2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms v. Common Sense
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
The right to bear arms, like the right of free speech, is a limited right and not an unalienable (absolute) right such as life, liberty and property.
In striking down the District of Columbia’s law banning handgun possession (Columbia ET AL. v. Heller) even the most conservative of the justices had to concede: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” In his opinion Justice Scalia reaffirmed Cruikshank (1894): “The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.” 92 U. S., at 553. States, we said, were free to restrict or protect the right under their police powers.”
This gives rise to a dilemma where does an individuals right to bear arms end and the States’ obligation to protect the population under their police powers begin.
In the Heller decision the Supreme Court gives us some guidance: “For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s (1939) holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those - in common use at the time - finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”
Have we struck the right balance between an individual’s limited right to bear arms and the obligation of the States under their police powers to protect our citizens? The statistics suggest we have not been as prudent as any of the other industrial democracies. In fact, we stand out to such a degree that it makes one wonder if we have been able to strike any balance at all.
Firearm Related Deaths By Country
Rate per 100,000 Population Per Year
| Country |
Firearm Homicide |
Firearm Suicide |
Firearm Unintentional |
| United States | 3.72 | 7.35 | .59 |
| Australia | .44 | 2.35 | .11 |
| Belgium | .60 | 2.56 | .06 |
| Canada | .76 | 3.72 | .22 |
| Denmark | .23 | 2.25 | .04 |
| England | .15 | .2 | .03 |
| France | .44 | 5.14 | .11 |
| Germany | .22 | 1.17 | .04 |
| Israel | .72 | 1.84 | .13 |
| Italy | 1.66 | 1.11 | .11 |
| Japan | .07 | .04 | 0 |
The problem seems to be exacerbated when it comes to our children. In a report on firearm-related deaths among children in 26 industrial countries the Center for Disease Control (CDC) observed: “The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less than 15 years was nearly 12 times higher than among children in the other 25 countries combined (1.66 compared with 0.14). The firearm-related homicide rate in the United States was nearly 16 times higher than that in all of the other countries combined (0.94 compared with 0.06); the firearm-related suicide rate was nearly 11 times higher (0.32 compared with 0.03); and the unintentional firearm-related death rate was nine times higher (0.36 compared with 0.04).”
In addition to these serious problems we are confronted with the reality that the United States has become the de facto gun dealer for the Mexican drug cartels. Mexican drug cartels have stocked up on U.S. purchased semiautomatic AK-47 and AR-15 rifles, converting some to machineguns. They have also bought .50 caliber rifles capable of stopping a car and Belgian pistols able to fire rifle rounds that will penetrate body armor. Since Congress lifted the ban on assault rifles in 2004, more and more of the weapons recovered in Mexico have been military-style rifles like the AK-47s or the AR-15.
U.S. Federal agents say about 90 percent of the 12,000 pistols and rifles the Mexican authorities recovered from drug dealers last year were traced to dealers in the United State. Most come from Texas and Arizona.
In light of the above, what actions would be prudent, yet still respect the basic principles embodied in the 2nd amendmen?.
1. Ban assault rifles! There is no justification in the 2nd Amendment for allowing individuals to own such weapons. They are of no value to real hunters, they are not needed for self protection, will not stave off a foreign invasion nor protect the populace from a rogue U.S. military action. The only practical effect the sale of assault rifles has had has been to arm foreigners (e.g. Mexican drug cartel) so that they are in a position to challenge U.S. law enforcement.
2. Ban weapons not only near schools and government buildings, but also in other sensitive areas such as in crowded cities where so much gun violence takes place.
3. Ban concealed weapons. Allowing small weapons to be concealed does not enhance self-defense or the defense of one’s home. If we want a deterrent, an open show is probably more effective.
4. If children reside in a home where guns are kept, safety measures such as childproof trigger locks should be required. Since we require window guards in apartments where children live, childproofing guns seems as reasonable.
5. Since the Court agrees that certain individuals should not be granted the right to bear arms, the only practical way to enforce such a restriction is to enact laws that require rigorous background checks before a gun can be purchased.
“The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” James Madison, the author of the 2nd Amendment. Neither James Madison nor any other founder believed that the right to bear arms was an unalienable right, but rather one that should be subject to reasonable restrictions.
Wow i just saw this on the side bar and thought:
“what the heck. lets check it out.”
I cannot beleive half the stuff that is trying to be justified here. there is a total misconception of the problem. so lets figure something out… Shall we?
So lets legally take away guns. All of the law abiding citizens follow the “law” and make a change for the better. Right? All of the numbers on your little study will magically fix themselves. Right?
Like it has been mentioned many times before. Criminals will still find assault rifles, if not they will make weapons fully automatic. Criminals will still conceal their weapons. Criminals will still use firearms to rob banks, shoot up post offices and create havoc at public schools. Locked gun cabinets will never replace proper parenting and monitoring of children. Background checks will never prevent the illegal aquiring of guns and if needed the illegal home manufacturing of firearms (it’s more of a problem than you might think). How many times has it been stated that a gun is only a tool. it is just as dangerous as electricity, automobiles, chainsaws, airplanes, etc.etc. and all of the other commonly used items that can be used either as a weapon or an efficient tool.
The REAL problem lies within the human contriolling the weapon. Why do we not face the fact the REAL problem is a disgruntled teenager, or a uneducated and unsupervised child, or a low income gang-banger who will never make it in our so called “right to work ” soceity.
WHY IS THIS NEVER ADDRESSED???
CAN WE PASS LEGISLATION THAT SHEDS A LITTLE LIGHT ON THESE PROBLEMS???
WHY CANT YOU ANTI-GUN ACTIVISTS UNDERSTAND THIS???
Alot of people like me live in a rural area in which guns are an everyday part of responsible living.
WAKE UP!
….Realize that real eyes see real lies
-ANONYMOUS
April 16th, 2009 at 12:43 am
Anonymous,
“Background checks will never prevent the illegal aquiring of guns”- if you need to show ID to vote it should not be unreasonable to show ID to buy a gun. “Alot of people like me live in a rural area in which guns are an everyday part of responsible living.” what could one responsible use an assult rifle for?
April 16th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
@ Hippie,
I am not opposed to gun possession per se but concur with the courts, that there should be reasonable restrictions. The all or nothing approach of both sides is unworkable and the results can be seen in the statistics. Should guns be more freely available in rural areas, yes. Should they be restricted in crowded cities, yes. Should we prevent criminals, mentally unstable people and some others from possessing weapons, yes. But we give former convicts, mentally ill people and in some states illegals drivers licenses. That sort of ID does not work.
The assault rifle has no non professional military purpose. Ordinary citizens should not possess these implements. They have no more right to an assault weapon than they do to hand-grenades or an Abrams tank.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Dear Mr hippie.
My point was this. A background check can be as easily messed up by the government as the current tax situation. I have met MANY mentally unstable people that qualify for the governments “TOP SECRET” security clearance. What does that tell you?
It tells me that a criminal mind WILL find a gun, or a hammer, or a knife or even a tooth brush to help complete their criminal task. A background check will only slow down the process.
An assault rifle should be illegal?
Maybe you didn’t know that these items are also legal to possess:
1)Flamethrowers
2)Tannerite (an explosive compound)
3)The M-134 Minigun ( or Gatlin Cannon)
4)Thermite (another explosive compound)
Should we also make catapults and trebuchets that hurl flaming mortars of destruction illegal too?
My point is to focus on the criminal nature of the human as the problem not the weapon. A firearm has no intent of harming anything, only humans do.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:16 am
And,,,
the quote is ANONYMOUS, I am not.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:18 am
HAHAHA I GUESS YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THE WORD UNINFRINGED AND THE SECOND AMMENDMENT ISNT FOR HUNTERS ITS FOR PEOPLE TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AGAIINST TYRANNY WAKE UP NOW OR WAKE UP IN A GULAG LATER!!!
April 17th, 2009 at 7:43 am
@ Domenic
I agree, it is the criminal and not the gun that perpetrates the crime and guns in general should be legal. But how much fire power is it reasonable to allow untrained individuals to possess? The concept of a militia with state of the art rifles at home, made a great deal of sense when we were threatened by invasion from the colonialist English in Canada, the French on our Northern and Western Frontier, and the Spanish in Florida and Texas.
But todays threats are quite different and only professionals can protects us from “airplanes used as bombs”, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, bioweapons,etc. Citizens running around a major city with automatic weapons seems unreasonable. For example, where in our largest cities, New York, Washington DC etc. could an untrained citizen fire an automatic weapons and not kill innocent bystanders?
Admittedly, this is less of a problem in rural areas but the vast majority of Americans live in large urban centers.
April 17th, 2009 at 8:43 am
Wow, and all the little bad guys who never follow laws will bring there guns and give them up. Mean while our under funded little police depts will keep us safe because who is gonna go against a policeman. You see now we can be safe, because all those little congress people know so much. They don’t follow the laws them selves, but who cares, all the idiots will vote them in anyway, and we can be so happy because we will all have our cell phones, our i-pods, our little cars, and oh, wait a minute, don’t we need to make sure our family is protected, or that we have the capability of adequate deterent? Ans: It’s not PC to do that, when a family member of one of those idots in congress is murdered, he must remember it’s okay, because the %&@#*^ that commited the crime, was poor and disadvantaged. BS! get a grip people, if you vote for crap, that will be the laws you get. Strap on a set and get a clue.
April 18th, 2009 at 8:03 am
that’s right .the 9 billion dollar ……………………….
default
worthless
April 19th, 2009 at 5:53 am
The 2nd amendment is about protecting ourselves from our govt. and from those who would seek to harm us. The threat from govt. is no less important today than it was in the 1700’s. Our govt. is only controlled by its fear of that threat as long as that threat is there. That is why they seek to abolish that threat. Giving states that right would only accomplish the same goal.
P.S. I am not advocating an overthrow of the govt. only supporting the right to keep and bear arms and my reasoning and the amendments reasoning for it.
April 19th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Do you guys know why the mainland United States was NOT invaded during World War II? The Japanese commander(s) had been educated in the United States. Hitler was informed that invading the US of A would be a grave mistake and could never be a success because ALL of the Americans had guns, and many even carried rifles in their automobiles!!!
If we ban guns then we only take them from the honest law abiding citizens. The criminals will always get their “tools of the trade.” Bad people kill people not guns.
I am so angry at the politicians right now because our country is in dire straits!!! The only change I can see is the President’s stand on the issues! Please don’t draw misconceptions from that statement. I will stand behind President Obama 100%, whatever road he takes. I just don’t see how a bill which is 64% spending is going to help our economy. I may just be a dumb hillbilly but when I have financial difficulties I try to cut my spending and increase my income, it has always worked very well for me. Then there’s all the pork in that bill. Why are we going to build a Mag-Lev railway between Las Vegas and Disneyland? So, I guess when the family vacation is over we can zip the wife and kids over to Vegas for a little debauchery, gambling, drinking, and get em a hooker or two. Yeah, it ain’t like this $8,000,000,000.00 ,(Yes, 8 BILLION DOLLAR), project will be finished on budget!!! We are talking about our government, Right?
Then there’s foreign policy, Mr. Obama WILL NOT be able to TALK Iran into ANY give and take situation to ease tensions. They lie to our face telling us what we want to hear and do whatever they wanted to do anyway. Iran and the radical extremists who tell their puppet president what to say and do are hell-bent on starting nuclear war!!! It is their belief a nuclear war will usher in the return of their messiah. Their president said this in a speech he gave a couple years ago! Don’t think he has changed his mind as he is a puppet of the clerics.
Why is it that the more educated our politicians are the more closed minded they are? They have no common sense at all.
History tells us the more money we send these countries the faster the radical extremist groups rearm and start another conflict. It is my opinion that the United States is the world’s 2nd leading state sponsor of terrorism, we are right behind Iran!!!
Amen
April 19th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Your “90% of Mexican cartel guns came from America” statistic is blatantly false, and has been debunked by Factcheck.org.
There’s absolutely nothing in the 2nd Amendment about hunting. It’s about 100 million gun owners outnumbering then entire combined military by about 90 to 1, and therefore keeping the government in check. Sure, they have jets and tanks, but how are those jets gonna get off the ground when the base is overrun by 50,000 armed citizens? How is that tank gonna go when the tanker carrying it’s fuel can’t get to the base?
“Assault weapons” account for less than 4% of all gun crime. According to F.B.I. statistics more people are killed each year with “hands and feet” than with assault weapon. You don’t like the idea of assault weapons because you watch too much tv and you think there’s a tidal wave of death across America because of assault weapons. Statistically speaking, you are incorrect
There’s more gun crime in urban(sensitive) areas because the population is tenfold per capita of rural areas. Disarming citizens in these areas just leaves them defenseless against criminals with guns, and would embolden criminals to commit more crimes.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions…
April 19th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Ok People, btw I admire that last post!
So some of us believe that NOONE, or should I say “US CITIZEN’S” should NOT own assault weapons. Why? Well, the first excuse is always “What’s the point?” The second one is “The only reason anyone should own a rifle is to hunt with!” Well let me elaborate on this if you will…..
“US” Second Amendment believers, do NOT own ANY types of legal weapons JUST BECAUSE WE CAN….. This is one bad misconception! No, we are all not waiting for the right moment to put a school, mall, church, restaurant under seige! lol We own these weapons for a purpose of not taking control, but to inhibit control of unlawful acts of others.
Strict gun laws not only corrupt our nation in a way of our Constitution, but it is a mechanism to weaken the lawful society to a state of vulnerability. Weaken us to a point where “government” can do whatever it pleases.
So you see, don’t scoff that AR15 or M1 or SKS sitting in someones gunsafe, closet, or basement, but rather scoff the person who is trying to “remove” that weapon, that right, that protection, where in the right hands could possibly save lives as OPPOSED TO TAKING THEM!!!!!!!!!
April 19th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Most people on here are correct, the second amendment exists to keep the government in check, the government is trying to take that right away from us as US citizens. The government has been doing this for years and years, legally we should be able to own any type of weapon that the government does to be able to keep them in check, but with the 1986 machine gun ban they are doing exactly what they want too, there is no reason for the machine gun ban as they have not been used in a single crime since the thirties, and there are over a million registered machine guns still in existence in the united states, but they don’t want us to have any more, does that make any sense since they haven’t been used in any crimes since the 1930’s ?NO it is all about control, just like the assault weapons ban, it makes absolutely no sense, there are tons of law abiding citizens that enjoy shooting for recreation and assault weapons can be a lot of fun to shoot for recreation. Criminals are always going to get their hands on anything they want, there are plenty of backyard gunsmith that will build them anything they want and that is where the real problem is, registered guns are rarely used in crimes, there are tons of ways they could help stop the criminals but they don’t want too, they would rather disarm all of America so the government will have total control and we won’t be able to defend ourselves and our rights, think about that!!!
April 19th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
You chart shows you up, Israel has high gun ownership and low violence, showing that owning a gun is not equal to being violent. You neglected Switzerland that barely has an Army because it’s citizenry is so well armed and non violent as well. The urban areas are more dangerous because of the restrictive laws against gun use, not despite them. They create a perfect fish in a barrel scenario, criminals see it as open season because they know their victim will be unarmed. In urban areas riots are more common and thus the need for automatic weapons is actually higher in those areas. There is footage of a man during the LA riots defending his family and property from looters using an automatic weapon. Lastly, the Founders wanted the citizens of this country to be able to defend themselves from domestic despotism, they wanted their people to have the means to keep their liberty.
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.~ George Washington
In all honesty, given that frame of reference, we are woefully under protected by simple assault weapons.
April 20th, 2009 at 8:27 am
It is utterly ridiculous to talk of Switzerland and Israel and use them in the formulation of your argument.
Specifically it is a fallacy of Cause and effect!
-The Swiss are not violent towards each other, we are!
-The Israeli’s are not violent with each other either, they are violent towards the people around them and they are located in one of the most violent regions of the world.
I have heard this argument used many times and it is always out of context.
April 20th, 2009 at 8:41 am
The Israeli’s are armed in a fashion envisioned by the 2nd amendment - all men under 59 who are not conscientious objectors have weapons on hand as part of a coordinated defense force to protect against hostile neighbors. This was also the case in the U.S. when the 2nd amendment was written - Colonialist England flanked us in Canada (WAR of 1812), the French (The Undeclared War) threatened us from the west and north and Caribbean, and the Spanish from the South in Florida an Texas.
The Swiss also have a system of mandatory service in lieu of a standing army.
In both cases their weapons are trained on their enemies and not on their fellow citizens. The numbers speak for themselves.
April 20th, 2009 at 9:15 am
It is sooooooo comforting to see so many other people who view the constitution as i do.
more and more , the liberal, freedom hating anti-gunners are trying to indoctrinate our children, and students,and the masses to ban guns and gun ownership.
i feel u all hit the nail on the head, it is a matter of personal respnsibility and accountability….NOT a matter of MORE LAWS!
we have A LAW… it is that wonderful liberty protecting document, so elequently and painstakinglty drawn up by our founders….the constitution
April 20th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
The Swiss are not violent towards each other because an armed society is a polite society. Before the gun laws there was less violent crime in our cities and now the cities with the most restrictive gun laws, like DC, have the highest amount of gun violence. As a woman a gun is an equalizer and women who carry a gun are less likely to be raped or murdered than women who go unarmed. Our gun laws are racist and sexist! Women and minorities would benefit the most from repealing these draconian laws.
Leave your soft headed neo-liberalism for those who buy it.
April 20th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
“In light of the above, what actions would be prudent, yet still respect the basic principles embodied in the 2nd amendmen?.”
I live in California which
1. ASSAULT RIFLES ARE BANNED.
2. WEAPONS ARE BANNED AROUND SCHOOLS AND GOVT BUILDINGS.
3. IT IS NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO GET A CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMIT.
4. TRIGGER LOCKS ARE REQUIRED WITH THE PURCHASE OF ANY NEW WEAPON.
5. THERE IS A 10 DAY WAITING PERIOD AND YOUR BACKGROUND IS CHECKED.
I’m not going to waste my time doing the research because I think I know the answer and it wouldn’t change my feeling anyway, but compare the homicide rate in LA vs. Dallas. Just write more laws and ban guns so more dirt bags can rob, kill, rape and maybe they will continue killing each other at a higher rate. When it comes to your facts about childhood homicides take out the gang related killings and you may see a different picture. Ban guns and I am sure all gang members will turn in their guns. I would much rather ban violent video games. Why has the sales of ammo skyrocketed since last November? Is it because all us Bible hugging people that are clinging to our guns are gearing up to protect our constitution or are we just racist rednecks that hate the black president. One last novel idea: Enforce the laws we have and punish to the full extent and see what happens. No plea bargains. (Your right, I am very angry about the path our nation is going. I am a Tea Party guy, but it has very little to do with taxes.)
April 21st, 2009 at 12:17 am
As the first poster to this, I would like to go back to my original question.. Why is there so much emphasis on banning the tool and not fixing the problem?
Here are the problems:
1) People with guns kill other people
2) The government wants you to be submissive and easily conquerable
Answer to Question #1:
I like the last post that says” I would rather ban violent video games”. Why do we need:
GRAND THEFT AUTO #68 L.A. FACE SHOOTIN KILLA THUG MURDER GANGSTA WARS!
Kids who sit unsupervised and play hours of this are becoming brainwashed. They see the false sense of RESPECT that they get and then wanna play it in the real world. Why does our Hollywood society glamorize murder and then try to create a law that says it’s wrong?
I’ll tell you why because a father practicing supervised gun training in the woods out back doesn’t make money. QUIT FOCUSING ON THE GUN!!!!
We as citizens OF THE MOST AWESOME COUNTRY ON THE PLANET ( can i get an AMEN?) are responsible for creating an environment that supports prosperity for it’s citizens. We should not be portraying an image of thug ass money makerz and violence to all of our kids on a regular basis
…. and then complain about a gun when they act upon it.
100% of all gun MURDERS are committed when a human being initiates the pulling of an stationary and non-thinking trigger. FIX THE PEOPLE, THEY ARE THE PROBLEM!!!
Answer to question #2:
THE MOMENT ANYONE REPEALS MY RIGHT TO PROTECT MYSELF AND MY FAMILY FROM TYRANNY AND OPPRESSION, THEY BECOME MY ENEMY.
THIS COUNTRY IS GREAT BECAUSE OF IT’S PEOPLE AND IT’S FOUNDATION IN THE CONSTITUTION.
……NOT BECAUSE OF IT’S FAILED GOVERNMENT.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:28 pm
People have a right to keep and bear arms if they chose not to
use that right thats up to them,but do not tell me that I can not
keep and bear arms.
April 21st, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Thanks Steven, all that needs to be said! We can debate this until the “cows come home”, but IT IS WHAT IT IS! All of you in favor of the “Second”, know good and well that this right carries not only high respect for firearms alone, but a respect for our constitutional rights and our country!
And with all due respect, folks who clearly oppose the second amendment, and favor ANY alteration thereof, MAY AS WELL OPPOSE THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION! I don’t believe one part of the Bible and not the other!
ok enough raving…I don’t hate anybody, but I do love God and this Country.
April 21st, 2009 at 6:11 pm
To throw a little more support and another world view behind these second-amendment supporters, I believe that the people’s right to bear arms is the final check and balance on government. As a libertarian I watched in mounting terror through the Bush years as Executive Order after Executive Order rained down from on high, as a pointless war with an unachievable, ambiguous goal was started, as more and more freedom and power was handed to the government and especially the executive branch. It is my personal conviction that the ordinary citizen’s right to bear arms is the last line of defense against encroachment by the government into private affairs that already seems so rampant in America today. To quote Thomas Jefferson, “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”
Specifically dealing with assault rifles and more powerful weaponry, I believe that any personal weapon that can be handed to a marine should similarly be entrusted to the people. Nothing would keep a better reign on our government than to show that every single American is willing to stand up and defend our liberties at the first sign of tyranny and oppression by the military.
“ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State. ” - Heinrich Himmler
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.” - Adolph Hitler
“Gun bans disarm victims, putting them at the mercy of murderers or terrorists who think nothing of breaking the gun laws. ” - Michael Badnarik
“Never trust a government that doesn’t trust its own citizens with guns.” - Benjamin Franklin
—————————————————————————–
“Do you guys know why the mainland United States was NOT invaded during World War II? The Japanese commander(s) had been educated in the United States. Hitler was informed that invading the US of A would be a grave mistake and could never be a success because ALL of the Americans had guns, and many even carried rifles in their automobiles!!!” — I would greatly appreciate a source on that so I can use it in future debates.
April 21st, 2009 at 8:56 pm
The American Left will never admit that the second amendment exists. Confronted with the Declaration of Independence, they’d ban that too. These folks want supine obedience, and their ridiculous fascination with “Right-Wing Terrorism” is really just an attempt to outlaw The Second Amendment, The First Amendment, The Tenth Amendment, Christianity, Patriotism, and possession of a white skin. These people have not read history — for their extremes will only breed reactive extremes — and we will all be losers.
BHO is the most self-absorbed, out of touch individual ever to hold the office, and his team of clintonista retreads is incompetent.
I fear when the rest of the world finishes laughing, we are going to get hit. Hard.
April 21st, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Once you guarantee me that the bad guys dont get assault rifles, and the government gives up there shit. Then ill give up my AK-47 and M-4. But until then ill hold onto mine. This site is full of false facts and bull shit. I cant believe im wasting my time…………….
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:04 pm
@ Domenic Cordle
I appreciate your support of the second amendment, but I cannot in anyway condone what you are advocating. You would trade our rights against censorship and the individual right against calculated societal influence (bordering on mind control) for the right to bear arms. You would suggest that Americans should bear arms, but would allow something like societal, which always means government involvement, control over a person’s environment in order to manipulate them into acting in a manner more suited to your own moral feelings, this is a slippery slope. You would have the government leave you your guns, but limit what those around you can see/play/experience based on what you believe they should. This is an affront to individual rights of the worst kind, the kind perpetrated by people who really do mean well. I do believe you have good intentions, but I would encourage you to reconsider your advocation of the censorship and the societal control over people’s environment you, from my interpretation, are suggesting.
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:02 pm
If we criminalize gun ownership, then only criminals will have guns.
If there’s already a law against murder, punishable in some circumstances by death, why on earth would you think any criminal would be deterred from owning an assault rifle by a law banning them?
If you think it would be technologically possible to prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who want them, take a look at the Iraqi insurgents. If our highly trained and well equipped military can’t disarm insurgents in Iraq, no sane person would expect our police forces to be able to disarm criminals in the US. Even making the ridiculous assumption that our military could do so, do you really want to use the armed forces as police? Anyone who would answer in the affirmative is truly a menace to freedom.
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Also, you said “The right to bear arms, like the right of free speech, is a limited right and not an unalienable (absolute) right such as life, liberty and property.” But Inalienable rights are not absolute. Your right to liberty ends at my property line. The examples you give of necessary limits on firearms are things like restrictions on criminals — who commonly are deprived of property, liberty and sometimes even life as a result of their actions. So the argument for denying criminals guns doesn’t justify any limitations on gun ownership beyond the limits already placed on inalienable rights.
April 24th, 2009 at 9:46 am
The second amendment is not just about our right to bare(sp?) arms but our responsibility to keep our government in check. History has shown over and over again that a weak populace is primed for fascism.
I think a much better solution is to put high school seniors through gun safety training courses and require that all citizens be armed by the age of 18. Think about it, only the most suicidal of criminals wanting to gun down people in a mall would take that chance if they knew that everyone there was armed to the teeth. If they did choose to do so, they would probably be gunned down soon after their first shots limiting the amount of casualties overall.
Furthermore, banning guns from law abiding citizens will not stop criminals from obtaining illegal weapons. It would surely result in a rampant rise in gun crimes. Don’t turn the average citizen into a victim. Also, don’t turn them into criminals because they want to defend their family and property.
May 2nd, 2009 at 1:47 pm
This is the first time I’ve commented here and I must say you give genuine, and quality information for bloggers! Great job.
p.s. You have an awesome template for your blog. Is it a free template or did you have it designed especially for you, I’d love to talk to your designer !?
June 12th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Get post and great blog
July 6th, 2009 at 12:04 am