Shooting after shooting…..death after death….it seems to be a vicious cycle that we cannot get out of…..like it is stuck in some diabolical short story………yes, we have those that call for massive gun control, something I do not completely agree with…..and then there are those that think people need assault weapons to protect their home and family….another completely biased statement…….
Is it possible the 2nd amendment can be fixed?
Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens argues in the Washington Post that the debate over the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms can be settled with the addition of five words. Here they are, inserted into the amendment in bold:
- “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”
In his essay, which is an excerpt from his new book, Stevens writes that those words get back to what the original drafters had mind. It wasn’t about personal self-defense—”the notion that the states were concerned about possible infringement of that right by the federal government is really quite absurd.” Instead, the amendment was intended to protect “the citizen’s right (and duty) to keep and bear arms when serving in a state militia,” he writes. This stemmed from states’ concerns about a national standing army running roughshod over them, he explains. Recent court opinions have lost sight of this and curbed the government’s ability to “minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of weapons in private hands.” Click for his full column.
This could fix the “problem of guns”……but it could also open up a whole new bunch of “fixes’ to our beloved Constitution……and that would be something that is not gonna happen.
What do you, my readers, feel about this?
You’d have the vast weight of the gun culture that would oppose this who have become ingrained with the idea that personal ownership of any and all guns is their second amendment right. To them and less astute people who tend to suspect the government anyway, this would create such friction that the existing divisions in our country today would likely become even more pronounced.
That being said however, this is one fight we should attempt. The recent episode of the armed vigilantes out in Nevada supporting a ranchers supposed right to use federal land to graze his horse without restriction has shown us to what length some people’s versions of Liberty have stepped beyond.
I agree….the problem is cash….NRA has it…rational humans do not….
I don’t think messing with the two-hundred-year-old wording of the Constitution will do anything at all to address the problem as stated because of the morph the modern Right Wing has undergone from their original nobility to their present-day evil.
I do not think there should be any worry….if we could not get the ERA in the Constitution then I do not think that the 2nd is in any trouble at all…
“Earned Run Average? (ERA)
Equal Rights Amendment……baseball fan are we? LOL
Several thoughts here:
1. There have been about 70 mass shootings in US last several decades. Every time one occurs the pundits and cable news commentators start that “what’s wrong with America?” crap. With 325 million people and 6 guns for every man, woman and child, how can they use such rare and isolated incidents to condemn an entire society and therefore call for gun confiscation?
2. Have any of the anti gun people been victim of a home invasion? Do they live in cities where thugs and gunshots rule the night? Been victims of drive-by shooting? (my family members have survived five here in Miami). These people would think differently if they lived in the real world instead of their safe gated communities.
I will add that I don’t own a gun – never have. The people that get killed and wounded by guns are the victims. Why would they take away the guns that the victims need to protect themselves thus enhancing the invulnerability of the criminals?
Morning Carl and thanx for the visit……there is NO rationale here in this debate….slogans rule…..and the gun industry has many in their pockets……the 2nd is afe, as always…..
How about we step back and look at the issue differently?
1. Do you believe that people have a right to defend themselves against criminals?
2. Do you believe that people have a right to use tools to make up for physical differences in size, strength or numbers?
I’ll continue after hearing your answer to those questions.
Thanks
Bob S.
Hi Bob thanx for the visit and the comment……do you want easy answers are more in-depth? Easy it is…..yes, people should be able to defend their families……..if by tools you mean the brain then yes……that is a point of escalation…I have a big stick homey gets a bigger one…then a gun and this is how BS starts…..
I want answers that adequate reflect and describe your philosophy and approach. If you want to be serious be serious. If you want flippant, go for it.
So…we agree there is a right to self defense and that tools are an essential part of that right.
I think you miss the point of escalation though; the criminal does not have a right to escalate or even the odds. The power yes, the ability yes…but not the right. Those breaking the law are in the wrong in many ways.
So how does restricting the law abiding from access to firearms solve the problem? It doesn’t.
As far as Justice Stevens warped notion; it doesn’t make any sense. The Founding Fathers had just lived through an experience where the firearms of the British Citizens were to be seized by the British Government (remember the colonists were british citizens). So why would it make sense to say “As long as you are part of the militia, you have a right to own firearms” When the government can control the militia?
Second, nor does it make sense to say that you can only have firearms if you are in the militia, then leave the government in control of defining who can be in the militia. Wouldn’t that just allow the government to define away the right?
One does not need an arsenal to protect one’s family…….there is nothing flippant about the use of brain power……..
Stevens is an idiot….he is trying to sell books…..Americans guns are safe…there is no one coming……
I have written about the 2nd from a historical perspective….and like I said then until we have a Founder to ask questions of…..my theory is no more or less accurate than anyone else……chuq
Straw man arguments. This isn’t about defending one’s property. It’s about the unlimited sell of any and all kinds of guns unnecessary for that.
Straw man arguments. This isn’t about defending one’s property. It’s about the unlimited sell of any and all kinds of guns unnecessary for that.
Amazing how you know exactly what each and every person is thinking.
Your argument is the very example of a straw man argument. No evidence provided, no basis in reality.
The National Crime Victim Survey found an estimated 108,000 defensive gun uses per year. The Kleck and Gertz Survey (and 16 other surveys support this number) found approximately 2,500,000 Defensive gun uses; times where the presence or threat of a firearm stopped or prevented a crime.
Tell me again how it’s not about self defense?
“Amazing how you know exactly what each and every person is thinking.”
pardon me? And you presume to know this?
“The National Crime Victim Survey found an estimated 108,000 defensive gun uses per year. “
Pay attention bs. Go back and read carefully what I was saying. I wasn’t arguing that people shouldn’t have a gun to defend their property or their lives. I SAID they don’t need a small arsenal to do this. Nor is it their constitutional right to do so.
Justice Anton Scalia ruled in ruled in District of Columbia vs Heller that “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose …”
One does not need an arsenal to protect one’s family
This is the great thing about America; YOU don’t get to tell me what I need or don’t need. Or anyone else.
But to take your point in all seriousness; are you deliberately avoiding reality?
Home invasions involving multiple criminals breaking into a house — reality.
“Flash mob” violence in most major cities where dozens or more criminals loot, pillage and destroy property – reality
“Flash mob’ violence where multiple criminals target a single individual or smaller group – reality.
How about going back to Hurricane Katrina where the police abandoned their duty and in some cases became looters themselves — reality.
How about going back not that long ago historically and looking at the L.A. Rodney King Riots. Thousands dead, billions in property damaged or destroyed. The Koreatown merchants used their ‘arsenals’ to defend their lives and their property — reality.
.Americans guns are safe…there is no one coming……
Right. Tell that to all the people who keep calling for an assault weapon ban. Tell that to the legislative bodies that keep passing laws like in Connecticut or New York. Yes, We still have to fight off people trying to take our weapons.
Tell it to the people who keep trying to over turn Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine Laws — because everyone should have to run from criminals, right?
“minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of weapons in private hands.”
Got to love this — the slaughter caused by the prevalence of weapons ! Yet automotive related deaths kill more people then firearm related deaths each year. Surely we should do something about that first eh?
The reality is the firearm related death rate, injury rate, crime rates etc have been falling for a while now. All the while there are more firearm owners and more people carrying firearms in public (concealed and Openly even).,
Want to control firearm crime — address the root – crime.
There is the difference between you and me….I do not need an arsenal to protect my family……I will continue to say that no one need an assault weapon for protection……..those riots also proved that there were not massive amounts of weapons being horded in the community….if there were would not that been a perfect time to bring them out? So you believe that if you carry a gun it is protecting you from harm? Maybe so….but I still maintain that the more people that carry to more there is a chance of violence or those willing to use violence to get there way……
There should be no control of firearms within reason…..
I’m glad you feel you don’t need an arsenal to defend your family. More power to you in all sincerity. Just stop trying to make it difficult for me to amass the firepower I feel necessary – until such time as I commit a disqualifying crime, eh?
those riots also proved that there were not massive amounts of weapons being horded in the community
You are right. It could have been much or over much more quickly if there had been massive amounts of firepower in the community. The police didn’t protect the people. The police pulled back, abandoned people to the mob. Had the mob met resistance quickly, there would have been less damage, less loss of life.
Maybe so….but I still maintain that the more people that carry to more there is a chance of violence or those willing to use violence to get there way……
I agree that those willing to use violence will get their way. The question boils down to what type of violence will be used.
There are basically two types of violence; predatory and protectionary. Take away the ability of the people to use violence to protect themselves and you increase the likelihood of more criminal activity. That is pretty simple logic.
But focusing on the firearm is the wrong focus. It is going after the tool, not the cause — let’s focus on reducing crime. Let’s reduce poverty, get more people working, get them educated so they can work or go to college. Strengthen the family, Remove barriers to starting businesses and creating jobs.
Let’s empty the jails of non-violent victimless crime and keep violent offenders who repeatedly break the law in jail.
Finally we agree……we need to go to the core causes…..your plan is a sound one that many should support……
Full disclosure Bob…I write on many subjects and look for comments on how people think and feel……I have found that people let so much go until I post on one of the subjects that everyone has a response….guns, abortion, etc……..I appreciate everyone’s input…..hopefully I will see you often…I appreciate a good exchange…thanx….chuq
Lbwoodgate
You said “This isn’t about defending one’s property. it’s about the unlimited sell of any and all kinds of guns unnecessary for that.”
Since it isn’t about self defense; you obviously must know what each and every person who is buying / selling a weapon is doing. Right?
I SAID they don’t need a small arsenal to do this. Nor is it their constitutional right to do so.
Again, YOU don’t get to decide what people need, feel they need, decide they need, wish they need. It isn’t the Bill of Needs; it is the Bill OF RIGHTS.
And yes, it is their constitutional Right to Do so. That is why the Supreme Court Struck down the handgun ban in Washington D.C.. It is why they struck down state laws saying the same thing. It is the people’s right to keep and bear arms.
“It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose …”
Absolutely correct; the right to keep and bear arms doesn’t cover the committing a crime with the firearm or a person loosing their rights through their own actions. Nor the ability of the government, in a limited manner, to designate places where firearms should not be carried.
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26
How about this quote from the decision:
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.
The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of the government the power to decide on a case by case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. It isn’t just hand guns, or shot guns, or hunting rifles. It is the whole kit and kaboodle that is protected– Arsenal and all.
Sorry but the decision is in — arsenals are allowed and need has nothing to do with it.
“Sorry but the decision is in — arsenals are allowed and need has nothing to do with it.”
I think I can best some up my response to this statement through the use of this video bs.