My cold, dead hands agree with you.

Text of the Second Amendment, which is lacking from this column:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It seems that the right to bear arms is linked specifically to the formation of A WELL REGULATED MILITIA. A “strict constructionalist” interpretation should require militia membership for gun ownership.

Is the NRA a militia? Is it well regulated?

The 2nd Amendment is not out-of-date, it’s just been abused with a liberal interpretation.

Gun control works great in Darfur - for the murdering thugs that is.

You probably think Diebold voting machines are safe and democratic, too…

The second amendment is there, as I see it, as a litmus test for our government. When the government gets to the point that they try to take guns away, its our sign that we need them again. It should fear us, not the other way around.

You can have my 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms when you can pry it from my cold dead fingers!

So gun violence is transmitted by a virus and we need vaccinations. I didn’t know that.

The filthy liberals shout “first amendment” and “civil liberties” and “constitutional rights” whenever the government tries to do something to protect us from our enemies. But, being the hypocrites and cowards they are, the dirty liberals don’t see the problem with taking away a constitutional right that they simply disagree with.

And we all know that guns magically make people violent. Nobody would even think to rob a store with a knife.

Obviously, making guns illegal would solve the problem, just like making drugs illegal has solved that problem. Oh, wait, the filthy liberals want drugs to be legal.

There you have it folks. The liberal agenda: The constitution and guns are bad. Drug use is good.

Max, you are right. Getting rid of guns only effects gun owners, while our lives will not be effected, and may even get safer. It is up to us, the educated public, to set policy to protect ourselves, and yes, to protect the less fortunate (in this case those undereducated guns owners).

a dialogue from our future utopic gun free world in the year 2107… .

“Honey, I think there is burglar in the house, and I think he has a gun!”

“Gun? lol. Wtf is a gun?”

“He is coming up the stairs”

“Don’t worry I will karate chop the gun from his hand.”

BANG

“Honey?”

I would like to present a case, albeit using some outdated numbers (from 2001), that proves gun control is essentially useless:

Two countries everyone likes to cite for their gun control laws when comparing to the US are Japan and New Zealand. Lets do a comparison of gun homicide rates using numbers provided by The Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence. (Using their numbers to support a pro-gun stance should be fair, right?)

So, according to The Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence, 2001 saw 11,348 American gun homicides as opposed to six gun homicides in New Zealand and 56 in Japan. Bear in mind that the populations of those countries at the time were, by each countries census, respectively: 285,102,075 — 3,820,749 — and 126,771,662. Let’s use rates to determine the differces, shall we? (If you don’t understand why comparing the rates is important and comparing the quantity of gun homicides isn’t, please leave the conversation.)

Math (check for errors, I’ll admit my own imperfections and leave the conversation myself if there are significant mistakes):

(6/3,820,749)/(11,348/285,102,075)=.039=4% (56/126,771,662)/(11,348/285,102,075)=.011=1%

So there you have it. A comparison of the US gun homicide rates to two other industrialized nations (Japan having the strictest gun control I’m aware of) yields a difference of less than a reasonable margin of error.

Is that 11,410 more gun deaths than should have happened? Yes, definately. Does restricting access to guns prevent them? Absolutely not.

A ban on handguns and strict licensing of other firearms would serve the same purposes without violating the 2nd Amendment or leaving people unable to defend their homes (from criminals or their government).

Keep guns out of the hands of crazy people - not out the hands who might stop crazy people from killing.

The literally white-bearded academic who was head of the campus counseling center was on Paula Zahn Wednesday night suggesting the utter incompetence of officials to stop a man who had stalked two women, set a fire in his room, written morbid and violent plays and poems, been expelled from one class, and been declared by a judge to be “mentally ill” was due to the lack of a government “safety net.” In a news conference, he decried inadequate “funding for mental health services in the United States.” Way to take responsibility. Way to show the kids how to dodge.

The Gun Ban and the Gunman Virginia Tech’s gun-free zone left Cho Seung-Hui’s victims defenseless.

Four years ago at Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Virginia, a man who had killed the dean, a professor, and a student was subdued by two students who ran to their cars and grabbed their guns. In 1997 an assistant principal at a public high school in Pearl, Mississippi, likewise retrieved a handgun from his car and used it to apprehend a student who had killed three people.

http://reason.com/news/show/119694.html

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes … Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

Whats’ out of date is “A Culture of Passivity”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzEzYzQ0Y2MyZjNlNjY1ZTEzMTA0MGRmM2EyMTQ0NjY=

i love how libs crap the bed because of alleged encroachments on civil rights by the right and by bush (i bet this author hates the patriot act)…but then they do the exact same thing at their pleasure when the time presents itself. by the way, the 2nd amendment is also supposed to allow citizens to defend against their own gov’t…not to mention, that with 250MM guns in the nation, if you ban them, you’ll ONLY have the ‘lunatics and gangs’ with them. if one person in those classrooms has a gun, this wouldn’t have been as bad. dumb freshman.

If one law-abiding student had a gun at VT, lives would have been saved. Laws will never prevent CRIMINALS from obtaining guns. That’s why they are called “CRIMINALS”. Please go back to class and study harder.

Leave it to a Madison communist to dump on the constitution.. the very document that allows this incredibly ignorant type of drivel to be written.

Max must have great trust in law enforcement to pro-actively protect him from people who would do him harm. The phrase so often written in their reports isn’t, ‘we responded to such and such’ for nothing.

You are completely mistaken in your idea of why the 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution. It has absolutely nothing to do with safety or hunting or even a standing militia. The framers wanted to make sure that, if the government starting abrogating the rights of citizens, those citizens would have the means necessary to overthrow that government. This is as true today as it was in 1776, maybe more so.

Countries, such as Great Britain, who have very strict gun control laws have seen an increase in violent crime of on the order of 18% while the US has seen decreases for the last several years.

Gun control does not work, period.

So now it’s open season on the Bill of Rights.

That’s pretty much what I’d expect from an aspiring journalist.

From Hubert Humphrey, former US Senator and US Vice-President:

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms…. The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.”

You know that you owe your freedom to the business end of a gun? The founding fathers of our country fought a war against an oppressive regime to gain their freedoms. They understood that an armed citizenry is one that is not easily controlled. Your points are the typical anti fire arms talking points. Let me ask a few for instances here. Suppose the campus cops had been allowed to carry firearms on VT campus. Do you think they may have been able to use them wisely enough to take down that worthless POS killer before he got to 32 victims? How about if the administration had not interfered with the right of its students to carry concealed fire arms. Those that had permits may have had their weapons on them. You think they might have had an impact?

The very fact that you advocate outlawing weapons proves that you are ignorant of history and incapable of clear thought. Maybe instead of being a mouthpiece for the liberal institution you attend, you should learn to think for yourself. Gun control laws only keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Not out of the hands of criminals. Those who would take lives care little for man made laws such as gun restrictions. They will get what they want and will break the law to do so. Or are you so blind that you refuse to see the statistical evidence presented by those cities that have banned guns? The crime rate in those cities is still going up, the cops can't handle the load and the criminals are laughing at the gun control laws. I suggest that you perhaps become acquainted with what you are going to write about, maybe learn some history, possibly sign up for a brain implant, before you spout pure idiocy like this. Above all maybe you should learn that a gun, like any other tool, is not capable of thought. It is the person using the gun or tool that is responsible. Your line of reasoning should outlaw cars, knives, and sharp pointed sticks outlawed as well. Wake up and smell what you are shoveling.

Max, despite the title of your article, actual discussion about the Second Amendment was lacking. If you had taken time to carefully read the amendment, you would have noticed the phrase regarding the security and freedom of the state. Surely these are not outdated notions, are they?

What ensures a state’s security and freedom? Mere words and ideas? No, there are certain physical elements that preserve it. Police and Military are two of them. A citizen’s right to own a weapon in defense of life, liberty, and property is another.

And since when is the Bill of Rights considered archaic? Due Process? Freedom of Speech (majoring in journalism, I’m really surprised at that, unless you haven’t really given your arguments that much thought)? Surely you are not advocating giving these the same sort of disregard simply because they are in the same document that lists a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms.

Regarding the Assault Weapons Ban, if it were such a good idea, it would not have been allowed to sunset. But as it turned out, it did pretty much nothing to stop crime, especially since criminals care nothing about laws, and are able to acquire their hardware outside of the channels law-abiding citizens take.

Then there’s the usual cry of “You don’t need guns—rely on the police!” Blacksburg has a police force—but it didn’t prevent 50 casualties on VT’s campus.

And, finally, you are falling into the usual trap of denouncing guns as the root of the problem. For all the gun-related crimes committed in the U.S., it still amounts to less than a tenth of a percent of total guns owned in the U.S. (I’m basing that on looking at FBI reports from 2004 and the number of guns the Brady Center purports to be in the U.S.). If guns were the problem, the numbers would be far higher.

What happened on VT’s campus (or UT-Austin’s in the ’60s, or Columbine in 1999) was not solely the fault of tools that cannot think or feel, but in disturbed individuals. It is always the person that’s at the center of the problem, not the hardware.

Quick question for you; if the 2nd amendment is "out-of-date", then maybe so is the 1st…possibly the entire bill of rights. Be careful what you ask for. The 1st thing Hitler, and most every despotic dictator that the last 200 yrs has hatched did was made guns illegal for the common citizen. First your guns, (to protect yourself from the government), then the rest of your freedoms, including your precious right to free speech, which you exercise with wit and wisdom of a 10 yr old. Your pseudo intellectual ramblings and pompous air of moral superiority are bereft of any coherent meaning. You may want to think of the implications of your actions before you write such drivel in the future.

My name is Dennis Dilley, of Oakland, CA.

Although I disagree with Max that “the demographics of America have changed beyond anyone's wildest prophecy,” let’s assume arguendo the accuracy of this hyperbolic statement. What the framers of the Constitution didn’t fail to anticipate was the appearance, from time to time, of demagoques like Max, who would suggest the abolition of the Constitution, an amendment at a time. Thus they inserted, prophylactically, the requirement for national ratification of such sweeping changes. Or would Max simply vitiate the Constitution by judicial fiat? And, if in power, how would Max institute his agenda? And enforce it? Executive fiat? In any event, I suspect not through rule of the majority. It is for just such people that the framers also presciently anticipted fascist zealots like Max by inserting the Second Amendment with its reference to a militia, a force made up of ordinary Americans with no tie to the Federal military, which includes the National Guard, to oppose all the Maxes of America. The gravest threats are the internal ones. En guard, Max.

With all due respect, the Virginia Tech murders are a classic example of why gun control measures never work. In the months prior to this calamity, the Virginia legislature relented to the pleas of the university administration and did not extend “right to carry” privileges to citizens on campus. The substantial fine and three-year prison term were of little consequence to the psychotic Cho as he plotted his mayhem, but they were severe enough to prevent normal, law-abiding students and staff from having the means to fend off his bloody rampage. Mr. Cho further circumvented existing law by lying on the purchase permit for his pistol when asked about his court-ordered visit to a mental hospital. Does it suprise anyone that a homicidal maniac would ignore reasonable gun control provisions? The intended “gun free zone” thus became a killing field.

Mr. Schlusselberg argues that times have changed and that our need for “bearing arms” is anachronistic. Again, Virginia Tech shatters his premise. In the modern world of spree killers, asymmetrical terrorism, and limited governmental resources, it is incumbent on every citizen to assert his or her right to self-defense. In his book, More Guns Less Crime, John Lott analyzes statistical crime data to illustrate that guns are used to thwart crime and injury at a rate six times greater than they do harm. At any rate, there is zero chance that Jacobin statists will succeed in revoking “natural rights” protected by the Bill of Rights. I intend to actively exercise my right to personal self defense and avoid becoming a chalk outline. Neither the government nor Mr. Schlusselberg confer such rights, they are our birthright just as the First Amendment freedoms Mr. Schlusselberg exercises in his column.

You and the people like you are exactly why we need our guns. My question to you is; Just why do you want people defenseless and unarmed? Do you libs have a covert plan for us.

Even though you might delete this message I will add my comment. Your criminal psychopath will always find his weapon an ignorant person might say yes best less people will have access to a gun, but a gun is not needed. A couple molatov coctails can do more damage than a 9mm handgun and it can be aquired by anyone and is cheaper then a box of bullets whats next banning glass containers and gasoline

I wonder —- was Cho taught to hate? Whatever he learned in his classes —- did it enable him to rage at his host country, to hate the students he envied so murderously? Was he subtly encouraged to aggrandize himself by destroying others? Was his pathology enabled by the PC university? Or to ask the question differently —- was Cho ever taught to respect others, to admire the good things about his host country, and to discipline himself to build a positive life?

And that answer is readily available on the websites of Cho’s English Department at Virginia Tech. This is a wonder world of PC weirdness. English studies at VT are a post-modern Disney World in which nihilism, moral and sexual boundary breaking, and fantasies of Marxist revolutionary violence are celebrated. They show up in a lot of faculty writing. Not by all the faculty, but probably by more than half.

Just check out their websites.

I wonder if Cho took the senior seminar by Professor Knapp, on “The self-justifying criminal in literature.” Because he certainly learned to be a self-justifying criminal. Or whether he sat in courses with Nikki Giovanni, using her famous self-glorifying book, “The Prosaic Soul of Nikki Giovanni (2003)”. Maybe he read Professor Bernice Hausman’s “Changing Sex: Transsexualism, technology, and the idea of gender” —- just the thing for a disoriented young male suffering from massive culture shock on the hypersexual American campus. And even more gender-bending from Professor Paul Heilker, who wrote “Textual Androgyny, the Rhetoric of the Essay, and the Politics of Identity in Composition (or The Struggle to Be a Girly-Man in a World of Gladiator Pumpitude).” Or the Lesbian love stories of Professor Matthew Vollmer. Yup, that’s just what this student needs. These trophee “art works” are all advertised on the English Department faculty websites.

Or maybe Cho was assigned Professor Lisa Norris’ prize-winning book, Toy Guns, featured on her web site. The book reviewers wrote;

“All ten stories in this disturbing collection revolve around Americans’ passionate devotion to guns, gun-toting, sexually-tinged violence, and the womanly pursuit of power and dignity.” [….]

“In each wrenching story, we see an America out of control, in love with war….”

I don’t know any Americans who are in love with war, but that is the picture Cho got from his teachers. Having spent the last 14 years as a resident alien in the school system, he could know nothing else.

And then there is the big Marxist website from Professor Brizee, all in fiery red against pitch black, showing old, mass-murder-inspiring Karl flanked by two raised fists. It celebrates revolutionary violence and hate for capitalist America (which is paying for Cho’s education). “Critical Social Theory” —- the euphemism for PoMo (Post Modern) Marxism —- is a big part of English teaching at VT. The Marxist page links prominently to the British Socialist Worker’s Party, which is currently leading the charge for Islamic fascism through such creatures as George Galloway.

And, talking about Islamist ideas, there is Professor Carter-Tod, who wrote a report about ” “Treatment of Arab American, Muslums and Seiks (sic) Post 911,” for the US Civil Rights Commission. The racial grievance industry is alive and growing at VT.

Post-modernism, with its hatred for reason, is another big theme at the VT English Department. Professor James Collier boasts about his book, Philosophy, Rhetoric and the End of Knowledge: A New Beginning for Science and Technology Studies, But “the end of knowledge” is the beginning of ignorance.

And of course there is the “diversity” crowd, diversity being a very well-funded program at ole’ guilt-tripping VT. There’s Professor Carlos Evia, who describes himself as “…soy director de la Comisión de Igualdad y Diversidad en Virginia Tech.” Or in English, “I am also chair of the Virginia Tech Commission on Equal Opportunity and Diversity.” There’s “research” in “Feminist science fiction” and “The comic strip” from Professor Susan C. Allender-Hagedorn. Scratching racial and gender wounds until they bleed is a big preoccupation at VT. What’s a kid from South Korea to think?

The question I have is: Are university faculty doing their jobs? At one time college teachers were understood to have a parental role. Take a look at the hiring and promotion criteria for Eng at VT, and you see what their current values are. Acting in loco parentis, with the care, protectiveness, and alertness for trouble among young people is the last thing on their minds. They are there to do “research,” to act like fake revolutionaries, and to stir up young people to go out and revolt society. Well, somebody just did.

I’m sorry but VT English doesn’t look like a place that gives lost and angry adolescents the essential boundaries for civilized behavior. In fact, in this perversely disorienting PoMo world, the very words “civilized behavior” are ridiculed —- at least until somebody starts to shoot students, and then it’s too late. A young culture-shocked adolescent can expect no firm guidance here. But we know that already.

How far we have fallen as a country when less than intelligent college students can not even understand the bill of rights and their importance to keeping the citizenry of the USA FREE and protected. As a law abiding citizen, my rights are not being protected by the police…they only show up after the fact….they are not being protected by the politicians who will pass knee jerk legislation that does nothing.

I dont need the police to protect me or the politicians. I will take care of it myself with or without a 2nd amendment. I do not need food from the goverment after a hurricane…I will prepare for it myself and have adequate supplies available…I will evacuate if I have to. I will be self reliant unlike my friends the liberals who prefer the goverment provide everything for them.

Why do I need a firearm…because it is a good given right that ensures my life liberty and pursuit of happiness.

The questions I think about the VT massacre are the following:

how can a university allow a firestarting, women stalking, unsocialable mentally ill student continue on with their education when warning signs were everywhere. Are there not enough 23 year olds out there who would benefit from a place at VT…a place taken up by a pyscho who seems to fit the multicultural vision of idiot educrats and their liberal enablers in this country.

How can an American College student be so naive as to not understand the importance of the right to keep and bear arms?

I think the schools have failed the citizens tremendously…my evidence Max Schlusselberg!

I rest my case!

Hum…nice to see that your arguments are rooted purely in opinion, diatribes, and emotion.

DO SOME RESEARCH! I’ll even provide you with a purely statistical (in it’s first edition) book with which to do your research…

More Guns, Less Crime, by John R. Lott. Educate yourself, then come back and write a better article, as this one is purely classless and posterior pontification.

MAX,

STAY in school were you can continue to learn the ways of communists and marxist..become a professor and continue to teach the same rhectoric…just do in in another country.

THe right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You can try to outlaw guns but you will not get mine ever!

i love how u not only write a poor article, but also throw in many rude remarks insulting various types of people. i had a few rude remarks for you,but apparently that wont be needed. You’ve been dragged through enough horse dung already for your crappy article

p.s. you never know when the king of england might attack us again - to arms! to arms!

 It is not surprising that the general consensus on a Wisconsin bulletin board is basically that GUNS ROCK and liberals are trying to steal our freedom.  However, if anyone of you grain fed mother-is-my-sister-girlfriend hicks took either a 2000 mi step to your left, or a 1000 mi step to your right, you would be able see just how ridiculously crazy and dangerous society is.  
 Although the United States is one country, there are different cultures/societies within it.  In WI (as well as the general midwest), a human being is more or less the equivalent of a potato - I'm not trying to say that you all are dumb... that would not be fair (only about 60% of you are slow-witted idiots).  What I mean is that things happen at a slower pace.  
 This brings me to my point.  If it takes about 20 minutes for something to escalate into a life/death situtation in WI, in NY it would probably take only 5 minutes.  Not everyone is as sane, kind, and niave as you slow-witted potatos.  And although our current 'gun laws' may serve and protect YOU all very well from becoming french fries (or should I say freedom fries), the MAJORITY OF THE NATION IS AT SERIOUS RISK.  
 Just today ANOTHER shooting occurred.  I'm not saying that the 2nd Amendment should be dismantled.  I'm not saying that things should stay the way they are.  Granted, as Max hinted at, whatever change happens now will have no effect for atleast several (maybe ten or so) years.  However, a change is still in order.  Gun laws must be tightened.  
 And in regards to whether the 2nd Amendment should receive a broad or narrow interpretation - narrow is the name of the game.  Our Framers' intentions behind putting in such an amendment was to serve purposes that existed in the 18th century.  The Constitution has been amended (several times I would like to add); there is no good reason why it can not be amended again.  Isn't it every American's right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness?  Hint: sooner or later, when a disgruntled pariah (and let us not pretend none exist on such a fine campus as that of WI's - in reality I'm sure atleast 10 can be spotted every day at lunch) borrows his father's SKS, American modified AK, or even the good 'ole Glock 19 with extended clip and shows up to anyone of your '101' huge lecture hall classes on the day of the final, NONE of you "Smell our dairy air"'ers will be praising our current 'gun laws' - let alone pursuing life, liberty, or happiness...

Howdy Comrade! How’s the weather there in the People’s Republic of Madison?

Instead of banning handguns, let’s ban crazy motherfuckers who shoot people (especially crazy motherfuckers who aren’t even from the U.S.). Oh, wait… That’s not P.C.

Sigh… both of the arguments that are being presented here are ridiculous, and like most a compromise could be reached. I’m not an expert on guns, but I think the vast majority of reasonable people can agree on this: Saying the Second Amendment is out of date is a fallacy. All Constitutional Amendments have their time and place, but they can be open to interpretation. There is no reason for people to generally outlaw the following guns, although they should be open to other regulations: hunting rifles, shotguns and handguns. There is no reason for any non-military American to have access to semi-automatic assault rifles or other guns of that sort or more powerful.

Now, there are things that are up for debate. One is conceal and carry provisions. I can see both the pros and cons of it. In my opinion, it would have to be vastly limited but not so limited to be effective. In other words, enough people would have to have guns so that the probability of attempting to rob or assault someone with a gun would be high, while low enough so that you won’t give the to, say, someone who might get really pissed while drunk at a bar.

I have a curiosity, though… the people who are really pro-conceal and carry, do you live in major cities, suburbs, or rural areas?

Wow! Reading the comments by these crazy screaming gun advocates/owners, I feel like there is more incentive to take away their “dangerous” toys (firearms). I wish you guys would have opposed George Bush’s unconstitutional wiretapping on ordinary Americans without a court order with the same intensity you defend the possession of your dangerous toys. Yes, I am now more interested in taking away your dangerous toy because of the hysterical tone of your responses.

Re 3:14-

Way to contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion except for a book title and a “diatribe” of your own.

Have you ever noticed, when a criminal goes on a rampage and does a little mass murdering, they always tend to go where they KNOW no one has guns and can fight back. I wonder why that is. Perhaps when you ban guns, you will only guarantee law abiding citizens will make American a haven for gun toting criminals.

A few years ago, a clerk at a convenience store was being stabbed multiple times by a crazed criminal. An older lady, who had a permit to carry a handgun, went up to the man, put it to his head and uttered the words (to the effect), “I am trained to use this, stop now or I will blow your head off”. He stopped, the clerk lived. The press story made the woman the criminal because she dared carry a gun. I can guarantee the clerk is thankful she carried, the criminal is behind bars, and the anti-gun lobby can only say they wished the clerk had died.

Anyone stupid enough to characterize guns as “toys” really can’t be taken seriously.

If Professor Librescu had been armed it could have saved his life as well as others.

A crazy murderer will find a way to kill - he chained the doors shut, he could have used fire to kill - you going to promote match control?

How about this for a compromise:

If YOUR gun ends up in the hands of a criminal, you get the SAME jail sentence? Since you lock your guns up, or protect yourself with them, this should not frighten you.

“Perhaps when you ban guns, you will only guarantee law abiding citizens will make American a haven for gun toting criminals.”

That’s the argument, but prove it.

I wonder, though, say if handguns become illegal, for the sake of debate, if possessing a handgun would be enough to earn someone a prison sentence? If you have a handgun, ipso facto, you’re a criminal with ill intentions and pre-meditation.

It would surely be easy to spot them, wouldn’t it?

“To promote vulnerability as a moral virtue is not merely foolish. Like the new Yale props department policy, it signals to everyone that you’re not in the real world. The ‘gun-free zone’ fraud isn’t just about banning firearms or even a symptom of academia’s distaste for an entire sensibility of which the Second Amendment is part and parcel but part of a deeper reluctance of critical segments of our culture to engage with reality.”

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/351710,CST-EDT-STEYN22.article

“A ‘strict constructionalist’ interpretation should require militia membership for gun ownership.”

Attention lefty: a militia is not a standing unit in which you would have membership. The whole point is that the citizens have guns and can be rallied to form a militia in a time of need.

As a gun owner I support the 2nd ammendmant’s relevance; however, perhaps making the manufacturing and importing of guns illegal would drive up the price enough that criminals would have trouble obtaining them. Supply and demand work in the black market too. Again I do not support this but the theory may to an extent achieve the desired result at a great cost. Again this is not gun control, it is a ban and therefore we have no data to test the writer’s theory.

We should all be respectful of this writer’s oppinion. It’s not far-fetched, but it comes at a great cost.

“The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it away.” - Thomas Jefferson

It’s not about shooting for food or recreation, It’s about being able to revolt against our government when they become so oppressive that they start taking our rights. The worse part is our government is getting very close to being that oppressive.

They now listen in on our phone calls for keywords that would label us ‘enemy combatants of the state’. So if you’re talking about revolting they can lock you up. -Right to Free Speech

Gun Control is a very hot topic and in some places form of gun control have been in place for some time. — Right to Baer Arms

-No quarter still in place.

The FBI can now write their own search warrants at your door without getting a judges permission. - Illegal Search and Seizure

The patriot act removed our right Habeus Corpus, though i believe it’s been restored. — Right to Due Process

You can be arrested and detained for 5 years if you are labeled ‘enemy combatant of the state’. - Right to speedy trial

— Seven is still intact.

Again being labeled an ‘enemy combatant of the state’ you could have been tortured, though I believe the torture policy is now removed.—Cruel and unusual punishment

All other rights are the peoples or the states. So you have 6 out of 8 MANDATORY rights being infringed on by our government, and yet still people are so hypnotized by the TV that they won’t even think for themselves.

“The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it away.” - Thomas Jefferson

It’s not about shooting for food or recreation, It’s about being able to revolt against our government when they become so oppressive that they start taking our rights. The worse part is our government is getting very close to being that oppressive.

They now listen in on our phone calls for keywords that would label us ‘enemy combatants of the state’. So if you’re talking about revolting they can lock you up. -Right to Free Speech

Gun Control is a very hot topic and in some places form of gun control have been in place for some time. — Right to Baer Arms

-No quarter still in place.

The FBI can now write their own search warrants at your door without getting a judges permission. - Illegal Search and Seizure

The patriot act removed our right Habeus Corpus, though i believe it’s been restored. — Right to Due Process

You can be arrested and detained for 5 years if you are labeled ‘enemy combatant of the state’. - Right to speedy trial

— Seven is still intact.

Again being labeled an ‘enemy combatant of the state’ you could have been tortured, though I believe the torture policy is now removed.—Cruel and unusual punishment

All other rights are the peoples or the states. So you have 6 out of 8 MANDATORY rights being infringed on by our government, and yet still people are so hypnotized by the TV that they won’t even think for themselves.

Wow, I hope this article follows you if you ever run for public office.!

I agree with comment (Anonymous (April 20, 2007 @ 10:32am):), if you take away the gun, honest americans wont be abile to buy a gun, but the criminal will always be able to find a way to get his hand on a gun.

Are you a Jew? Do you not remember what happened to the Jews after Germany passed gun control to make people “safer”? Then you would definately be too ignorant to know about the atrocities committed by china, russia, uganda, cambodia, etc… and the list goes on. Get the f@#$ out of MY country if you don’t like MY constitution. Go live in South Africa, where gun control has worked wonders for their crime rate. You better think seriously about leaving this country before you try to abolish ANYTHING out of MY constitution.

This is bullshit people to this day still use guns for hunting and for protection. People in todays America my not live in “tight-knit villages”, but people still use weapons the right way. Not everyone using guns are criminals. Anyways the people who are using guns for criminal usually have them without them being registered or legal, so don’t expect for those people to be without guns if America gets rid of the right to own firearms. I personally am a hunter. Guns go away and a large aspect of my meat goes away. Me and my family dont have the extra money to spend on food we can harvest ourselves LEGALLY. You should go sit down and talk to a family like mine somewhere and youll realise the importance of guns to people.

Another naive fascist fancys himself a journalist…yawn…

Consider this: Crime statistics show that our most violent cities are those where concealed carry of handguns is forbidden.
The homicide statistics for 2008 show that Seattle [where concealed carry is legal] had 28 killings. Nearly half of those were by strangulation!

Other cities, of similar population to Seattle, where concealed carry was illegal or greatly restricted had much higher homicide rates. For example: Milwaukee - 71 / Washington D.C.- 186 / Baltimore - 234

It seems to me that the Second Amendment is precisely what has caused our recent reduction in violent crime.

Why do Liberals HATE the Bill of Rights?

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

The current political-economic instability is proof enough that the Second Amendment is just as valid at defending your rights TODAY as it was hundreds of years ago. We are entering a new age, where the government is seizing more and more power, the threat and the prospect of tyrrany and arbitrary government looms in the back of the heads of more and more citizens. The second amendment wasn’t written for hunters or sportsmen, although they do take advantage of the amendment, the true purpose of the Second Amendment was to be an Insurance Policy for the rest of the Bill of Rights. Should the Government fail to guarantee our rights, or should a foreign invasion take those rights from us, the people would not be helpless, but be able to contend for their rights, by the same tools of those who try to take their rights away. This would be evident to ANYONE who has read the Federalist Papers and read what the founding fathers had to say about the Second Amendment. It is the Hoplophobes and gun grabbers who are uneducated in matters of History and Government. Every Socialist regime disarms its people, for they do not trust their own people with arms, and for good reason, they deprive them of their liberties.