Stephen Halbrook with CNN's Lou Dobbs on Gun Control

[MrLAYER2009]

@justjk47 and which ones does the government enfore more.....hmmm....at the moment its pretty obvious

[justjk47]

lou dobbs and gun nuts hate laws on guns but love laws on immigrants they rationalize restriction on guns even if they get guns they don't don't want it to be hard get guns but then they don't want to fix the immigration system sure i it's not the guns and criminals can kill other way but murder by guns are not unpreventivale there are rules to getting guns just like rules on immigration.

[daconqueror101]

I want insurance against politicians and idiots like that fucking piece of shit that spoke retardation

[markahg]

If i could give more than 1 thumbs up i would.

[marxbitesall]

Crooks get em black market anyway. Its law abiding citizens who's right it is to defend themselves when govt cant and against govt as was the founders intended front against tyranny, and boy do we have boatloads today.

[azteckike]

I support gun rights for protection but without a check background any idiot can get a gun and kill anybody....drug dealers and gangsters....

[azteckike]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[4] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with firearms used in 16,907 suicides in the United States during 2004.[6]

[ftorresgamez]

Sorry, Ken Dunkin is not the ex-Black Panther. That is actually Bobby Rush.

[ftorresgamez]

Ken Dunkin, the ex-Black Panther? That organization was a staunch defender of gun rights for blacks . . . Have this guy now turned to the enemy? Because most gun control proponents are also staunch racists (they don't want the "coloreds" to be armed.)

[EdgeStormcrow]

the government is engineering many shootings in the US, there will be more., They are late with their plans to disarm the public and trying to makeup time before something happens later mid 2009.

[MrRolodex]

are you sure its not the martians? I hear they have some FEMA camps in Atlantis. If only the government lifted the ban on ray guns!

[RoyalDemonforChrist]

have fun trying to confiscate them jackasses

[iamavet]

I know Obama supporters and Obama admin don't care what gun owners are saying but if they pass a law that requires registration of rifles, they will start a mini revolution which could led to civil war- if they enforce it.

Remember Ruby Ridge? If the ATF starts killing people because they disobeyed a registration law, people will start grouping together to defend their rights.

[umytbnxt1230]

You know what they say about Stop the Violence: shoot back...........that's how you stop gun violence.

[savetheguns]

How in the world does a guy like Ken Dunkin get elected? The man clearly has an intelligence quotient very similar to a common garden vegetable. Seriously, just by the inflections in his speech and his very limited vocabulary, one can easily tell he wouldn't even pass the latest U.S. Citizenship exam. Seriously, does every voter in his county need a lesson in how to go about choosing a legislator? GET HIM OUT OF THERE, HE'S CLEARLY OBTUSE AND UNQUALIFIED FOR PUBLIC OFFICE.

[KiddJesus]

time 2 stock up then

[azteckike]

i really respected lou dobbs but after this shit .... man! i dont know!! if he could see how Fort Worth and Dallas are... no body is calling to stop the right to use gun just keep it away from criminals...

[carter20081985]

ken dunkin i hope somebody breaks in ur house, maybe then you will understand, get the fuck out of illinois fuck head

[BenJr01]

Come and take my guns... you might get shot.

[etsneroj]

The 2d amendment does not provide an unqualified right to bare arms (none of our rights are unqualified). And registration requirements are in no way an infringement. It is a burden, but not one that keeps people from exercising their 2d amendment right. No more so than registration requirements to vote, for example.

[359Hellraiser]

The US Supreme court recently ruled the 2nd amendment IS an individual right. Do you know what that means? It means that if you have no malace, mischief, or criminal intent, you need permission from NO ONE to excercise that right! Requiring licences, regristration IS an infringment because it amounts to permission. Learn your rights as a free american!

[etsneroj]

That's not what an individual right means. I know my rights and the relevant legal issues very well because its my job as a lawyer. If you want to get up to spead, read the Court's opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. Its a very well written opinion that preserves the individual right while also recognizing the proper role of regulation.

[plannuier]

If the government required registration before you could criticize the government on a web site, attend a particular church, or have an abortion, you would not see that as a "burden" but as an outrageous infringement on your constitutional rights. Firearm registration is just as outrageous and unconstitutional. To argue otherwise merely exposes you as a hypocrite (at best) or a fascist (at worst).

[plannuier]

Furthermore, voter registration is intended to prevent fraud. Firearm registration prevents nothing; it is merely a way for the government to keep track of you.

[etsneroj]

Just as voter registration is intended to prevent fraud, weapon registration is intended to prevent dangerous people from owning dangerous weapons because that would be....dangerous. The rationale for registration couldn't be more obvious. If you think that the 2d amendment prevents states from making sure that violent criminals and the insane can't own a pistol, you need to read the Heller case. I also suggest you look up the words "hypocrite" and "fascist."

[choiwonsuh]

A permit and/or registration should NEVER be required to exercise an inherent RIGHT. A good standing citizen should NEVER be required to give up his/her rights for a social cause. Gun registration does practically NOTHING to stop dangerous people from possessing guns. Criminals DO NOT register guns!

[etsneroj]

No offense, but you don't know the first thing about constitutional law. First there is no such thing an an inherent right. Try defining that concept. Second, none of our rights are unqualified rights. Look up the major 1st amendment cases, for example. Third, unless you work in law enforcement, you have no idea how useful gun registration data is.

[mclapper333]

Constitutional Law does not supersede the Constitution itself. Various Supreme Court decisions have twisted the meaning of the document itself into meaninglessness, generally for nothing more lofty than politics. Should these cases be given precedent over the Constitution?

I think not. Bad law is bad law regardless of the source. Congress shall pass no law... and shall not be infringed are unqualified statements, regardless of what some appointed political body opines on.

[etsneroj]

You're statement, "constitutional law does not supersede [sic] the Constitution itself," is self-contradicting. Under Article III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the constitution. So, one cannot supercede the other; they're interdependent parts of the same thing: constitutional law. The 2d amendement means what the Court says it means. And our most learned conservative Justice (Scalia) writing for the Court said its an individual, but not unqualified right.

[mclapper333]

Wrong - Article III gives no authority to interpret the Constitution - to the courts or any other entity. The Constitution does specifically state, however, that the Consitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby. It is the height of absurdity to pretend that unelected ustices can rewrite the Supreme Law of the Land to suit their whims. The Constitution gives force to constitution law - it is NOT governed by it.

[etsneroj]

Article III says: "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court...[and]...shall extend to all Cases...arising under the Constitution." You cannot decide cases under the constitution without interpreting it. And if you think the Constitution is a self-interpreting document, clear in every application, you need to talk with any practicing lawyer or judge.

[mclapper333]

That is hardly the same thing. I reiterate my point - The Constitution gives NO authority to "interpret". If judges and lawyers find it more difficult to do their jobs as a result - tough. Allowing the USSC to rewrite the Constitution without authority is a ridiculous practice and has lead us into a quagmire of bad law based on corrupt politics. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed - court opinions notwithstanding.

[etsneroj]

I agree with you that judges should not "rewrite" the Constitution, by which I assume you mean to deliberately distort the text of the Constitution to suit their policy preferences. As a conservative lawyer, I agree with that. But you will find upon reflection that your understanding of what judges must do to decide cases is crude and uninformed. Watch some of the youtube videos of the conservative Judge Robert Bork explaining the proper exercise of interpretation by a judge.

[mclapper333]

That is very true and I can agree with that. I also am a practicing attorney. In my opinion, however, the further from the Constitution a decision on an individual case requires, the more the force, scope and applicability of that decision must decay. The Marbury decision itself "created" judicial review - as authority to interpret is not in the Constitution - nor is the USSC givern exclusive jurisdiction. That decision needs to be downplayed and reversed imo.

[etsneroj]

Some would say Marbury created judicial review. I would say it merely "announced" a principle that must be deduced from Article III. I just don't understand how the Court would decide a case, as required under the Constitution, without interpreting its application in that case. As an attorney, don't you recognize that the proper applciation of a statute, regulation, court ruling or constitutional clause is often ambiguous?

[mclapper333]

I've seen cases where the law doesn't seem to cover the facts of a particular case. Those cases can be tough - but often the best answer under a rule of law system, is that the law provides no remedy. Sometimes we have to set aside our feelings of right and wrong to uphold the integrity of a system that raises the collective value of humanity itself (from the richest to the poorest), even if it means an individual grievance is not addressed. This applies most for Constitutional law I think.

[mclapper333]

That doesn't mean there should be no redress - just not a government supplied redress. I think in a free society, we have to encourage our fellow citizens to provide private assistance, and leave the government to its proper scope. Tyranny too often comes in the form of good intentions.

[etsneroj]

I agree with a lot of the principles you've articulated. I guess we just disagree on the full extent to which they apply to court cases. I agree about personal feelings being irrelevant, but "judgment" is different than feelings. Judgment is almost always required to decide a case. Even if the law provides no remedy, a judge must use his/her judgment to reach that conclusion based on an interpretation of the relevant statute, precedents, regulation, constitution, etc.

[choiwonsuh]

@ etsneroj, No offense taken. I'm no expert. I'm just a Joe Schmo who lives in a not-so-great neighborhood, and I see 14 year olds out here with guns. Gun registration or any gun control law out there did nothing to stop them from getting guns or making my neighborhood safer. As for inherent rights, we inherently have the right to breathe. Shall we register that right as well? I would disagree if someone told you to stop breathing for the sake of society... Let me breathe, my brother!

[etsneroj]

You do have a right to breath. Its the right to "life" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, which says the state can take away your right to life, but only if it provides "due process" (i.e., a fair trial, etc.). As for gun control laws, I believe some of them are constitutional, others are not (like the DC gun ban). But I'm no expert on which ones make the most policy sense. That's a separate, non-legal issue.

[choiwonsuh]

My above response had some little errors... please excuse! But anyway, please, school me on what qualifies a right.

[etsneroj]

"You're 4x more likely to die from a fire than a gun-related injury" This fact is totally irrelevant. You're probably 1000x more likely to die from a fire than from smoking pot, but pot is flat-out illegal (not just regulated). What is relevant is the fight against violent crime. And what % of violent crimes are committed with guns?

[StinkFingerr]

I'd like to point out that gun restrictions on regular citizens have never equaled criminal gun control .Never will.

[OgeronimonominoregO]

I want that lawless commie "legislator" to pony up a million dollar policy for being a highly dangerous weapon himself. He's a criminal and a threat to all peaceful freedom-loving people.

These people will stop at nothing until they have destroyed this country utterly. They should all be tried for treason and put in prison.

[xv00jd]

Good stuff, and yet scary. Mass registration, ammo tax, expensive insurance, all designed to create a legal minefield for gun owners, and snuff the Right To Bare Arms.

[baa5000]

thank goodness for Lou! Finally a smart, clean, and articulate gun owner ;-)

[angusnra]

kudos to Lou Dobbs. I'm surprised CNN didn't fire him. Great job, Mr. Dobbs. B. Hussein Obama will destroy this great nation. Fuck Obama bin Biden

[flyguy30263]

Any American that dosn't support the 2nd Amendment needs to go back to History class! It's a fundamental building block upon which this country was formed. Become educated before you make stupid remarks! Gun ownership is the only thing that keeps us FREE!

[gogbat]

Lou is not the idiot. America has these things called lobbiests. Its these people (the NRA, and the NSSF) that are most likely forcing them to run that story. I just would hope to think that he is not doing it because he wants to. In my opinion the 2nd Amendment is a contentious issue. I don't know what the hell to say.

[nerevarine69]

you don't know what the hell to say because you are a moron. you do know that Lou is a gun owner right?

[Grad2011]

CNN isn't pressured by the NRA and the NSSF. Watch CNN and you RARELY see them support Second Amendment Rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

[laziofarid]

Fuck Lou

[nazarethguy]

your an idiot. Lou is about the only one left telling it like it is..