Comments on: Why not repeal the 2nd amendment?

by: Anonymous

Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:04:40 +0000

by: Aaron

Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:48:32 +0000

“Actually the repeal of the 18th is a good reminder that we shouldn’t be messing with the constitution.”
I don’t think the founding fathers were perfect, merely well ahead of their time. Now we are behind the time.

by: restless

Wed, 18 Apr 2007 19:50:12 +0000

This just in: “a disaster comparable to the Virginia Tech massacre occurs four or five times a day every day in Iraq” And Porter, the world may have changed in 200 years, but the fundamentals of freedom haven’t. If the government can’t provide safety and a sane society, we need a new government, NOT a change in the Constitution. Enough said.

by: restless

Wed, 18 Apr 2007 19:46:33 +0000

Aaron I was referring to the first the Bill of Rights, not stupid amendments regarding prohibition passed long after the founding. Actually the repeal of the 18th is a good reminder that we shouldn’t be messing with the constitution.

by: Porter Venn

Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:18:05 +0000

Yea.. the 18th amendment, how quant, just like the 2nd. The 2nd amenment had it’s time, it made sense 200 years ago, but that was a different world, it was a world where a disturbed person couldn’t go down the street to a local gun store, and then 30 mins later blow 30 people away with a small little device the size of a shoe. Do you think the founding fathers, if writing the bill of rights and Constitution from scratch today, would word the 2nd amendment the same, or include it at all? I doubt it. Lets move on.

by: Aaron

Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:07:08 +0000

“Sorry, these amendments are not subject to being out-of-date.”
.
Tell that to the eighteenth amendment.

by: restless

Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:47:06 +0000

Saying that they didn’t realize we’d have Uzi’s when the Founders wrote the 2nd Amendment is like saying they didn’t realize we’d have porn when they wrote the 1st Amendment. Sorry, these amendments are not subject to being out-of-date. The basic principles still apply to a free people.

The causes of violence are what a government and a people must address; the symptoms can only be repressed. The Amendments give no excuse for bad government that creates a society such as ours and they specifically forbid repression as an alternative.

Repression is repression whether it be on speech or on right to bear arms. Fix the cause.

by: Bazule

Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:25:45 +0000

Here’s a world map view of Gun Deaths. http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/world/0704/map.guncrime/Map.swf The U.S. is right up there with Kazakistan, Nigeria and Senegal. We’re #1 We’re #1 GO USA!

by: Porter Venn

Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:12:42 +0000

I’ve never owned a gun, so I’m a subject? All this time I had no idea, damn the man! That sentence points out the jist of the problem, pro gun people are afraid, they believe they either believe there is some boogyman out there (usually of color) to hurt his family, or, they believe “the man” is going to take away his property and belongings, and rape their cows and eat their wives.

what man? who knows, some theoretical man in the future, some bad man with which he will kill with a gun.

It’s utterly rediculous and mad, and because of this need to arm ourselves against this man, and black…errr.. I mean… bad people, 30,000 people a year in America lose their lives. It’s insane. Man… I really hate America, I’m one of them darn-tootin America Haterss, I should just fucking leave already.

by: Porter Venn

Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:05:51 +0000

John, that’s great that your guns have never hurt anyone, it’s not your guns that anyone is worried about, it’s the millions of others, are you willing to vouch for those as well? To say “Well I’m a responsible gun owner, my guns will never hurt anyone” doesn’t take into account the thousands of people who are not responsible gun owners, and it only takes 1 gun to wipe out the futures of 30 people, and devistate a community. One measly gun, that anyone can purchase inside of 15 minutes, and not need any skill to weild is capable of huge amounts of destruction in the wrong hands, and there are a lot of wrong hands out there.

by: John Mefford

Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:07:55 +0000

“A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject.” I know thats been said before. Everytime some wacko with illegally aquired guns goes beserk, the wimps want to outlaw guns. My guns have NEVER hurt anyone.
BTW Aaron, a musket can be loaded and fired 4 to 5 times a minute

by: Porter Venn

Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:31:37 +0000

Saying you need arms to defend yourself against a tyranical government is BS.

It’s a red herring that the Gun Lobby uses for justification of an antiquated right. If things get SO BAD that the Government is snatching people in the middle of the night in some Gestapo-Esque manner, and we become some sort of totalatarian nightmare, then it’s not going to be gun ownership that will stop it. You’re right, the Police will always win.

What kind of fucked up country do we live in, where smoking pot, (which is waaaaaay more benign and harmless than Whisky, Beer or Wine) can land you in jail, yet it’s perfectly legal to own a small metal device that a 5 year old can easily aim at somone, apply a tiny bit of pressure to a trigger, and end their life.

Lets start making some changes people. The Baby Boomers and X-Gen’rs are very close to having all the power in this country, lets “Get ‘Er Done”

by: Mark

Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:24:57 +0000

There are still a whole lot of people running around who believe—without a trace of irony—that all the other rights spelled out in the Constitution stem directly from the right to bear arms.

I have to work with these people.

Based on years of unscientific observation, I would have to guess that, if the government wants to oppress you, regardless of the presence or absence of firearms in your house, then your ass is gonna get oppressed. I mean, if it’s all a question of firepower, come on. They have TANKS. Do you have tanks? Even one? Please.

Or take the example of someone who ends up in what’s commonly called a stand-off with police. Do those situations ever conclude in favor of anyone BUT the police? And if you’re talking about using a gun to defend your rights, isn’t that the exact situation you’re in?

I’m not in love with these opinions, based as they are on my near-total ignorance of any specifics. But they do conform to the notion that the 2nd Amendment just may have outlived its usefulness.

by: Aaron

Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:30:26 +0000

“When the 2nd amendment was written Uzi’s, Glocks, and 38’s didn’t exist.”
Exactly. Can you imagine this Cho guy wandering around the campus with some 6 foot long musket (having a reload time of at least 30 seconds)?

by: Porter Venn

Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:03:38 +0000

Restless, I agree, it’s all about fear, this country thrives on fear, hell it’s the juice that feeds the Neo-cons and most of the Republican party. Regarding 90% of the gun related murders being x-Lovers etc… my point is this, if that X-Lover had say…a composite bow… or a Samurai sword, in otherwords, a weapon that took skill to wield, how many of those X-lovers would still be alive? If the nut at VA Tech had machettes and knives and a crossbow, he still might have been able to kill some people, but 32 people? I doubt it. It’s the power of the gun itself that has thrown things out of wack. Yes people will probably always try to kill other people, however something with the size, and power of a handgun makes it incredibly easy to do so. When the 2nd amendment was written Uzi’s, Glocks, and 38’s didn’t exist.