8-Year-Old Accidentally Exercises Second Amendment Rights

No, not from Ohhh shoot, but the Onion (got that, you moronic fucks, I am crediting this to the Onion):

NORFOLK, VA--Gun owners nationwide are applauding the patriotic, though accidental, exercise of Second Amendment rights by 8-year-old Timothy Cummings Tuesday.

"Timothy is a symbol of American heroism," said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre from Cummings' bedside at Norfolk General Hospital, where the boy is in serious but stable condition from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. "While praying for his recovery, we should all thank God that his inalienable right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed."

The incident occurred shortly after Cummings returned from school and found that his parents were absent from the house. Displaying what Second Amendment-rights groups are calling "good old-fashioned American ingenuity," Cummings placed a pair of phone books on a stool to retrieve his father's loaded .38-caliber revolver from its hiding place on a closet shelf. After a preliminary backyard investigation of his constitutional rights claimed the life of Pepper, the family's cocker spaniel, Cummings fell on the weapon, causing it to discharge into his left thigh.

"The framers of the Constitution would be so proud of what my boy did yesterday," said Cummings' father Randall, 44, who originally purchased the handgun for home defense. "If 8-year-old boys discharging loaded firearms into their own legs isn't necessary to the maintenance of a well-regulated militia, I don't know what is."

Doctors worked for six hours to reconstruct Timothy Cummings' femur, which shattered from the impact of the high-velocity teflon-coated slugs, and to graft his remaining muscular and circulatory tissue over the fist-sized exit wound below his left buttock. Although the boy lost a great deal of blood, attending physicians say they are confident that he will recover sufficiently to resume active use of firearms, though his chances of walking again are slim.

"For years, the people who want to take away our freedoms have said that we're not smart enough or responsible enough to own handguns," Randall added. "Timothy is proof that even a child is capable of using a handgun for its intended purpose."

Gun owners nationwide have flooded Cummings' hospital room with flowers, letters of congratulations and invitations to "come shooting." Area firearms enthusiast and family friend Lloyd Stone showed his support by donating 18 inches of vascular material to help rebuild Cummings' left femoral artery.

"He may be just a boy, but this use of the Second Amendment was a man-sized undertaking," Stone said. "Timothy may need a wheelchair for the rest of his life, but with every step he doesn't take, he'll realize what the Constitution really means."

Above: NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre praising Cummings' "commitment to the American way."

Although Cummings has yet to deliver an official statement on the incident, he regained consciousness long enough to discuss his immediate plans.

"Please, I want to run and play again," Cummings told doctors Tuesday night. "My leg hurts bad. Please make it stop."

Although gun-control advocates have criticized the boy's gun use, the NRA was quick to respond, calling Cummings' use of much-protested, teflon-coated "cop-killer" bullets "a victory for America."

"Timothy should be held up as an example to people who think we don't need these bullets--or fully automatic assault weapons, or concealable handguns which are impervious to metal detectors, for that matter," said NRA president Charlton Heston, who plans to congratulate Cummings in person as soon as he is through lobbying for Senate repeal of recently passed legislation mandating background checks for gun buyers.

"If we ban teflon-coated bullets, automatic weapons would be next," Heston said. "Then all handguns. Next thing you know, the law would deny our citizens' children the personal freedom to blow holes through their own legs."

NRA lobbyist Tom Korologos agreed. "Timothy's heroic accident happened because we live in the greatest country in the world," he said. "Had he grown up in Japan, England or Russia, he wouldn't be where he is today."

"Restrictive laws would have kept him 'safe' at home--and they would have justified it by telling us it was for his own good," Korologos added. "That's not the type of country I'd want my children to grow up walking normally in."

"Timothy is a shining example to gun-owning families everywhere," Cummings' mother Suzanne told reporters. "I am proud that my boy has followed in the footsteps of the many thousands of patriotic children who have already demonstrated their commitment of the U.S. Constitution in this same way."
© Copyright 2000 Onion, Inc., All rights reserved.

Got that, you stupid fucks, this was from the Onion and not my original material? It is credited, which takes it out of the realm of plagiarism.

Anyway, I have always said that if Mothers Against Drunk Driving had the same attitude toward Drunk Driving as some "RKBA/Second Amendment Supporters" do, they would be throwing keggers for underage kids.

"Gun Right" supporters who are critical of Heller

Since my anger with the DC v. Heller decision is pretty much based on Scalia's playing fast and loose with the law and his alleged theory of Constitutional interpretation, I usually mention these articles in passing. You will find that most people who support Heller were in some way associated with the decision, or just plain ignorant.

http://reason.com/blog/2008/06/26/a-somewhat-skeptical-take-on-h
http://tadventures.org/2009/07/30/2nd-amendment-not-so-fast-my-friends/
http://constitutionalism.blogspot.com/2008/03/fatal-concession-in-dc-v-heller.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w32.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022044.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022039.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021863.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021701.html

The final post isn't so much anti-Heller as much as it is also critical of Scalia for failing to follow what he claims is his method for interpreting the Constitution.

http://works.bepress.com/jeffrey_shaman/1/

A Message from the Founders.

Dateline: Philadelphia, PA 13 Jan 2010.

Amazed tourists at Carpenters' Hall were surprised by the sudden appearance of a blue box marked "Police Public Call Box". Even more astounding was the appearance of 56 men in colonial dress from the box along with two men in modern dress and a small white dog.

The first man to speak identified himself as Patrick Henry. He explained that the group had been transported from 1774 to see what would become of their notion of Independence from Britain. Henry was extremely upset at misquotations made by "organisations such as The National Rifle Association and its ilk" regarding the ratification of the Constitution. "These remarks were in regard to the Militia and not private ownership of firearms".

Another man later identified as Samuel Adams said, "Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death. To claim that the Second Amendment gives you such a right is ludicrous. It was all about Standing Armies, we rebelled against standing armies. And those people who identify themselves as Teaparties have no idea what we were doing. I disown them."

All reiterated what the man identified as John Adams who said that "It must be made a sacred maxim, that the militia obey the executive power, which represents the whole people in the execution of laws. To suppose arms in the hands of the citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed, and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. If firearms prove mischievious to public safety, they should be banned." Adams reiterated the comment about Standing Armies.

All expressed a disgust for the interference of religion in politics. A man identified as George Washington said; "The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens. To say that the United States is a Christian nation over a Moslem or Jewish nation is repugnant: it is a secular society."

The General consensus was that they were much better off under Britain and any thoughts of Independence were mere "wills-o'-the-Wisp". We intended to not have a standing army and the expense encumbant upon such an institution, yet people who claim to hate tyranny support it. They were amazed that modern Americans could agree to be taxed to support what the founders believed was tyranny: "How can one fight a war against Afghanistan, Iraq, or Balnibarbi when they pose no real threat to security?" They expressed shock that the British people had inquiries into these events, yet Americans blindly followed without question.

"The Tories are correct." one said, "True Britons shall never be slaves or submit to tyrrany. What Americans have become is not worthy of our efforts or our blood."

Gun Policy News

I subscribe to gunpolicy news from http://www.gunpolicy.org/ which is like an international version of the gun guys.

One article that caught my interest was an op-ed piece from the LA Times called America's pointless gun fight. It's by Richard Feldman, so he tries to be unbiased about the issue saying that it's both sides who are being unreasonable. I tend to disagree with that, since most of the lack of reason comes from the more radical segment of the pro-gun side who see any attempt to regulate fireams as an infringement on their "gun rights". Feldman does make a very good point:

What is missing from The Times' editorial and from the ongoing national debate is the following:

First, we need to recognize that guns are present in more than 40% of all homes in this country -- like it or not. Any credible discussion of this issue must acknowledge that reality.

Second, gun owners and non-gun owners alike are in universal agreement in this country that violent, predatory criminals should not possess, have access to nor easily obtain firearms.

Third, we all wish that mentally troubled individuals would not own, possess or acquire guns.

Both sides of the debate need to acknowledge they actually agree on several key issues. I am a gun owner, and I do not intend to surrender my rights because of the acts of criminals, mental midgets or a sentimental wish of how things might be somewhere else (The Times muses about Canada's low homicide rate). I am hungry for action that moves our common agenda forward.

Mr. Feldman, I think we have sentimental wishes coming from both sides. Looking at how gun control has worked in other jurisdictions is merely an academic exercise. It has some value, but the US gun situation is very unique.

Also, I have a question about the figure that "guns are present in more than 40% of all homes in this country" which isn't disputing the figure, but a question of how many of those homes would keep the firearms if registration were imposed?

A realistic scenario for gun registration in the US would be that there would be a period of amnesty in which people were given the option of registering their firearms (which would probably be grandfathered in) or legally disposing of them. How many would turn their guns in as part of a gun amnesty or buyback?

My opinion on the reason the gun lobby fears registration has nothing to do with its efficacy as a tool for controlling firearms, but the fact that it WILL reduce the amount of firearms sold. How many people would buy a firearm if it requires a registration process?

It's not about public safety, but how much money the gun companies can make selling firearms and not caring where they end up.

Feldman does end on a very good point:

The bottom line is this: We must stop debating the polemics of guns and instead show wisdom and maturity to begin to resolve the problems of the negligent misuse of guns. Though a cliche, the following is nevertheless true: Guns aren't ever the problem; guns in the wrong hands are always the problem. How we address this problem will determine the future of gun safety in America.

Does saying that make him anti-gun? Although I already imagine he is seen as a turncoat for having written "Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist". Nevermind that he was an executive director of the firearm industry's trade association and a regional political director for the National Rifle Association.

Not from Gunpolicy.org, but from my past reading and collection we have a couple of interesting articles from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting we have a couple of interesting articles that seem to be lost in the dreck: Jeff Cohen's Gun Control, the NRA and the Second Amendment and Howard Friel's How the NRA Rewrote the Constitution: On Second Amendment, Reporters Side With Gun Lobby Against Supreme Court.

These articles deal with how the National Rifle Association has advanced the view that the amendment provides a fundamental right to private gun ownership that cannot be abridged by the passage of gun control laws. In fact, the actual finding that the Second Amendment provided an "individual right" in DC v. Heller did not come through legal precedent, but from a well planned attack by a special interest group, the Cato Institute.

The problem is that the gun debate like other US policy debates seems to be dominated by continuing misinformation, lies and deception used by ideologically shaped skeptics who deny (in this case, climate change, but it can be gun control or whatever). If deniers can convince the public that gun control (climate science, etcetera) is bogus, then there is no need for legal reforms. There is an industry of those who are paid to say that there are gun rights (manmade global warming isn’t happening, etcetera). The great majority of people who believe this have not been paid; however, they have been duped.

Gun control is a wedge issue par excellence in that all sorts of emotive situations and language can be used. Brainwashing doesn't take any sci-fi gadgetry or Manchurian Candidate hypnotism bullshit. There are all sorts of tried-and-true techniques that anyone can use to bypass the thinking part of your brain and flip a switch deep inside that says "OBEY."

How long will it take before people get fed up with the concept of "gun rights" and wake up?

How many incidents like this one where a NH Man was Charged With Firing AK-47 in a Massachusetts Restaurant:

Authorities said Anthony Gobbi, 30, of East Wakefield, N.H., fired an AK-47 into the restaurant's ceiling as patrons ducked for cover. Police said Gobbi became enraged when bartenders at the China Lion restaurant refused to serve him alcohol, believing he was drunk.

Police said that after he was refused service, Gobbi went to his truck, retrieved a handgun and the AK-47, returned to the restaurant and opened fire.

While most patrons ducked for cover, others managed to tackle Gobbi, wrestling him outside as he squeezed off a few more bursts of gunfire, police said. Gobbi was pinned to the ground while others called 911.

People didn't need guns to stop this shooter, they just needed to stand up to him and be fearless.

People need to stand up to the US gun lobby and not take it anymore.
(I was trying to figure out how to get the AK-47 story in there)

First, Disarm the police...

I made a joke about disarming the police first if a gun ban came to the US, but that isn't as much of a joke in Britain. It seems that British police are equally anxious to keep firearms off the streets and, for the most part, see no way to do it except by leaving their guns at the station.

There was a story a couple of months back where British armed police (CO19) were sent to a London neighbourhood in response to gangland shootings. Armed patrols were sent to estates in Tottenham, Haringey and Brixton. While the tactic had been deployed “for the best of reasons”, according to Met Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson; “however, I believe that unfortunately there has been a failure to appreciate that this could look like a significant change of policing style".

I found this US News & World Report story--Disarming News: Why Bobbies Have No Guns (3 February 1998) that pointed out:

According to a survey by the police officers union, the Police Federation, 4 out of 5 British cops do not want to be armed. Today, 95 percent of officers in England and Wales never carry firearms, and on average police nationwide open fire on only half a dozen occasions a year. In the 30-year history of the Thames Valley Police, a southern England force with 2 million people in its district, not a single round has ever been fired at a human.

Weighing the risk. No one doubts that career criminals remain armed. And so, to outsiders, the British bobby's rejection of firearms may look foolhardy. Yet even officers who have seen handgun mayhem support the policy. Chief Constable Charles Pollard was the commander in charge during a 1987 shooting spree in the village of Hungerford, where a man gunned down 16 people. "The risks are far greater with routine arming of police," says Pollard. "If we arm up, criminals will arm up more." Senior police officers also argue that routine arming would end "policing by consent"--enforcing the law with the public's cooperation and respect.

A Story from Gloucestershire showed that the public had a negative attitude toward armed police:

The sight of policemen openly carrying guns has sparked fears among some city residents.

Reports have come in of armed police officers in Tesco car park off St Oswald's Road and during a recent rugby match at Kingsholm.

Director of Gloucester Emergency Accommodation Resource, in Southgate Street, Brian Jones, which offers help to the homeless, said: "I was concerned to see two police officers with handguns in full view walking across Tesco's car park recently.
"There was clearly no emergency and they were in no hurry.

"I do not expect to see armed police walking around in this country – I am very concerned."

Another concerned resident said they were surprised to see armed police at a recent rugby game.

"There were two policemen carrying sidearms during the Gloucester versus Ospreys rugby match at Kingsholm recently," he said.

"I have no idea why they were there or how long they were staying but they had no sense of urgency – they were just standing there watching the game."

A mother, who wished to remain anonymous, also called The Citizen to complain.

She said: "I was walking through the city centre with my 11-year-old daughter and two policemen wearing those blue boiler-suits were coming towards us.

"My daughter said 'look at those policemen, they've got guns'.

"It was not a pleasant sight as I was always proud of the fact that our police didn't carry guns."

I said in my post about rights that some rights that:

the US tends to make a great deal of rights. These rights impose the value system where they originate: the European liberal tradition, in particular Anglo-American liberalism. One finds that rights are not as much of an issue in other countries as they are in the United States.

In particular, some people do not see "gun rights" as a good thing.

It is even more interesting to see that the place where the US received its concept of rights, does not share a similar concept of "gun rights".

I prefer a disarmed and peaceful society to an armed and violent one.

That is a much better right.

Why do I call them gun cretins?

Not all gun owners are gun cretins.

Take Me, believe it or not, I own guns and believe they are dangerous items that need to be regulated and work toward that goal.

On the other hand, there is a small minority of irresponsible idiots out there who see a hint of regulation and do all sorts of stupid things. For some reason "gun rights" is the ultimate wedge issue that can get people to support positions which are a threat to their economic interests.

It seems that the group Gun Owners of America has been hunting for a way into the health care debate for three months.

I have been waiting for that shoe to fall.

My predicition is that people will eventually get sick of all this talk of gun rights and irresponsible gun owners. It would be nice if this blog were a wake up call to the gun cretins, but that's hoping for way too much.

More likely this would be a resource to counter the "bumper Sticker" arguments along with Doug Henigan's book Lethal Logic.

"Gun rights" do not trump people's rights to live healthy and safe lives. Guns do not make a society safe.