If we didn’t have a Second Amendment in the United States, we would still have firearms and people could still own guns, and hunt, and do all that other fun stuff. But we wouldn’t have what amounts to a religious proscription against doing anything smart when it comes to firearms.
The Ohh Shoot blog reports on a very interesting situation. A woman was very severely wounded (nearly killed, I’d say) when her pistol fell out of her holster and discharged, the bullet piercing several body parts and organs and eventually lodging in her liver. She seems to be making a reasonably well documented claim that this particular firearm has a defect; It tends to discharge if jolted. One could argue that in theory any firearm might do that, but this is a situation where this particular brand, make, model of gun does it far more often than it should.
But it does not matter. If this was a faulty toaster or a safety problem with a car or a ball point pen that was dangerous, there would be a mechanism (or two) to warn consumers, recall the product, and/or make the manufacturer change the design and possibly retrofit for safety.
But no. None of this can happen because it is a firearm, and any effort ever to implement any kind of safety regulation at all is always opposed with the Big Money and Long Arm of the NRA.
The Second Amendment gives the NRA and the “Gun Nuts” the power to control the safety of the environment we live in. This should not be. It needs to end.
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Has there ever been a court ruling that the 2nd Amendment exempts gun manufacturers from product liability claims or that the Consumer Safety Commission can’t regulate them? I’m no lawyer, but am unaware of any such precedent. I think she can sue them for making an unsafe product and the Consumer Safety Commission could be given jurisdiction if congress so desired. This has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment per se, unless you’re just taking it as an exemplar of American legal attitudes.
Slightly OT, but as I reflect on the final troop withdrawal from Irag (aka: “Operation: Leave and Declare Victory”), I can’t help but reflect on the fact that Ba’athist Iraq had the most heavily armed citizenry of any modern republic. The Swiss may have their mandatory service and gun-ownership, but they couldn’t touch the kind of personal arsenal that was the typical Iraqi household.
And yet, despite the fact that a typical Iraqi household under Saddam Hussein contained multiple assault rifles, handguns, grenade launchers, etc., there was never a successful attempt to overthrow the Ba’athist gov’t. (There were, BTW, several unsuccessful attempts. Guns don’t really help when you’re trying to foment revolution.)
The whole notion that an armed citizenry is necessary to prevent tyranny is laughable in the 20th/21st century. The 2nd Amendment was superseded by the technology of warfare decades ago.
Kinna left us hanging there Greg, wanna expound a lil bit?
Why’s and wherefore’s perhaps?
danielrudolph, I don’t think there are but I don’t think that is the way the problem has developed. Having an entire constitutional Amendment for a toy gives that toy a significant cachet that it does not deserve and that does our society a disservice.
No, no, NO… We do NOT take away basic freedoms because some people are stupid, or abuse them. The Second Amendment is the People’s Right to Arm Themselves Against Tyranny! The American colonists would NOT have been able to revolt without the capacity to arm themselves. The Founders knew what they were doing when they penned the Second Amendment. The problem, as I see it, is that Liberals have allowed the “gun nuts” to be the only ones that take advantage of this basic right.
The American colonists would NOT have been able to revolt without the capacity to arm themselves.
Yet they did, but without a Second Amendment!
The Founders knew what they were doing when they penned the Second Amendment.
Doubtful. In any event, the way the 2nd Amendment is used today has little relationship to what they could possibly have been thinking then.
The problem, as I see it, is that Liberals have allowed the “gun nuts” to be the only ones that take advantage of this basic right.
Maybe, but we may know different librals! 🙂
@Sly you state that the American colonists would NOT have been able to revolt without the capacity to arm themselves.
Once they revolted and won independence, a group of elitist white men got together and wrote up a constitution and the bill of rights, which were ratified by the states over the course of several years. One of the amendments in the bill of rights, the second one I think, granted the citizens the right to arm themselves. Clearly, the citizens then used their new found right to arm themselves, hopped into a time machine, and went and in time to defeat the British with their now accessible guns. Fucking brilliant if you ask me, no wonder the founding fathers are venerated.
damn you Laden and your ultrafast electrons!
Now, I get it … Time machine! I had not thought of that.
I wonder if The Doctor was behind this!
And then there are these people:
http://patriotupdate.com/15897/how-gun-control-and-the-crisis-in-europe-are-related
Trust me. We want to take away their guns.
I am sympathetic to Sly’s POV but I refer him to HP’s post.
Back in the day, “arms” meant mainly firearms. Nowadays, “arms” means anything up to and including nuclear weapons.
Yet you never see the 2nd Amendment purists arguing that our “Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” means that we should be able to drop by WalMart and pick up a DOI WMD.
…yet I do sometimes feel that more liberals should be armed….
This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, although I am sure the NRA would say it does. The wording of the 2nd makes it clear that it is the only right subject to regulation. Safety reulation to protect the bearers of the arms would be entirely consistent with the wording and intent of the 2nd admendment.
For that matter, I’m sure you could pass safety regulations to prevent your fingers from getting crushed while operating a printing press without running afoul of the 1st admendment.
I agree with you on the manufacturer’s liability point. Gun makers should be held to the same standards as any other other manufacturer of any other product. In this case, a defect in the weapon was combined with user error in a tragic way. The woman has admitted she did not have the safety engaged on the weapon. Legislating intelligence is impossible, so I think we need to work on harm reduction.
We have mechanisms in place to repeal amendments, and if that is your goal, it is your right to pursue it, however disbanding the NRA, as despicable as it may be, creates a dangerous precedent where whatever group in power decides who can think wand advocate whatever idea.
By the way I am a liberal gun owner, and a responsible gun owner.
This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, although I am sure the NRA would say it does.
Exactamundo.
For that matter, I’m sure you could pass safety regulations to prevent your fingers from getting crushed while operating a printing press without running afoul of the 1st admendment.
THAT is the beginning of a brilliant blog post. I hope you are a blogger.
imjustred: I wasn’t thinking that I would disband them, or that YOU would disband them, or that the government would do it either. I was thinking that they would be reasoned with and then just disband themselves.
Once we’ve taken away their guns they’ll really have no reason not to .
Once they’ve been reasoned with? Really? Because we’ve been trying to ‘reason’ with the religious community for years and it’s worked so well at getting them to disband?
It’s a great ambition, I just don’t see any clear path to making it happen…perhaps you could offer some further enlightenment/instructions? I see a need for a longer post on this subject, please.
The Second Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights in 1791 for the original reason that the People were once part of a militia that could be drafted during time of war.
This one incident that occurred cannot rule a repeal of the Second Amendment. Besides, the Second Amendment is broken all of the time anyway through unconstitutional laws being passed banning firearms in certain states, etc. Besides, states like the ones out here in the Southwestern United States have conceal and carry, let alone public carrying of guns.
If people aren’t allowed to carry guns on them, fugitives will just get them off the black market illegally. Then when you’re getting mugged, you are going to really want a weapon on you for defense. This incident is so rare, and is only one, it would be illogical to try to repeal the Second Amendment. And at that point, it’s the state’s problem what happened, not the country, as some states are not allowed to carry guns in public.
Cynthia, I’ll do that if you like.
Taylor, your arguments sound very familiar, but don’t touch on the topic of the post at all. Not even a little. Personally, I have no interest whatsoever in banning guns.
Sorry Greg, I was confused by the title to your piece, The “Why we need to disband the NRA” kind of threw me for a loop I guess.
Um….. sorry to possibly disappoint, but gun manufactures often post recalls for defective production runs. If the owner of a firearm has registered their arm with the manufacturer then the maker of the defective gun will contact the owner to either arrange a repair or replacement. This has happened to me with a Sig P220 in .45acp.
We do give something of a ‘protected status’ to guns and ownership of them. And I really would enjoy more discussion of how to fix the problems we have with guns while NOT removing them from the hands of citizens. There has to be a middle ground between the “arm everyone’ and the ‘no one should want to own guns’ sides. I just don’t have any idea how to get there.
And one thing about the poor woman who was shot so badly – if she didn’t have a bullet in the chamber, ready to fire, I don’t think that would have happened. If you are going to carry a weapon, you are obligated to be extra careful with it. That’s not an indictment, just an observation.
Sometimes it seems we take more care with driver training than we do with gun ownership. And that’s really saying something, given that most of us complain about other drivers.
Stacy @ 12
Don’t worry, many of us are — we just don’t make a fuss about it. 🙂
I always used to think like Sly up there and was a member of the NRA for quite awhile until I perceived them as too extreme. I used to think we needed arms to keep the government honest.. but really – that hasn’t worked out too well. They are more corrupt than ever it seems. And witness the police brutality against the Occupy peaceful protesters – we aren’t in a free democracy anymore. And now I think a bit more like HP.. witness the Arab Spring rolling across their “homelands”. I actually think if they were armed it would have been a quick end to them, unless like Libya they had NATO bombs helping out which wasn’t going to happen.
I’m a liberal, I hunt, own several guns (for hunting and maybe a pistol or two for plinking and grizzly protection – though I usually go without the protection and rely more on my senses against the bears since really you need to carry a shotgun for them) and I don’t plan on supporting anyone taking away anyone’s guns who use them responsibly. (The rallying cry of the conservatives – we’re gonna take away their guns!!) But the extremism of the NRA does distress me (think I quit after the armor piercing bullets debacle).
Greg
Never let a crisis go to waste!
Really, someone is seriously injured, by a defective gun probably carelessly handled, so we need to rewrite the Constitution? If the gun is defective then the manufacturer is obviously responsible so hold them responsible. If you really check you’ll find no one associated with the NRA calls for immunity for negligent products.
I understand that in a revolution our government could send troops with automatic supported by air power, but an armed populous can still fight back, and the second amendment is clearly intended to guarantee that we have the weapons to do so.
Greg, I believe you when you say you don’t want to ban firearms. You have tended to advacate a reasonable and reasoned position on guns, not to mention seeming to be reasonably honest.
But I take issue with the statement “If we didn’t have a Second Amendment in the United States, we would still have firearms and people could still own guns”.
There are a lot of people in the US who do want to ban guns. In some places they’ve managed de facto bans, as in New York. They’ve managed to shove nonsensical and stupid legislation like the Assault Weapons Ban through Congress. And they have largely been stopped, where they have been stopped, by the Second Amendment and those groups, including but not limited to the NRA, who choose to defend it.
I was living in Australia when the Port Arthur Massacre happened. In a very short period of time, with basically no thought or public input, the Howard Government pushed the states of Australia into accepting a set of laws that have, effectively, disarmed the populace. The Australian Constitution provides for no actual rights to the populace.
Without a prohibition, government WILL try to control, dissuade or ban what it doesn’t like. Without the Second Amendment, I don’t believe the people of the US would be able to own firearms.
How about replacing it with a sensible amendment that does not refer to guns, guarantees rights and access as the citizens determine to anything we normally have rights and access too, but allows for reasonable regulation for safety and well being?
HP, do you have a helpful link I can use for the state of armament of the Iraqi population under Saddam?
Re: Suggestion to disband NRA & rescind 2nd Amd. Aside from the fact that you provide NO viable means to do either as there are None, here are a few practical suggestions for you.
1 Call your proctologist ASAP. He’s just informed us he’s found your head.
2 If you have something else to say, raise your hand and place it over your mouth.
3 Shssss: That’s the sound of nobody giving a shit what you have to say.
4 Now wipe your mouth. There’s still some Bullshit left on your lips
5 Now sit back, relax & slip into something comfortable …..like a Coma.
In closing, it’s been interesting reading your Inane, Irrelevant Rant. But the next time I want to hear from an Asshole, I’ll just fart.
I can see a few problems with that, actually. First, who or what would determine the “normality” of an item? I suppose that, barring a stated methodology, it would be up to the courts. Personally, I wouldn’t have too much dificulty with that, but if you think the current screaming about “activist judges” is bad..!
Second, to me the most important time rights are protected is when they are least popular. When the KKK wants to march, and they can, because that’s freedom of speech. When the holocaust denier wants to say his piece. When the criminal walks free because his rights were trampled gathering evidence against him. Those situations ultimately protect all the holders of those rights.
In introducing a “normalcy” test, you would deny us the protection of the courts precisely when we need it most: when the tyranny of the majority – no less a tyranny than any autocrat – deems that the minority must give up their rights “for the greater good”.
It is never, truly, for the greater good.
sundoga, my preference is to cancel the second amendment right away and if gun ownership is threatened, then so be it. We live in a democracy. No threat which may occur at a certain time or place will turn into banning guns.
My second choice is to have a reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment but that so far has not happened.
My third choice, which I only suggest because I’m not being given the first two choices, is some sort of generalized “rights of owernship and activity” which, as you point out, would be difficult.
mikedemontoya: You make my point very nicely. I don’t want people like you to own guns. And that, my friend, is a very reasonable desire on my part.
Greg, I live in a democracy too. And one threat DID turn into banning guns.
It can happen anywhere, if there’s nothing stopping it.
sundoga, how does the Australian public view the ban on guns in retrospect? Some Australian ‘net-friends of mine are very satisfied with it. They trust the police, don’t see why a private citizen would want a gun, except perhaps farmers for protecting livestock. How common is your position?
Damn, and here I thought that liberal fascism was more or less a myth in America these days! For the record, I am a liberal democrat who fully supports full equality for all humans, rigid separation of church and state, public eductaion, sex ed, full reproductive freedom and free contraception & reproductive care, greater access to college, a robust social safety net, public transport, environmental protection, and just about every other liberal idea that’s worth a damn.
I do start to disagree, however, when some liberals treat their fear-filled “safety” concerns the same way that conservative christians treat their fear-filled sex prohibitions- as something holy, that requires lots of people to unwillingly give up their rights, and possibly their lives, to live up to the lofty ideals of someone who thinks they know better.
Recently, 4/5 of our congress decided to vote to make it “legal” for the military to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens at the whim of the president. It’s been a silent and completely unconstitutional policy for a decade, but will now be enshrined as law. I don’t see any way for it to be challenged in the courts, either. You might sit back and scoff at the notion of an armed populace fighting back against their own government. As for this liberal democrat- since I had a pretty good year financially I am going to become, for the second time in my life, a gun owner.
While republicans moan and cry about having to pay for education and infrastructure, while democrats keep pushing for ever more watered-down versions of great society ideals but ignore the big picture, our constitution has been killed, gutted, hung out to dry, and then used as asswipe and thrown in the sewer. The fourth amendment is long gone(and brutal police corruption and government theft by automatic seizure laws run rampant, while our prisons fill with non-violent offenders). The sixth is currently under attack and sinking fast, with Obama poised to sign a blatantly unconstitutional law like a good Bush. The first is still going strong, but increasingly irrelevant and useless to the masses when the widespread flow of information is fully corporate controlled. And the second is still being attacked by dim bulbs like yourself, who somehow think that absolute surrender to tyranny is an answer to our problems. Well Kumbaya, motherfucker.
This second amendment loving democrat says: “Go screw yourself, Nanny Laden. Your concern is noted and rightfully ignored.”
nippletwister,
go away, you repulsive turd pile.
– A (very young) Veteran
Greg Layden writes: “….My preference is to cancel the 2nd Amd…”
What this dim bulb neglects to explain is HOW he’d do this. Hint. see US Constitution / Article 5. Assuming Dim Bulb Greg has an IQ well above room temp, (which is questionable), that will allow him the necessary intellect to understand the enormity of the process of amending the Constitution, he’ll understand that getting rid of ANY part of the Bill of Rights is just a Liberals Wet Dream Fantasy.
Sweet Dreams Greg.
ROLMAO
Thanks, Julian. It’s nice to see that someone who agreed to get paid out of our tax dollars to defend the rights of billionaires to own everything in the world and murder anyone who disagrees if ordered to, feels qualified to have a moral opinion about me. Your status as a veteran doesn’t really say anything at all about you. You might be a very moral and reasonable person, or you might be a willing fascist who enjoys power too much. I’ve known both. I can’t tell online, so I won’t judge, but you don’t get extra points either. I wonder how you feel about our new laws…are you happy to piss all over the constitution that protects us all, just to increase government control over citizens? What is you moral stance on torutre, indefinite detention, secret prisons, and an all-powerful military policing us? I see it as a bigger threat than terrorism ever was, and I see people lining up to take part. I’m not filled with confidence that Americans really want their freedom.
I can’t help but notice that you fall to insults very fast, without actually defending your opinions or arguing against anyone else’s. And I can’t help notice that Laden likes to throw out weak-ass pseudo-liberal fantasies and imply that there is something morally wrong with those who don’t like his control-freak fantasies. What you have in common is a distinct lack of perspective, facts, or power to enforce you wishes(for the monment, anyway) which is a good thing.
Oh blow it out your ass.
If you actually cared about preserving the autonomy and safety of citizens you would not flip out over regulatory measures. Regulations are what keep us safe.(Quit literally, that is what they exist for.)
The Bill of Rights (not the Constitution. That merely outlines how the government is structured) guarantees freedoms but it is not absolute nor should we feel obligated to uphold principles or ideals that were drafted over 200 years ago simply because that’s what’s on paper.
All law and government should be subject to change as the situation dictates and demands. Today’s world is very different from the era the Founding Fathers came together to draft The Constitution. (I find it highly ironic that a document created out of the need to replace an outdated model is now considered untouchable and beyond reproach.) We need to adapt as the situation dictates.
I’m not a particularly pleasant person. Your point?
Re: Greg laden & his 2nd Amd “restrictions”
Actually, the 2nd Amendment is already far more restricted than any other right. Is the Freedom of Speech really restricted? No, you can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theater (unless there is a fire), and you can’t slander people. In other words, you can’t maliciously or recklessly use speech to harm others. And that’s pretty much it. I would call those “reasonable restrictions”, because they basically say you can’t use your right to infringe on the rights of others. But there have always been laws that did the same thing for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It’s always been illegal to maliciously or recklessly use weapons to harm others. And those are reasonable restrictions.
But what gun control advocates want are laws, that if applied to the Freedom of Speech would equate to cutting out everyone’s tongue to ensure they don’t yell “fire” at the inappropriate time, or require special licenses (which could be denied if the government considered you to be a member of some group against whom they wish to discriminate), and taxes to own any instrument for writing down your thoughts, or being able to cut off all your communication with others if they don’t approve of what you say.
Those are NOT reasonable restrictions, and nothing even remotely close to this would ever be considered acceptable in relation to any other constitutional right.
Liberals want to destroy the Bill of Rights?!?!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Christ, it’s as if some people haven’t been awake for the last 30 years.
Hmmm…again. no real responses….
Yes, the constitution may need updating from time to time. There is in fact a process for this that has been used many times, Jeenyus! So far it has served non-fascists and non-totalitarians fairly well. The process does require a fairly public hearing of the proposed changes though, and insures a democratic element to the proceedings. And although the consitution may need occasional updating, I don’t think that a full reversal of some of the most foundational principles imposed on everyone by an entrenched and powerful minority is a good idea.
In fact, I’m of the view that we need to pay attention to the constitution now more than ever, since it is being whittled away piece by piece, without debate or public input, in ways that are hard to correct through the last defence of the courts.
We face real threats, to be sure…but I don’t think that unlimited police powers, and unleashing the military on our own streets is any kind of a solution. It’s been done time after time through history and failed miserably to provide anything other than bloody, violent, slave-driving, freedom-hating tyrannical governments, and miserable, beaten down citizens whose only purpose is allegiance to the powerful. That’s why we have strongly-worded, crystal clear limits on the power of government in the fucking bill of rights!
Maybe, just maybe, there are people with the combined experience and knowledge of history that inspired the constitution, who have had opinions on the subject that are at least as valid as your contemptuous and lazy dismissal of our foundational document.
Innocent people and non-violent criminals are regularly injured and even gunned down in no-knock warrants. The government now has the ability to spy on any of us, anytime, with zero check on power or accountability or even transparency after the fact. The government now claims the right to restrict travel at whim. The government has claimed the right to sieze your assets with no conviction or even trial. The president has claimed the right to assassinate citizens, and now congress will hand the president the right to make people disappear, forever, into secret prisons with no access to the courts, no need for a trial, and no contact with the press or anyone else. All of these are not only blatantly unconstitutional, but against the very foundational ideals of any kind of free society…but you don’t think we need to worry about that stupid fucking piece of paper!
Our government now claims all the powers that every mass-murdering tyrant or oppressive fascist government in history has claimed…and your snotty ignorance and apparent hatred and distrust of your fellow citizens is only helping grease the slide. Well done, loser, you have successfully given the government more authority over your life, your freedom, and your future, than you will ever have. Very well done!
More FACTS re: Rescinding the 2md Amd.
Here are some “INCONVENIENT TRUTHS” some Libturds refuse to deal with in their Fantasy of a “Gun Free Society”.
1: At the end of 2010 there were 290 Million Registered & an estimated 120 Million Unregistered guns. By 2012 an estimated HALF BILLION guns will be in circulation. 85 Million people own guns. 1 out of 3 homes has a gun. The DOJ admits it couldn’t put dent in these numbers, which are rapidly steadily increasing, thanks to the election of The Obamination.
2. I know a lot of cops. Most are conservatives who believe in the 2ed Amd. All say if charged with the DANGEROUS task of gun confiscation they’d refuse due to litigation and the public relations disaster re; Hurricane Katrina gun confiscation, and the fact they’d have to enter homes of neighbors, and friends. Then there’s the risk from people like me who’d not hesitate using DEADLY FORCE to protect our 2nd Amd. rights. The war on drugs, which has police cooperation, is a failure. Think of the failure gun confiscation would be with limited or no enforcement. And an unenforced law essentially ceases to exist.
3: The 1 alternative left to gun control fanatics is their REAL AGENDA: Repeal the 2ed Amd, as was done with the 18th. But the 18th was VERY UNPOPULAR. The 2ed has strong support; & as part of the Bill of Rights, is viewed as sacred & highly resistant to repeal. Any attempt to get 38 gun friendly States, & 2/3 of the House & Senate to vote for repeal is a Lib Wet Dream Fantasy. (See Constitution, Art. 5). A Gun Free Society will remain a FANTASY; believed only by the DELUSIONAL Libs & the terminally STUPID. So I offer this challenge: SHOW ME A PRACTICAL WAY TO IMPLEMENT THIS FANTASY. So far, no one has done so. Any takers?
No, nippletwister. It has needed to be updated constantly. It was very much accepting of racism and sexism, very vague on where the rights of the federal government ended and much of it still isn’t entirely fleshed out. It really isn’t as perfect as you imagine it to be. Keep in mind, there were no plans for a Bill of Rights. It was something tacked on at the very end after they whittled away at hundreds of proposed amendments.
No, we don’t. Read Scalia on anything and you’ll see just how much wiggle room someone can find.
No argument from me.
Ditto.
Don’t put words in my mouth.
It’s helpful now in this situation. We should not (we the citizenry) be in the habit of defaulting to whatever any document or law says simply because that’s what is written. That would be circular. Morals, the needs of society and the threats we are facing should be the deciding factors.
Right now, government infringement on rights is a major issue. So delegitimizing the powers it’s assumed should be a priority.
Lose the projection.
Yeah, cops do tend to be authoritarian thugs with zero professionalism and consider themselves above the law.
Gun “ FACTS” according to Liberals:
“We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time & anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.”
“Most people can’t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which everyone will abide by because they can be trusted.”
“An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with .45 will get angry & kill you.”
“Private citizens don’t need a gun for self- protection because police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court ruled police are not responsible for your protection.”
“Police have special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.”
“Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do “civilians” who must face criminals alone & therefore need less ammunition.
“Citizens don’t need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators working in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
“Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.”
“Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when weapons are removed.”
“A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.”
“These phrases: “Right of the PEOPLE to peaceably to assemble,” “Right of the PEOPLE to be secure in their homes,” “Enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the PEOPLE,” & “The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, & to the PEOPLE”, all refer to individuals. But “The Right of the PEOPLE to keep & bear arms” refers to the state.”
@mikedemontoya
You really are not helping your cause. I’m a liberal gun owner, and it’s cretins like you that make the case for repealing gun ownership with your ignorant babble.
mikedemontoya, I know more cops than you do, and they all want gun control. Lots of it.
One thing us Conservatives always notice about Libturd Assholes like Greg Laden who rant their Wet Dream Fantasy of getting rid of the 2nd Amd. & a gun free world. When challenged to explain in practical, realistic terms how they’d do it, we hear only SILENCE. Why are we NOT surprised? But trying to use Reason & Logic with an IGNORANUS like Greg is like trying to teach a pig to whistle. It only wastes your time & annoys the pig. Yes. In his deluded, fantasy dream-world Greg wishes it would happen. But wishes are like assholes. Everybody has one. Greg is now dismissed & may return to his normal mental state……. ASLEEP. Bye Bye Greg. Sweet Wet Dreams.
Anat – the general populace is pretty fine with it. Ownership of weapons was never as big here as in the US, due to a combination of sociological and historical factors. Australia has never fought a war within it’s borders – the closest they came was the bombings of northern ports during World War Two; as a result, self-defense just isn’t on the agenda. Add to that the fact that Australians, by and large, just aren’t politically savvy. Oh, they keep an eye on their government (and quite a few have developed a healthy distrust of it) but the vast majority, in my experience, really don’t know much about the bigger picture. A good example is that the Australian Constitution is virtually unread – it is not taught in schools, and most people never bother to look it up. For instance, I keep getting shocked looks when I explain that one section allows the Federal Parliament to deny the franchise to anyone for any reason with a simple majority.
I love living in Australia, I love the people, the society, the clean openness of the cities. But the political side frustrates me no end.
“sundoga”
I’m lived in Australia, having worked there for 2 years. And I agree. Australians are politically unaware & show a lack of political interest. However it is safer than the US regarding violent crime. But when I moved there from the US, I took my Glock .45 with me & carried it at all times, just as I now do here in the US. Better to have it & not need it than need it & not have it.
Mikedemontoya – Fair enough. Personally, I’ve never felt the need to be armed in public, but I don’t have a problem with others doing so. I will, however, admit that I have a distaste for violating the law, as I believe that casual violation of the law leads to disrespect for the body of law…and thus to increased serious crime.
My support for the second is primarily historical and political. An armed populace is not as easily cowed by a government’s military power; not as easily prevented from exercising their rights; not as easily stopped from casting down a government it has grown to despise. I like to point out the events of 1989-90 – where non-violent revolution did away with the governments of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, East Germany, the USSR – but then there was Romania…and Yugoslavia. If the time comes that we must do away with Washington (may that day be far from now) I hope it will be a Velvet Revolution…but I want to be ready if it is a Ceaucescu regime that must be dealt with instead.
Forget the fact that it’s unamerican but any politician who even attempts to disband the NRA and the 2nd amendment is going to catch hell from over 5 million NRA members and many more firearms owners . These fascist tactics have no place in this country and you should be ashamed of yourselves for even putting the idea out there. The fact is the majority of Americans don’t share your views. How would you like it if we made gay marriage illegal because some people it’s perverse and disgusting? You’d go crazy and you know it, but It doesn’t matter anyway because you’ll never disband the NRA or take away the constitutional rights of Americans no matter how hard you try. Stick that in your bongs and smoke it you sore losers.
Harry, thank you for your comment.
We’re still coming for your guns, tho.
Really, go live in North Korea