Up for Debate: One man's gun-law battle

Friday, July 27, 2012 at 12:39am

What do you think of Leonard Embody's challenges to gun laws, both in the courtroom and in public?

Filed under: City Voices
Tagged: Up for Debate

125 Comments on this post:

By: dargent7 on 7/27/12 at 3:13

Yogi: All your, "You're wrong and I'm right" reminds me of Dana Perino's comment that "The USA has never experienced a terrorist threat while George W. Bush has been President..." Pointing out 9/11 she said, 'Except 9/11". (Suprised the moron even knew Pearl Harbor was in Hawai'i and not Singapore).
That's the deck you morons have been dealt. Good luck.

By: yogiman on 7/27/12 at 3:21

A few interesting quotes from our Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment:

"The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be INHERENT TO THE PEOPLE".
- Fisher Ames, Mass. Rep.

"The people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tenche Coxe, his remarks on the First part of the Amendment to keep the Federal Constitution.

In 1833, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote: "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the Liberties of the Republic, since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

James Madison's original draft of the Second Amendment was: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated Militia being the best security of a free country."

George Mason, the Father of the Bill of Rights wrote: "What is the Militia? It is the whole people! To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them".

Thomas Jefferson's commonplace book, 1774-1776, quoting from "On Crimes and Punishment" (1764) by criminologist Cesare Beccaria:Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crime...such laws make it worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Facts: Switzerland has a National law that requires every household to have at least one gun. The result: the have the lowest crime rate in the world where Washington DC is the "Murder Capital of the World".

If our founders were present today, what would the think? What would they do? Perhaps abolish the 'some' 1,700 anti-2nd Amendment/anti-gun laws on the books?

By: Beernazi on 7/27/12 at 3:23

yogi has no reading comprehension skills but he sure knows how to cut and paste!

By: bfra on 7/27/12 at 3:28

He never did respond to the selling of guns to Muslims, after he was shown to be wrong. Guess he doesn't remember who was President in 2007. It would be hard without a brain.

By: yogiman on 7/27/12 at 3:31

That's called passing information along, Beernazi. Usually known as history. That's where you gain knowledge. You're taught by others. That is, unless they're you.

It is good to be the originator at times, but you can't be every time... even you.

I wish I had the intelligence you seem to think you have.

By: yogiman on 7/27/12 at 3:36

Tell me, bfra (bad fart repeating again), why should I read any thing any of you throw at me when you never read any I suggest to you?

By: bfra on 7/27/12 at 3:40

That's right yogi, you must be alergic to "FACTS", as you wallow in trash & garbage.

By: Beernazi on 7/27/12 at 3:42

yogi, you're usually the queen of misinformation! I don't call "misinformation" history! And doing a cut and paste is far from being an "originator" but I guess that's as close as you can get.

By: Beernazi on 7/27/12 at 3:43

Hey, I do have some mad jedi reading comprehension skilz - I know who was president in 2007! Funny how that works.

By: Beernazi on 7/27/12 at 3:50

Later, taters. Have a good weekend!

By: bfra on 7/27/12 at 3:59

Beernaze, oh he read it and doesn't have guts enough to admit he is wrong.

By: bfra on 7/27/12 at 4:13

OOPS! Should have been nazi.

By: yogiman on 7/27/12 at 4:31

Wrong, big fart,

I went back and checked what I had read on the 60b issue and then went back to Beernazi's referral. They were different articles. The article I had read did not mention Bush's name or the time the deal began so I presumed it was Barry's fault.

I apologize, I just don't know what information they're going to issue later.

So now the question is: Why did Obama follow that deal through if he was so opposed to Bush?

By: bfra on 7/27/12 at 4:51

Yogi little fart, you don't have enough sense to be big anything, even a fart in your diaper. If you couldn't read the info presented & admit you are wrong, then you have no guts!

By: yogiman on 7/27/12 at 5:19

Damn, bad fart, (or should I make that big fart?) can't you read?

I made a simple point the two articles were different. I read the article I saw. I had no reason to believe there was any information left out of it.

Beernazi's article was entirely different on the same subject. Now consider (if you have the capacity), which of those article was correct? I'd say Beernazi thinks her's was because that's the one she read.

Maybe you need to check into school early next week so you can get a desk in the front of your class. You can hear better up front.

By: pswindle on 7/27/12 at 5:52

If everyone was sane and could handle gun ownership, we would not need laws. But, with our society, guns laws must be in place. I'm with President Obama, who needs guns that could mow down a whole threater of people.

By: yogiman on 7/27/12 at 6:38


I agree with you to the point no "normal" person needs an AK-47. But as you should know, there are those that want them, even if they just want to look at them and handle them... at home. Hell, it would take wealthy man to have one of those guns and use them for practice.

But if Obama gets his hands on one model of guns, he will use that as his first step in absolute gun control.

Obama needs to be seen for what he is, and he isn't a normal party Democrat. The communist party now has a number of people in the Democrat party.

I hope you all learn before it's too late.

By: parnell3rd on 7/27/12 at 10:26

we the gov't see no need for a normal person to own a car, truck or motorcycle. 45,000-55,000 people die every year in accident's, drunk driving, and road rage. We recomend you turn your vehicles in to the gov't who will do the responsible thing by giving you a bicycle or forcing you to ride the bus.

If I told you that I knew of how 13 millions American's have died, murdered, aborted, since the 70's would liberals be upset ? Probly not. But it has happened right here in our own Country. One Doctor in his carrer performed 36,000 late term abortions in his career. I bet liberals worship him.

Planned Parenthood had aborted more Black Children than all known disease's since the doors opened. If your a liberal, you must be a racist for not standing up against these atrocities.

By: dargent7 on 7/28/12 at 5:08

Whether it's an AK-47 or a AR-15, or extended magazines with 32 rounds. Don't say the Second Amendment "protects" them for home use and especially our "Founding Fathers" had the insight and vision to allow for their use.
Next you Teapublicans will say is that The Founding Fathers wanted them sold over the Internet w/o any backround checks or in Walmart parking lots.

By: budlight on 7/28/12 at 5:09

Parnell, you make too much sense. Liberals do not understand logic.

And they think the gun used was a rapid fire automatic. It was not. On a rapid fire automatic weapon, you only have to pull the trigger one time. On the type of weapon the joker used, he had to pull the trigger every time; that is why they thought he was reloading.

The auto accident analogy is excellent. I totally see your point. But again, liberals do not have critical thinking skills in place. That is why they jump on every band wagon that comes along, especially if it's loaded with hate and/or free stuff.

The founder of Planned parenthood was a blatant racist.

Have a good saturday.

By: Rasputin72 on 7/28/12 at 5:31

I have always been in favor of abortion. I guess the reason I have been in favor of abortion is that no one has told me who is going to take care of the children that are allowed to be born to women who do not want them?

I have also felt very strongly that the majority of abortions (not all) were performed on women that perhaps should not have been on earth in the first place.

I understand the bleeding hearts and the do-gooders have a legitimate case but all I see for their cause is more crime and more welfare.

As for myself, I would never intentionally and knowingly abort a child that I knew was mine. That child however would never be on welfare. To me abortion is strictly a matter of choice.

By: yogiman on 7/28/12 at 5:40


You argument is questionable. Our founders didn't have the guns in their days we have now. They didn't even have pickup trucks to run around town.

But skills toward easy living has advanced every year since our founding. So what kind of gun will our heirs have in the next 100 years? Today's weapons will be antiques.

By: yogiman on 7/28/12 at 6:32

Good for the NRA! Through their efforts they got the UN out of the picture to take control over the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution which blocked Barry from signing his beloved want to control bill.

By: Ask01 on 7/29/12 at 7:27

So many broadly diverse subjects, one hardly knows where to start.

More restrictive gun laws are counterproductive because the only ones punished are the legal citizens wishing to own a firearm, whether for protection, peace of mind, a security blanket, to admire, or to compensate for some deficiency.

It is somewhat sophmoric, but true, that when guns are banned, only criminals will have guns. (The police will, of course, still have guns, but response times are iffy.)

Trying to openly carry a weapon, even legally, in public will attract attention, especially after an incident such as in Colorado. Anyone doing so is just trying to test the system and provoke an incident, and, unless such an act incidental to making some relevant point about a perceived wrong or other issue, I believe is wrong.

So far, all the predictions of high noon shoot outs have failed to matrialize, and we have been treated to the spectacle of a primary advocate being arrested for DUI and possession of a firearm, albeit a licensed one. Good for a few laughs.

As far as class struggle, we have always had the upper income classes, lower income classes at the ends, and in the middle a large middle class.The problem, for the upper classes anyway, is the middle class has been, as noted severely eroded, all the while witnessing the upper classes amassing even more wealth as they sink ever lower.

The ultimate slap in the face, sort of a "Let them eat cake," moment is being told they should have worked harder, studied harder, bought a smaller house, all manner of utterances blaming the middle class for the economic situation brought on by corporate greed.

The middle class is scared and angry, particularly those who have lost, and are in danger of losing the most. This makes the embattled middle class dangerous, because they will eventually lash out. Hopefully, this backlash will only be at the ballot box, as they turn out those they associate with the upper class and 1%, and elect whichever party they feel will best help them regain that which they have lost.

Of course, as I've pointed out before, throughout history one finds examples of the lower classes rising to drag down their elitist oppressors.

Are the middle classes at the point they will institute an social and economic revolution, toppling upper class financial dynasties? My impression is the time is ripe. I believe the upper class and their political supporters know this, and is one reason for the drastic restructing of districts and attempts to stifle the voting by some of the less 'reliable' voters.

Who knows, the class revolt advocated by the hippies might just finally arrive.

By: yogiman on 7/29/12 at 8:30


I believe it's quite evident there are more criminals in nations that maintain gun control and more crimes are committed in those nations.

I understand there's very little crime occurring in Switzerland where, by law, every home has to have a gun.

Look at what began to take place in Canada, Australia and England when gun rights were taken from the citizens. And look at every nation that has a dictator. No dictator want's their "slaves" to have a gun. Hell, they might rebel and kill that damned dictator.