mlkddk Loc: Colorado

Today while flipping stations on talk radio, I came across one program talking about the second amendment. The host started out with this: “The one who has the guns in any country has all the power.” Now whether you are anti gun or even pro gun and know what I am going to say, take a moment to contemplate the reality of what happened in Nazi Germany. While I would have a tough time defending Socialists or Communists, read Martin Niemöller: “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me."
I can hear and see the replies already to this post. Kaiser, you are just worried about sensible gun control laws that would curb this epidemic of gun violence. Well, yes, I am worried about your supposed sensible gun control laws because any compromise with the anti gun lobby only feeds additional cries for more controls which then benefit only one group, the criminals, because it makes their jobs safer. Criminals or people who want to do harm to the rest of society don’t pay attention to the law.
But here is the bigger picture that all of us should be concerned with. Without any single one of the amendments, the rest of them mean nothing. It is my opinion that the suppression or deliberate ignorance of any of the amendments infringes on all of those rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution. Think of it this way. If it wasn’t for guns, we would still be British subjects. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

berchman Loc: South Central PA

Our government is already well on its way to becoming a police state. Have you noticed the militarization of the police, the way they are outfitting themselves in combat gear and carrying assault rifles? So when they come for you how is your handgun, rifle, shotgun going to keep them away with their armored vehicles, robots, RPG's, drones, etc? I support gun ownership, but not for the lame justification that it is a protection against the government.

Scoutman Loc: Orlando, FL

Specious argument. The amendment should be amended to reflect they meant muskets. Good luck with that.

Meanwhile, hold your horses. No one is taking your guns away, in spite of what the NRA is saying. Even simple and reasonable background checks, which the NRA at one time supported, could not get through congress. In your opinion, that's one time congress did its job by doing nothing.

Ever been to Canada? Handgun control sharply limited. It works. Even in Toronto:


"Torontonians like to think of their city as being safe and relatively free of the violent crime that plagues its American counterparts. It is certainly true that even with the recent uptick, gun murders here pale in comparison to Chicago — a city of similar size to Toronto — where a record 500 people were killed in 2012, 435 in total by gun. Chicago’s rate of 15 gun murders per 100,000 people is 10 times Toronto’s 2012 rate of 1.3 gun murders per 100,000 people. And Toronto’s peak rate of 1.5 gun murders per 100,000 Torontonians back in 2007 seems minuscule in comparison to the rate of roughly 62 gun murders per 100,000 in New Orleans, 35 in Detroit, 25ish in Baltimore and Oakland; and 20ish in Miami, St. Louis and Philadelphia during the same period.


But before we pat ourselves too hard on the back, we need to recognize that Toronto’s gun murder rate is about on par with large U.S. cities like Austin (1.5) and just a little better than San Jose (1.9) or Portland (2.2). And it is not all than much better than New York City’s record low of 3.8 murders per 100,000 recorded last year.


More worrisome, the recent uptick in gun violence in Toronto mirrors the same fault-lines of economic and social disadvantage that exist in U.S. cities." -The Toronto Star, February 24, 2014

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

You have conveniently left out the opening phrase "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…" In today's terms, I would suggest that "A well-regulated Militia" would equate to the National Guard. I don't know how long it takes to load a musket, but it's certainly measured in seconds, which is why they used to fire in three ranks to keep up a steady fire. I'm not sure the founding fathers envisioned AK-47s or grenade launchers.

venturer9 Loc: Newton, Il.

Once again, we come up with the "Framers did not envision AK-47's........ OF COURSE they didn't, they envisioned the armament that was available at that time....

Drop that argument, and argue on more logical points...

Mike

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

Like the gun nuts, you left out the parts of my statement you didn't like. Like omitting the opening phrase of the amendment, and equating a well-regulated Militia to the National Guard. I'm not accusing you of being a gun nut, but I am suggesting that you are reading selectively to bolster your argument.

venturer9 Loc: Newton, Il.

I omitted nothing that had reference to what I was commenting on. The fact that the militia could transfer to the National Guard to day had nothing to do with what I said at all.

I NEVER read selectively to bolster my argument.... IF my argument had anything to do with the "Militia" then I would have spoken to that.

I own no guns and care not a whit if you or my son or ??? own 100 of them and all are AK-47's... My basic concern in the Gun Registration controversy is that I cannot see the REASON for the constant and consistent efforts by some to deny the rights that we believe are given us in the Constitution.

Mike

chrisscholbe Loc: Kansas City, MO

I think we continually loose sight of one small thing.....IMHO, gun control is NOT about outlawing guns.

It's about keeping guns out of the hands of "crazy" people.....(supply your own definition of "crazy").

If you really think that the government wants your guns regulated so that they can come take them away from you, then you have to believe that that could happen regardless of which party is in power.

So, if you believe that the conservatives (when they are in power) who agree with YOUR stance on gun control are also thinking that they would be justified to come take your guns aways from you (because THEY are the government in this example)...........WOW......how paranoid can you get.

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

And, with respect, the issue comes down to your last sentence: Just precisely what rights are granted by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and other amendments. One group takes an absolutist stance, while ignoring what others (including me) consider a clear statement of intent. A statement which can be interpreted to allow registration of guns and restrictions on reasonable classes, i.e., mentally unstable and criminal. And I'd like to see the most severe penalties for possessing a gun during the commission of a crime, and more severe still for using a gun.

Bruno2013 Loc: Fort Myers, Florida

If the opening dependent clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…"is removed, its removal would have no effect on current legislation regulating gun ownership in the US. Thus one can judge the phrase superfluous. But it was not the practice of Madison and his fellow constitutional framers to be superfluous. Ergo, the dependent clause had purpose for them: armed militias are necessary to the security of a free state.

Kombiguy Loc: Cedar Rapids, IA

That may be true, but still leaves many questions. The first question is whether the militia phrase is prescriptive or descriptive. Is it an exemplar, or is it the only reason? To answer your question, as well as mine, we must go back to the ordinary understanding of the authors.
That can be found by using a dictionary and the Federalist Papers, as well as the debates of the convention.

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

Yours is the specious argument, the word "musket" intentionally never appears in the 2nd amendment. However muskets were the most advanced personal weapon of the time. Using your very same argument, what you really mean is that the second amendment should be re-written to mean what it did at the time, it RECOGNIZES your god given right by birth as a free human, the right to arm and protect yourself with the most advance weapon(s) available. The very same as those the world military super power at the time employed. ... good luck with that!

And while we are at it, the first amendment, (also under fire), never mentions internet, tv, radio, loudspeaker, or even newspapers or any other medium that they could, ( understandably) not comprehend . Yet we on the right believe these modern tools should be covered by the 1st.

You obviously do not, as it is the same thinking you and your party are using to direct the FCC to review how news is covered and gathered and how the decisions are made to broadcast what types of news... Don;t cover what and how they deem correct, and they'll take the broadcast license away. Why else would they be involved.

Orwell saw right through you and yours.

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

There are several obvious indications that the founding fathers created the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. Two of them:

1. The 2nd Amendment did not come out of nowhere. It was the logical derivative of a long series of conflicts in which European monarchs, especially in Britain, tried to disarm the populace as part of the monarchs' attempts at tyranny.

2. A little-known fact is that the founding fathers originally planned to divide the Bill of Rights into sections, according to whether they were individual rights, or rights reserved to the states. The right to own and carry arms was always listed as an individual right.

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

You have inconveniently not taken the time to understand what a well regulated militia was. It was NOT government based.

All men of age to carry a weapon (12, 14, 16 years old's included) were REQUIRED by law, under threat of fine, to regularly attend drills with their own weapon in order to defend their families and neighbors when the law/military was weeks or months away... when minutes were needed.

The only thing to change is that now, the law/ military is many minutes/hours away when seconds are needed, if they ever come at all. They were saying that you need to be able to defend yourself and that they recognize that it is your right to do so by the means available.

The rate of fire for a bow was much shorter then that of a musket. The Brown Bess of British regulars was an un-rifled barrel that shot knuckle balls. Whatever you aimed at was probably mostly safe. They fired elbow to elbow as they did to concentrate effective fire. There was a chivalrous attitude of warfare, that our forefathers had to abandon due to the dangers they encountered other then British and French. Three rows did indeed ensure a constant rate of fire, however this often broke down very quickly. It either ended in hand to hand or in retreat or a mad rush. It was a messy affair, no one shold even now, think it isn't.

Kombiguy Loc: Cedar Rapids, IA

Yes. I believe that power corrupts, etc. I believe that any government can be destructive of our rights. I also believe that, for the most part, the current push for more and more gun control comes almost entirely from the left. I also believe that, if they could, the left would confiscate private weapons.
So, BTW, does Senator Dianne Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."