Reducing the number of guns could conflict with the Second Amendment - it therefore needs to be repealed.
“The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed” – Dana Perino, White House spokeswoman, about President Bush’s response to the slaughter of students by a gunman at Virginia Tech today.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - STM
[Entire comment deleted. I think that's enough now, Gentlemen. All complaints to the usual place. Thank you. The Comments Editor]
77 - Mark Townsend
The idea of repealing the 2nd amendment is twisted. In the aftermath of this horrible tragedy, some may understandably be attracted to this solution.
First, let me say the 2nd amendment didn't CREATE the right to "keep and bear arms." The right existed prior to the 2A and would continue afterword, no matter what. Without it, however, it would be far easier for the government to punish people for excercizing the right.
And do you really believe the 2nd amendment will be the ONLY right that gets trampled?
Far from it. Already the 10th amendment is near-meaningless. The 1st amendment gets a workout every time some goofus like Imus sticks his foot in his mouth.
In an age of ever-diminishing rights, is it possible the ONLY reason why we have ANY left is BECAUSE of the 2nd amendment???
78 - GunShowOnTheNet
An inalienable Right CANNOT be "repealed". Especially when it was enacted with the words "shall NOT be infringed". It is a PRE-EXISTENT NATURAL RIGHT. One long considered as the First Law of Nature. Which laws, are the very basis of our intended government.
"The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
- William Blackstone, 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 136, 1765-1769.
"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance."
- Thomas Jefferson, Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376.
"....The express authority of the people alone could give due validity to the Constitution....
"...The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed. Perhaps, also, an answer may be found without searching beyond the principles of the compact itself...."
"...A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void...."
"It is one of those cases which must be left to provide for itself. In general, it may be observed, that although no political relation can subsist between the assenting and dissenting States, yet the moral relations will remain uncancelled. The claims of justice, both on one side and on the other, will be in force, and must be fulfilled; the rights of humanity must in all cases be duly and mutually respected; whilst considerations of a common interest, and, above all, the remembrance of the endearing scenes which are past, and the anticipation of a speedy triumph over the obstacles to reunion, will, it is hoped, not urge in vain moderation on one side, and prudence on the other."
PUBLIUS
- James Madison, The Federalist No. 43, Jan. 23, 1788.
79 - Amy Sue
Because over 100 million people were murdered by their own governments in the 20th century ......... just say NO to gun control!
As for the other more civilized countries in the world, such as the (formerly) Great Britian and Australia (among others) ..... Crime, especially violent crime, has gone up exponentially, since instituting gun bans. Not an example I would care to follow. And now even their gun crime volume is going up - how can that be. The UK sends victims to prison. If a person defends themselves in the UK it's prison for them. There a Rapist is just given a ticket.
Sixty people were shot here. And 32 of them shot to death. Not one of those people had enough respect for themselves to defend themselves. I choose to be responsible for my own safety, thank you very much. I might not be able to stop some "crazy" from sneaking up and shooting me, but I can ensure that I am the last person he ever shoots.
I find it sad that many people in this country don't feel their own, or any life is worth defending. I feel so much pity for them.
We need the second amendment now more than ever.
Amy
80 - Sean
What about the university and the Feds banning guns on campus? It used to be that schools allowed them on campus and had shooting ranges. guess what no school shootings. Now days they are banned and no one has the ability to defend them selves. the 2nd is not only about protecting the natural right of self defense or defending yourself against the government. It is about people being able to have arms to protect themselves and thier families any time any where.
What if I told you that as a result of this we wanted to ban knives and fists and bats etc? Heck in MA it is illegal to defend yourself. you'll get charged with a crime most times especailly if you use a gun. Pepper spray requires a pistol carry license.
Now this was a chinese national with a visa. So guess what this guy had to get his guns illegally. the serial numbers were filed off. So you are saying we don't have the right to defend our selves against a chinese national who gets a gun or guns and decides to go rambo on an open campus.
The cops in the level 3 suits were all just out there waiting for a long time. The cops didn't get in there and take that jerk out. They failed in thier duty IMHO. I would have gone in there and taken him out. I don't accept criminals doing that. Maybe I get wounded or or killed but it will be in the line of protecting innocents.
I do not accept trash like this killing people. I would respond. The cops never even got near this guy or even seen him before he killed himself.
If I were a cop I would have got in there asap back up or not and taken this ass hole out.
81 - Dr Dreadful
Amy Sue: "Not one of those people had enough respect for themselves to defend themselves."
That is a despicable comment. Were you there?
82 - STM
"Amy Sue" said: "Because over 100 million people were murdered by their own governments in the 20th century".
1) It's not the 20th century;
2) It didn't happen here, in NZ, or Canada, and it certainly didn't happen in America;
3) It only happened in Britain when people started firing at the government (in Ireland).
Do you seriously believe that your institutions of law can't protect you from your own government?
What, the evidence of the past 200 years says you can't trust the US Government? Please, spare me - this is just paranoid, loony right-wing madness.
And what a thing to say about the victims not having the self respect to protect themselves. You should give yourself an upper cut for that one, Amy Sue.
83 - Dr Dreadful
Amy Sue #80.
Before you make idiotic comments about the state of law and order in my country, please make sure that what you are saying is fact and not just something you heard in a one-sided debate with your fellow gun nuts.
Rapists in Britain are NOT "just given a ticket". If convicted, they go to prison for a very long time. And you will not get sent down for using reasonable force to defend yourself either (reasonable force NOT being defined as blowing your assailant's head off with something designed to stop a charging blue whale at 600 paces).
Every single time something like today happens, you can guarantee that some pro-gun person will whine, "But in Britain they banned guns and gun crime went up!" Let's get one thing clear. Private gun ownership is not now, and never has been, widespread in Britain. If violent crime has increased, it probably has a lot more to do with underlying social problems than with criminals suddenly not having to worry about whether their victim is going to fill them full of holes.
Don't get me wrong - I enjoy shooting. I just think guns belong on the range, not in people's pockets.
84 - STM
Dr Dreadful: "Don't get me wrong - I enjoy shooting. I just think guns belong on the range, not in people's pockets."
Hear, hear, and quoted for truth.
85 - STM
And here's a PS on Amy Sue's #80. Gun crime has NOT risen in Australia since the gun ban, and most of the shootings there have been have been crims shooting crims. You are NEVER going to guard against that.
However, there is one fact that is not in dispute: since certain types of weapons were banned, the kinds of mass shootings that used to happen regularly and culminated in the deaths of 35 people at Port Arthur in a single shooting, have not happened in the 10 years since.
You can also still own guns here, BTW - just with stringent controls - and the use of reasonable force, even with a gun, to protect yourself, is still considered a legitimate defence at law. Where do you get your ideas, Amy Sue?
86 - Dr Dreadful
Sean #81: Actually I'm glad you're not a cop. I'd especially not like to be your commanding officer. The phrase "loose cannon" springs irresistibly to mind.
87 - Paul Levinson
Dave wrote: But the fact is that there are situations where guns have legitimate uses, as legitimate as a car or a swimming pool. Do you think you should not have the capacity to defend yourself by killing someone who is attempting to kill you?
Of course people should have the right to defend themselves.
But I'd rather have a world in which I can use my knife or non-gun to defend myself against an attacker with a knife or non-gun, then a world in which we shoot it out.
Now, obviously, we can't erase all guns.
I just want to see the number of guns reduced, guns become more difficult to attain, etc.
And, right, that will fall more, first, on law-abiding citizens. But, eventually, it will affect the number of guns available to lunatics, too.
88 - Paul Levinson
Mark T wrote: In an age of ever-diminishing rights, is it possible the ONLY reason why we have ANY left is BECAUSE of the 2nd amendment???
No, it's not.
You think - what? That the government respects our rights because we have guns?
We have rights because most Americans still respect the rule of law. Not as much as we should. Not all the time. But we do.
So, when the Supreme Court stepped in and stopped the recount in Fla in 2000, the 50%+ Americans who voted for Gore respected that, even though they hated that.
That's why we have rights in the country.
89 - Dr Dreadful
Dave Nalle #51: "Guns aren't expressly designed to kill people." Really? The invention of the gun took off precisely because it was a very good way of killing people. The other uses came later.
90 - vertroue
If you dont live in a country where you had to fight for your freedom, you may not trust anyone with weapons.
I'm glad that this can be open for debate and that folks from around the world can participate, but if you havent lived here, your perspective might be a bit... skewed.
For instance, I'd have a hard time collecting Japanese historical swords in the UK or in AUS: BBC News The Age -because the gov told me that they are looking out for my safety.
But I suppose that's better than living in one of those other facist Western Countries like New Zealand... New Zealand Government PDF -isnt that nice? They have there own censorship division that looks out for my safety because I'm not smart enough to take care of my own needs.
I wont even get into slippery slope.
Gun control by any other name (2nd amendment changes) is still gun control and is still racist.
And for those of you who currently live in this country, There is no first without the second.
91 - STM
"The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law."
Please take note of the last bit. "such as allowed by law". The 9th amendment was expressly designed to guard against the very notions being expressed in many of the above posts - for those who think that the constitition should be the sole means of deciding what the law might be, or how it should be interpreted.
92 - vertroue
Dr Dreadful: the "gun" came from a need to breech wooden and stonemasoned walls many, many years ago.
Thanks anyway.
93 - vertroue
STM: dont forget to finish your thought:
"Which is also declared by the same statute ... and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
94 - Paul Levinson
vertrose wrote: Dr Dreadful: the "gun" came from a need to breech wooden and stonemasoned walls many, many years ago.
Thanks anyway.
True, but Dr. Dreadful is still right - because the purpose of breaching those walls (by cannon, the grandfather of the gun) was to kill the people inside the walls.
For details, take a look at William McNeill's excellent book - The Pursuit of Power - that I put in the Amazon box under my post.
95 - Paul Levinson
STM wrote: However, there is one fact that is not in dispute: since certain types of weapons were banned, the kinds of mass shootings that used to happen regularly and culminated in the deaths of 35 people at Port Arthur in a single shooting, have not happened in the 10 years since.
Exactly!
96 - STM
Vertroue ... the US has its own censorship divisions. They're the ones that decide what kinds of ratings to put on films (or whether to ban them), and whether to allow books to be read, or read by minors, and what ads and TV programs you can and can't watch. There is plenty of censorship at various levels of government in the US: federal, state and local, along with some industry censorship boards. And there always has been ... make sure you know what you're talking about before you start writing.
And don't get carried away with this notion of having more rights than anyone else. You don't.
As for me not being able to buy a samurai sword because it's banned by law, well, I'll just say that you can't buy a rocket launcher because it's banned by law.
What's the difference when you're talking these kinds of "rights"? It's either all in, or all out, according to your way of thinking.
Clearly, that's not the case even in the US.
97 - Paul Levinson
Jason wrote: A car can kill 30 people within a few seconds. An airliner used in a creative enough manner can kill hundreds instantly, thousands over the course of a few hours.
Right, but you conveniently left off the end of my sentence - which was that the gun can't be used for anything but killing (and we can add wounding, if you like).
I will never be a victim.
No one wants to you to be. But don't oblige others to be.
98 - STM
Vertroue wrote: "Which is also declared by the same statute ... and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions ... "
Please, once again, take note of the last bit - "under due restrictions". I read that very clearly as meaning it was never meant to be unrestricted, and the previous bit I've quoted as meaning that the government has every right to decide on what weapons can be banned by law.
Go and take a look also at all the writings on the 9th amendment, particularly the thoughts of the founding fathers. The consensus: an instruction on how the constitition of the United States should NOT be interpreted. In other words, not the ONLY law of the land.
99 - vertroue
Paul Levinson: I dont see the amazon link... is it in your url?
The purpose was not merely to kill the inhabitants, but to show force and possibly end a months long siege conflict with no further bloodshed. Barring that, yes it was Braveheart time...
STM: what about the Monash University shooting? Or all of the gangland murders in Melbourne? Did it stop those?
The US currently has the most restrictive process for purchasing any item pinned squarely on the firearm. Hell, its easier to get actual explosives than it is firearms. Legally.
And if your the un-legal type, money talks.
And now, for fun:
"In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting,government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's,anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations,variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings."
100 - Paul Levinson
gunshow wrote: An inalienable Right CANNOT be "repealed"
You're confusing the Declaration of Independence (inalienable rights) with the Constitution.
As I'm sure you know, we already had one Amendment repealed.
101 - vertroue
STM: with a $200 tax stamp and the most lengthy background check this government has, I CAN own a rocket launcher, a grenade launcher, even a true machine gun.
To quote something i read somewhere once:
"... make sure you know what you're talking about before you start writing."
102 - Paul Levinson
vertroue wrote: Paul Levinson: I dont see the amazon link... is it in your url?
It's the third book, on the right, in an Amazon ad right below the text of my post (above the comments)...
103 - Paul Levinson
vertroue wrote: To quote something i read somewhere once:
"... make sure you know what you're talking about before you start writing."
Actually, the really important thing is to make sure you know what you're talking about before you finish writing, and publish it, right? :)
104 - vertroue
STM sayz: the US has its own censorship divisions.
For determining the needs of minors. Not the voting public. If I choose not to look at nudie pics its my choice....if the gov tells me I cant look at them its censorship....get it?
Even the toughest movie ratings can be overridden by a parent. An "R" rating still means that a twelve year old can see the movie with a parent and isnt that who we are supposed to be learning responsibility from anyway? :)
As a side note, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank parents everywhere who actually give a damn what there child is doing/learning at any given minute...
105 - Tim
Go ahead and repeal it/ See what happens.
People like you ignore the real problem.
People being allowed in this country that donot share our values. eg., Foreigners!
I see the Press continue to ignore that this shooter @ Virginia tech was busted last year for Bomb Making and he's out walking the streets of America?
So much for the Law putting criminals away huh?
106 - vertroue
Oh....up there!
:) Thanks Paul.
107 - Paul Levinson
vertroue wrote: Oh....up there!
:) Thanks Paul.
My pleasure.
My wife says I have male-pattern blindness, and always miss seeing stuff right in front of me...:)
108 - Tim
This is the shooter from Virginia Tech!
109 - vertroue
Sweet! its cheap too!
Another thought. This country tried once already to ban something based on passioned pleas and paranoid policy and it created a multi million dollar bootleg industry to satisfy needs.
Lets not try that again shall we?
I truly think that if folks believe we need to ban something because to many people are abusing it, that we should honestly separate and live in different areas of this country. I wont predict what would happen, but it would make a neat experiment, no?
110 - Paul Levinson
Tim wrote: People like you ignore the real problem.
And who, exactly, would be people like me - I'd be interesting in meeting some (safety in numbers)...
111 - vertroue
My wife says I have male-pattern blindness, and always miss seeing stuff right in front of me...:)
My ex used to say the same thing.
She must be right, I can't see her anymore!
112 - STM
"if the gov tells me I cant look at them its censorship....get it?"
The US government has banned plenty of movies, ads, art, books, ideas (remember McCarthyism) you name it. Like I say, please know your subject before you get on here and write your thoughts.
Censorship has always existed in the United States - and fair enough too, why shouldn't the government/governments you elect be free to make some of those decisions?
113 - STM
"Another thought. This country tried once already to ban something based on passioned pleas and paranoid policy and it created a multi million dollar bootleg industry to satisfy needs".
What a bloody ridiculous thing to do, too, that was. Imagine banning booze, but letting everyone run around with a gun. Now's it's a smoking ban creeping in, but enough guns to arm all the world's third-world countries and then some, that's fine. Only in America ...
114 - vertroue
The US government has banned plenty of movies, ads, art, books, ideas (remember McCarthyism) you name it. Like I say, please know your subject before you get on here and write your thoughts.
And like I say: show me what you think is banned from adults in the US.
115 - Tim
Oh yeah! I can't wait to hear how the Police and George Bush and Virginias Representives, are going to explain to the parents of all the dead victims at Virginia Tech. Why they allowed a terrorist to walk the streets after being busted for bomb making?
Then try to sell the idea that an Unarmed popluace is a good thing. When their own government will not protect them. Good Luck Paul on that one!
116 - vertroue
For all of you that would like an entertaining view of a portion of this debate: Enjoy!
117 - Paul Levinson
vertroue wrote: I truly think that if folks believe we need to ban something because to many people are abusing it, that we should honestly separate and live in different areas of this country. I wont predict what would happen, but it would make a neat experiment, no?
It would.
By the way, I think I said somewhere up in early commentdom that I'm not calling for a ban on guns.
I'm rather calling for more to be done to limit them than we do now. And, since I do respect the Constitution, I don't see how guns can limited at all, with the Second Amendment in place.
118 - STM
Sorry, Paul is NOT advocating a ban
119 - STM
Vertroue ... plenty of movies, art, and books have been banned in the US, just do a search on google. I'm not posting dirty links, as you can do it if you're interested. But McCarthyism is a classic example of censorship and an attempt to ban an idea in the US.
Also on the first amendment question, given the world situation at the moment, get out on the street in front of the White House wearing Arab headress and a T-shirt that says "Osama was right" or something like it whilst shouting "Bush should die" or some other nonsense and see what happens. I reckon you'd last all of five minutes before you got bundled up and carted off.
Not saying that it shouldn't happen, btw, just making a point. Censorship exists in many forms.
120 - STM
Oh dear, I'm talking to myself ... the time warp and the international dateline kicks in again. Good night, America ....
121 - vertroue
and I have had to use them in the country a couple of times as protection from dangerous animals.
And whether we agree or disagree, I would LOVE to hear those tales.... I just finished "The Man Eaters of Tsavo" recently and really dig outdoor stories.
I do support serious controls and a crackdown on illegal weapons.
So do I! The problem is that the current agency in the US to go after the criminals who market guns, or the folks who posess illegal firearms Is largely inneffective. Its a damn shame too, because with some funding they could be very good at what they need to do. But I wouldnt vote to give them another dime, because currently they are the most feared branch of our government.
There also the only branch of our government that can write its own laws with no congressional or public oversight. If they decide tomorrow that any of the items they oversee are illegal, they kick down the door the day after.
Warning: the folks that run this site are passionate (arent we all?) but they do have news tidbits http://www.atfabuse.com/
Also, jpfo.org has a wonderful article or two outlining how this agency arrested and attempted to charge a man by ruling that a shoestring was an illegal machine gun.
Seriously, truth is stranger than fiction.
We have plenty to fear over here STM, some rational, some not.....
122 - vertroue
By the way, I think I said somewhere up in early commentdom that I'm not calling for a ban on guns.
Ok.
123 - Paul Levinson
vertroue wrote: My ex used to say the same thing.
She must be right, I can't see her anymore!
I'm sure she's eating her heart out, right now...:)
124 - vertroue
Also on the first amendment question, given the world situation at the moment, get out on the street in front of the White House wearing Arab headress and a T-shirt that says "Osama was right" or something like it whilst shouting "Bush should die" or some other nonsense and see what happens.
Being from outside the US I'll assume you havent heard of Cindy Sheehan (snicker).
Unless there is currently a security situation On/near the White House grounds you could do exactly what you suggest... sans the death threat. I wouldnt reccomend climbing the fence though.....there *REALLY* picky about that....
125 - Paul Levinson
STM wrote: Oh dear, I'm talking to myself ... the time warp and the international dateline kicks in again. Good night, America ....
I heard you, and dug it!