On August 13th, after a short foot chase, a young Milwaukee resident turned to face a Milwaukee police officer. The police officer said the suspect was holding a hand gun. The officer shot and killed the suspect. A hand gun was recovered at the scene. This recovered weapon was reportedly stolen from a home in Genesee in Waukesha County.
The Milwaukee Police Department described the weapon as a semi-automatic hand gun and was loaded with 23 rounds.
A semi-automatic hand gun with 23 rounds. I haven’t seen any more recent descriptions of the gun so I don’t know what make or model it is or whether 23 rounds is its maximum or just what it contained when recovered.
But what does a young man in Milwaukee need with a hand gun that holds 23 rounds? What does a home owner in Waukesha County need with a gun that holds 23 rounds. What do you or I need with a gun that holds 23 rounds.
The West was won with six shooters.
Dirty Harry cleaned up San Francisco with six shots…or in all of the confusion was it only five?
Even the United States Army…a place where maximum fire power is imperative…issues Baretta M9 pistols holding 15 rounds.
So why do we allow guns with such large capacities on our streets and in our homes? I would suggest limiting hand guns to 6 or 8 or 10 rounds…limit magazines to those numbers…and just plain get rid of everything else.
Yes, yes, that is an awful idea…I mean there is the 2nd Amendment and all…but I can’t own a rocket propelled grenade, a howitzer, or a nuclear weapon…so there are limits to the 2nd Amendment…I am just suggesting we move the line a bit.
Anyone know why it’s the 2nd Amendment and not the first?? Is freedom of speech and religion more important? And without looking what’s the 3rd? I will admit I had to look it up.
This is a good argument, and well worth watching.
This…..a million times this.
The cold hard reality we’re faced with is that no amount of prayer is going to fix our nation’s epidemic of mass shootings – that’s a problem that can only be fixed when elected officials finally get the courage to stand up to the National Rifle Association, which has become a corrupting influence through campaign contributions for far too many of our nation’s elected officials.
Finding a serious solution to our nation’s epidemic of mass shootings is going to require a measure of courage – and that’s a quality sorely lacking among far too many conservatives who hold office.
This is an excellent read.
Cut to 1977. Gun-group veterans still call the NRA’s annual meeting that year the “Revolt at Cincinnati.” After the organization’s leadership had decided to move its headquarters to Colorado, signaling a retreat from politics, more than a thousand angry rebels showed up at the annual convention. By four in the morning, the dissenters had voted out the organization’s leadership. Activists from the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms pushed their way into power.
The NRA’s new leadership was dramatic, dogmatic and overtly ideological. For the first time, the organization formally embraced the idea that the sacred Second Amendment was at the heart of its concerns.
The gun lobby’s lurch rightward was part of a larger conservative backlash that took place across the Republican coalition in the 1970s. One after another, once-sleepy traditional organizations galvanized as conservative activists wrested control.
Conservatives tossed around the language of insurrection with the ardor of a Berkeley Weatherman. The “Revolt at Cincinnati” was followed by the “tax revolt,” which began in California in 1979, and the “sagebrush rebellion” against Interior Department land policies. All these groups shared a deep distrust of the federal government and spoke in the language of libertarianism. They formed a potent new partisan coalition.
Politicians adjusted in turn. The 1972 Republican platform had supported gun control, with a focus on restricting the sale of “cheap handguns.” Just three years later in 1975, preparing to challenge Gerald R. Ford for the Republican nomination, Reagan wrote in Guns & Ammo magazine, “The Second Amendment is clear, or ought to be. It appears to leave little if any leeway for the gun control advocate.” By 1980 the GOP platform proclaimed, “We believe the right of citizens to keep and bear arms must be preserved. Accordingly, we oppose federal registration of firearms.” That year the NRA gave Reagan its first-ever presidential endorsement.
Today at the NRA’s headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia, oversized letters on the facade no longer refer to “marksmanship” and “safety.” Instead, the Second Amendment is emblazoned on a wall of the building’s lobby. Visitors might not notice that the text is incomplete. It reads:
“.. the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
The first half—the part about the well regulated militia—has been edited out.
It’s funny to me that conservatives who are so fond of a strict reading of the Constitution when it comes to other hot-button political issues are the very same folks who conveniently forget the “well regulated militia” component of the Second Amendment so as to avoid gun ownership being well-regulated.
Let’s take a look at the text of 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.”
Conveniently, those folks who are opposed to any kind of reasonable measures to ensure guns don’t end up in the wrong hands forget the first four words of the Second Amendment.
Another ridiculous petition:
Tens of thousands of people have signed a petition calling for British CNN host Piers Morgan to be deported from the U.S. over his gun control views.
A petition created Dec. 21 on the White House e-petition website by a user in Texas accuses Morgan of engaging in a “hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution” by targeting the Second Amendment. It demands he be deported immediately for “exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens.”
So when did the second amendment become more important that the first amendment?
So apparently, a group of students at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee thinks OMG THE SOCIALISTS ARE TAKING OVER AMERICA!!111!! and so they’ve formed a student militia on Facebook. Here’s the stated goals of the student militia:
This group is all about the 2nd amendment, after all, this right shall not be infringed. For all those who are sick and tired of socialists trying to take over our country, this group is for you and the time to take a stand is now. I love this country with all my heart and that’s why it pains me to think about how the socialists/liberals in congress are ruining America and now they are trying to elect one President. I say, too many Americans have died ensuring that people around the world may be able to enjoy the very freedoms that the liberals in Congress are trying to take away. This is why I’m forming this group.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed”
-note that this is not an attempt to actually form a militia, but rather an attempt to rekindle the spark in the American spirit that has apparently been dying in the recent years.
Let us never turn our backs on the enemy for that is when they are the strongest.
Now what I found interesting is the blurb that the UWM Student Militia is not an attempt to form an actual militia, yet take a look at the logo they’ve chosen for their “militia:”
Now call me crazy – and you wouldn’t be the first to do so – but if you’re not trying to form an actual militia, then why use a picture of an M4A1 with an M203 grenade launcher as your group’s logo?