Why Stop at the Second Amendment?
Via a link from Glenn we find another call to repeal the 2nd Amendment:
Fifteen unambiguous words are all that would be required to quell the American-as-apple-pie cycle of gun violence that has now tearfully enshrined Virginia Tech in the record book of mass murder. Here are the 15 words that would deliver a mortal wound to our bang-bang culture of death: “The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.”
[…]
Looking at the Bill of Rights with more than two centuries’ hindsight, it is simply irrational that firearms have a protected position on par with freedom of speech and religion…
The writer, Walter Shapiro, acknowledges that such a move would be an uphill battle taking years.
Well, I have a suggestion for liberals like him and others: Bring it on. But let’s not stop at the Second, let’s tweak all the amendments. Let’s specify that since the First Amendment was written before Radio and TV and Movies and the Internet were in existence, we need to clarify that “freedom of speech” doesn’t apply to those mediums, or to pornography, artwork (think “Piss Christ”) and anything else anyone in society deems immoral or offensive such as depictions of homosexuality. Further, it will allow us to specify that freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion.
Certainly the Fourth Amendment should be altered so that the right to privacy in their “persons” does not include unborn children — the “persons” within them. Liberals would love that.
How about the Fifth Amendment? Certainly if new evidence comes to light, someone who was acquitted the first time around should have to face trial again.
The Eight Amendment? I’ll bet there would be a groundswell of support for striking the prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment” clause. Just ask the family members of the Virginia Tech victims. Matter of fact, that would sort of insure that all these mutant killers take the easy way out by killing themselves, thus saving us the aggravation and expense of trial and re-trial.
The Ninth? Finally we’d have the opportunity to strengthen it with regards to personal rights. Of course, that might mean we could start smoking and eating trans-fats again.
The Tenth? Give the power back to the states to determine how they do things. Hmmm, liberal Democrats might not like the idea of a toothless federal government not being able to impose such unfunded mandates as “equal access” laws that cost public schools a fortune, or things currently established nationwide like pollution laws, the “right” to abortions, and — come to think of it — gun control laws..
Yup. Let’s rewrite the Bill of Rights because it certainly (according to most liberals) hasn’t served this country well. . .
This could be a fun game. Feel free to offer your own suggestions.
44 Responses to “Why Stop at the Second Amendment?”
on 19 Apr 2007 at 9:17 am # Ms. Ogynist
Wow. Easy one to repeal. 19th. Once they get the vapors, women lose what little rationality they possess.
=)
on 19 Apr 2007 at 9:30 am # Joel Rosenberg
Great minds run in the same gutter. I was involved in an online discussion with somebody who was arguing in favor of “waiting periods” — her argument was that since, manifestly, VT shows that 30 days wasn’t enough, the waiting period for buying a firearm should be increased to a year.
As to how that would create a problem for somebody buying a gun to protect herself or himself against an abusive ex? Not, apparently, a problem.
I suggested that, similarly, some might want a waiting period for elective abortions — say, nine months.
She deleted the whole discussion.
on 19 Apr 2007 at 9:33 am # RW
Apparently, pre-emption is the optimal policy when it comes to stopping small-arms weaponry in the hands of a madman who acts erratically but not large scale weapons in the hands of a madman who has already used them to kill thousands.
.
on 19 Apr 2007 at 9:37 am # Greg
How about freedom of the press? “Press” refers to a printing press. All other forms of journalism — TV news, e.g. — are unprotected.
And “freedom of speech?” Do you actually believe that’s an individual right? Like the right to bear arms, it is a “collective right” which refers only to government agencies. Your elected representatives “speak” for you, and if you are foolish enough to disagree I have a team of lawyers who will be happy to explain your ignorance to you.
This game can be played with the entire bill of rights, people. Never forget that.
on 19 Apr 2007 at 9:37 am # Walt
pantagraph.comAnother Poll: From The Pantagraph in central Illinois.
http://www.pantagraph.com/opinion/letters/
I think they will be surprised by the overwhelming support for concealed carry.
on 19 Apr 2007 at 9:56 am # Art Bray
Jeff you missed one in the first amendment, freedom of the press. Since radio and television did not exist back then. The only form of news that should be legal is printed news (hence the term press). So we can say goodbye to NBC CBS ABC and PBS news.
on 19 Apr 2007 at 10:01 am # rosignol
Apologies in advance for the length, feel free to delete it if you consider it inappropriate (or unfunny).
[warning: parody ahead!]
April 18, 2007 | WASHINGTON — Fifteen unambiguous words are all that would be required to quell the American-as-apple-pie cycle of idiocy that has now tearfully enshrined the US press corps in the record book of jackassery. Here are the 15 words that would deliver a mortal wound to our bang-bang culture of death: “The first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.”
Even Pollyanna on Prozac would acknowledge the daunting odds against repeal. Steering an anti-free speech constitutional amendment through, say, the Montana or Missouri legislatures (approval of three-quarters of the states is required for ratification) would be a task on par with cleaning the Augean stables. But the benefits of separating editorialists from their extraordinary constitutional protections should not be ignored. Without the First Amendment, speech could be regulated by the federal government in the same fashion as any other potentially dangerous ideas, from open borders to communism. While there is no way to guarantee that another Michael Bellesiles would be deprived of access to an audience, hitting the delete button on the First Amendment surely would lower the odds against future idiocy.
Questioning the very existence of the First Amendment would also transform the increasingly sterile congressional debates — when they even occur — over speech. Free Speech has become one of those quixotic crusades that conjure up noble intentions, overblown rhetoric and political defeat. The cause seems as moribund and musty as a No-Blood-For-Oil sticker on a SUV. Congress even lacks the political gumption to revive the expired Adams-era ban on sedition, language that is more useful for justifying treason than winning wars.
Despite a decade-long string of such political victories, the American Civil Liberties Union still revels in the apocalyptic imagery of fascist jackboots trampling on the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of all Americans. After the Republicans took control of Congress in 2001, the ACLU issued a brochure that began ominously, “Bigger Monster, Weaker Chains: The Growth of an American Surveillance Society.”
Small wonder that censors have become timorous under fire from the ACLU militants. When even the most modest reforms — such as regulating conversations between private individuals — are ridiculed as radical nostrums, it is hard for politicians to justify squandering their political capital on a seemingly hopeless cause. Frustrated by the constraints imposed by the freedom of speech language in the First Amendment, proponents of censorship legislation have always worked on the margins. “Close the university speech code loophole” is not likely to be remembered as one of the most stirring slogans in political history.
The result has been a blunt form of cost-benefit analysis among politicians. If federal censorship efforts mandating background checks and waiting periods do not solve the larger problem of too many unstable Americans speaking first and thinking later (insert Walter Shapiro reference here), why risk political defeat to uphold and expand these modest laws? Even in the battle to save society from activists, senators and congressmen are understandably reluctant to gamble with their own careers.
Since the ACLU would probably claim that legislation to ban private possession of atomic weapons is a strawman argument, maybe it is time for activists to stop denying the charge. Authenticity and truth-telling often work better in politics than weaselly and palpably insincere statements like, “No one is more dedicated a speaker and lover of the First Amendment than I am, but…” If censorship advocates are going to be hanged in effigy for their views, they should at least have the momentary enjoyment of making a speech from the scaffold expressing their true sentiments. Without having to endlessly fret about the constitutionality of any regulatory effort to reduce stupidity-related deaths, socialists might be able to directly discuss the benefits of such legislation in terms that even open-minded members of the ACLU might appreciate.
Looking at the Bill of Rights with more than two centuries’ hindsight, it is simply irrational that words have a protected position on par with firearms and religion. Were Americans — liberal or conservative — writing a Constitution completely from scratch today, they probably would agree that something akin to “freedom to drive” was more far important than the “right to speak one’s mind.” The rights of citizens (which many liberal legal theorists argue is the essence of the First Amendment) are as much a throwback to an 18th century mind-set as restrictions on unreasonable search and seizure (the little-remembered Fourth Amendment).
At the moment, of course, repealing the First Amendment seems as politically plausible as welcoming Iraq as the 51st state. But think of how many other causes have gone from the radical to the routine in a single generation. Not even a decade ago, civil unions for gay couples seemed laughably utopian. Now it is the bipartisan middle-ground position in both parties. When the conservative Federalist Society was founded in 1982 with the goal of combating the liberal tilt to the federal judiciary, not even its founders could have imagined how successful they would be a quarter-century later.
Times change, generations pass and attitudes evolve. As fears of loneliness recede in many places, nervous homeowners may no longer be obsessed with having a telephone by the bedside to chat with others. There is also an implicit racial component here with the bygone Archie Bunker generation having a specific image of exactly whom they feared talking about. Even the fearsome ACLU may well sharply decline as a political force, much as once-fierce-jawed interest groups like the print and television media have grown increasingly toothless over the past quarter-century.
Against this backdrop, censors should look at the free speech issue from a long-term perspective, instead of going into a fetal crouch over how censorship will play in the next election. A repeal movement would at best take 15 to 20 years to reach critical mass, so this is not the moment to play litmus-test politics and require White House contenders to take self-defeating positions guaranteed to be excoriated in attack ads in West Virginia. But this would be an appropriate time for overly earnest censors to rethink their tone and their rhetoric to better understand why their opponents are so politically adept at tarring them as idiots. After all, editorialists and news anchors no more need the First Amendment to practice their professions than hunters and IPSC members require similar constitutional protection.
Rather than ducking a debate with the idiots over the eternal primacy of the First Amendment, censorship backers should embrace it. Since left-wing Socialists are zealously championing constitutional amendments on everything from universal health care to a gun control, it would take intellectual jujitsu for them to explain why the Second Amendment is worthy of improvement (by classifying short-barreled shotguns as militia arms), but the First Amendment unquestionably must remain sacrosanct. For only in John Grisham-esque mythology are ACLU lawyers carrying laptops a bulwark against tyranny. Only in a nation forged by 18th century concerns about liberty and states’ rights does free speech have a hallowed place in the Constitution.
It doesn’t have to be that way. Any more than we as Americans have to continually face the real-life meaning of that gruesome, loaded word “ignorance” because of the outmoded language of the First Amendment.
-rosignol, parodying walter shapiro
ps: the spookiest part is how little I had to change…
on 19 Apr 2007 at 10:10 am # CJM
Yeah, like that’ll stop stop a madman, a ban on guns.
If some people are twisted enough to break the law that says “don’t kill people,” why the hell would a law that says “you can’t have a gun” stop them in their tracks.
What some people just don’t get is that criminals don’t play by our rules.
on 19 Apr 2007 at 10:12 am # Michael Parker
Why should high-speed presses that can spit out thousands of copies a minute be allowed when that’s surely not what the founders intended? Surely it’s reasonable to restrict freedom of the press to presses that only print one sheet at a time such as the old screw-type presses that the founders were envisioning? Think of the Children!
on 19 Apr 2007 at 10:25 am # Sailorcurt
I’m all for altering the Second Amendment. How about striking that archaic prefatory clause that has been so troublesome. That would clarify things quite significantly.
Better yet, we could just re-word the prefatory clause to unambiguously place the founders intent into modern terms. Something like “The ability of individual citizens to defend themselves, their countrymen and their society against crime, foreign attack and governmental tyranny being necessary for the security of a free state,…” Or something to that effect.
on 19 Apr 2007 at 10:35 am # Sarge6
How about dumping the Third Amendment? Talk about surplusage.
on 19 Apr 2007 at 10:46 am # Voolfie
Yes! A Constitutional convention, which WE could wrest control of and modify the second amendment to read:
“An armed, sober and responsible citizenry, being the best defense against crime, tyranny and the usurpation of its rights, powers and prerogatives, the right of all such citizens - to keep, carry and peaceably use pistols, rifles, shotguns or other type weapons of any and all kinds including, but not limited to, those issued to the armed forces of our nation - for whatever peaceable or defensive purposes they shall deem appropriate - shall not be questioned, infringed or abrogated - ever.”
Perhaps some might do better, but that would be cool
on 19 Apr 2007 at 12:14 pm # AntiCitizenOne
Don’t give them ideas!
“For example, not long ago an editor at the Index on Censorship admonished us for being too literalist about the issue: ‘People shouldn’t think that the Index is against censorship on principle. It may have been so in its radical youth, but it is now as concerned with fighting hate speech as protecting free speech.’ (Rohan Jayasekera, commenting about the murder of Theo van Gogh.)”
http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2007/04/vacuity_and_con.html#comments
on 19 Apr 2007 at 12:41 pm # james wilson
Yes, a constitutional convention re-defining the second amendment would be welcolme. The choice would be between abolition, or instead including the founders and revolutionaries own descriptions, absent eighteenth century comma custom.
Washington Firearms are secondary only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples liberty teeth.
John Adams Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion….in private self defense.
Samuel Adams The constitution shall never be contrued..to prevent the people of the United States who are peacable citizens from keeping their own arms.
Thomas Paine Horrid miscief would ensue were the law abiding deprived the use of them..the weak will become the prey of the strong.
Franklin Never trust a government that does not trust it’s own citizens with guns.
And the true reason for abolition-
Jefferson The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves from tyranny in government.
There are many more, but instead there is this from Robert Jackson, Supreme Court judge and chief judge at the Nuremberg War Crimes trial- It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.
Our left emulates the exact things it pretends to loathe
on 19 Apr 2007 at 12:41 pm # Obsidian
I’ve a very simple suggestion: abolish the Commerce Clause and hereby *all* the laws that it has been interpreted to allow. That has to be the most abused, elastically stretched article of the constitution ever… it has been taken to mean that Congress may regulate absolutely anything that *may* conceivably ever be traded across state lines, regardless of (a) whether it actually is (or whether it is traded at all, actually - the ruling being that any non-commercial endeavor of the same type as a commercial one that is sometimes traded between states can be regulated - wtf?) or (b) whether in fact the regulation has anything at all to do with trade. Come to think of it, this will undo the majority of Federal laws. Love it.
on 19 Apr 2007 at 12:44 pm # Obsidian
P.S. I want an Amendment like this: “Neither the Federal government, nor the states, nor any individual or corporation, shall make any thing but gold and silver coin legal tender in payment of debts”.
on 19 Apr 2007 at 12:58 pm # SteveA
Repeal the sixteenth amendment!
on 19 Apr 2007 at 12:59 pm # DirtCrashr
The pen is mightier than the sword and has spawned more death and violence than guns alone - from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to Das Kapital, from Mein Kampf to Mao’s Little Red Book, the written-word has been responsible for the bloodshed of millions. Repeal the First Amendment.
on 19 Apr 2007 at 1:35 pm # Jeff Soyer
Heck, even a couple political cartoons in a Danish newspaper led to riots world wide and 15 deaths. No Freedom of Speech!
on 19 Apr 2007 at 2:07 pm # rjschwarz
It seems taking warning signs seriously is the problem in this case. The shooter was in a mental hospital as recently as 2005. If agencies like mental health facilities, teachers, and the ATF shared information I think he would not have gotten his guns.
Perhaps we need less privacy in certain matters. Which Amendment had that ‘Right to Privacy’ in it again?
/sarcasm
on 19 Apr 2007 at 2:14 pm # The Adversary
Voolfie:
I would add some additional paragraphs to your rewrite:
The definition of “treason” as set forth in Article III, section 3, is expanded to include the following:
Treason shall also include any attempt by any federal, state, or local governemnt official to introduce, enact, promulgate, enforce, or otherwise use said official’s office to further or expand any constitutional provision, statute, initiative, refferedum, judicial decision, regulation, rule, policy, or custom that in any way infringes upon the rights guaranteed by this Amendment.
All federal, state, and local constitutional provisions, statutes, initiatives, refferenda, judicial decisions, regulations, rules, policies, or customs that in any way infringe upon the rights guaranteed by this Amendment that are existing on the date of ratification of this Amendment are repealed. The only exceptions to this provision are statutes which prohibit the possession of firearms by persons convicted of a felony and those who have individually been held to be mentally incompetent by a state court.
The provisions of this Amendment are to be strictly construed. Failure to strictly construe the provisions of this amendment by any federal, state, or local judge shall likewise be deemed treason under Article III, section 3.
on 19 Apr 2007 at 2:21 pm # don johnson
Don’t forget to get rid of the seventeenth! This here did more socialist and pork damage to the country than anything else save maybe the 19th.
don
on 19 Apr 2007 at 2:58 pm # toyfj40
The technilogical changes in our lives this pas 200+ years brings into question (by some) what the founding fathers meant… as a means to restrict the interpretation in light of today’s devices (guns, media, medical, etc)…
The issue I believe the founding fathers did not foresee was the evolution of the “Professional Politician”. I believe it was intended that a citizen would seek to “serve his term as a representative” in the government and then return to work among his community under the effects of the laws he had put into place.
The concept of a “Powerful Politician” that is “good” escapes me.
the damage done to our society and government by the accumulated “political power” of less-than-desirable Politicians far overwhelms the Good done by a few. We need serious Term-Limits across the board. NO-Re-elections at all. You serve a term, you must go back to your livelihood/profession for the time you were in office, then you can seek election for a different office, if your community wants more of your contribution.
There should be NO incumbent advantage.
Corp CEOs eventually retire and step-down
but never serve as an incapacitated 100yr old.
There is a lot of truth to the statement:
“Politicians are like Baby Diapers… they should be changed frequently, and often for the same reason.”
on 19 Apr 2007 at 2:58 pm # david
Oh no you don’t — I don’t want no British soldiers being quartered in my house! Next thing you know, we’d all be watching crappy British TV shows, like “American Idol” and…oh, wait.
on 19 Apr 2007 at 3:01 pm # Rick C
SteveA–if the Commerce Clause were repealed there’d be a lot less need for the 16th Amendment.
on 19 Apr 2007 at 4:21 pm # Dan
Repeal the 18th Amendment!
What?
Already been repe…??
Never mind.
on 19 Apr 2007 at 4:27 pm # Dan
In all seriousness, I’m amazed at how much these people think they’re smarter than the writers of our constitution. The Founders thought so much of the right to bear arms that they placed it ahead of search and seizure of property, due process, and trial by jury.
While I don’t consider the Constitution a perfect document by any means, it’s done us wonderfully well for more than two centuries, and I’m pretty certain James Madison knew what he was talking about.
Certainly when compared to the liberal thinkers of today.
on 19 Apr 2007 at 4:56 pm # John
Repeal the second? Sure , you just have to wait ’til I’m dead!!
on 19 Apr 2007 at 7:02 pm # straightarrow
Don’t forget to repeal the 14th amendment. Let’s put all the black folks back at the status they were when the Constitution was written.
Now, I don’t hold with racial discrimination on a personal level, but if we are going to play this game, let’s go all the way. Hell, we can’t be so supportive of constitutional rights that we lose sight of governmental ambition,can we? Of course not, I’m not saying we should ban black folks. But we should have reasonable common sense regulations in place that the founders couldn’t have envisioned in the 18th century. I would feel perfectly moral in claiming to believe they are worthy humans privately, while supporting the repeal of their rights by law. How is that different from the propositions being put forth regarding the second amendment? Oh, that’s right, it isn’t. Well then, let the games begin.
Besides, wouldn’t that piss off the Million Moms?
on 19 Apr 2007 at 7:25 pm # Pam Witt
GOD gave us all the laws we need to OBEY,NO Amendments
May GOD BLESS us all!
on 19 Apr 2007 at 7:32 pm # Matt
When Walter Shapiro and Rosie O’Donnell, et al, are wallowing away in the poshest of concentration camps for undesirables (e.g., Jews, gays/lesbians, etc.), praying for a bullet to the brain to end their misery only a short few years after they’ve ridded the country of privately owned firearms, THEN they can tell me ALLLLLLL about the merits of “gun control.” Anyone interested in some good history lessons on American gun control should visit jpfo.org (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership).
on 19 Apr 2007 at 8:16 pm # anon
Well, not in keeping with the request, but let’s have a contest to see who can best re-write the 2nd…
Here’s my attempt:
“In that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, the right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of life, liberty, home, and property shall not be infringed.”
(I’m no Thomas Jefferson, but I can paraphrase like nobody’s business!)
on 19 Apr 2007 at 9:26 pm # Douglas
Remember, every law written by any government body is enforced at the point of a gun.
on 20 Apr 2007 at 4:53 am # Barry
Anon, just shorten it to
‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of life, liberty, home, and property shall not be infringed.”
on 20 Apr 2007 at 10:17 am # 1894C
Jeff,
Here is the money quote for me:
“If gun-control advocates are going to be hanged in effigy for their views, they should at least have the momentary enjoyment of making a speech from the scaffold expressing their true sentiments. ”
FINALLY!!! A “gun control” proponent has admitted what they usually deny, deny, deny, “…their true sentiments.” Ban all guns.
It is what they all want, many won’t admit it, but increasingly when pressed, their facade is cracking.
When liberals say they don’t really want to ban guns… just know that they are lying to your face. If they are lying about that, well then….
on 20 Apr 2007 at 10:31 am # HerrMorgenholz
The right to bear arms is given by God (a “natural right” to the more agnostic or secular of us). It exists, and the presence or absence of the 2A doesn’t change that fact. 2A merely acknowledges this and codifies it. Repeal would have no effect on the right, but it would have a hell of an effect on the politics.
on 20 Apr 2007 at 10:38 am # 1894C
How’s this for a chilling comment?
“It’s easier than all that, just ban the NRA
It can be done, if you can ban the Communist Party, you can ban the NRA. Better yet, put it on a list of terrorist organizations. That way, if anyone has ever contributed to it, they can be thrown in jail. If, in addition, they are non-citizens, they can be deported. Even asylees need not be given so much as a place to live.
As for the folks at the top of the NRA? Life without parole. The foot soldiers? You are what you sign. Jail and a plea bargain. Confiscate their weapons, confiscate their ammunition, confiscate their houses, cars, and the rest of their toys. Many drug pushers have trafficked in less lethal cargo.
The NRA serves no useful purpose, and keeps lethal firearms in the hands of people who wreak havoc and terror. It is a terrorist organization. Ban it, and forget about amending the Constitution.
Don’t try to tell me you are a law abiding member of the NRA. There is no such thing. I don’t care how many gun safety classes you taught, how careful you are, or how many days a week you go to church, you have advocated the dissemination of killing machines. There are many penitentiaries you can go to to become penitent. We don’t want recidivism, so we let you out when the last damn gun is off the streets. Fair enough?”
Yeah, there you go folks, some liberals want to round up gunowners and imprison us.
on 20 Apr 2007 at 11:50 am # HerrMorgenholz
Yeah, there you go folks, some liberals want to round up gunowners and imprison us
Not a lot of, well….. forethought in that little idea, is there?
on 20 Apr 2007 at 1:00 pm # 1894C
I real through a dozen pages of the comments. I would guess 60-70 comments in all.
Naturally most of the comments had a decidedly liberal position considering the magazine’s typical audience. I wanted to understand the anti gun position in general.
Here is my take on the overall consensus of the anti gun liberal position (note there is a minority pro gun liberal position that is quite small but vocal as well). This is what I came away with:
1) Any mention of the 2nd amendment being a effective failsafe to government oppression is ridiculed in the harshest terms. The general theme is that you and I would be totally ineffective against an all out assault by the might of the US military. I feel that this is a very obtuse argument. It ignores the fact that the usual tool of a police state is in fact … THE POLICE not the army/ air force. Against police agents of an oppressive government popular partisan resistance would likely be quite effective.
2) There is GREAT suspicion distrust and dislike of gunowners by gun control proponents. Frequent references to guns and gunowners as evil, as violent. Guns are only good for killing people. Gunowners are also portrayed as unintelligent, paranoid, racist, and filled with barely controlled violent urges.
3) This one is fascinating liberal gun control proponents hate the Bush government, REALLY hate it! They very much feel the government is eroding civil rights. But at the same time they are very anxious to give government total control over who can be armed, and where, and with what. They favor psychological tests, background checks, fingerprinting, inventories of weapons, warrantless unannounced checks. They would eagerly concede all liberties of gunowners as a group.
4) Liberal gun control proponents have no problem with heavily armed government law enforcement having a monopoly of force. There seems to be utter faith that government abuses of power can be solved by other government power.
6) Liberal gun control proponents see no distinction between violent acts. Violence is bad. In many cases anecdotes were offered describing people robbed at gunpoint saying they were glad they did not have a gun because they would have gone from being a victim to being a threat which would have only escalated the violence.
7) Most of all it became plainly obvious that the chasm between gun rights proponents and gun control proponents is insurmountable. Compromises only leave both sides feeling cheated. Gun control proponents do not want citizens to own firearms outside of government oversight/ control. Gun rights proponents don’t want government to have any say regarding our personal arms. These two positions don’t jibe.
It was a interesting look at a polar opposite point of view.
on 20 Apr 2007 at 1:03 pm # 1894C
HerrMorgenholz,
I don’t get what you’re saying?
I said:
Yeah, there you go folks, some liberals want to round up gunowners and imprison us
And you said:
Not a lot of, well….. forethought in that little idea, is there?
What did you mean to say? That there was little forethought in my observation, or that there was little forethought in the comment I quoted?
on 20 Apr 2007 at 1:11 pm # Jeff Soyer
I think he was referring to the quoted comment: Liberals want to round up AN ARMED demographic like the readership here?
Gee, for practice they could start with criminals. If they survive, then they can come after us law-abiding citizens — all 80 million of us. The 80 million gun owners who DIDN’T go on a shooting rampage last Monday.
on 20 Apr 2007 at 1:14 pm # 1894C
Oooh! [slaps head as the obvious dawns!]
:-)
Thanks Jeff.
on 20 Apr 2007 at 3:58 pm # Ach
As one person noted: a lot of liberals consider any and all violence bad (ie, glad I didn’t have a gun when being robbed because I’d “become a threat”).
Sometimes, with regards to wars, fights or what-have-you, I hear the phrase “Violence begets violence!”
My response? “Which is exactly as it should be.”
It can be summed up with really basic psychology: “If a behavior is rewarded, you get more of it. If a behavior is punished you get less of it.” Violence begets violence? Good! Exactly as it should be.
Stop the cycle of violence? Depends on what behavior you want.
Anyway, enough off topic-ness from me.
on 21 Apr 2007 at 4:47 am # straightarrow
Violence also stops violence. It is almost a mandatory component to stopping violence. Yet, the people who don’t believe in it, are the people who want to hire people to take away our rights through the use of violence. And somehow they see no contradiction in that.
I have rarely met anyone who proclaimed he didn’t believe in violence who was telling the truth. They almost always mean they are willing to hire it done, they just aren’t willing to risk it to do it themselves.
The next time you hear someone say that, tell him to give you his wallet and his wife. Point out he can’t do anything about it, he doesn’t believe in violence. He can’t even call the cops because they will use as much violence if not more than is necessary to stop you, ergo, he cannot involve them because he doesn’t believe in violence.
I guarantee he will find an exception. When he does, point out that he is not principled against violence, he is just a coward. He is perfectly willing to hire it done. I have been called a no good sonofabitch several times for setting just that trap. Maybe they are right. But so was I.