This article will likely get a lot of conservatives angry and upset, and I’m sure some liberals as well. Perhaps that’s my intention, some people are in a dire need of a 21st century reality check. You know how to stop gun violence in America? Repeal the second amendment.
Think of me as Piers Morgan on steroids. You might think I have a pretty extreme position on gun control, but as an outsider looking in just like Morgan, I have a perspective Americans refuse to see because they think their liberty is in jeopardy. Well, it isn’t.
Do you really believe that people in Canada, the UK or anywhere else in the developed world feel less free because they do not have a constitutional right to own a gun? I can’t speak for all of them, but I suspect they’re happy and secure knowing their guns are tightly controlled, so they don’t have to live in fear. The freedom of the mind should never be overlooked.
The second amendment is not being used the way it was intended in the first place. That well-regulated militia was replaced by a free standing army two hundred years ago. The founding fathers in all their wisdom could not foresee the future. What we have today is the result of a centuries old document and politicians who refuse to revisit it.
More guns means more murder. That fact is now proven (again) thanks to the largest study of its kind by Professor Michael Siegel at Boston University. There are over 10,000 gun murders a year and 20,000 gun related suicides, but for some reason people still refuse to believe that guns are largely responsible.
The number of gun related deaths in the country don’t seem to affect people as much as hearing about another mass shooting on television. Mass shootings where at least four people are shot happen on a daily basis. Often times the perpetrators of the more violent tragedies are said to be mentally ill. Still, Americans reject the more simple solution and refuse to learn a thing from the international community.
What does America have that other developed nations don’t? A constitutional right to bear arms. Other countries have gun owners too of course, but it isn’t a right, it’s a privilege. Just like driving a car, if you’re deemed unfit to drive, that privilege can be taken away or refused outright.
What do other developed nations have that the US doesn’t? Universal health care. Not only do people in other countries not have to worry about getting shot, they don’t have to worry about a mentally ill gentleman shooting up a shopping center. They can get treatment before the tragedy occurs because they don’t need to afford it first.
Imagine having a healthy country without a fear of guns or being shot by one. I live in a city of close to four million people. The only guns I’ve ever seen are the sidearm of cops. I’ve never seen a gun in the hands of a drug dealer, a shop owner, a pedestrian and especially not a school teacher. Without the fear of everyone packing, I feel comfortable at home with my door unlocked or out on a terrace drinking a beer. Does that not sound good to everyone?
Every conservative, NRA and gun toting liberal talking point concerning guns has been refuted countless times. Whether its gun free zones being more dangerous, more guns meaning more safety or guns being required to overthrow the government; nothing they say has an increment amount of validity despite how many times they repeat it.
There are a few things that can be done to lower the occurrences of mass shootings and gun crime in general; background checks would be a start. But lawmakers and the public refuse to acknowledge the crux of the problem; when people use their second amendment right to buy a gun, they think they have the right to use them.
I understand the second amendment is sacred to too many Americans to just do away with it entirely, or even touch it for that matter, we’d sooner see universal health care. Well, guess what? Your stuck with it and the violent, fear inducing culture that comes with it.
Until the day comes when the second amendment is repealed, it won’t really matter how many background checks are done, which guns are banned or how many bullets you can fit in a clip. The culture will live on and so will the violence. The only way to kill the culture is to kill the law that feeds it.
Besides, I don’t think the founding fathers would be too proud of a constitutional amendment that costs 30,000 lives every year. Do you?
First off, good luck. Repealing an Amendment, especially nowadays, is even harder than adding one to the Constitution.
Second, the Constitution doesn’t grant rights; it restricts government. Simply repealing the Second Amendment will not eliminate the right to own a gun. And yes, there is such a right and it’s an extension of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The right to life means nothing without the right to defend it and the right to defend it means nothing without the right to acquire the tools for it (and no, not all of us can be Bruce Lee). And since the mere ownership of a firearm does not violate anyone’s rights (and no, there is no right for someone who pees his undies at the mere sight of a gun to be free from ever having to see one), that I enjoy owning and shooting a gun is all the right I need to own one.
Third, the Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments also protect an individual right to own a gun. The Fifth Amendment forbids the government from depriving anyone of life, liberty or property without due process of law (ie, proving them guilty of an actual crime). That means the government can’t restrict my ability to buy a gun nor force me to give up the ones I already own (and no, passing new laws forbidding gun ownership won’t work because the Constitution also forbids retroactive laws). And the Ninth and Tenth Amendments speak for themselves; there’s nothing in the Constitution granting government the power to confiscate private property on a whim.
Finally, if you think simply repealing the Second Amendment will make all those eeeeeeevil guns go away, here’s a question for you:
How many blacks do you think will just go right back into bondage if the Thirteenth Amendment were repealed?
Communities will be gather for an evening of motivation and headliner entertainment to stop violence nationwide. Entitled “Lay Down Your Gun and Love You…r Enemies “, the event is sponsored by Christians Merging Together Nationwide (CMTN) Ministries, and will be kicked off by the mayors of Melbourne and Palm Bay, Florida.
Among the entertainment headliners scheduled to appear are:
International Recording Hip Hop Artist Eva Sabiniano,
Gospel Artist Ms. NRich
The Real Dancing Preacher
“2017 is the year to end violence, to be proud of the communities we can build in this country. It starts here, in Melbourne, Florida,” says Melbourne Mayor Karen MEEHAN.
Palm Bay Mayor William Capote adds, “From one community to the other, we can put an end to the violence. We are doing it in Palm Bay, now pass it on.”
There are 280 million guns in the United States. Over 30,000 Americans die from guns each year, 4,000 of them are children. Most of the rest, 90 percent, are young, black men. But this is not just a black problem. If we don’t turn the tide, the increasing violence in the white and hispanic communities will also grow. Meanwhile 64 officers were killed in the line of duty in 2016, far more than should have been.
The state of Florida has one of the lowest rates of gun ownership in the nation, at 24.5 percent, but one of the highest rates of gun violence, at 3.4 deaths per 100,000 people.
“It’s time to stop pointing guns at each other and start talking to each other,” says Sammy Jackson, event promoter and minister. “Black lives matter – all lives matter. You cannot get respect if you don’t give respect, too.”
The organizers are bringing a Christian perspective to the fight against violence, asking individuals to take responsibility. They believe that hiring more law enforcement is not the answer, because that just increases the number of guns pointing at each other. Rather, they believe the answer has to come from the community, that people must make the decision to love one another as Jesus commanded.
The serious message of “Lay Down Your Gun and Love Your Enemies” will be complemented by the upbeat, fun approach of the music and entertainment on site. The event will take place at Lipcomb Community Park Center, 3316 Monroe Street, Melbourne, FLA. The organizers are still arranging sponsorships ands vendors, and invite anyone interested to contact them.
Min. Sammy Jackson
Contact number 386-257-6784
“You bring light to our world”
From one USA citizen who TOTALLY agrees with you, thanks. Perhaps the right people will never read this, but I believe it is important to keep putting this atrocity out there.
How does repealing the second amendment eliminate the mentality to kill?
It doesn’t, but it certainly eliminates the easiest way to do it. Get real. You really think that there aren’t killers in other countries? That’s why the cops have guns.
And maybe American cops wouldn’t be so trigger happy if they didn’t think that every fool around them was carrying a gun and oh so anxious to use it.
Well, you folks get started on repealing the Second Amendment. You do know how that is done, I assume.
Keep us posted on how it goes.
It won’t eliminate the “mentality,” but it will allow gun control. Currently, pro-gun forces shut down any common-sense gun regulation by saying they have a “Constitutional right to bear arms.”
In canada we live in fear of protecting ourselves.
I disagree with the option of repealing the second amendment. I think it should be enforced. Every owner or someone that wishes to be an owner should serve in the National Guard (the modern equivalent of the militia). This is for all of those between the ages of 16 (no one under the age of sixteen should be allowed to touch a gun) and 105. Our National Guard is used as a reserve army when it should be used for taking care of citizens at home during an emergency.
What about men like me? A leg injury has left me crippled and not suitable for the militia, so according to you I cannot own a gun for defending my family.
Where did Mike say that??? Repealing the Second has nothing to do with your right to defend your family. The only difference is repealing the Second would allow “infringement” (meaning regulation) of your right to own and bear arms,” while the Second prevents the government or anyone from infringing on the right to own and bear arms so that men could be called upon to serve in local militias. Because of misinterpretation of the Second aided and abetted by the NRA and gun manufacturers, and the paranoid clientele they serve, we have more WAY more mass murders than any other developed country on earth.
Well I’m done checking this one. Quietmike is living up to his name and bowing out of the discussion. The silence of the defeated really says it all. 🙂
There are ~300,000,000 guns in the US, and most of those cannot be traced to their current owner. That genie has left the bottle and you are not getting it back in.
The highest homicide rates involve young black thugs killing other young black thugs. Overall the homicide rate among blacks is 7 or 10 times that of whites. Among young black men it is much higher; I read (but have no citation) that it is 25 times higher. These homicides are among young men who care nothing for the lives of others, and little for their own. Most of the guns they own are already illegal, since most homicide perps and victims in these communties have extensive criminal histories. A major change in societal attitudes in these high crime areas is needed to reduce the level of homicide.
Homicides by crazies is quite rare, but gets major headlines because they are so spectacular. It is nearly impossible to get someone involuntarily committed or treated, thanks largely to the ACLU.
If you want to repeal the Second Amendment, by all means please knock yourself out. And keep us posted.
OK, however, many innocent people are also being murdered when they are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
we wouldn’t see so much violence and crime in these low income communities where these ” young black thugs” live…..if there was a decent educational system, decent standard of living, and equal opportunity in those areas…..crime stems from poverty and inequality problem is they try not to acknowledge either in this country….and worse, if they do acknowledge it…..its to demonize the victims, rarely to help them
Why do you hate old people and women? That is what you are saying. The weak should bow to the powerful. That what you want.
What on earth are you talking about?
“More guns means more murder…”
But… Since 1991 the homicide rate in the US has dropped by about 50%. Since 1991, every year MILLIONS of new guns enter circulation in the US. About half of these are handguns, and most of those are semi-automatic.
The numbers indicate more guns and less homicide…
That depends on your perspective. yes there is more guns out there, but gun ownership has fallen in that time.
But the fact remains that the statement “More guns means more murder…” is demonstrably false.
Based on which statistic has gun ownership declined over time? The General Social Survey? That number is based on household self reporting gun ownership, which means that not all gun owners surveyed answered truthfully.
Also, if one normalizes GSS household ownership data agaist US Census Bureau household numbers, the rate of gun ownership appears to hold steady or perhaps even tick up a bit due to the large increase in the number of households.
Finally, you gun grabbers always seem to concentrate on the NRA, and discount the silent, otherwise non-aligned gun owner. One measure of the size of that group is the number of concealed weapon permit holders: 8 million according to a recent CBO study.
So, good luck trying to repeal the 2nd. There are a lot of people that would quietly oppose such an effort.
it’s at its lowest point in 11 years http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/
So . . . there are more guns in circulation, but, gun ownership is down?
Were you born an idiot, or did you have to practice?
5 gun owners own 5 guns each (25 total) three people buy 5 more while two people get rid of theirs. you now have 30 guns with two less gun owners. Is that formula too complicated for you born idiot Barbarah?
I just read this remark and I’m astounded. gun ownership has fallen since 1991?? dude, my democrat army buddy (HUGE Obama fan, btw) bummed one of MY rifles.
When liberals started trying to push the gun ban in the senate, wal mart sold out of AR rifles in 3 days NATION WIDE!!
people are buying every modern firearm they can get their hands on and I’m constantly bombarded by folks who want to learn safe handling practices and instruction on shooting.
People are tooling up for a fight, not to avoid a gun ban.
you are welcome to believe whatever you wish but that statement isn’t consistent with reality.
Actually it is, but don’t bother to read the links I left that explains how. the people that already have guns are just buying more and more, that doesn’t make gun ownership rise, it makes gun sales rise.
The Standing Army is under control of the Government. A Militia is not. A Militia is a group of citizens banding together to stave off a Tyrannical Government! If the Government were to impose Martial Law and begin to try and confiscate our guns, would YOU count on Help from the Military that is under control of the very same Government that is trying to do harm to you and your family?? If you say yes, You are delusional. You live in our Country, you live by our Constitution or leave! it’s that simple. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights is what separates the USA from any other Country in the world. Just try and take our Guns, the last time it didn’t work out so well for the British now did it??
Good luck standing up to the American military with only a gun buddy
Peasants with old rifles stopped the Soviet army cold in Afghanistan.
Insurgents with outdated and sub-standard Com-Bloc weaponry and cheap homemade bombs stopped the American military in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
The British army, the most powerful military force in the world at that time, was stopped cold and then driven out of the Colonies by people armed with “only a gun”.
You are arrogant to believe that all people share the same cowardice that lives in your heart.
I sincerely hope that nothing truly important will ever depend on your actions, because judging by what you’ve written here, you believe in your heart that Americans aren’t capable of great things anymore, and we should all “learn our place” in society.
Your message is offensive and elitist. I’m glad you posted this rant though. You’ve gained our side a few converts with this arrogant screed.
All those “peasants” had outside help from foreign countries. Apparently you don’t know how to read. And for the record you guys are doing me a favor by sharing the article.
The point remains that one does not need to be able to overpower the army to pose an effectual threat to the government. This IS the US and not a country composed of isolated tribes with generations of tribal hatred. As polarized as we’ve become politically, the bulk of the people in our armed forces would balk at the notion of wholesale murder of their countrymen. Even armed countrymen. They could not help but wonder if they themselves are more represented by their country or by the revolt. In the matter of 2nd amendment rights, I rather suspect that a sizable proportion of our soldiers would NOT be in favor of removing them.
It did not take one single weapon to bring the government to an expensive, screeching halt, because *some* people resented being outvoted over the subject of healthcare and want to subvert the process of making the ACA actually work. It would not take an arsenal of state of the art weaponry to bring the country into a position where the voting public would be convinced that enough discord is produced by a governmental policy that it requires serious reconsideration.
Thanks for admitting that opponents of the ACA are an insurgency and that shutting down the government is your goal and weapon of choice. So you don’t actually need guns then. I always knew this GOP (unlike old-school Republicans) was (is) the problem and the enemy within. You do realize that you’re fomenting a new Civil War, right? Whenever you attack Obama, you attack this country, you attack democracy, and you attack Americans. It’s not like he lied us into a war. You’re also attacking Americans directly by siding with capitalists over workers, and thus creating a slave class that will either be too poor to have any political power or will be directly prevented from voting.
By blocking the ACA, you would be accessories to murder. This is not to say that the government doesn’t have a lot of problems and that the ACA can’t be improved, but it’s still OUR government (when it isn’t infected by the GOP and their Democratic enablers), and we expect our government to promote the general welfare, dispense justice, and provide equal opportunity. Basically, you’re fighting for old, rich white men bigots, racists and women haters. You’re fighting for money and privilege. You’re fighting for imperialism. You’re fighting for science denial and religious fundamentalism. You’re fighting for re-writing textbooks. Though you haven’t yet started beheading people, you have more in common with ISIS than you know The point is to participate in politics through politics, not by attacking other Americans.
The only cowards are the gun owners. Never have I seen such a paranoid bunch. Always looking over their shoulders. Always worried about their manhood taken away. Wouldn’t want to live in your head.
UMMM. The Vietcong. Afgan Rebels. FARC [50 YEARS of fighting]. Guerrilla Fighters around the world. Do they fight and die? Of course. Yet others live to continue the struggle. Don’t forget the “American Military” is populated with AMERICANS. Kill your cousin, brother, sister, father, brother or mother? Get real.
But wait there is more. Withstand drone attacks? Yes. Killing innocents and family members only serves to create more guerrilla fighters. What if it was your child killed? withstand Armor attacks? See above. Create an absolute police state with curfews, paper checks, checkpoints, pat downs, home and vehicle searches? Sure why not. Create MORE guerrilla fighters. There is a reason the USSR left Afghanistan. Attrition. Economic reality. Iraq? Please.
How long have we been trying? Are we “winning”? Have we achieved our goals? Peace? Stability? “Good luck standing up to the American military with only a gun buddy”. This is a tired and well worn response. People “stand up” to military might all over the world.
People are not cowards when truth and freedom are at stake.
I would Gladly stand with the 300 + Million brothers and Sisters and fight the powers that be. There are far more of us than there are in the US Military plus about 80% of the Military would join “We the People” as they have taken the oath to uphold and protect the constitution from both Foreign and DOMESTIC Threats!
Asymetric warfare. 4th generation warfare.
Only a fool would stand up to the US military. If it ever became necessary to resist the Government, and any right-thinking adult hopes and prays (and I am not religious) that time never ever comes, opposition would be directed at those who make the laws and support and enforce them.
That could include political leaders, those who make policy, those who help influence attitudes to support those policies, etc. As I read somewhere, “this would be a conflict not of “assault rifles”, but of deer rifles.” The quote is approximate.
M1 tanks would not matter, F-22s would not matter, precision weapons would not matter, because there would be no mass of people to fight. No set-piece battles. Just the occasional shot in the night, or a short flurry of gunfire followed by silence.
You need to read beyond Think Progress.
The Afghans did it twice in 50 years against the two most powerful amies in the world. All it takes is patience and a willingness to loose BUNCHES of dead insurgents.
Afghans have done it once with a lot of help from Uncle Sam and other third parties
wrong. the afghans have been kicking the crap out of armies ever since Marco Polo wandered through there.
know your history pal.
You call being occupied 20 of the last 30 years kicking ass? I know my history, perhaps you should know reality
No one wants to fight the is military but if you take into consideration there are well over 100,000,000 gun owners In our county to the standing army of 2.4 million that have Sworn to defend the U.S constitution and seeing as most of them are American conservatives proud to defend the county they love Unlike so many progressive nazis I don’t think that winning would be that difficult.
The problem is you’re not defending the Constitution; you’re only defending the Second. You don’t even know what the Constitution says. Don’t assume that all the nation’s gun owners are going to fight on your side. Besides, the only way to fight this government is through the pen, not the sword. That’s how the forces of evil and ignorance took over in the first place. And where were you? Nowhere.
the military is made up of trained volunteer civilians…..literally family and friends….you really think they would cooperate if a martial law was enacted?……plus that’s not the only thing that separates the US from other countries…. its the low quality education, the heavy spending on military and defense, the astounding number of people in prison etc. you starting to see a pattern mike? we put more energy into buying guns, than we do into educating our people….so we have more crime, more poverty, and less opportunity…..so please stop with the paranoia….we need to focus on real issues
No, our founding fathers had Sweden in mind. More guns more murder huh? Required ownership of fully automatic weapons in every home, typically two or three shooting competitions a weekend in most villages, lowest gun crime rate in the world. The bulk of their gun crime is referred to as imported crime, you know, from those countries where owning guns isn’t a right, but a privilege. Please stop talking about subjects you truly have no knowledge of.
Their is no required gun ownership in Sweden, I don’t know where you imagined that
wrong again. from the age of 16 to around 60 years old, every citizen is mandatorily inducted into the military on inactive reserve. they are initially trained and then handed their kit (which now includes a very NICE select fire rifle) and told that they’ll be called when they’re needed.
dude, you really need to get out more.
And yet the rifles are still very regulated, which is the whole point I’m making
So I’m a Swedish teenager. I turn 16, take a driver’s test and the Swedish government hands me a driver’s license and a semi-automatic weapon? What color is the sky in your world? Stop making stuff up.
I believe you are referring to Switzerland. The US isn’t Switzerland. Our citizens are poorer and more diverse than the population of that nation.
This whole thing is very entertaining. From your views all the way through to the people that defend them. I mean with arguments such as “Mike is right-the ONLY common denominator in every single mass shooting in America is the fact that guns were involved.” Some real detective work here. The fact that guns are involved is what makes them a ‘shooting.’ Anyway…
So I noticed in your little rant that you mention enjoying a beer. That alcohol you speak of is a factor in more deaths and terrible decisions than guns can even come close to. If you’re looking to make the world a better place then where is your speech on that? What, what?? You personally enjoy alcohol so that’s off the table? Even though it is not a right, is a factor in tons of mayhem, and has no positive attributes? What do you have to say about this? The examples could go on and on but I know you’ll just shrug them off so to continue is futile.
The longer you and others that agree place the blame on guns and not the people the longer the problem will remain. Broken people are the problem but I don’t see you are your ilk doing anything to fix or even bring awareness to that problem. Coincidentally, the best way to stop these broken people is with a gun. You can argue against that all day but when each of these people were eventually stopped it was only with a bullet or the threat of one.
with alcohol you only harm yourself over time, guns harm others. you can’t compare the two. You have the choice to harm yourself, the people getting shot didn’t have that choice.
Actually you hurt your entire family with alcohol. Just ask any family who has an alcoholic in their family so you analogy is way off base. How about a drunk driver? We should make it illegal to drive drunk….. oh wait…. it is… How many people die from drunk drivers and was not alcohol the biggest factor in the death of someone else?
The number of fatalities related to drunk driving has been dropping pretty steadily since 1982. The number of cities, counties and states who have cracked down on drunk drivers has increased proportionally. Sometimes laws work. So do public awareness efforts by schools, charities and even the alcohol industry. Drink responsibly, my friend!
I agree with you Gordon. My point was even with education the statement made “alcohol you only harm yourself over time, guns harm others”, was pretty ignorant and uneducated in itself. Guns, like alcohol, cars, knives, or anything for that matter, are not good or bad in and of itself. It is the people who use these things and make the decision how to use them, good or bad. I own plenty of guns and for different purposes. Am I a bad person? Am I a crazy nut case? People could easily harm others with anything so how does this make guns a problem. Would we be on this wagon if some one drove his car through the mall and killed 50 people by running them down? Would an anti-car coalition be formed? I think not.
They made it a crime to drive drunk, but they did not ban alcohol. Why? Because most people drink responsibly. It’as the same thing with guns. Banning guns and making stricter gun control laws won’t help. Sure, they might keep a gun or two from getting into the wrong hands, but the people who want to commit crimes such as this will find a way, regardless of what is legally available to them. Why punish the majority of responsible gun owners when they’ve done nothing wrong?
You can’t really compare alcohol to firearms. Alcohol is consumed to get drunk, firearms are bought with the intent to kill something
“with alcohol you only harm yourself over time, guns harm others. you can’t compare the two. You have the choice to harm yourself, the people getting shot didn’t have that choice.”
So tell me how drunk drivers only hurt themselves. Just like firearms the smaller portion of deaths related to alcohol are from intentional misuse. The greatest portion of firearms deaths are from suicide. Which apparently by your standard should be classified as a choice to harm yourself (yet I know you’re going to lump in with the rest of firearms deaths anyway). The real numbers are much closer than you might think there’s a yearly toll in both drunk driving and firearms related homicide of around 10k. So tell me more about how you “can’t” compare the two. Your logic is lacking.
If we treated car ownership as we did gun ownership, we’d let anyone drive, no regulation, no speed limit, no insurance necessary, you could strap the kids to the top of the car, you could go 100 miles per hour on side streets or drive on the damn sidewalks if you wanted. Fortunately, we realized that cars can be deadly, so we regulate them and force people to register them. We put limits on what kind of vehicle they can drive on the road and how they are allowed to use those vehicles.
Drinking and packing heat is legal isn’t it? Drunk driving has decreased in spades since it was made illegal
Ok Great so that stopped all the people from acting like moron in their cars right?
Mike, you dodged the point of kilocharley’s comments. Let’s take a look at alcohol and guns.
Most people in the US drink alcohol to some extent. Many many studies have shown a J-shaped curve between alcohol consumption and death. J-shaped because those who drink no alcohol at all have higher mortality than those who drink moderately. But those who drink a lot have all sorts of bad things happen to them.
While most people can drink responsibly, about 10% +/- are unable to control their drinking.
Alcohol is strongly associated with homicide, suicide, assault, rape, domestic abuse, automobile crashes and fatalities, and unemployment. It is less strongly associated with liver cancer, some other cancers, heart disease stroke, and probably a bunch of other things.
Among the ~300,000,000 guns and ~80,000,000 gun owners, only a tiny tiny fraction of one percent are ever involved in any type of illegal gun-related event. If we make the incorrect assumption that every homicide involves a different gun and a different gun owner, then we are looking at 10,000/300,000,000 (or about 0.0033%) of guns and 10,000/80,000,000 (or about 0.0125%) of gun owners being involved in homicide, per year. Because our assumptions are incorrect as we know that an even tinier proportion of the population commits a huge amount of the homicides, the actual percentages are lower.
So, alcohol, which is abused by about 10%+/- of the population, accounts for many many times as much misery and death than do firearms, which are abused by a minute proportion of the gun-owning population.
I knew you would dodge this. First off, Alcohol doesn’t just harm you. The U.S. Department of Justice Report on Alcohol and Crime found that alcohol abuse was a factor in 40 percent of violent crimes committed in the U.S. 40% of ALL crime. That’s a ton. Not to mention the effect is has on families and individuals that don’t go on to commit a crime that end up a statistic.
Also guns do have regulation and we pretty much do let anyone that wants to drive do it. You take an exam when you’er a kid that really has nothing to do with your abilities or decision making skills and BAM! Here’s your driver’s license. Registration is just to make money and doesn’t affect anything else.
BTW drinking while carrying a gun is illegal even with a carry license. Not only that but if you have ANY alcohol in your system while carrying a gun you become fair game for the legal system. You don’t even have to be at the legal limit.
Last but not least, saying drunk driving being illegal is bringing down its occurrence would be the same as saying murder with a gun is illegal so it is bringing down its occurrence. No matter how you slice it, alcohol is responsible for more deaths whether those numbers are coming down or not. The numbers are still higher and you’re not only not doing anything to fix or bring awareness to this issue but apparently you are ok with denying its existence.
Here are some facts for you:
Alcohol-related deaths: “Nearly 88,0009 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women9) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making it the fourth leading preventable cause of death in the United States.10”
Key Gun-Violence Statistics: “Over 108,000 (108,476) people in America are shot in murders, assaults, suicides & suicide attempts, unintentional shootings, or by police intervention [annually].”
That’s 20,467 more deaths caused by gun violence than alcohol. What were you saying?
Same goes for murder in this country over the last 20 years. Decreased. Murder with firearms, decreased. And yet, firearms are not only legal, there numbers and the number of people who own them has skyrocketed. Explain that one. As far as cars go. Yup, and cars can still go as fast as they want. 150mph? No problem. As big as you want. 6000+ pound SUVs. Sure. Limits on what kind of vehicle they can drive???? In terms of what? Elaborate. How they are allowed to use them? Well, as far as I know anything other than just for getting from point A to point B is already illegal right? And yet, drunk driving has still killed far more people than guns have. Imagine that. Not only that, when drunk drivers are caught, whether they kill someone or not what happens? Who is ultimately held responsible? The person that was drunk right? Not the car, SUV or truck, THE PERSON BEHIND THE WHEEL! So why is the gun treated differently. Don’t know about you but most people I know are law abiding citizens that use their cars to go to work, school, shopping, etc. A few drink, get behind the wheel and cause accidents. But we don’t go nuts and start banning all cars do we? Why not? Oh that’s right, only guns kill people. Even though the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens. You however, want to treat them differently.
So you want to treat gun ownership like car ownership? Ok, #1) You don’t have to have a license to buy or sell a car, sound ok with me for guns. #2) You can operate a car on private property with no restrictions, sounds good to me #3) I can carry an unregistered car on a trailer to practically any point in the U.S. Once again that sounds good for me to carry my unregistered gun anywhere in the US. #4) I can modify my car in any way I see fit on private property. Whoo Hooo, full automatics now OK #5)Students in every school are essentially obligated to take car driver education classes. Sounds good to me that every student in the US will get to have some hands on shooting of rifles and pistols in schools to learn safety.
Something tells me you don’t want to go down this path.
That’s ridiculous, you can carry an unregistered car on a trailer, but can’t drive it. So you’ll be travelling with your gun but can’t use it, what’s the point? you can modify your car anyway you see fit on private property, but can’t drive it on the road. again what’s the point? And what’s the point of buying a car if you can’t drive it? this is the dumbest comparison I’ve ever heard.
First, thanks for ignoring my post. It proves my point. Hard to refute something when you can’t. Best to just ignore it. This is the core of the problem when debating this issue. When facts are brought up if they don’t support your position you will just disregard.
Lastly your reply to this last poster proves another point. You say you still can’t do blah blah because it’ll be illegal. Well we’ve made murdering someone with a gun illegal yet it still happens. Laws will never stop someone that is willing to die or lose everything because they are willing to die and lose everything. Anyone law abiding is already bound by current laws to not do the things that need to stop yet they still happen. How would repealing a right or new laws change this? They won’t/ It all goes back to stopping the problem at its root which is not guns. It’s broken people with malicious intent.
So why would you want broken people with malicious intent to have guns? The whole point of a regulatory framework is to weed out the bad apples, and some types of guns would be banned from individual ownership. So, yes, the root of the problem is bad apples with guns!
Why do you assume that you would no longer have a right of self-defense? Afraid you wouldn’t pass the mental evaluation?
Please explain how we treat gun ownership, not how we don’t treat driving. When you compared guns ownership to driving, you act like you can just go in pubic and do whatever you want with the gun. That is false. You could’t get away with that any more than you would with reckless driving. Kids have been fatally shot by police just for walking down the sidewalks with a fake gun.
Take into account the orlando shooter. He was able to walk into a nightclub and kill 49 people and injured more than 50. There was no other gun owner to stop him. The average response time of a 911 call is 10 minutes. The speed of a bullet is 2,500 feet per second. What would you rather have protect you? If there was someone else in that nightclub with a gun, he/she could have stopped the killer that fast. But self defense in that way was illegal, because that was a gun-free zone. This is just one instance of mass murder. There are many more similar incidences. From those we can see that criminals do not obey the law. (duh) Sure, there can be murders without the right to bear arms, but without that there can be genocides.
Really? How many thousands are killed my drunk drivers and domestic violence every year due to alcohol? Give me a break.
I agree John B. When is it going to be the people who use these tools to be held accountable and not the rest of us. Should I be punished because my neighbor runs his wife over with his car? Does his actions make me a bad person. I have about 30 guns. Should I be afraid they(the guns) are going to unlock the gun safe from the inside and come out and shoot me?
Never. Making the person responsible instead of blaming the tool will never happen for a majority of people. Why? Because guys like quietmike can’t even begin to think of a solution for the actual problem. Next best thing? Attack what you are afraid of even if it won’t make a difference. In their eyes doing SOMETHING even if it is the wrong thing is the way to go.
You need to understand that the Bill of Rights doesn’t GRANT rights. It codifies rights the framers believed to preexist the writing of that document. So if you “repeal the Second Amendment”, which will never happen, that doesn’t mean the right no longer exists. It simply means the government has decided to violate it. The government does not decide what rights I do or don’t have.
In Heller, 554 U.S. at 582, the United States Supreme Court clearly stated:
“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 849, 117 S. Ct. 2329, 138 L. Ed. 2d 874 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 35-36, 121 S. Ct. 2038, 150 L. Ed. 2d 94 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
You’re partly right. The Constitution doesn’t grant rights; it limits what the government can do to those rights. “Congress shall make no law…” “shall not be infringed,” etc. The “right to own and bear arms” was passed to America from English common law.
The key point of the Second Amendment is that “the government shall not infringe,” meaning shall not regulate, limit or prohibit – which it otherwise has the right to do! – the [pre-existing common law] “right to own and bear arms” because “free states” depend on local militias (comprised of local men who need to bring their own arms). This is the only way that the whole Amendment makes sense. Conservatives like to ignore the whole first clause, but it’s not there by accident. It describes the only circumstance under which the right to own and bear arms CANNOT be infringed by the government. Otherwise, state governments and their subdivisions may infringe on the right to own and bear arms, as they did at the time the Amendment was written. Guns were common and accepted in those days, but colonial governments could tell people to leave their guns at the door of a saloon or issue similar restrictions. In other words, the Constitution has no bearing on the right other than to prohibit infringement under this one circumstance.
Conservatives and the NRA have created a whole mythology around the Second, but you’ve missed the point. The Second no longer has a purpose. In addition, it’s actually a burden because it prevents adequate review of people who should be screened before they’re allowed to purchase a gun. The Second, misinterpreted by conservatives, allowed the Newtown School kids to be killed and the patrons of a bar in Orlando to be killed, among too many others.That’s why it must be repealed.
While I agree with the premise, you have to understand why we have the 2nd Amendment in the first place. I suggest you read Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville. He rightly saw that America had little to fear from other countries invading them. He also noted, at the time, our laws were fairly mild-when applied to whites. Once slavery was involved, our laws were actually quite harsh. The 2nd Amendment was written to appease the southern contingent of the Constitutional Convention, many of whom came from states that had more black slaves than white slaveowners. The 2nd Amendment was a guarantee that they could form a militia to suppress slave rebellions. Who owns guns in this country? More often than not, that person identifies as a conservative. What is a conservative-an individualist who supports the idea of a hierarchical social order, in which he outranks women and minorities. Conservatives tend to see the world as a competitive place where people are generally “bad” until proven otherwise. In short, they are a fearful bunch. Afraid of “losing” their spot in the societal pecking order and afraid of what their “trusted sources” tell them to be afraid of. Crime stats going down for the last 30 years? A conservative is never going to believe that. Guns, that panacea of “protection”, actually enhancing the owner’s risk of being shot? A conservative is never going to believe that. That 2nd Amendment idea, so deeply rooted in racism, combined with the belief in hierarchy so inherent in conservatism is a immutable force in America. One of America’s many “birth defects” that may prove fatal to the country
This is really interesting, Cynthia. Thanks for sharing it! The last sentence is chilling, but very very true.
I find it very ignorant that you have to dilute the issue at hand. Anyone who can not debate the issue directly and brings in other opinions, which is what your is on what a conservative is, is uneducated and ignorant. What you say is irrelevant to what we are talking about here.
But the historical context about how/why this amendment was included in the Bill of Rights is extremely important, Stephen. Especially when we look at this amendment and our society 220+ years later.
As to you getting your back up about her definition of a conservative, she was spot on and you know it. That’s why you’re annoyed. Just because you don’t agree with someone’s take on a discussion doesn’t make them ignorant. Cynthia obviously knows a thing or two about Constitutional history (as do I) and we can all benefit from what she’s shared here.
First I am not “annoyed” but I see that you may be. I find this discussion entertaining. I like to discuss topics with people and respect their opinions. However….. I am not sure how the discussion on the Second Amendment turned into that conservatives are worried about a “pecking order” and that race is even an issue. I could argue that MOST (not all) crimes committed with guns have been committed by a minority. To me she is saying the conservatives are all white racist men. Most of the people I know would argue that. I could say the liberals are all welfare entitled, tree hugging, socialists. Who would rather have the government make all the decisions for them than to have a coherent thought for themselves. Would I be correct in that statement? No I wouldn’t. That statement is wrong just like hers and YOU know it. And I would read up a bit more on your history. Only quoting what you want for your own purposes and not telling the whole story is closed minded. For now I will stick to the topic at hand. I am sure you will try and drag me off topic again
Spoken like a good leftist from the production line of the university system (which BTW is the LEAST free environment in the entire US due to all the speech codes and leftist control tactics). Interesting ain’t it?
Your take away from Tocqueville is so warped from your marxist professors droning that is is just another example of pollution from the university’s bible….A People’s History Of The United States by Howard Zinn. Dennis Prager describes Zinn’s book as “The proctologist view of the United States”
“The Second Amendment was written to appease the Southern Contingent of the Constitutional Convention” “The Second Amendment was a guarantee that they could form a militia to suppress slave rebellions.”
That’s an interesting alternate universe you describe… got anything in writing from the Founding Fathers to prove that?
There is a reason the 2nd amendment was created. Yet whenever there is a gun ban discussion it seems its hardly ever mentioned.
Why are the people allowed to bear arms?
Self protection? NO
Sport shooting? NO
The right to bear arms is to throw off a tyrannical government should it become that way.
Listen close. Criminals do not obey the laws. Let me repeat. Criminals do not obey the law.
When you ban something, you are only banning the law abiding citizens from having it.
This is why Chicago has such a high murder rate. The criminals simply shoot and kill unarmed law abiding citizens.
Now one can imagine that ALL guns would be confiscated at exactly the same time, but that would just be imagining things. It will never happen.
Now lets use another example. What if there was place which REQUIRED you to own a gun?
What would the crime rate be there? It must be at least 50% with all those guns around.
I mean every other person must be using the guns because of their availability.
OR the crime rate DROPS, because the criminals KNOW every citizen has a gun. Its the LAW. And law abiding citizens obey the law.
How can one city have an 89% drop in crime, when the state averaged a drop of only 10%
By REQUIRING the citizens to own a gun and ammo. Ask the people in Kennsaw Ga.
People who advocate a gun ban are the most uneducated group of people I have ever come in contact with. Those who advocate a gun ban should be required to take a world history course.
How many cases in history when genocide has been committed have those being exterminated been armed, or were allowed to bear arms?
The reason for the right to bear arms? To fight the government. Just like in the past in the US when local governments became tyrannical. Guns stopped them until the federal government intervened and the local tyranny was stopped.
Uh OH, did someone forget to study US history? The right to bear arms has worked in the past in our country exactly how it is supposed to.
Those who would trade safety for liberty deserves neither.
Gun free zones. The STUPIDEST IDEA EVER! It is the OPPOSITE of what you want to advertize.
Why not just posts signs beside the road saying HEY NUTS WITH GUNS< COME HERE TO SHOOT OUR CHILDREN!!!< NO ONE IS ARMED< ITS A GUN FREE ZONE!
Whoever came up with this idea needs to be killed. Firing squad.
While you can make a strict rule for kids and people who visit as to the possession of firearms, I would make signs saying
STAFF IS ARMED AND IS AUTHORIZED TO USE DEADLY FORCE ON ANYONE SEEKING TO DO HARM.
So the gun free zone came from someone's IMAGINATION, not based in reality. They forgot criminals do not obey the law.
Just like the author of this piece (of crap)
That’s quite the diatribe you wrote there, but if you had any sense of intelligence or actually read the article carefully you would have realized that I never called for banning guns. I called for repealing the amendment that says you have the right to own one. It should not be a right, it should be a privilege like every other country (that doesn’t have America’s problems). Big difference.
Maybe you should move there then. Trollolol
Why? Is wanting to improve America too much work for your lazy ass?
So you want me to believe some of the greatest inventors that ever lived couldn’t possible foresee advances in arms past the musket? If that’s so, could we also assume that they couldn’t foresee the TV, smart phone, computer, or internet? And If that’s the case, can we also assume the 1st amendment is outdated and that our founders didn’t intended to protect these rights as they apply to advances in other technologies? Far more people are killed per year in cars than by guns, how bought we ban them? As you said driving is just a privilege, it’s not even a right, so that should be super simple to ban! And I guess the 20,000 people you cited as committing suicide via gun per year are too fucking retarded to find another way to kill themselves right? I mean you take away guns and no way those people overdose on drugs, jump off bridges, or run a hose from their tailpipe into the car and let it run! Your argument is complete and total bullshit, based entirely on opinion and completely devoid of facts. Luckily for me I don’t have to worry the 2nd amendment being repealed! The chances that I’m bitten by a shark, a grizzly bear, and struck by lightening all in the same day are greater than the repeal on the 2nd amendment!
That comment is a little ridiculous. how can you compare the second amendment to the first? Free speech doesn’t get 30,000 people killed. the people who wrote up the constitution got most of it right, but they weren’t perfect. And if you take a away guns from suicidal people, a lot more of them will live. shooting yourself doesn’t give you time to think it through. That is proven. As for the facts being bullshit, tell me something I got wrong…
You know…you’re right. Free speech has gotten far more than 30,000 people killed. You missed the analogy, clearly. But whatever. What I really want to hear all about is this magical land where there are no guns and no gun crime. What country is your template for this Utopia? If you can prove to me that your idea has had unmitigated success anywhere, hell, I’ll change my mind. Let’s hear it.
Another one who’s missing the point. I never called for banning guns. I called for repealing the amendment that says you have the right to own one. It should not be a right, it should be a privilege. Big difference. By the way, Just how has free speech gotten 30,000 Americans killed?
Answer the question, Mike. Where has this worked? Cite for me an example of a society where guns don’t exist, and where peaceful, happy people live with bunnies and unicorns. Show me one, and I’ll show you a dozen where guns are a privilege, not a right, that have had their governments murder them with impunity. By the way, if you don’t think free speech has gotten Americans killed, what do you know of history in this country? Free speech helped foment the American Revolution. Free speech helped create the civil rights movement – yeah, people die for free speech every day, here and all around the world. Wake up, boy. Utopia doesn’t exist.
Give me an example of an instance where guns helped to topple a regime without outside help or prevented a government from becoming tyrannical. explain how in your mind you think guns can defend yourself from tanks and aircraft. I never claimed Utopia existed, just a place where you don’t have to live in fear of being shot.
Free men do not require permission. To whom do you suppose one might give the right to grant one permission to posses the means to defend one’s self? The King perhaps?
Suicides don’t count in my opinion. Homicides are one third of that 30,000 gun deaths figure. But you also ask for an example of citizens, without outside help, using firearms to defeat tyranny. I refer you to the ‘Battle of Athens’ also known as the McMinn County War.
You won’t answer the question because you can’t. No such place exists. So how does it follow that your line of logic should be used as a template for the United States? Repealing the Second Amendment isn’t going to happen, so this whole thing is an exercise in what-ifs, anyway.
Well, sir sorry to inform you but it is a right written into the U.S. constitution by our founding fathers whether you like it or not. You say it should be a privilege instead of a right? Ok fine. You want to repeal the second amendment? Go right ahead. Start the movement. Do what you need to do to repeal it. Let’s see, under Article 5 you need at least 2/3 of the states to request such an idea or 2/3 super majority of both houses of Congress (2/3 of EACH house mind you). Then it must be ratified by 3/4 of the states, that’s 38/50 in case you’re wondering. Think you can muster those numbers to pull this off? Talk is cheap my friend. PUT UP OR SHUT UP! Until you do what is necessary all your talk is nothing more than that, just talk. You have no credibility and neither does anyone else as far as the second amendment is concerned by not liking it and then don’t go through the process to make happen what you are suggesting.
Secondly, you are going off point by saying that 30,000 Americans are killed by guns. Suicides are not and should not be counted in that total. Those people just as easily can use a knife, jump off a bridge, building what have you. There are a multitude of ways one can commit suicide. What’s relevant is what certain people (i.e. criminals) do to other people with guns, i.e. homicides and violent crime, murder, etc. in general. That’s the number that is significant and according to FBI stats, since 1992 that number (violent crimes, murder, etc.) has gone down steadily every year. Don’t believe me, here take a look at the links I provided below. Numbers don’t lie! Second table shows homicides by TYPE OF WEAPON. Taking the year 2011, notice the total for rifles – 323, knives, etc. – 1694, blunt objects – 496, personal weapons (hands, feet, etc.) – 728 and so on. So which weapons are more dangerous and kill more people, AR15’s or knives, blunt objects and your hands????? So shouldn’t we also ban knives? How about hammers? Maybe Home Depot should stop carrying hammers. Hmmm, what to do with hands. Not sure, maybe….cut people’s hands off? Not likely. Even homicides with handguns have been going down steadily and total overall using firearms. All the while gun ownership in this country has skyrocketed.
Gun ownership has not skyrocketed. it’s at its lowest point in 11 years http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/
Your calling for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment that ( to quote you) “says you have the right to own one” shows just how ignorant you are. The 2nd Amendment does not confer the right to keep and bear arms. It places constraints on the Governments ability to infringe on those rights. It’s a subtle but important distinction. I wish you understood it.
“It places constraints on the Governments ability to infringe on those rights”. If it isn’t a right. then there is no rights for the government to infringe on. And you call me ignorant…
When you have US Senators saying “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in.”, no, not really.
You keep asking Mike where repealing the constitutional right to own and use a gun has worked. First, no country I am aware of has ever had anything remotely resembling the Second Amendment. (I hate to bat it back to you, pal, but if you know of one, please let me know.) And I do not know of any countries where there are no guns, so the answer to this stupid question you keep asking Mike about Utopia, etc. is NONE. Sadly, there are no relevant gun-free Utopias on our entire planet. (There probably aren’t any guns on the Galapagos Islands, but who gives a shit?) BUT, there is hard data showing that the United States has the absolute highest rates of gun ownership per capita and we rank far and away the highest in gun violence and death per capita compared to Europe, Canada, Australia and India.
I have never met a Liberal who advocates taking anyone’s guns away, including me. You guys always try to drag us into that ditch and guess what? We’re not going. Not this time. What Liberals – again, including me – do advocate is a serious look at the data and potential causal links to the number of guns manufactured, sold, stolen, trafficked and USED in this country and the number of gun injuries, suicides and deaths. Whenever we try to do that there is always a deafening howl from the right about the goddam Second Amendment. You guys are so fixated on slippery slopes and conspiracy theories that there is never a reasoned debate. Do you really believe there is some agenda to disarm the populace so “they” (whoever the fuck you’re so scared of at any given moment, usually a Democratic President) can mobilize our military and force you into submission? Your arguments are old, they’re tired and really…they’re just pathetic. And again, logic eludes you and actually undermines your argument. Do you really think your handguns, rifles and semi-automatic assault weapons are a match for the United States military force? No military in the history of the world has been this powerful. If this military staged a coup tomorrow, it would take about 15 minutes.
Here’s the text of the oh-so-holy Second Amendment: “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 accursed thing was ratified on December 15, 1791 along with the other nine amendments which became known as the “Bill of Rights.” The other nine are great and have stood the test of time. But the Second…not so much. And that is exactly the thesis of Mike’s argument: With a standing military there is no need for a Constitutional RIGHT for citizens to own weapons in order to form militias. It could not be more clear.
Over the past two centuries, we have been able to face some of the moral shortcomings in our Constitution and deal with them. We used the amendment process to end slavery, give women their right to vote and we even experimented with social engineering with respect to drinking alcohol. I am confounded as to why it is so wrenching for us to face up to the obsolescence of the Second Amendment. But until we do, the bodies will continue to pile up.
A privilege granted is a privilege that can be revoked, but you don’t see a problem with that. A right is irrevocable – it’s inherent and intrinsic, whether you like it or not, and whether you agree or not. Your opinion is irrelevant. You nor anyone else may usurp another’s human rights. It’s as fundamental and intrinsic as our right to debate the issue here in an open forum. All your pissing and moaning won’t change that. Get over it.
Owning a gun is not a human right. Amnesty international isn’t going to care if you lose your right to own a gun
I believe there was a standing army when the Constitution was written. I believe it was The Continental Army at the time. Which turned into the U.S Army. So if there was an army when it was written why put it in there to begin with? I await your answer.
The Continental Army was the army of the new Government not a standing Milita of We the People. And don’t you get that it was written while the Continental Army was in place? Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing, and they did it to show that even with a Government Army, We the people have the inalienable God given right not only to defend ourselves from harm but to also defend ourselves from a Tyrannical Government if need be. The way things are going, if you sheeple don’t open your eyes we will be watering the tree of Liberty sooner than you think.
DIng, ding, ding… There it is. So in your mind, Amnesty International is the new global arbiter of what is and isn’t a human right?
More so than the American government, they don’t even consider health care a right
They are called the “Federalist Papers”. Google it, do some reading and try educating yourself.
Stephen Saint, I can’t reply to your comment directly, but I’ll comment here. Above, Cynthia Savage offered some interesting and relevant historical context about how and why we have the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment didn’t have anything to do with the Continental Army. I’m not sure what your point was about that, but yeah…in 1791 the non-military citizens probably could have risen up and defeated the Continental Army if they had wanted to for some reason. But you and all your friends could not and never will be able to rise up and defeat the 21st century United States Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Why you feel you need to be able do that is a mystery to me, but that ship has sailed. The military-industrial complex is firmly in place and we’re stuck with it. (And we’re stuck paying for it too, I suppose.) But, we’re not stuck with the Second Amendment.
Back to historical context: In addition to appeasing the South and deferring their inevitable secession, the Second Amendment accomplished something else very important FOR THAT TIME. Remember that the Constitution was drafted by a bunch of men who had just fought (and won!) a long and bloody war against the most powerful country on earth. (Insert another thank you to France here.) One of the many grievances which led to them to write and sign the Declaration of Independence was the British refusing to allow American colonists to bear arms. That experience was seared into the hearts and minds of those revolutionaries we now call the Founding Fathers when the Constitution was written, passed and subsequently amended for the first time. They approached the task of creating a new government with an understandable concern and suspicion because they knew firsthand that a government was capable of disposing of its subjects or citizens’ rights.
So, I totally get why the Second Amendment is there. I just don’t believe it is relevant or useful any longer other than to be a shield for frightened paranoids and to enrich the gun manufacturers and their lobbyists. It wasn’t the curse then that it has become now. It has mutated into something that is obviously not remotely connected to what was intended by the Founders.
My point about the army was that there was statement made by someone else the we do not need the second Amendment because we have a military and I was asking a question based on that statement. While we are at it, lets get right of the Fist Amendment as well right….. people what to get rid of things they do agree with. I do not agree with the Westboro Baptist Church.. do you.? Should they be silenced because of their hate they spread. Should their rights be stripped. I did not serve this Country to let that happen. I may not like their message but they have a right to say what they want. The rights we have are ours and just because we do not like themdoes not mean I have the right to take them from other people. I do not like when liberals talk about getting rid of my rights but you can because the men and women of our armed forces paid for them for you. I get you don’t like guns but where do you get off telling me how to live my life. I leave you alone you leave me alone. Then again according to some people I am a white racist man without ever know anything about me. . Like I said until people accept the consequences of their own action and the liberals stop blaming everyone else and man up will anything get better. Taking our (yours and mine) rights away will not solve anything.
Ok Gordon so you don’t think the Second amendment has much value anymore. That’s fine. Then use the amendment process that was used to end slavery, give women their right to vote and alcohol to repeal it. Go ahead. There is a process to doing this and if you can do it using this process then you win. But whether you like it or not, obsolete or not it is an amendment, part of the Bill of rights and has to be treated as such just like all the other amendments and rights put forth in that document. You cannot pick and choose. I can just as easily say the First amendment has outlived it’s usefulness too. So what. Doesn’t mean a dam thing. You can’t just pick and choose which amendments or which laws for that matter you are going to follow and abide by. That’s not how it works. We are a nation governed by law not by men and the Constitution and everything in it is at that heart of this nation. So either follow the law and the rules like everyone in this country has to or get lost. You think the Second amendment is obsolete? Repeal it then! Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution shows you the way. PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
Ok, I’m replying to this comment only because it doesn’t seem to want me to reply to Mike’s response to my points directly above this comment.
Ok Mike, so percentage of ownership may or may not have gone up, but the number of guns in this country sure has and last I checked, that’s the key argument. How many guns people own.
So, Mike…that’s the only response you have to my comment above regarding FBI stats and repealing the second amendment? What, nothing to say to any of that? Just a short, “oh gun ownership has not gone up” and that’s it????? Wow, lame lame lame. Sooooooooo lame. Come on. Refute what I said above. FBI stats are FBI stats. How the law works is how the law works (i.e. repealing amendments). Typical. Once you are put down and HARD you zip up. You simply have no answer to cold hard facts. It’s all about emotion.
I’ll take you on any day Mike.
You want facts, have at it http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617131/largest-gun-study-guns-murder/
WOW! you refute FBI data with a link to a thinkprogress.org website. I can’t see any bias on that website, (sarcasm implied)
Fact…. if some one has made up their mind to kill themselves, they are going to do it. If you take away guns they are still going to do it. The myth that is you take guns away will make them change their minds is false. Men are however, more likely to have a more violent way of completing the action then women. Education is the most important thing you can do to help someone. This is fact, look it up.
“How can you compare the Second Amendment to the First?”
If you actually UNDERSTAND the Constitution, it’s easy. The BOR is a restriction upon government, not a grant of rights to the people.
“And if you take away guns from suicidal people, a lot more of them will live.”
No, they just check out through a different method.
“tell me something I got wrong”
Other than “everything?”
When you commit suicide with a gun, there is no time to think it through and change your mind. Its just blam! your dead. any other traditional method take time to set up (hanging yourself, slitting your wrist). A lot of people change their minds during that time. It’s not to say people won’t kill themselves anymore, but the numbers would be lower. A gun is a very instinctive method to kill yourself.
Maybe, you can explain why Chicago is now the murder capital of the U.S. Despite having one of the strictest gun laws in the nation?
What good is gun control in a city if you can buy guns just out of town or across the state line.
By you logic, the gun crime rate in cities adjacent to Chicago should be even higher than it is IN Chicago. You know, it is easy to get guns there. It is the PEOPLE who are committing the murders. If you would do your home work, you would find it is a specific demographic that commits most of these murders.
And what, pray tell, is that “specific demographic?”
Some cold hard truth for you. From a liberal website no less.
Gangland murders make up a very small fraction of the murder rate with guns.
If by small fraction, you mean more than 10% I agree. That is if you ONLY use narcotics and things specified as gangland. I am sure if the unknown were actually classified, the number would be greater than 50% And this from what, less that 1% of the population?
Anyone that uses logic will see that the vast majority of murders in this country are committed by a miniscule percentage of the population. Mostly poor, people of color. Is this because of poverty? Culture? I don’t have that answer. When we actually address the elephant in the room, only then can we meaningful progress towards eliminating the needless deaths. Using inanimate objects as a scapegoat will only result in zero results
It would only be half if all the unknowns turned out to be gangland shooting. Not likely.
City, county, state or regional gun laws don’t address the problem. The reason these governmental entities pass gun laws is because there is no cohesive nationwide gun use and control strategy. I’m sure there are literally thousands of gun laws on the books in the United States. We need to craft a national comprehensive common-sense policy with respect to the purchase and use of firearms, pass it and enforce it. And the crazy-quilt of existing local and state laws needs to be swept away. Federal law isn’t always the answer, but sometimes in certain circumstances it is the only answer.
Neat idea. So we repeal it, then what? Wait for the guns to corrode to the point they are unusable and the ammo to go bad? Like most armchair quarterback’s ideas on this subject, there is no depth and breadth to an actual solution to the problem, nor any effort into finding the actual cause of shootings, or presentation of any relevant evidence.
As to the founding fathers, they wanted a militia, not a standing army. We should all support that now more than ever. Imagine if the US were protected by a citizen militia rather than a standing army. No war in Afghanistan. No war in Iraq. No war in Vietnam. No war in Syria.
Criminals follow rules…
Sigh. It’s not the guns or the right to own them people. Here, read this:
Repeal is never going to happen. And id shouldn’t. You, and Mr. Morgan should mind your own business.
I am about as liberal as a person can get and disagree with this completely. The fear mongering is doing nothing but making the gun companies rich… as anticipated by the gun companies.
The problem is the fear mongering. The engineered divisions that have become the staple of mainstream news, follow the money, and keep your hands off the constitution.
Great article…great read. How about a mass loss of consciousness on a national level.
I believe it should be repealed as well, then, as a promoter of balance, I decided a balanced approach between the two sides was probably the best we could hope for, but you just convinced me to go back to my original belief. The only answer is to repeal it. Nicely said, thanks.
“The number of gun related deaths in the country don’t seem to affect people as much as hearing about another mass shooting on television. Mass shootings where at least four people are shot happen on a daily basis. Often times the perpetrators of the more violent tragedies are said to be mentally ill. Still, Americans reject the more simple solution and refuse to learn a thing from the international community.”
Singular, or plural, shootings apparently don’t bother the general public all that much. If they did, the citizenry would raise a collective voice to force their elected officials into addressing the problem. Also, you can’t simple label everyone who shoots a gun as mentally unstable. You certainly can’t institutionalize them; there isn’t enough room at that Inn. I can’t figure out why nobody has thought of repealing the 2nd Amendment, yet. I think that’s a brilliant solution. The U.S. could also try a little harder in their treatment of mental illness.
This is just too much. Everyone on here says repeal the second amendment. Yea brilliant. Go ahead, make my day. Not as easy as you think. Article 5 of the US constitution describes how to go about doing so. Put up or shut up. And no, I’m not for repealing it.
LMAO! Try a little harder with treatment? How about try period.
No I can’t label everyone who shoots a gun as mentally unstable, but I sure as hell can label all the mass shooting shooters from about the past 15 years as mentally unstable. Tell me which one wasn’t mentally unstable? Newtown? Aurora theater? Tucson shooting? Columbine? Navy yard? Virginia Tech? Which one?
Well if you can’t institutionalize them then don’t complain when they commit these murders. Otherwise come up with another solution. Yours is repealing the second amendment. See above. Not going to happen, sorry to inform you.
I have seen stats regarding almost every one of the shooters and everyone that there were medical records from were on antipsychotic medication or medication that created abnormal brain function. Perhaps the easier solution would be to ban these drugs that are causing the massive wave of killings and suicides. Naw that would make too much sense how could a pharmacutical be dangerous.
Royce-you’re speaking of unsupervised withdrawal from SSRI’s. The data shows that people who come off of SSRI’s on their own, without a doctor’s supervision, do suffer some pretty significant symptoms. Psychiatric medications, medications prescribed by an actual psychiatrist, not a family doctor, do for the most part work. There are people who are allergic to them, like anyone who might be allergic to ibuprofen or aspirin or codeine or antibiotics. But as someone who is typing this thanks in no small part to an SSRI, I have to say blanket statements about all psychiatric medication give me pause. Mike is right-the ONLY common denominator in every single mass shooting in America is the fact that guns were involved. My husband believes the 2nd Amendment should be overturned, and to be honest, until I read this article, I was on the fence. Well, no more. Repeal it. Again, Mike is correct with his assessment of our founding fathers. This is not what they had in mind at all.
No, not the ONLY common denominator. The other being that all these idiots were MENTALLY UNSTABLE. Doesn’t really matter much whether they came off or on medications or whatever their freaking problem was. Bottom line is, they were all mentally unstable.
Second, well Mike’s assessment of our founding fathers and what they intended doesn’t count now does it. I can come up with so many of those kinds of assessments as to what our founding fathers intended but the only assessment that really matters now is the U.S. Supreme courts assessment. Like it or not that’s they way it is. You have to live with it.
Third, you want to repeal the second amendment. Be my guest. Start the movement. I suggested this to Mike in one of my replies above and how to do it. He ignored it. No answer to my comment. So I’ll tell you. 2/3 of the states must propose and amendment and then 3/4 (38/50) of the states must ratify it. Think you can do it? All the more power to you. Repeal away. Head the committee, movement, whatever and get the ball rolling. Like I told Mike, put up or shut up.
Read up on the process. Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution.