House web page was taken offline.
While no official press release has been issued, the removal of the office's online presence is an encouraging sign the Trump administration has no interest in perpetuating the anti-gun office formerly overseen by none other than Kamala Harris. ...
A dog owner was shot by his pet after the dog jumped on the bed and set off a loaded gun, police said.
The incident involved a year-old pit bull named Oreo who "got his paw stuck in the trigger guard and ended up hitting the trigger," according to a police report.
The bullet grazed the victim's upper left thigh, and he was taken to the hospital in non-critical condition.
The victim's family reported that both he and Oreo are doing fine, and MPD advises gun owners to use gun locks.
The incident involved a year-old pit bull named Oreo who "got his paw stuck in the trigger guard and ended up hitting the trigger," according to a police report.
Privacy in Arms Should be a Second Amendment Norm
In the early republic part of the right to keep and bear arms consisted of the right to own arms without a government registration of arms. No registration of arms was known in law until the late 19th century.
Much of the conflict over the right to keep and bear arms has become a conflict over privacy. The most successful playbook in eliminating the right to own weapons in functioning democracies has been to create the power of governments to know what people have what weapons. The strategy has been this:
Claim governments can control crime by controlling who has access to weapons.
Claim to control access to weapons, governments have to know who has weapons.
Require registration of all legal weapons. Any weapons which are not registered are declared illegal.
Slowly or abruptly, such as "during an emergency" confiscate weapons, using the government registration lists.
Gradually teach future generations that having weapons is bad.
The claims of crime control are false. Criminals still get access to weapons, often much easier than law abiding citizens can. Crime has not decreased where gun registration has been implemented. It is the ordinary citizen who attempts to follow the law who is disarmed. Joyce Lee Malcolm documents this in the case of England and Wales.
One of the ways to disrupt this strategy is to prevent the government from registering weapons to individuals. Confiscation is much more difficult when lists of gun owners is not known.
Dealers have to keep track of what they sold to who including serial numbers. When they shut down (or ARE shut down and a lot were shut down during the Brandon admin) the FTA shows up and confiscates their records.
« First « Previous Comments 1,454 - 1,493 of 1,495 Next » Last » Search these comments
"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."
Couple things to note in there:
1. The specific mention of a militia being the reason for the need to bear arms.
2. The 2nd Amendment never mentions the word gun at all.
So, what exactly is the definition of "arms"?
In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”
Weapons of offence would seem to include pretty much anything and everything, from knives to nuclear weapons. The US has already seen fit to ban some weapons of offence so the 2nd Amendment clearly has not been interpreted strictly as meaning that the US cannot ban all "arms". Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to own whatever weapons they choose.
So it then becomes a question of which weapons should be banned, which should be strictly regulated, and which should be lightly regulated or not at all. Like anything else, we should weigh an individual's right with society's right. When looked at in that manner, it becomes very difficult to justify why fully automatic or semi automatic rifles should be allowed. What purpose do they serve an individual? And why would that purpose outweigh the extreme damage those weapons have cased society??
Patrick thinks the Chamber of Commerce is the worst organization, and he may be correct, but the NRA is not far behind.