Letters to the Editor
-
Hmmm...
I don't like guns, don't own or use them myself and I think this would be about as great an idea as Prohibition was.
-
Repeal, maybe not; clarify? Hell, yes!
Here's a point that came to mind the other day: The 2d Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear "arms". Not "firearms", not "any arms". Swords count as arms, as do clubs and slingshots. We could, theoretically, ban any weapon that uses explosive power.
But more practically, much of the controversy surrounding the 2d Amendment derives from its somewhat-ambiguous opening clause. Perhaps it could be changed to claify that, to bring the languange into a more current context (define a "well-regulated militia", for example).
Yeah, dream on...
-
Intellectually Honest
Shapiro takes the intellectually honest approach: trash the Constitution and make everybody a government dependent. Pretty much the blueprint of "progressivism" in miniature.
-
Here we go again
Please make Shapiro the London bureau chief. Then he can be safe. He will probably get the crap beat out of him a few times, but at least it won't be GUN violence.
The definition of a liberal is someone who is terrified by the concept that someone, somewhere, will do something for themselves. Yup, get the feds to regulate everything. Quit crying when they regulate abortion. It is what you want.
Please Wally, leave this country. Go to a place where the government doles out rights to the people. We don't need you here because we need to push back the infringements on the 1st, 4th, 5th, 14th, etc (sigh) amendments. Those are ours and the government has no right to them. And you, Wally, who want to give up rights so you can feel secure, only deserve the rights that other men deign to allow you.
-
Good luck.
For only in Tom Clancy-esque mythology are weekend hunters carrying assault weapons a bulwark against tyranny.
The people of Iraq seem to be doing a pretty decent job fighting tyranny with just assault weapons and some ingenuity.
The problem with attempting to repeal the second amendment is that you're effectively attempting to turn every gun owner into a criminal, overnight. They won't like that. And they have all the guns.
-
Let's start the Third Amendment Foundation!
I'd agree that the effort to repeal the Second Amendment would be worth it, if it would be at all effective in practical terms. There are just too many guns in this country. Besides, no background check would have detected the shooter; at best, you'd stop a few. You'd probably slow down the rate that these massacres occur, but that'd be hard to prove, and the political carnage would be terrible. After all, even Canada had a lunatic killing spree a few years ago with a hunting rifle; where's there's a will, there seems to be a way.
These massacres are horribly just part of the American environment; these politicians are making the correct calculation in our imperfect country.
-
Bravo!
Not to be trite, but reading this piece put me in mind of that line from Raiders of the Lost Ark: "Asps. Very dangerous. You go first." Having said that, bravo Mr. Shapiro for having gone first and speaking the heretofore unthinkable!
I look forward to the day-- the good Lord willing it will come in my lifetime-- when I can sport a "No more Virginia Techs. Repeal the 2nd Amendment" bumper sticker without fear of being libeled as unAmerican. Or shot with a Glock.
-
What...
a moron.
-
While they're at it....
they should repeal the First Amendment.
I'm tired of reading crap like this.
-
Good Intentions, Bad Idea
While my heart goes out to those at Virginia Tech we must not succumb to the knee jerk reaction to ban guns. Banning guns will not stop someone intent on harming others. Timothy McVeigh caused far more deaths with a rented Ryder Truck and fertilizer. Cho could have used any number of means to cause widespread carnage - from poisoning food to detonating explosives. The liberal/progressive movement has got to come to terms with blaming the ACTOR, not the tool which the actor used. If we were to use the same rationale of banning guns to stop gun violence then should we not ban either alcohol or cars to stop drunk driving. More people die at the hands of drunk drivers daily than were killed at VT. Do we blame the car, the alcohol? No. We blame and punish the SOB who got behind the wheel drunk. We Americans live in a violent society. Guns are just one of the many symptoms of the disease not the cause. Want to stop the kind of carnage we had at VT and Columbine? Get to the root of what is driving these individuals to commit such awful acts.
-
My least favorite amendments ...
... are the 17th Amendment and the 26th Amendment. As long as we're editing, let's scrap those, too.
-
Naive, naive, naive
"Looking at the Bill of Rights with more than two centuries' hindsight, it is simply irrational that firearms have a protected position on par with freedom of speech and religion."
The right to bear arms is equivalent to the right of self defense. Only a cloistered armchair liberal who has never had to fight for any of his freedoms, let alone his life, would make such a naive and absurd statement as this. Has it ever occurred to you that, someday, we might not all be as comfortable and safe as we are now? Has it ever occurred to you that someday you might have to actually, physically, fight for survival, or for some of those freedoms that you so cherish?
The Second Amendment was put in the constitution for a deadly serious reason. It should be granted just as much respect as the First Amendment. And we should all hope and pray that we never see the day when any of us has to exercise it.
-
Brilliant -- but insufficient...!
Why should the 2nd Amendment be the only one that cannot be touched in any way, indeed? Mr. Shapiro has cut the Gordian knot. But there's another way to think about it: open it up completely to all weapons, up to and including weapons of mass destruction -- which some automatic weapons are beginning to approach!
Going down to the other end, as a previous poster points out, swords count as arms. Most states ban maces as well as any blade longer than four inches. No NRA members seem to complain about that -- why not? Let's open it up to everything! Forget concealed-carry pistols -- I want to carry around a saber, or throwing stars, or a mace-and-chain, a weapon so nasty that virtually every state bans it, even though its reach is only about two feet longer than your arm at best. By the NRA's own logic, guns shouldn't be the only weapon protected. Besides, if I hear a burglar, why do I want to mess up my walls with bullets? Give me a nice, quiet sword cut anyday.
And this logic should apply to ALL amendments, especially the first. No banning of record lyrics, totally open airwaves, no movie ratings restrictions -- let's protect a really important right.
And for those who believe that guns don't kill people, I suggest taking a four-inch blade and going up against a machine gun. It won't take long. People do kill people -- but they do it a helluva lot more efficiently with guns. It's about time we at least discussed the issue instead of throwing (ahem) bombs at people who even raise it.