Interesting, the Helter Skelter anology. I assume that referred to Charles Manson and the Sharon Tate murders. Those were all committed with knives; no gun was present.

Perhaps (just perhaps) if a gun was in the hands of someone who was killed, all of those murders might have been avoided.

Exactly. So who does Steve think his gun is protecting him from? Without the military, W would have to fight the Revolution with his cunning and determination. If Steve thinks he needs an AK 47 to beat that, I strongly disagree. I could handle W with an Etch-a-Sketch and a Red-Orange crayon.

Steve, I’m an old man, the .50 cal would require me to mount it on the back of a pickup because I ain’t that strong. I’ll leave the .50 to Gritz and the boys out at Sandy Valley. I’ll be happy with the .06 because it’s lighter even though it doesn’t have the range. So, when is this invasion coming. Oh, I see on the news there’s someone else out at Owens & Eastern with a peashooter holding the police at bay. AND, I don’t think Helter Skelter is over the top, I’m just trying to figure out who you mean is going to invade us????? My reference is a wild guess. Where’s my gun…..errrr….rifle.

Goldy, the military (I was one) won’t start the revolution, they need the word from higher up. No big thinkers here.

I am pretty sure Steve’s battle for control will not be with the dutiful folks at the Health Care Financing Administration. Although, the Post Office could prove a formidable foe for Steve’s erstwhile militia.

Stan:

What is the government but the military itself?

Stan: Not a bad choice, the 30.06. But if you really want distance, consider the Barrett .50-caliber. Heavy as hell, but you won’t have to move it much. The “Helter Skelter” reference is totally over the top, unless you consider the founders themselves to be radical instigators like Charles Manson. History is written by the victors, after all.

Goldy: A question. In the event of revolution — which, by the way, I am specifically not advocating in this post or any others — what makes you think the military will be on the government’s side?

Thanks to the brave imbedded reporting of journalist Geraldo Rivera and others, I have been able to see the power the military posseses. If you are justifing having an AK-47 because you are going to be able to defeat the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and their arsenal of weapons, then you should also be allowed to have C-2 explosives, night vision goggles, and anything else you require, Johhny Rambo. While we are at it, instead of banning guns from schools, let’s just give teachers bigger guns than the students! It will most certainly make them safer. Quit speculating. Go find out where that gun came from. Go find out where 40 rounds of amo came from. Tell me the story. Make me believe this asshole having an AK 47 is a great idea and is what makes America great.

I’m getting a 30.06 cause my Uncle said he can pop the eye out of anyone toting an AK-47 at least a quarter mile before they get into range of the 47. I’m staying away from the M-14, used them in the Corps prior to Nam and they were a piece of sh*t. I heard later models were OK but I don’t want to take any chances with them rabbits on the golf course. If we’re going to propose we know what the founding fathers were thinking, I think they wanted Congress to do a lot of talking and not a lot of passing laws. Most of the power was left to the States with a Federal oversight for the good of all. Steve, do you really think we need the 47’s or 14’s to defend ourselves from our own government? Starting to sound a lot like “Helter Skelter” to me, only now it’s a revolution between the Democrats and the Republicans instead of the blacks and the whites. Hell with it, I’m still getting a 30.06, with a scope.

First, to Katie: You’ve made a perfectly legitimate choice, consistent with your rights, to not have a gun in the house. That’s good for you, and we respect your choice, although you certainly don’t need our respect or permission to make that decision for yourself. As for us, we’ve made the opposite choice: To have multiple guns around. That’s my choice. And we both get along perfectly in this world, having made opposite choices. We would never argue that you should be forced to have a gun, just as we’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t argue that we shouldn’t have guns.

As for Goldy, we understand what you’re saying. We just disagree.

We would also quibble with the line about no longer needing to protect ourselves from our own government: When a president can assume office without being elected (2000), when he starts wars of foreign aggression with false information, when he lies to the people, when he violates his oath of office and the Fourth Amendment by spying on Americans without constitutionally required warrants, when the Congress of the United States seems steeped in corruption and when the Supreme Court of the United States blesses the outright theft of property in contravention of the Fifth Amendment (SEE Kelo v. New London, 2005), we’d argue that the need for defense against our government is ever-present.

But as to your desire to investigate the history of the weapon, and the ammo, we’re fine with that. If it was purchased, was a background check conducted? Was it stolen? From whom? All those questions need to be answered, and we’re sure the police are investigating as we speak. But it’s entirely possible that the shooter had no criminal record and was in legal possession of the weapon. With no history to suggest abuse, there’s no way to know who may abuse their rights.

And, to dcthornton.com, we would say that we’re not your typical left-wing columnist. And we wish more of our brethren on the left would embrace the plain meaning of the Second Amendment as they do the others. Until then, we’ll keep calling them as we see them.

[...] In an unusual move for a left-wing columnist, CityLife editor Steve Sebelius delivers a sound defense of the right to keep and bear arms. [...]

Steve: I was not assassinating your character. I would need a bigger gun to assassinate a character that large! My point was that the arguments you use are old. Just like the arguments for and against abortion. You wrap yourself in the 2nd amendment, you consider any effort to control any kind of firearm the first step to unilateral civilian disarmament, and you see no value in controlling guns. My argument (also old) is that the 2nd amendment must be interpreted to fit the times. We no longer need nor would we be able to protect ourselves from our own government. A strict constructionist interpretation of the 2nd amendment is no more correct than that of the 1st Amendment or any other. Free speech, for example, does not give you the right to shout “fire” in a crowded theater. The right to bear arms does not give everyone the right to have an AK-47 without someone knowing about it and maybe checking out those that purchase them. But I digress into the futile argument of days gone by. Steve, you won, you are winning, and you will win. More Americans, particularly more Nevadans, believe that the only good gun control is a steadying left hand. But just like the Founding Fathers, the time to negotiate the best policy is from a position of power. Unfortunately, the gun lobby and its faithful are like the parties of the Middle East conflict—when they have power, they will not budge or negotiate. The bottom line: a cop being gunned down in a neighborhood is wrong on many levels. One of those levels is the gun itself. How did he get that gun? Was it sold? Who sold it to him? What about the amo? Where did he get that? If we knew he had guns and a history of domestic violence, is there a remedy? Is anyone accountable for any of this? Before you snap back with, “He was just a bad guy and used the gun with malicious intent…” I agree; but that is one part of the story. That large gun and its bullets have a history and a foot print. Trajik did not manufacture that gun nor did he make the bullets. I don’t think it would have bothered Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, or James Madison if we knew where the guns were and who had these guns. I know it would not bother me.

Dumb me! Never considered the Bill of Rights when I decided we should not have a gun in the house. I am more afraid of me an d a temper tantrum or a large scale argument with Mr. Wonderful. Ergo we have no protectikon here.

People’s temermen t have a lot to do with who should have guns. katie

Oh, come on Goldy! We know from your writings if nothing else that you’re smarter than that. I expect more from you than simple derision and character assassination. You could at least be accurate: Charlton Heston has come out against AK-47 ownership, saying he sees no reason for anybody to own one.

I do argue forcefully, but that’s only because I’ve studied this issue and obviously feel passionately about it. Saying my argument is old is not the same thing as coming up with contrary facts, court rulings or contemporaneous accounts to rebut me. In fact, it’s the exact opposite of a rebuttal.

I’m not saying you have to agree with me; most probably would not. But at least argue with me with facts, man.

Now, you’ve asked about the AK-47. It’s an excellent choice. It has seen action in the winters of Siberia, the desolation of Afghanistan, the jungles of Southeast Asia, and, unfortunately, the deserts of Iraq. A good all-around rifle. But I think you might want to invest in a less expensive, Springfield Armory civilian version of the M-14, the weapon the U.S. used BEFORE the M-16 came to prominence in Vietnam. It’s got a bigger round, and its just as reliable as the old AK. Plus, it’s American made. That’s my advice.

P.S.S. Upon further reflection and recollection of one of my favorites, the Richard Adams’ classic NON FICTION, “Watership Down,” I withdraw my previous post. (espically the spelling error on “rabbit”)

P.S. Upon reflection, I agree with Stan. An AK-47 may be necessary for the rabits. I have seen them close up from my golf cart. They can be some wicked fellows. Steve, could you post the ACME website where you buy your weapons?

It amuses me to hear you speak with such authority on the “intent of the framers” of the Constitution. Solidarity on any concept–save independence from the British–was non-existent. It is a document of amazing compromises and considerations. If there was something that you could probably get most of the Founders to agree upon, it was that the Constitution would become an organic document that would reflect the times. My point was not to get into the protracted gun debate. The arguments are old and Steve makes the classic myopic, gun-toting-extremist argument. Charlton Heston would be proud. My point is that somewhere between the Gestapo coming by your home with a pick-up asking you to surrender your arms and a mandatory arsenal in every home, exists a rational gun control policy. No, it would not save every life nor would it prevent every hypothetical disaster. Yes, it would mean there would still be heavy weapons in the hands of bad people. But my point is that the pendulum is so far tilted in this State toward the armed, that even a cop being gunned down by a hoodlum in an upstanding neighborhood does not even provoke the discussion among policy makers of what a good gun policy might be. Both sides of the gun debate will someday, hopefully, throw out the mindless arguments that have prevented legitimate compromise—N.R.A’.s argument of the proverbial “Camel’s nose under the tent” and the ultra-liberal’s ban of all weapons will make us safe—and reason solid policy from there. It is a shame that a catastrophe of this magnitude can’t even provoke legitimate discussion beyond an arms race between police and neighbors.

We suppose Stan is unaware of the history of the Bill of Rights, and the historical context in which it was written. The Revolutionary War was fresh in the minds of its framers. And while national defense against foreign invaders is one important justification of the Second Amendment, it’s undeniable that the framers also intended a well-armed populace to be a safeguard against the tyranny of our own government, perhaps the last line of defense against a state that grew as out of control and oppressive as King George III’s had.

But this search for justification is pointless: The Second Amendment says what it says, and that’s the law of the land, until it’s changed, in the manner prescribed by the Constitution, not lawmakers or rulemakers. You can disagree with our reasoning, but no amount of saracsm can erase the plain words of the text.

Damn, convinced me. I didn’t know our country was so threatened. Man, if I didn’t know it then, I know it now. If I would have had an assault rifle and so did everyone else in the U.S. (their right under the second amendment) those fuggers who hijacked the planes and flew into the World Trade Center would have been toast before they crossed the border. Or who is it, Steve, that we need to be so heavily armed to protect this country from invasion? China, Iran, North Korea, which one is going to withstand the nucular force we have and invade; wherein we with our assault rifles will repell? You are right, Steve, it was sarcasm about the AK-47’s being hunting rifles (NRA again. I never saw one being used by game hunters was a jab at those who understand Bush Speak. Now, back to being serious, after I get my AK-47, a couple of banana clips and some armor piercing ammo, Captain Steve, where can I expect to be stationed to guard this country? Please pick someplace like Newport Beach…OK? Suntan oil included?