"Repeal the Second Amendment" -- article

[Rick Lee]

Originally posted by Dantilla
How come nobody ever questions the first amendment?

Why bother? Congress passed, Bush signed and the SCOTUS upheld a gutting of the First Amend. with the McCain Feingold law. And before that, in 1998 there really was a vote to amend the First Amendment to allow the curtailing of political speech. It was barely reported in the press and it was pretty scary how many folks voted for it.

[Matt Holcomb]

Originally posted by legion
Matt,

Don't take this the wrong way, but...

STAY THE F*** OUT OF MY COUNTRY'S INTERNAL AFFAIRS!

Chris,

Being both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the world gives me the right to weigh in.

[wrecktech]

Originally posted by Rick Lee
ANyone who advocates repealing anything in the Bill of Rights has zero credibility. While the Third Amendment really is pretty irrelevant today, even it needs to stay to remind folks how this country was founded.

+1

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I never understood how there was any gray at all in the words "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Sheesh.

SCOTUS just upheld 2nd Amendment rights being challenged on the basis of the first part of that too (about "a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state"), so 2nd Amendment is on pretty solid legal ground right now.

[red-beard]

Matt, you are dead wrong. The 2nd amendment gives no rights. Nothing in the "Bill of Right" gives anything to the people. It is a guarantee that the "new" powerful, Federal, government, will not tread on basic human rights. And among those spelled out, is the right to posses arms with the intention of keeping said Federal government in check. This is the explicit belief of the people who wrote these words. Look at the congressional record from the first congress to see the debates and the point.

[pwd72s]

Originally posted by Dantilla
How come nobody ever questions the first amendment?

Bravo! And you'd better betcher donkey that if the 2nd falls, the 1st won't be far behind. Despots don't like open criticism...

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally posted by mikester
What does him being a Jew have to do with his intelligence?

It seems to me that it has nothing to do with it, nothing at all.

Your statement is dripping with hate and I know that I don't appreciate it myself and I doubt that hate is something the owner of this board would like reflected in his business.

Seriously.

I'm Jewish, buddy.

My paternal grandfather's entire family died at Auschwitz. The only reason he survived was because he had his pistol on him when the SS jumped him in Berlin as he made his way to the ship that brought him over to NYC.

Maybe I should've said "He's one hell of a dumb f*ck for a Jew." But that wouldn't be true. So many of the Jewish community have conveniently forgotten what happened 60-70 years ago and are are happy to wallow in their comfortable little cocoons while they dictate their Commie liberal philosophy to the rest of us.

[FrayAdjacent911]

Originally posted by Matt Holcomb
Jeff, you're absolutely correct; guns are not the problem, but easy access to them ensures that the body count will be significantly higher when a deeply disturbed person like Cho Seung-Hui finally cracks.

The Second Amendment must be debated with vigor by open minds in Congress.

I was waiting for someone to bring up the 'easy access' falsehood.

Try this. Let's say, 20,000 students at VT. 25% are older than 21, the legal age to purchase a handgun.

That's 5000 students (barring other reasons) that could legally buy a handgun.

They had the same 'easy access' to firearms that Cho did.


...yet NONE of these 5000 people that had 'easy access' to firearms chose to murder innocent people.

Thus invalidating the 'easy access' argument.



(and to further turn it on it's head, I'd bet that dang near 100% of the people on the VT campus were older than 18 - the legal age to purchase any other firearm)

[rrpjr]

Best news of the week:

TENNESSEE MOVES TO ALLOW GUNS IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS: "In a surprise move, a House panel voted today to repeal a state law that forbids the carrying of handguns on property and buildings owned by state, county and city governments — including parks and playgrounds. 'I think the recent Virginia disaster — or catastrophe or nightmare or whatever you want to call it — has woken up a lot of people to the need for having guns available to law-abiding citizens,' said Rep. Frank Niceley, R-Strawberry Plains."

[mikester]

Originally posted by BlueSkyJaunte
I'm Jewish, buddy.

My paternal grandfather's entire family died at Auschwitz. The only reason he survived was because he had his pistol on him when the SS jumped him in Berlin as he made his way to the ship that brought him over to NYC.

Maybe I should've said "He's one hell of a dumb f*ck for a Jew." But that wouldn't be true. So many of the Jewish community have conveniently forgotten what happened 60-70 years ago and are are happy to wallow in their comfortable little cocoons while they dictate their Commie liberal philosophy to the rest of us.

The statement was ill conceived and was better left unsaid.

I disagree with him as well, I am Jewish myself and I have family who fought in Europe during WWII.

[dd74]

Before any of you disparage Matt about being an "Aussie" know first that he's as American as any of us - born here in Northern California, which is, in many areas, a haven of ultra right-wing politics.

Secondly, his point is well taken as Oz has taken extreme measures to limit personal gun ownership in light of a massacre much like this about 15 yrs. ago, IIRC. The Oz PM even brought this to light Tuesday (4/17), and that it should be a position the U.S. takes.

Question: is Oz so much different from the U.S.? Both have obtained sovereignty from the U.K., and both have a certain Wild West appeal to them. Their landscapes even look the same - at least out west. And Australia's idea of freedom and democracy is not dissimilar to our own.

Personally, I would think the Aussie position about gun control would have made sense two or three decades ago, when social and economical pressures were just beginning to become psychological issues in the U.S. Now, those pressures have mushroomed into a perception that no place is safe - schools, hospitals, church, govt. buildings, even your own home, hence a possible need for an ordinary U.S. citizen to carry a weapon, concealed or not.

I appreciate the POV from Australia about gun control in the U.S. But with the proliferation of firearms fueled by political opportunists who hide behind the coattails of the 2nd Amendment, the simple fact is the advice/criticism given to us by Australia and other advanced countries throughout the world remains too little too late here in the U.S.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by dd74


I appreciate the POV from Australia about gun control in the U.S. But with the proliferation of firearms fueled by political opportunists who hide behind the coattails of the 2nd Amendment, the simple fact is the advice/criticism given to us by Australia and other advanced countries throughout the world remains too little too late here in the U.S.

This type of university shooting has happened twice in Australia. oddly both times in the same city. In one incident, two were killled, 5 injured. In the other, one killed. On both occassions, the shooters were subdued by unarmed bystanders.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/mon-o29.shtml

I wonder how this guy, as with the Columbine killings, managed to get so many people, and wasnt dropped by someone.

Yet, Austalia has on record the worst of these types of incidents 35 dead and 37 wounded at Port Arthur in 1996. In a rare act of politcal courage, firearms were tightly controlled after that. Aside from the lunatic fringe, there was broad support for this. Didnt hurt a bit.

That wont happen in the US, ofcourse. Its not the guns or even their level of availaibity- its "gun culture", in my obersvation. Each of these killers is a disenfranchised nobody with a fascination for guns in society where few think that a gun fasciantion is odd. Couple that with availability of guns.....it will keep happening in the US.

[Matt Holcomb]

I didn't post the article to provoke people or because I feel it legitimizes my opinion regarding gun control and the Second Amendment.

I posted it to encourage debate.

If anyone reading this thread gives a ***** about my opinion on this issue (which I severely doubt), then here it is:

The human brain is the most dangerous weapon on earth. And easy access to guns just means that the world's most dangerous weapon is able to inflict maximum damage.

David is right; modifying or repealing the Second Amendment can’t solve the problem of gun control and gun violence in the U.S. It's an attitudinal issue, and the process of changing a collective attitude is always glacial.

The sickening reality is that the frequency and severity of tragedies like what occured at Virginia Tech. and Columbine High School must increase before an overwhelming majority decide that attitudinal and constitutional reform is needed.

Oh, and Noah; I expected a little bit more from you than a tired, infantile put-down stolen directly from the Fox News playbook.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally posted by BlueSkyJaunte
I'm Jewish, buddy.

My paternal grandfather's entire family died at Auschwitz. The only reason he survived was because he had his pistol on him when the SS jumped him in Berlin as he made his way to the ship that brought him over to NYC.

Maybe I should've said "He's one hell of a dumb f*ck for a Jew." But that wouldn't be true. So many of the Jewish community have conveniently forgotten what happened 60-70 years ago and are are happy to wallow in their comfortable little cocoons while they dictate their Commie liberal philosophy to the rest of us.

Thanks for the explanation, you had me pissed off 1 page back.

I do not support any additional forms of gun control.

As said by others this whacko would have found another way, one potentially more lethal. Far as I know fertilizer and kerosene are still legal and if you buy small enough amounts and stockpile you won't set of any alarms.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Matt Holcomb

than a tired, infantile put-down stolen directly from the Fox News playbook.

What does that even mean? Seriously? Are you guys really this paranoid or is it a joke?

[K9Torro]

"The human brain is the most dangerous" - Uhhh I guess some people are less dangerous than others.

" Easy access to guns makes it able to inflict maximum damage " - Uhhh I can think of several items that would inflict more damage than guns, how bout some good ole gasoline and a match, whoo hooo I know let's ban gasoline...right

"If anyone reading this thread gives a **** about my opin" - Uhhh I know that I don't, can't speak for the other folks but I thought that I would let you know that I don't give a **** about your opin.

"Take another bong hit " - agree + 1

Todd


PS.... As to the second amendment and my gun's I think a early Greek said it best, Molon Lave....

[competentone]

Originally posted by Matt Holcomb
Jeff, you're absolutely correct; guns are not the problem, but easy access to them ensures that the body count will be significantly higher when a deeply disturbed person like Cho Seung-Hui finally cracks.

"Easy access" to guns???

Prior to 1968, anyone, who had the ability to stuff cash or a money order into an envelope, could buy a rifle, shotgun or pistol having it mailed directly to their door.

Today, with Federally licensed dealers, extreme regulations on the manufacturers and importers of firearms, background checks and waiting periods, and literally thousands of laws regulating ownership, firearms are substantially less accessible than they were prior to 1968.

To say that shooting instances like the one at Virginia Tech, is somehow related to "access" to firearms, is to not understand how accessible firearms were in the recent past.

To blame the shooting on "easy access" to guns, is just as ridiculous as blaming it on the gun itself.

In fact, considering how easy and popular owning and carrying firearms were in the past, one could argue that the easy access to guns in the past played a significant role in preventing incidents like that at Virginia Tech.

These mass shooting incidents have proliferated as the population has become more "disarmed" -- note that the "school shooting" happen at a place where all the law-abiding citizens are completely disarmed.

If Cho had tried his actions at a local South Carolina Bar-B-Que, he would have gotten off one or two shots, before he would have been killed by the armed law-abiding population.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by competentone
[B
If Cho had tried his actions at a local South Carolina Bar-B-Que, he would have gotten off one or two shots, before he would have been killed by the armed law-abiding population. [/B]

Virginia's gun laws are too restrictive?

[stomachmonkey]

Originally posted by competentone
"Easy access" to guns???

Prior to 1968, anyone, who had the ability to stuff cash or a money order into an envelope, could buy a rifle, shotgun or pistol having it mailed directly to their door.

Today, with Federally licensed dealers, extreme regulations on the manufacturers and importers of firearms, background checks and waiting periods, and literally thousands of laws regulating ownership, firearms are substantially less accessible than they were prior to 1968.

To say that shooting instances like the one at Virginia Tech, is somehow related to "access" to firearms, is to not understand how accessible firearms were in the recent past.

To blame the shooting on "easy access" to guns, is just as ridiculous as blaming it on the gun itself.

In fact, considering how easy and popular owning and carrying firearms were in the past, one could argue that the easy access to guns in the past played a significant role in preventing incidents like that at Virginia Tech.

These mass shooting incidents have proliferated as the population has become more "disarmed" -- note that the "school shooting" happen at a place where all the law-abiding citizens are completely disarmed.

If Cho had tried his actions at a local South Carolina Bar-B-Que, he would have gotten off one or two shots, before he would have been killed by the armed law-abiding population.

Thought that was worth repeating.

I'd love to see unbiased studies on these types of incidents and how they correlate chronologically to gun control measures?

I've seen interesting stats on crime rates in countries that have abolished private gun ownership and the indication is crime rates go up, noticebly.

[stomachmonkey]

Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.