Joining rallies at statehouses across the country, hundreds of gun owners and Second Amendment advocates descended upon Arizona's Capitol on Saturday in support of gun rights amid federal proposals aimed at new strict gun controls.
Around 500 protesters, some carrying rifles and holstered handguns, waved signs that said "We respect gun rights" and "Defend your constitution before it is too weak to defend." One man dressed as a Revolutionary War Minuteman carried an antique 1800s-style long rifle, with sign saying "Tyrants Beware - 1776."
Eric Cashman, a 50-year-old self-described political activist from Phoenix, said he was at the Phoenix rally to counter what he called an effort by progressives to disarm the population. He said he was opposed to President Barack Obama's effort to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, saying it would be a first step toward disarming American citizens.
"We're out here because this country had some very wise founding fathers and they knew they were being oppressed when they were a British colony," Cashman said. "Had they not had their firearms ... to stand up against the British, we'd still be a British colony and we wouldn't have the freedoms that we've enjoyed all these years."
The group Guns Across America organized the rally as part of "Gun Appreciation Day" across the country. Phoenix's rally was one of many slated to take place nationwide thanks to a loosely organized campaign via social media sponsors by the Washington D.C.-based group Political Media.
Cashman noted that the rally was peaceful and there were no arrests. The weapons on display actually made it a safe event, he said.
"Had Gabrielle Giffords been doing her speech in this crowd, she'd be perfectly healthy today," Cashman said, referring to the former congresswoman who was wounded by a gunman who killed six people at a Tucson supermarket.
Jonathan Schmadeke, 36, of Goodyear, was carrying an AR-15-style assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine, because he said, "It's my right."
Unlike many others at the rally, Schmadeke said he understood the arguments that some new gun restrictions were needed.
"I can see where they're coming from, absolutely," he said. "I'm a hunter, a target shooter and I enjoy personal protection, but 30 rounds might be too much.
"But then again, if you have vehicle that can go 200 mph and the speed limit's 65, why have that car?"
westwindwalker posted at 5:24 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.
Thanks for being there today at the Capitol Building in Phoenix!. I wish I could have made it to show publicly that I support our right as Americans citizenns to continue to bear arms. Our Constitution and the 2nd Amendment must be protected and cannot be diminished through executive orders of a president. The gun banners arguments about making America safer are simply not truthful For instance, Chicago has strong gun control laws yet also one of the highest murder per capita rates in the USA. How about focusing some of that energy being used to attempt disarming the American people on making the out of control Big Pharma responsible for the over medication, and violent side effects evidenced in the actions of these crazy shooters? Its' time for THAT discussion rather than the onus being focused on gun control, and setting a system in place to disarm law abiding citizens.
DataMan posted at 6:17 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.
I wish someone from the pro-gun fest today, EXACTLY how any of the 23 Orders signed this week restrict their rights or freedoms in the slightest.
Then, after reading the "Militia Act" (signed by G Washington, and yes, the Militia in the 2nd Amendment), they can explain why Washington used the 2nd amendment militia, to put down the "Whiskey Rebellion", a group that wanted to attack the US Government.
Unless the founding fathers had far too many dead brain cells, they would not, in the second amendment said "If you don't like what we are doing, you can shoot us!"
The guy with a three corner hat seems to have another point on the top of his head, and has NO idea what the founding fathers were thinking!
The long time NRA member, defended of the 2nd amendment and father of modern conservatives, Ronald Reagan, not only wanted a ban on assault weapons, but was involved with both the "Brady Bill" and the ban on fully autos. As CA Gov, he signed the bill making it illegal to open carry a loaded gun in CA.
These people should really have just stayed home and read a history book today.
DataMan posted at 6:30 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.
fix: "could explain" EXACTLY....
Winston Wolf posted at 6:43 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.
It's is so encouraging to see the good people of Arizona stand up and support the Constitution and Second Amendment.
These patriots have my support - and I'm a Hispanic Democrat !
KevinMyrers posted at 7:24 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.
@DataMan
Seems like you have short term history loss, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Bill) was deem unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
MV55 posted at 7:55 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.
The founders intended for us to be as well armed as the Government to prevent them from being able to overcome us by force. The second Amendment doesn’t say anything about what type of arms or quantity or how large a magazine you can have or the amount of ammunition. Quite frankly, that is no one’s business at all. The same can be said of registration. No one has any right to know if you are armed or how many weapons you have. Remember: Gun control is not about guns; it's about control!!
Harbinger posted at 10:13 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.
If you want to see the results of genecide go to Bosnia and Croatia. Ask them if they had to do it over again. What they would choose.
Harbinger posted at 10:20 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.
Where were all the liberals today?
DataMan posted at 5:22 am on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
Uh, Kevin. The Brady Bill was NOT ruled unconstitutional. It is still in effect today.
MV55. Nope. You're wrong. The founding fathers, in the main Constitution, have many provisions to handle an attempted takeover of the US by insurgents, like for example, when Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion! Can you own a nuke? That is an arm! Can you buy a fully auto without permits and checks?
DataMan posted at 5:44 am on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
Here is an example of "responsible gun owners"
5 accidentally shot at gun shows in North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana
By Vignesh Ramachandran, Staff Writer, NBC News
Five people were wounded in accidents at gun shows in North Carolina, Ohio and Indiana on Saturday, according to authorities.
wdgnas posted at 7:20 am on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
"But then again, if you have vehicle that can go 200 mph and the speed limit's 65, why have that car?" because it is cool.
anyone suggesting you need a rifle firing .223 ammo and 30 rounds to hunt game (deer or elk) is delusional. be honest. it is cool.
KevinMyrers posted at 10:05 am on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
@DataMan
There is a law on the books called the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act but the Supreme Court gutted the provision that gave it teeth. See Printz v. United States, it's easy. You can Google it.
az2008 posted at 2:32 pm on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
Kevin, the only part of Brady background checks which was found unconstitutional was the requirement on local/state law enforcement to perform background checks.
Nothing was found unconstitutional as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment or the personal right to own firearms. The federal government has a constitutional power to regulate firearms. It just couldn't require states to do it.
az2008 posted at 2:38 pm on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
MV55, your reply implies the limits we have today on private arms ownership is ok, but anything else would be unconstitutional. But, what makes today's limits constitutional? Where in the constitution does it say full auto should be virtually banned? Or, that barrel lengths should be a minimum size? Or, that unidirectional arms (grenades, land mines) aren't allowed? Or, that .50 bore diameter is the limit, preventing you from owning a howitzer?
Where the lines are drawn will always be arbitrary and subject to "balancing competing interests" (just as we do with the 1st Amendment's time/manner/place restrictions).
There's nothing wrong with debating why .50 is better than .40. Or, 18" is better than 16". (Or, bayonet lugs don't make a firearm more lethal.). But, dismissing other views as "the constitution doesn't say..." is not honest discussion.
az2008 posted at 2:47 pm on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
Data, right on. Modern self-claimed "patriots" have a quaint notion that tyranny and righteousness were clearly delineated. But, the founding generation *chose* to dissolve their libertarian Articles of Confederation after just 12 years, in favor of a (by comparison) massive federal government of 1789.
The reason? Largely a result of Shay's rebellion. The public was horrified by the ease with which Americans could go on a violent rampage, using patriotic rhetoric from a decade earlier. The public wanted a stronger, more effective government to ensure order. That's one reason the 2nd Amendment includes "well-regulated militia." They had fresh experience with self-anointed militia. When they distributed martial force among the population, they wanted to distinguish that it was to serve an official collective purpose, not a private group of men deciding it was time to rebel.
Even Benjamin Franklin was a Federalist. He's often quoted today for his "trade liberty for safety deserve neither." But, he was on the side of trading the libertarian Articles of Confederation for the relative gargantuan proposed government!
When I read stories like this, it makes me cringe. A person dressing up like a Minuteman, holding a threatening sign has far more in common with Shay and his men who pushed the founding generation toward larger government! It's shallow, self-serving and counter productive.
Deddzone posted at 3:21 pm on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
Well, you have the right to peacefully protest. What I see? A crowd of mostly greying white males. That's fine.
But consider at one time there were no strict drunk-driving laws. Also, the tobacco industry was once massive and poured a lot of money into fighting against changing the laws. In fact, the gun lobby watched the tobacco industry lose in court and took great measures to make that didn't happen to them. Says a lot about what they feared might happen and did.
But the wheels are in motion and there will be stricter gun laws. Background checks for all, no more gun shows (gee the last few days were not good for being safe at SEVERAL gun shows). I do think they will want stricter ID of mentally ill and a data base. It will take time, but it will happen.
KevinMyrers posted at 3:51 pm on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
@az2008
No. For the Federal Government it is a catch-22, a paradox without and answer (Russell's paradox). Your logic is flawed. If they don't get the several states to enforce the law, then who does? Remove the states and the Federal Government has no power, after all, the several states wrote the Constitution that created the Federal Government.
Remove the states and the Federal Government ceases to exist. Also, the opposite to this equation is: Destroy the Federal Government and the several states remain to reconstruct another government.
The Founding Fathers knew the such power could not be entrusted in the hands of men, even men like themselves.
I repeat, your logic is flawed. The Second Amendment was put into place to keep the Federal Government in place when, no if, it got out of hand. For the Federal Government an armed citizenry are the gatekeepers to hell and they are, rightfully so, very afraid. Afraid enough to lie, cheat, steal and kill to keep that power.
If you believe otherwise, you are living in a fantasy world.
az2008 posted at 5:52 pm on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
Kevin, The federal government licenses firearms dealers and can require them to comply with a multitude of requirements. Today, background checks are conducted through the federally-administered NICS system. It was only in the early days (pre '98) that states or local sheriffs were required to conduct the background check. That's the part which was found unconstitutional.
There is no "catch-22". At worst, states are induced by conditions placed on federally funded projects to feed the federal database with local/state crime records. Prior to 98 this was called an "unfunded mandate." Today it's just like hundreds of other mutual relationships between states and the federal government.
(continued due to this site's uninformative sp@m error)
az2008 posted at 5:53 pm on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
(continued)
As far as your repeated "without states there would be no..." I think that topic was settled in 1865. The federal constitution contains a supremacy clause making its laws superior to state law, reserving only to the states areas which the federal government has not legislated. The constitution also requires the federal government to ensure each state possesses a republican form of government. If anything is a Catch-22, that is. It essentially eliminates any possibility for states to withdraw from the union (as you suggest is possible). Withdrawing from the union would be the antithesis of republicanism. The only "opt out" provision is to amend the Constitution or hold a Constitutional Convention.
As for your assertion that armed citizens are the gatekeepers, that is simply not true. It was this belief which fueled Shay and the later Whiskey rebellions. Those did not turn out well (the former leading the founding generation to ditch libertarianism in favor of *much* larger government).
Arms possession was universal so that states could replenish their state militias if the federal government called those militias into service. It was to ensure states always had the ability to raise martial forces in opposition to federal tyranny.
(continued due to this site's uninformative sp@m error)
az2008 posted at 5:55 pm on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
(continued)
The subtle difference between your description and mine is that the armed populace existed to participate within a state-created framework and organization. Not, as you describe, in "Red Dawn" fashion. It was the state which gave an "uprising" legitimacy. Without that legitimacy, it was just a group of armed men like Shay and Whiskey rebellions.
The problem for those who argue a right of revolt: the state militia has fallen into disuse since the 1903 D@ck Act created the National Guard. There is no participation. The 2nd Amendment has no purpose *in practice*. I'm not making fun of self-styled patriots.
I think it's disturbing that an important element of democracy, something which cultivated civic virtue (political maturity) has disappeared. But, the solution is to address that topic and work toward reconstituting the militia, or some of its goals. The solution isn't to pretend like millions of gun owners will rise up in unison to save the country from oppression. It was *that* attitude which led to larger government and the 2nd Amendment *explicitly* referring to a regulated militia -- not a libertine, organic movement rising from a lassez faire populace.
The problem is that self-styled patriots appeal to something most Americans don't identify with, and which 95% of gun owners don't buy a gun for. They hijack the topic of private self defense against crime (something protected by the 14th Amendment's incorporation of the 2nd) and make gun owners sound like cultists who cling to fringe beliefs.
Most of us don't agree with you. It's not to say you don't have a valid point. It's just that your point has no modern meaning. Until the organization of martial force is reinstituted, you just sound fringe. Appealing to the founders doesn't support your argument because they opposed such self-ingratiating heroics.
KevinMyrers posted at 9:06 pm on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
@az2008
You do live in a fantasy world. Also, we do not live in a Democracy.
KevinMyrers posted at 12:42 am on Mon, Jan 21, 2013.
@az2008
You said: “The constitution also requires the federal government to ensure each state possesses a republican form of government“.
Really, then why do Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Kentucky not have that form of government? You better find out what’s up because it looks like you just got caught with your hand in the ignorant cookie jar. I hear those ignorant cookies taste a little bit like crow.
az2008 posted at 1:59 am on Mon, Jan 21, 2013.
Kevin, the distinction between "republic" and "democracy" (or commonwealth) is not a bright line. In its simplest form, a republic discourages direct democracy. Using that literal interpretation, we could say Arizona is not a republican form of government because we have the referrendum (amending the constitution by direct vote).
If we take a different literal approach, republic means a social contract respecting inalienable rights which cannot be voted away. But, the constitution of 1789 technically *did* vote away rights -- when the founding generation exited the libertarian Articles of Confederation for the relatively *massive* new, centralized government which had the power to exert "reasonable" searches and seizures (reasonable to be determined by changing contemporary circumstances). Or, the power to take property with "just" compensation (the new government being the arbiter of "just"). Or, quarter troops in private homes against the owner's consent. Or, to sell firearms without the broad "commerce clause" being applied against you (in the form of tax stamps and FFL licenses). Or, the right of New York citizens to charge neighboring states usurious prices for the use of their deep-water harbor.
(continued due to this site's uninformative sp@m error)
az2008 posted at 2:00 am on Mon, Jan 21, 2013.
(continued)
Those (and hundreds of others) were things individuals lost. All you have to do is skim the pages of the Anti-federalist papers to see how rights were literally voted away -- contrary to republican principles.
(continued due to this site's uninformative sp@m error)
az2008 posted at 2:01 am on Mon, Jan 21, 2013.
(continued)
Ergo, the bottom line is that republics are constituted and amended by a democratic process. It's just a matter of degrees. People usually introduce the "we're not a _fill in the blank_" to talk past the other person, derailing a conversation, using what is essentially a nebulous topic which nobody has ever been able to agree upon.
The only thing I tried to address was your implication that states are superior to the federal government, and could withdraw leaving the federal government powerless. That's difficult to imagine when departure from the union would eliminate the union's ability to ensure republican government. That is (and was in 1867) the tool for preventing states from opting out.
The only opt out mechanism is to hold a constitutional convention. Which means the federal government is superior, as it can hold states to that level of republican (non-direct vote) obligation.
KevinMyrers posted at 12:18 pm on Mon, Jan 21, 2013.
@az2008
Democracy vs Republic, not a pale line.
James Madison wrote:
Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
KevinMyrers posted at 12:28 pm on Mon, Jan 21, 2013.
@az2008
Democracy vs Republic, not a pale line.
Alexander Hamilton wrote:
It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.
And
“We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.”
KevinMyrers posted at 12:33 pm on Mon, Jan 21, 2013.
@az2008
Democracy vs Republic, not a pale line.
Samuel Adams wrote:
Agreed with Madison in saying, “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”
KevinMyrers posted at 12:39 pm on Mon, Jan 21, 2013.
@az2008
Democracy vs Republic, not a pale line.
Consider the old west. Back int he days of Jesse James, Wyatt Earp, cowboys and Indians. Consider a lynch mob in a democracy. 25 lynchpin chasing one lone gunman. They find someone they think is the guy or maybe it is the guy. They vote 25 to 1 to hang him. Democracy has triumphed and there is one less gunman in the world. But let’s paint that same scenario in a republic. They vote 25 to 1 to hang the gunman. But the sheriff shows and stops them saying the man has the right to a fair trial. The gunman gets a trial by a jury of his peers. Even the jury cannot decide by majority rule. It must be unanimous. The rights of the gunman are not subject to majority rule, but by law. This is the essence of a republic.
The word democracy is not in he Constitution or the Constitutions of any of the 50 states. The Founding Fathers did their best to keep us from having a democracy.