Carroll Commencement
Fairborn commencement
Badin graduation
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > December > 17 > Entry
Martin Gottlieb: In wake of conceal/carry, new stats worth a look
“Many states recently adopted looser gun laws,” a headline said this week about an Associated Press review.
“In the last two years, 24 states, mostly in the South and West, have passed 47 new laws loosening gun restrictions,” the story said. “Legislatures have allowed firearms to be carried in cars, made it illegal to ask job candidates whether they own a gun, and (more).”
Says the chief lobbyist of the National Rifle Association, “This is all a coordinated approach.…We’ll rest when all 50 states allow and respect the right of law-abiding people to defend themselves.”
Time was, the gun lobby presented itself primarily as a defensive force. It was a guardian against the allegedly “slippery slope” toward laws that would keep even hunters and collectors from having firearms.
But now the NRA is on the offense.
Ohio passed a law in 2004 allowing people to carry concealed weapons if they pay a fee and pass a safety course. The Republican legislature clearly felt under political pressure to pass it.
By the end of 2008, the state had seen 143,000 permits issued. That’s about 1.6 percent of adult Ohioans. After all that fuss!
The percentage says a lot about the ability of sophisticated political interest groups to generate the impression that a lot more people are, shall we say, up in arms than really are.
Legally concealed weapons haven’t turned Ohio into the Wild West. Nor, on the other hand, have they resulted in any great drop in crime rates.
A debate about their impact continues. Now a national organization called the Violence Policy Center (VPC) brings a new stat into the discussion.
It says, “Concealed handgun permit holders have killed at least nine law enforcement officers and 98 private citizens (including 12 shooters who killed themselves after an attack) since May, 2007.”
Kristen Rand, a VPC spokesman, says, “When the National Rifle Association launched its … campaign … it made this promise: ‘People who get permits… are law-abiding, upstanding community leaders who merely seek to exercise their right to self-defense.’
“To the contrary,” says Rand, “concealed handgun permit holders are killing people over parking spaces, football games and family arguments.”
She says that if people had known in advance about the police fatalities, the conceal-and-carry bills never could have been passed.
The VPC stats don’t indicate that the permit-holders are an exceptionally violent lot, not when you consider the millions across the country who hold permits. The numbers do suggest something about what happens when guns are around.
One shooter in Utah insisted his crime never would have happened if not for the permit. (Also, he was on seven prescription drugs.)
In July, 2008, a police officer in suburban Twinsburg in northern Ohio pulled over one Ashford Thompson for playing loud music. Thompson shot him four times in the head with a “pocket pistol,” killing him. Thompson had a permit.
In 2007, on the Fourth of July, a firefighter with a permit killed three people and wounded two in a dispute over fireworks the three were setting off. The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer reported the shooter being seen by acquaintances as a “ticking time bomb” before the shootings.
There was a case in Ohio of a 66-year-old man killing himself and his wife; a man killing himself and his girlfriend; and a 5-year-old accidentally killing himself with his father’s gun. (The last one is still pending in court.) All involved permits.
The VPC gathers its numbers from news accounts (and removes cases that result in acquittals). It’s not an ideal way. But nobody keeps such stats officially.
News accounts are far from all-inclusive. Sometimes news outlets look into — and report — whether the shooter had a permit; sometimes they don’t.
(The names of permit holders in Ohio are not released as a group. That’s another fight the gun lobby won. News media can, however, find out if a particular person has a permit.)
Toby Hoover, executive director of Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, a small operation based in Toledo, points out that the VPC numbers are just about fatalities. Nobody seems to have stats on how many non-fatal shootings might involve permits.
The stats coming from the VPC aren’t the last word in the debate about concealed weapons, of course. But they are worth keeping in mind when proposals come up for still more and more liberalization of gun laws.
Permalink | Comments (56) | Post your comment | Categories: Columns, Martin Gottlieb, Ohio government, Ohio politics
Comments
By Kurt
December 17, 2009 10:21 PM | Link to this
I am so glad that after 28 years of taking the Dayton Daily Democrat I finally quit three years ago, but anyway, How about doing a story on the millions of crimes prevented each year because the citizen was armed.
By Kurt
December 17, 2009 10:26 PM | Link to this
The founders gave us the 2nd amendment for one reason, to keep a tyrannical goverment from ruling our lives, it had nothing to do with hunting, or shooting clay birds, you communist twits.
By RETIRED SGT
December 18, 2009 7:13 AM | Link to this
So where is the other side of the equation? How many crimes have concealed carry persons thwarted? Where is the percentage of concealed weapon carriers crimes v. how many permit holders. (98 HOMICIDES INCLUDING 12 SUICIDES) That amongst over 8 million law abiding permit holders who have a permit without incident. It seems that deserves reporting too. But of course Mr. Gottlieb, who clearly has an agenda, refuses to present the other side of the equation. FACTS, Mr Gottleib, cut both ways. You would be a better journalist if you presented both sides…but I guess thats why you write slanted op-eds…
By Scott
December 18, 2009 7:21 AM | Link to this
Wow, the DDN gets worse every day. This article really “razes” some issues (the often readers of the opinion page will get that joke). I would love to see numbers of permit holders who have commited crimes vs the permit holders who have not. I’ll bet its less than 2% (probably >1%), and “ticking time bombs” are going to blow up if the have a carry permit or not.
By RET. SGT.
December 18, 2009 7:28 AM | Link to this
Of those 98 private citizens, no information is given as to the circumstances surrounding the incident. Was it as a result of the permit holder interrupting a violent crime? We have no idea from the op-ed. The whole purpose is to present facts. Something an agenda driven article, writer, newspaper wont present
By RETIRED SGT
December 18, 2009 7:45 AM | Link to this
A 1972 “All in the Family” episode made fun of archie for his stance on guns. “daddy”, said gloria, “over 1000 people die each year becuase of handguns,” Archie “Would it make you feel better if they woulda jumped outta windows little girl?” People have been killing people long before guns were invented. It would be nice to see what the situation was on the remaining 86 deaths by permit holders. I will bet the majority not mentioned involved stopping violent crimes, not starting them…
By Enon
December 18, 2009 8:01 AM | Link to this
Just because they were able to get a permit does not mean they are not an idiot. It also does not guarantee they wouldn’t have carried illegally anyway. Gottlieb makes the point that the crime rate has not dropped significantly. Can we assume though that it has dropped? If it had gone up, surely the point would have been made. So, how about the point that the law allows citizens more freedom and did not increase crime?
By joe_mamma
December 18, 2009 8:30 AM | Link to this
Full disclosure. A large contributor to the Violence Policy Center is the Joyce Foundation. The Joyce Foundation also provides funding to the Tides Foundation which in turn passes the money to groups like ACORN, CAIR, Media Matters and NARAL. So as Martin says they aren’t the last word in the debate about concealed weapons. They are merely a left wing group with an agenda
By Davidss2
December 18, 2009 8:46 AM | Link to this
“more liberalization of gun laws.”————— This is the first time Gottlieb is against liberalization! Heheeee. :::::::::::::::::::::Actually the article should talk about the people who DON’T have permits to carry who commit crimes. It’s just an article bitching about a few people who may have committed problematic acts who happen to have permits to carry. This is like talking about newspaper editorial writers who are goofy in their logic: it’s a meaningless statistic.:::::::::::::::::::::What is meaningful is the number of crimes STOPPED and PREVENTED by people with a permit to carry who use it. THANK YOU.
By fortressdayton
December 18, 2009 9:49 AM | Link to this
Statistics can be used to show what ever you wish. The statistic about crimes prevented is, however, relevant. A prohibition of firearms doesn’t make our society safe and a lack of guns doesn’t mean the citizens are powerless. East Germany fell in a week and no one there owned a gun, while the state had the army and police behind it. I don’t own a gun, but if you want a CCP, I am all for it.
By RAW
December 18, 2009 9:57 AM | Link to this
Just like “jobs saved”, you cannot really know how many crimes were prevented. We can assume that since crime continues to fall, according to FBI crime stats and despite the reports otherwise, that concealed carry is likely having an impact, but we cannot be positive. Regardless, the fact still remains that the statistics presented by VPC, if they are national stats, are less than significant in terms of statistical analysis. They are anomalies that are singled out by interest groups looking to provide evidence supporting their side, and both sides are guilty of it. The overwhelming majority of permitted carriers will never use their firearm, the same as many law enforcement will never use theirs in the line of duty. This really is no different than licensing drivers. Take a course, pay a fee, and you can drive 5000 lbs of metal down the road. How many licensed drivers use their vehicles to commit crimes? How people are killed by drunk licensed drivers every year? This is not really a stetch for comparison. The only difference is our lives require us many times to have a car. I for one am glad we live in a community that does make us feel we have to get a concealed carry permit.
By Rob
December 18, 2009 11:32 AM | Link to this
Odd, how can you liberalize the 2nd Amendment? Pretty broad application there. Quoting “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.”
By dis bar mat heck
December 18, 2009 12:34 PM | Link to this
Disbar mat heck. Dayton is ranked #20 in US crime stats because mat heck releases 90% of illegal gun, felonious assault and robbery charges. This emboldens convicted felons on community control to commit daylight murders and robberies. Court records prove this and the DDN hides it. The DDN has all the information they need to do a story about mat heck releasing convicted felons with illegal firearms. That lying idiot tom beyerlien refused to do that story because the DDN needs to protect mat heck and the courts. Idiot beyerlien does a story about how Bill Goodman is flooding the area with illegal guns after he allegedly found two guns bought by college students without a background check. These kids would have passed a background check if they had to but that was not reported.Lucas Sullivan writes about a convicted drug dealer that sends his uncle to Bill Goodman’s to buy him a weapon. DDN refuses to demand that the uncle be charged with supplying a gun to a felon. DDN refuses to report that the drug felon has yet to be charged with Weapons under disability because mat heck is going turn this guy loose. .DDN believes that when Bill Goodman inadvertently supplies one gun to a felon he must be stopped but when mat heck refuses to prosecute the person and every other person that actually violated the law this information must be hidden. Lying lou grieco the court reporter and the DDN has had all comments on crime and court stories eliminated because I was exposing the fact the most gun specs on crimes with a deadly weapon were being dismissed. mat heck cannot recommend community control for the felons with a gun spec hang over their heads so it is dismissed. This specification would have added an automatic 3 years to any sentence for these career criminals. Legal guns are not the problem. Illegal guns permitted by mat heck are the cause of all crimes in this town. Nearly all murders in this town have been committed by career criminals released by mat heck. Nearly all convicted murders have had drug, robbery, gun, felonious assault cases dismissed by mat heck As expected they finally commit murder. This pattern is the norm but mat heck refuses to learn from it. The first time a CCW license holder commits a daylight robbery at the Wal-Mart with a gun the DDN would be all over that because the DDN believes that legal guns cause all the problems. You do not read about that because it does not happen. Police know automatically over the radio when they are pulling over a legal CCW permit owner. Police do not know if they are pulling over felon that is carrying an illegal weapon enabled by mat heck. What is wrong with you people at the DDN. Didn’t your parents teach you right from wrong?
By DDN suks
December 18, 2009 1:19 PM | Link to this
Martin Gottlieb is sitting in his chair laughing about all of you. His plan was to write some incredibly stupid S@H@I@T just to see how many people he can get riled up! He was the kid that would poke his sister just to see how pizzed off she would get. Now he is getting paid to poke you people. Martin doesn’t have to be right to get paid. The fact is the more he is wrong the more satisfaction he get out of poking you.
By Leon Harrison
December 18, 2009 4:15 PM | Link to this
To be fair, Martin Gottlieb tries to tie statistically-insignificant anecdotes, events and incidents into a sad, scary, sensational story after honestly admitting as much, as those gun-grab nut groups who are out of touch. Are these [black] Wal-Mart robbers legally licensed to carry guns for defense, crimes or fun?
By The Old Cold Warrior
December 18, 2009 4:21 PM | Link to this
Statistically speaking: Almost 100% of people who accidentally or deliberately cause airplane, boat, car, motorcycle or truck crashes have been legally licensed to use but not abuse or misuse this equipment, these vehicles, or tools of pleasure and trade.
By The New Cool Warrior
December 18, 2009 4:32 PM | Link to this
Here’s a story for Mr. Gottlieb to read: http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/concealed-carry-issues-discussions/93257-concealed-carry-permits-rise-police-officer-killings-decline.html
By Leon Harrison
December 18, 2009 4:36 PM | Link to this
http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/
By Leon Harrison
December 18, 2009 4:43 PM | Link to this
http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/
By disbar mat heck and all judges
December 18, 2009 4:53 PM | Link to this
First of all do not try to confuse martin with the facts. It gives him a headache. I knew he was going to have trouble with that head the first time I saw his picture. Barnum said to Bailey “Come here I want you to see this.” Yes all Wal-Mart are licensed by mat heck. They do it a little different then we law abiders do. They get a free ride to the sheriff’s jail for one night. They then fill out papers with the public defenders office to prove that drug dealing and robbing people does not give them enough cash so they are indigent. The free lawyer does the rest of the application form for them. Mat heck receives the paper work, figures out quickly that this habitual career criminal hasn’t killed any body yet and is going to cost him more time and money than protecting the public is worth. heck finishes up the paper work by dismissing all charges of this misunderstanding and the felon is free to go get another gun. The felon then tells all of his homies that his daddy mat heck told him he was sorry for the inconvenience. It is easy and free to get the OK to have an unregistered gun in Montgomery County. It is the legal CCW permit that cost all the money and time. Look it up. It is hidden from the DDN in a double secret website called http://www.clerk.co.montgomery.oh.us/pro/
By Steve Arnold
December 18, 2009 8:58 PM | Link to this
“Kristen Rand, a VPC spokesman, says, “When the National Rifle Association launched its … campaign … it made this promise: ‘People who get permits… are law-abiding, upstanding community leaders who merely seek to exercise their right to self-defense.’ “To the contrary,” says Rand, “concealed handgun permit holders are killing people over parking spaces, football games and family arguments.”” I’m sure Ms Rand can site corroborative documentation. I didn’t think so.
By Harvey Stiles
December 18, 2009 11:04 PM | Link to this
Some of this negative data you have, may exclude factors that justified the action of the permit holder. Other instances, the shooter would have had a gun even when he didn’t have a permit. Liberals are going to seek every means possible to disarm America and create this citizen army to control our communities in addition to our local police. This will be compliments of the Community Organizer.
By drunken orangetree
December 19, 2009 1:15 AM | Link to this
I’m waiting for some one of you gun nuts to actually refute Gottlieb’s argument. Where’s the big drop in crime?
By stickhauler
December 19, 2009 1:23 AM | Link to this
No Kurt, the founders added the 2nd amendment as part of the Bill Of Rights. Rights seen as given free people by God, not by a government. And defense against a tyrannical government was hardly the only reason, it was also seen that free people had a right given by God to defend their person, and family against those who would harm them. You might also refer to the reason the 14th amendment was passed, read the debates in Congress on the amendment, it was to assure free Blacks the right to keep and bear arms after states had prohibited them from doing so.
By stickhauler
December 19, 2009 1:24 AM | Link to this
No Kurt, the founders added the 2nd amendment as part of the Bill Of Rights. Rights seen as given free people by God, not by a government. And defense against a tyrannical government was hardly the only reason, it was also seen that free people had a right given by God to defend their person, and family against those who would harm them. You might also refer to the reason the 14th amendment was passed, read the debates in Congress on the amendment, it was to assure free Blacks the right to keep and bear arms after states had prohibited them from doing so.
By Log Cabin John
December 19, 2009 7:05 AM | Link to this
News bulletin from DDN: Surgeons at Miami Valley Hospital have been credited with saving the life of Martin Gottlieb when they were successful in performing a new operation called an “optrectomy,” which entails severing one’s optic nerve from one’s anus. This condition is blamed for giving most liberals such a “sh*tty” outlook on life!
By Citigirl
December 19, 2009 12:26 PM | Link to this
I am CCW and I like knowing that I am trained and confident enough to defend myself.
By Leon Harrison
December 19, 2009 5:22 PM | Link to this
William Shatner on Gun Control: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0D78JtxmqI
By The Duke of Hazard
December 19, 2009 5:32 PM | Link to this
Note to libs: The most important and significant drop in crime, despite your mindless whines, is when YOUR gun saves YOUR life, or those of your chilren, friends, kin and or wife. And, if a violent criminal is allowed to survive and escape, they may continue to rob, murder and rape. Boohoo they do it to YOU. Send the bill to Doprah or to Doctor Phil.
By RWE
December 20, 2009 9:05 AM | Link to this
Conceal/carry does place doubt in the mind of the criminal that ‘maybe, just maybe, my potential victim has as much force as I am able to bring to bear in committing this crime’.
By Ice Bandit
December 20, 2009 12:44 PM | Link to this
The last two years the city of Chicago has had over 900 homicides. This in a city where guns are prohibited even to the law abiding. So forgive us if we don’t give a rat’s rectum about the statistically insignificent number of homicides carried out by legal concealed carriers……
By Vic
December 20, 2009 5:28 PM | Link to this
Let us all remember that Mr. Gottlieb is an editorial/opinion writer. For all of you who continue to blast the DDN for any of their presumably left leaning editorialist, please take a high-school journalism class that explains what “Opinion” is. If you really want to make a case for DDN bias then prove it by showing it in any of their news sections. Otherwise shut up!!! As for the 2nd Amendment, once again some of you “Wingers” need to take a high school civics class on our Constitution. The Second Amendment was not designed for citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical American Government, but to protect America from the tyranny of other governments. During our nation’s founding we did not have a standing army or arms supplies to issue, thus those who defended us, The Minutemen, had to bring their own weapons thus, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” The second clause, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” is dependent on the first. The people’s right to keep and bear arms is for the individual, as part of a militia, to defend us all. Not for “Jethro” to feel more like a man as he builds-up an arsenal to protect himself from an unlikely intruder coming into his gated community!!!!!
By Leon Harrison
December 20, 2009 6:24 PM | Link to this
They can’t, don’t or won’t print our columns and better letters that are printed by better editors; if only because they can no longer afford to let us have or waste their Opinion Page advertising space.
By Leon Harrison
December 20, 2009 6:29 PM | Link to this
Oh, like Rosie O’Dumbell, Vic the sick hick needs to take a trip to and a tour of Boston, Mass., Breed’s Hill, Lexington, Concord and the battle road in between; to see the Second Amendment “intentions” of the Founding Fathers he mentions. History seems to be a mystery to the masses who have taken revisionist dumbass classes based on feeeelllinnnggsss but lacking the facts.
By Leon Harrison
December 20, 2009 6:35 PM | Link to this
This may sound strange to the deranged and the odd to whom government is God: Our Founding Fathers feared government and did not love it, because of their European experiences and memories and those foreign but current events of their time. They did not want to be perpetually in charge of a government large and would fight for states rights.
By drunken orangetree
December 20, 2009 8:35 PM | Link to this
Leon, so is that why Our Founding Fathers established a government, because they feared government? And when have “current events” not been “of their time.” And are you saying Our Founding Fathers planned to abolish the government they had established? Finally, aren’t you due back on Uranus sometime soon?
By vic just doesn't want to know
December 21, 2009 4:29 AM | Link to this
Vic: “If you really want to make a case for DDN bias then prove it by showing it in any of their news sections. Otherwise shut up!!!” Vic this is not possible because the DDN has eliminated comments about the most important issue that affects the quality of life in Dayton. DDN has eliminated comments on crime and court stories because mat heck was being exposed for the very dangerous living conditions he has enabled. Gated communities are gated because mat heck allows crime. The DDN is against legal guns but not against crime. You do not want to know this. Vic call the DDN and ask why they do not allow comments on crime stories and post the answer. You will not do this because you do not want to know the truth. Otherwise shut up!!
By joe_mamma
December 21, 2009 7:48 AM | Link to this
Actually Drunk the founders did abolish the Articles of Confederation. So they did abolish a government they created.
By drunken orangetree
December 21, 2009 12:18 PM | Link to this
joe, and your comment means … ?
By joe_mamma
December 21, 2009 1:40 PM | Link to this
Drunk, You asked if the founders planned to abolish the government they founded. I answered that they already had abolished a government they established. Doesn’t that answer your question? Surely if the founders recognized the need to abolish the government operating under the Articles of Confederation as well as declaring independence from another government twelve years earlier don’t you think that they held out the possibility that it might be necessary for that to happen again if the government failed to live up the ideals they put forth?
By Vic
December 21, 2009 3:07 PM | Link to this
Leon, Although you rhymed, a no time, was you analysis worth a dime. My central point still stands unanswered: The Second Amendment does not give gun rights to Americans for the purposes of their individual security, or to fight against a tyrannical American government. The gun rights are for Americans to come together as a “Well Regulated Militia” to fight other governments. Please prove me wrong by citing a High Court decision, or scholarly interpretation that backs up your contention. Finally, I’ve been to many, not all, but many of our Revolutionary and Civil War Battlefields. These experiences pale in comparison to the three actual real battlefields I defended our nation on while in the Army.
By Leon Harrison
December 21, 2009 8:01 PM | Link to this
You are either ignorant or deliberately dumb, Vic the hick. When I took American history and civics, it was taught witout the revisionist history-twisting of flower-child philosophy and foolishness. At the founding of the U.S.A. the British colonists rebelled against their government because they did not love it. The 13 colonies were bordered by the frontier, with invading Indians, bushwhackers, robbers, and similar savages. Any person or politician at that time, who mentioned taking or controlling personal firearms, would have been considered crazy and insane. Savages still exist and roam to homes. Dumbasses with degrees squate to pee, but do us a favor when guns are not their saviors, thinning the herd for sensible ones with guns.
By The Old Cold Warrior
December 21, 2009 8:10 PM | Link to this
Ah, those good old days when American history was not a mystery, twisted by flower-child fools in public schools. Today, I shot my new Kel-Tech 9mm pistol at Vandalia Range and Armory, getting some free lessons and tips from the range master. This is my carjacking-attack self-defense tool; unlike that big bright shiny Taurus P-92. God, it’s good to get away from liberals.
By Leon Harrison
December 21, 2009 8:35 PM | Link to this
http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/ Here ya go, Vic the hick, a site where you might learn some things instead of dumb things!
By The Duke of Hazard
December 21, 2009 8:46 PM | Link to this
So…there is no doubt about global warming and thus is could or shoul no longer be discussed…unlike the Founding Fathers’ Second Amendment intentions that have been mentioned and written down in plain English?
By vic
December 21, 2009 9:33 PM | Link to this
Leon, Although you did not rhyme this time, with the exception of your 3rd grade “Vic the Hick” slight, my central point still stands unanswered:Show me where the Second Amendment gives gun rights to Americans for the purposes of their individual security, or to fight against a tyrannical American government??
By Leon Harrison
December 21, 2009 9:56 PM | Link to this
It does. It is obvious. When you consider reality, the time, the way they were, the conditions that existed in Europe and in America. People were not as nice or as civilized on the frontier as these little liberal queers here. Your battlfields must not have been real, like playing with your Wii Wii you see. The Founding Fathers did not love government, fearing it, like most freedom-loving folks who were afraid of an armed and powerful state.
By The New Cool Warrior
December 21, 2009 10:03 PM | Link to this
It is great that libs who love Obama and the government as their benevolent benefactors and saviors do not own guns or have them inside their homes, because they don’t need to defend themselves or anyone else from the criminals, rapists, robbers, burglars and thugs who roam and hunt for prey, by the way. They can make them stop by calling the cops! This will thin the herd by getting rid of such senseless gutless nutless loony liberal cyber-turds.
By The Duke of Hazard
December 21, 2009 10:53 PM | Link to this
To Vic The Hick: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TC2xTCb_GU
By JasonOH
December 22, 2009 2:39 AM | Link to this
Vic- “Show me where the Second Amendment gives gun rights to Americans for the purposes of their individual security, or to fight against a tyrannical American government?” From the Supreme Court’s opinion in the District of Columbia V Heller: “In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense…” Also: “…the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.” And: “The Second Amendment 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.” Lastly, though the decision was a 5-4 vote, even the dissenting justices acknowledged that the Second protected an individual right.
By Retired Sgt
December 22, 2009 3:08 PM | Link to this
While I agre this is an Op-Ed and that the DDN can print whatever Op-Ed they want, if they want to dispell the liberal slant, they would employ an OP-Ed writer that writes from teh opposing viewpoint…A point/Counterpoint scenario. The 2 opinion writher they have are DEM party hacks that write about things they generally have no clue about, and from a slanted point of view
By Vic
December 22, 2009 5:29 PM | Link to this
Leon, You still did not answer the question, Jason you a least tried, so I will answer you. Before doing so Leon; I don’t own or fully understand what a wii is, but I do know that I’m a retired Army Officer who’s service was honorable and very real, and likely have much more experience firing “real” weapons, in “real” conditions than you do Jason, The recent High Court Decision in DC DID NOT rule that the Second Amendment allows American’s gun rights based on rights not written in the Amendment itself. Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it say anything about individual security or rebelling against a tyrannical American government (who would be the judge as to if our government was tyrannical. Right-wing idiots like Leon are already saying Obama is tyrannical). The first clause of the Second Amendment says: “A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state,” not individual security, or prevention of government tyranny. No matter how many times you profess to the contrary, there is nothing in the Second Amendment about the individual bearing arms for purposes other than for a well-regulated militia. Here it is. Read it and show me where it says gun rights are for other than militia purposes: “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.” In the DC ruling the conservative majority knew they did not have a case against the handgun ban via constitutional interpretation, what the Amendment actually says, so the majority argued for the basic rights of the prevailing communities around DC, Maryland, and Virginia, as their lame justification (how DC was out of step with prevailing rights). And as you know the decision was 5-4. I’m a gun owner myself, I just don’t agree with the NRA and many extreme conservatives who argue, and I’m not saying you’re one of them, but who argue that gun rights are absolute and the government has no authority to control them. The NRA has conveniently narrowed the definition of “arms” to rifles and pistols. In reality “arms” means everything from a 9mm pistol to an ICBM. I don’t think you would agree that a wealthy person who can afford an ICBM should be able to by one under the protections in the 2nd Amendment. If the government can regulate ICBMs, then Constitutionally, the government can regulated small arms like pistols and assault rifles. Finally, there is a big difference between the position that sensible gun regulation and control and advocating a complete ban on private gun ownership. I support the former.
By JasonOH
December 22, 2009 7:06 PM | Link to this
Vic- Here is what you said earlier in the thread: “The Second Amendment does not give gun rights to Americans for the purposes of their individual security, or to fight against a tyrannical American government. The gun rights are for Americans to come together as a “Well Regulated Militia” to fight other governments. Please prove me wrong by citing a High Court decision, or scholarly interpretation that backs up your contention.” I cited a high court opinion that ruled that the 2nd protects an individual right not related to service in the militia and for self-defense. You are now saying I didn’t answer your question. Where will the goalpost be next? As for evidence that it was intended as a bulwark against tyranny from our own government: “The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” St. George Tucker (written in 1803, he was a legal scholar, judge, and served in the Revolutionary War). “The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, AND DOMESTIC USURPATIONS OF POWER BY RULERS.” (emphasis mine) Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, written in 1833. As for connection to militia duty, “The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected.” US v Emerson, 1999.
By Blaine
January 4, 2010 4:16 AM | Link to this
Quoting the long discredited Violence Policy Center (VPC) on gun control and gun violence is like the three little pigs relying on the wolf for learning the best way to build a wolf-proof house. Instead of using the phrase, “In the last two years, 24 states, mostly in the South and West, have passed 47 new laws loosening gun restrictions”, how about using the more accurate phrase, “In the last two years, 24 states, mostly in the South and West, have passed 47 new laws restoring the Constitutionally guaranteed human right of self-defense and doing so in all states and at the federal level is long overdue”?
By joe sixpack
March 3, 2010 1:40 PM | Link to this
oh boy, i can’t add anything to whats already been said in the comments. however i do want to point out in ohio it’s a license not a permit.. there is a big difference and shows just how little the writer actually knows and understands about CCW system in ohio. A “License” is something anyone who meets qualifications can get (IE: pass safety course and a criminal background check) almost all states use this system as it’s the only fair way to do it, not unlike a drivers “license” A “Permit” is only givin if whoever is in change of issuing them feels you deserve one. not many places use this system as it’s unfair and decisions are held up by those in powers opinion rather then merit. places like CA, whereregular citizens find it almost impossible to obtain one while surprise surprise several Hollywood movie stars do. one particular that comes to mind is Sylvester Stallone, he has been quoted saying some very anti-gun things, however a few years ago obtained a CCW permit, my oh my love that Hypocrisy.
By Warren Peace
March 4, 2010 3:11 PM | Link to this
Knife Crime in England Since the outlawing of guns, the number of knife crimes in England has risen significantly. On the positive side, knife amnesty’s have at least contributed to taking thousands of weapons out of circulation. It is however, obviously unrealistic to expect to withdraw all knives from circulation, especially when kitchen knives, gardening knives, etc, all feature in violent attacks, and those surrendering knives, are of course likely to be from the more law abiding element of the community. Maybe should outlaw fists!