“Guns Are Us” - Pa. Lawmakers Foil Efforts To Stop The Killing
I believe in the Constitution. I support the First Amendment , the rights of free speech, and the protection that it affords my business. I support the Second Amendment, and the right of responsible citizens to bear arms. The rights we have are an important part of the fabric of law in our society.
But there are other rights that are sacred in a civilized society. One of them was stated so well by Philadelphia Mayor-Elect Michael Nutter in a televised debate. The future Mayor said, “I have a right not to be shot.”
So do you!
Recent attempts to pass LIMITED and special legislation in Pennsylvania legislature couldn’t even get out of committee because of two powerful forces in the state – rural lawmakers and the powerful gun lobby. Even rare testimony by Governor Ed Rendell couldn’t push the legislators to consider bills that would allow communities plagued by harsh gun crime to stiffen up their gun control laws JUST in their geographical sectors.
There is no doubt that such laws would lower the murder rate in Philadelphia and other cities ravaged by violent criminals.
But for now, the legislators said “no.”
For his part, Rendell said he would continue the fight. That could mean he might campaign against legislators who oppose this very limited form of gun control.
In the meantime, powerful forces continue to preach law and order, but they are shameless cowards when it comes to living by their words.
They have a right to be obstructionists in the fight against evil.
They, like you, have a right not to be shot.
The second amendment was included in the Constitution when militias were needed to protect the public during the revolution that created the United States. You’d think that over 200 years later, with local, county and state police who must carry arms to enforce the law, the United States Congress could repeal the second amendment, which outlived its use so long ago. Unfortunately, this nation does not understand the word change or reform-so nothing gets done. Look at how many murders there are in England, France and other more civilized countries that have very strict gun laws. Then look at us. Is our “liberty” worth that much to allow these killings to continue?
I think i’ll take a pass on Saul’s interpretation of the Bill of Rights.
To paraphrase a famous person(not Ed Rendell)”those who trade liberty for security-will soon have neither”
It would really be nice if you guys would stop pandering to the left-leaning nuts, check PA’s gun laws, there are over 2,000 of them on the books,they are not properly enforced, and Philadelphia, lacks competent prosecutors, and doesn’t want to give up plea-bargaining, this is why they like to play catch and release, and please tell me, WHAT CRIMINAL PAYS ATTENTION TO THE LAW! As for Saul’s intepretation, I guess we should just get rid of the 1st Amendment also, some people don’t realize or do not read history books, the 2nd Amendment is just as important as the first and the other eight, you take away one you might as well take them all away and move to Russia, or our left leaning buddies, can go live with Hugo Chavez. I totally agree with John’s comment. And shame on you Larry for buying the usual liberal rhetoric.
“As a former resident of Philadelphia now living in South Florida,” Saul Schildhorn, 11/07/2007
Its clear that Saul is also interpreting the US Constitution to suit his own anti-gun agenda. Saul, take a look at the term “People”, which you apparently interpret as the “States”, yet, later, in other Amendments to the Constitution, the term “People” has been clearly define as individual rights, such as voting rights and individual protection from search and seizure. Saul, ya can’t have it both ways. I’ll defer to the framers of the Constituiton anyday over the “progresssive” liberals who ruined this great City with their socialist philosphy then fled to Florida leaving the rest of us with a big mess.
Why do the politicians feel that more laws is always the answer? Nobody bothers to pay attention to the laws already on the books. Nobody wants to enforce or prosecute the existing statutes or “mandatory minimum sentences”. Every thing get reduced or plea bargained away. Did it ever occur to these people that imposing tougher sentences and actually enforcing them for a change?
It would be nice if most of the talking head politicians and media (yes including you Larry) focused deeply on the core issues rather than the result. But that may take actual work and not just a 15 second sound bite for the popular vote or a better rating for the 6 o’clock news. The disparity between rich and poor and the lack of fundamental morals in the home are just a couple of reasons that has increasing left a generation in state of lawless desperation. Like most other living entities, society is adaptive to the conditions it is presented and unfortunately those conditions are increasingly unfavorable for the middle and lower classes. I love when financially secure or morally superior folks try to help by saying take away guns and things will be better for the lower class. (and it doesn’t matter what side of the argument you’re on) It’s just another conscience clearing act by those who care more about saying a politically correct statement rather than helping resolve the core issues. What is the difference between 500 getting shot dead or 500 starving to death. The 500 who starve do it quietly and don’t make a headline.
The Bill of Rights, the amendments to the Constitution, are rights of the individual. These are inalienable. The second amendment, for individuals, without recourse to interpretation for limitation by the republic for purposes of a militia, is not limited to a militia. That is a specified right, to bear arms in a militia. As an individual, the right to bear arms without association with a group, is also a right. So, as an individual, solely or jointly we have a right to bear arms. Does an individual have the right to engage in commerce of guns and ammunition with a criminal population? No! Aside from issues of prior restraint, supplying of weapons to individuals known for criminal activity or mentally incompetence is problematic for society. Does an individual who already possesses one or more weapons, have a right to an unlimited supply of more guns, handguns, rifles, shotguns, 50 caliber sniper rifles? Are the 2nd amendment rights diminished or wiped out if an individual once armed is regulated in increasing the quantity of arms? No. If you own a handgun, if each person in your household owns a handgun or rifle, you have a clear and easy access to arms. Should the government bar you, as a law abiding citizen from ever owning any more weapons once armed? No. Between arming yourself and creating an arms depot or enough weaponry to engage in commerce with multiple gun purchases on regular basis, beyond your means to use personally as a means of defense or deterrent to criminal assault lies a reasonable compromise.
The misleading title of this ill-informed creed says it all. It’s all so simple, stopping Philly’s killfest is just a few laws away. Why didn’t anyone think of this sooner?
In his column from a few days ago, John Baer was at least willing to get beyond the rhetoric and take a look at the proposals that were actually under consideration. I don’t expect much insight from a retired professional teleprompter reader, but this wasn’t even worth the time it took to read. May I please have that fifteen seconds of my life back?
large cities should have there own strict gun laws,all the gutless rightwingers will have blood on there hands,they are cowards and are the first ones to run and hide from danger (bush/chaney draft dodgers),i quess they will cry for strict gun laws when it comes to the burbs,gutless republicans.
The republicans want to fight terrorism and do whatever it takes to support the troups,Well this is terrorism do whatever it takes to help the police,if republicans were real americans they should want to make america safe.thanks Larry keep up the good work.
Jack and Joe - Have any substance (or facts) in your posts? Hey Larry, make a declaration on your site to banish AIDS that will solve it. Forget the cause or the behavior that spread it. No offense intended Jack or Joe, but it’s the meaningless name calling and the narrow mindedness that prohibit a civilized discussion from moving complex issues forward to resolution. Drug laws are strict, I guess illegal drug use isn’t a problem and people aren’t dying from it. Oh that’s right; drug deaths don’t make headlines unless you’re famous.
If municipalities had the right to make their own gun laws, where would that leave law-abiding CCW owners, having to know what the difference in gun laws is from one county to the next, morons, there are 67 counties in PA alone, should each of these counties be allowed to create their own gun laws? And, guess what republicans aren’t cowards it’s the dim-witted dems who come up with knee-jerk feel good legislation that does no good at all, because like I mentioned earlier. CRIMINALS DO NOT HEED THE LAW. ENOUGH SAID, MAYBE YOU GUYS SHOULD HAVE PAID MORE ATTENTION IN SCHOOL IN THE PROPER USE AND SPELLING CATEGORIES.
And since were on the subject, lets take a look at violent crime in countries that have outright banned guns, examples: England and Australia.
PHILADELPHIA NEEDS TO GET ITS OWN HOUSE IN ORDER, GET RID OF THE DREGS THAT GIVE PEOPLE THE REASON TO LEAVE THAT GOD-FORSAKEN CITY, I SAY WILSON GOODE SHOULD NOT HAVE STOPPED AT OSAGE AVENUE.
Consider this:
Washington, DC and New Jersey have extremely strict gun laws — the right to carry is nonexistent in NJ and the right to own is nonexistent in DC.
By contrast, getting a carry permit in New Hampshire is very easy.
By Larry and Saul’s logic, NH must be a violent, dangerous place, and NJ/DC must be idylls of calm.
Back to reality after a word from our sponsors . . .
the fact is the republicans are blocking a chance to get guns off the street of phila.that is cowardly,i am sure moron i mean mike never walked thru the streets of big cities at night,have you mike.all people have the right to be safe wherever they live,people like mike are part of the problem not part of the solution,all people have the right not to be shot.
Actually I grew up in Philly, worked in CC and also graduated from Olney High, apparently you must not have, I will say anymore I always pack a gun when going into CC. Which, since I’m a law-abiding person who has never been convicted of a felony, let alone arrested for one, enjoy that as my right, and the only thing the republicans are doing along with the 5 dems who voted with them are protecting the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. Maybe you should do a little more research before you open your mouth moron, I mean Joe. You can always access the PA legislatures website and see how your reps voted…..
Actually Joe, I don’t believe your facts are exactly accurate. Democrats in some rural areas haven’t been supportive of legislation either, especially at election time. As with most serious issues facing a city, state or nation, it is neither a yes or no answer nor a republican / democratic or black and white issue. The fact is that the constituents in rural areas do not support gun control and elect their democratic or republican lawmaker to carry out their areas wishes. You expect rural citizens to support an area of the state with special legislation and state funding in an area they choose not to live.
Mike’s prejudice is part of the problem, not his point. Joe, people have a right to not starve and the mentally disabled have a right not to be left on the street in the wealthiest nation in the world. These issues are much more significant than gun violence but not as sexy for the news or TV dramas. But since most people don’t feel threatened by the underfed, or mentally disabled, folks like you don’t raise the issue. It’s the old “as long as it’s not happening in my backyard” mentality.
Do you think violence and robbery will decrease when the root of the issue such as poverty and lack of education are not relieved? Walking through Philly at night my comfort level would not be drastically relieved feeling I was going to get robbed at knife point. The feeling is one of assault not the mechanism of which it takes place.
Some of you should be ashamed. Name-calling, bashing each other, antagonism, isn’t this how most violent crimes are started? Only difference here is we have big men in the comfy offices talking big and tough about a Larry Kane opinion piece. City-only gun laws are useless. How hard is it to take a bus from West Philly to West Chester to buy a gun? (answer: 1 bus) What about crime in surrounding areas like Darby, or even Allentown or Reading? Nothing will change without change from the very top, and that can’t happen soon enough. You say we don’t enforce the laws we have? True. But prosecuting to trial takes money. Police officers on the streets take money. I am sure the D.A’s would like to do their job to the fullest, but it’s tough when their budgets are cut and they can make double their salary in private practice. But shhhh, don’t mention raising taxes, everyone gets upset. But the US has a lower tax rate than all of those safer European countries. Think there is a correlation?
I have no problem with anyone exercising their right to carry or own a gun. If that’s how you’re living, do that. Personally, they scare the crap out of me, but if you’re okay with it, far be it for me to condemn you for it.
But even gun owners have no problem with being limited to one gun a month, according to a poll I heard on the news recently. They have no problem with your having to have a permit. They have no problem with your being required to have trigger locks. They have no problem with your having to report your gun lost or stolen (something that really makes sense to me because if that gun is used to kill someone and it’s registered to you, guess who the prime suspect automatically becomes?)
So why do the NRA and the Pennsylvania Legislature have a problem with a group of things that the majority of gun owners don’t have a problem with?
As for Philadelphia being allowed to make its own laws, that’ll never happen. Especially when you take into consideration that most of the state quietly wishes that we’d all kill ourselves so that they can have all of the tax revenue from our tourist attractions.
Whoa, Mike has to pack a gun to walk the streets of Philly? Does this mean you feel safer knowing that you can return fire if fired upon?
At least if you see the person before they take that shot and not end up like so many victims being shot from behind.
Just like the saying, “guns don’t kill, people do”
Well “guns don’t stop bullets either.”
Philly John makes valid point, with the exception that the only legislative delegation always pushing for further gun control is the Philadelphia delegation who are more interested in lining their pockets, or friends pockets or even their family. Like I said Philly has to take responsibility for the disaster that they have caused themselves, poor law-enforcement, poor work ethics on the prosecutors part. I just ask you to answer me one question! Why does Philadelphia not prosecute a gun-crime at the federal level, they are guaranteed a 5-year min. mandatory sentence for each felony count? Why? Because they don’t want to give up a liberal judges discretion or a prsecutors plea bargaining tool. As far as DC goes, they have not been able to have an operating firearm in their house since 1976, has that stopped people from being murdered with a firearm? No! It just makes the criminal know that it is safe to do whatever they want when they know that the general populace is unarmed and unable to defend themselves.
Denise asks serval questions. First why the NRA and PA’s legislature are against a one handgun a month restriction. 1st I say why should my rights be infringed because Philly can’t control it’s crime, #2 if, say a woman has a PFA against a stalker, whether boyfriend, Husband, doesn’t matter, she takes her gun out target shooting and the gun is defective, should she not have the right to buy a gun to defend herself while hers is being fixed? As far as gun locks go, if you have a gun for protection, do you realize how long it would take to remove a trigger lock, when your life is in danger, makes the gun pretty much useless, now I am all for safe-storage, and I have at least 30 firearms and all except the one I use for protection is locked up in safes. As far as the stolen gun bill, would not be an issue if it didn’t make the gun-owner a criminal if not reported in time. I’m sure the poll that said gun-owners are for these things came from the Brady violence Center and not any reliable source. If gun-owners were for these bills than the legislators would have passed them, instead of the loud outcry from gun-owners not to pass these bad bills, which is why you had such a pro-gun rights turn out on that day the votes were taken.
The last time the Feds tried to take over and prosecute gun crimes with Federal minimum sentences , John Street cried racism.
well it seems mike has a harse word for anyone that does not agree with him,mike you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem-that simple…larry we your bloggers ask for you to ban mike from your report on the pettition are:philly john/denise/al p/joe/jack/jon…please larry keep your report civilized.
I guess Mr. Jackson would just like to espouse his point of view without anyone to challenge them with facts and figures, since he does no research on the subject that he like to talk about. So, since someone actually knows what he is talking about, let’s ban him from commenting, because God-Forbid, someone challenges his point of view, and can actually back it up. Must really love to watch CNN.
And to be honest with you Mr. Jackson, it is people like you that are “The Problem”, the ones who just believe what they are told and follow like “Sheep”, you probablt still believe that the Earth is flat also!
Do you actually beleive the current round of laws that were up for a vote would solve the problem in Philly? A person looking to kill someone will always find a way.
And, Mr. Kordek is totally correct about the Street’s Administration crying racism, it was also racism when the feds indicted most of his administration for corruption also, or was it partisan politics? There is always some excuse for not using the tools at hand to discourage and stop violent crimes.
And, really Mr. Jackson, “What were the Harsh Words”? Get a grip, you sound like a little boy who takes his ball and goes home because the other kids won’t play by his rules.