Letters to the Editor
-
Gun Nuts always respond first
Why? 'cause they live in fear. Fear is also what prompts them to jump on anyone that proposes regulation. They also love conflating regulation with control and prohibition.
The arms the founding fathers discussed are not what we have today. Militias are definately a part of the amendment, whether you think you have to be in one to get the benefit of the amendment or think the amendment just provides for the basis for the creation of militias. However, militias are archaic and no longer exist.
For those that say fascism will creep in without private guns, look around you! Fascism is creeping in and the guns aren't making a damn bit of difference. The all controlling, keep you dependant and subjugated government is a dream of the conservatives, not the liberals, you idiots. You just keep listening to Rush and keep your popguns while the rest of your rights are flushed down the toilet.
For those of you that are looking for someone to blame about this latest tragedy, remember that he lied on his application to buy a gun. Had the dealer done his job, the kid would have had to go get an illegal gun. That alone might have stopped him. Had gun laws been more effective, had the NRA not made it a mission to protect anyone selling any gun to anyone for any reason, maybe the dealer would have taken the laws seriously. You want blame? Look in a damn mirror.
As far as needing guns to overthrow the government, Iraq wasn't a place where citizens had lots of guns before the invasion. They sure do now. You really think you have to have them now in case someday the government needs overthrowing? When will you reach that point? How do you decide? For the love of Pete, get your heads out of your asses and realize you're lying to yourselves. You have these sick little power fantasies and like to run around pretending you'd have the balls to use the guns if push came to shove. Bullshit. Not only won't push come to shove, you'll sit in your homes, glued to Fox, pretending that everything is fine with the world, reporting on your neighbors as your friends are hauled off to camps.
-
Please learn some history
"When the Bill of Rights was passed, a gun consisted of a muzzle loader, and in most cases, if not a rifle, would not be of much use for hitting anything."
The firearms of their day were highly accurate and those in private hands were more accurate than those used by the military, because hunters used rifles and the military used smoothbores mostly until the 1830s.
"In fact, the rifled barrel, necessary for accuracy, was not invented until 1885."
You are over 100 years off. In fact, you can buy modern bolt action rifles where the RECEIVER was built in 1885.
When you see something like the 1903 Springfield or the 98k Mauser, or the 91/30 NM. Those refere to dates. The 98 was adpoted in 1898, the 91 in 1891 by the Russians. These are still rifles you can buy and fire today and ammunition is still made for them.
"Todays handguns have the firepower of a militia in 1776. If this had been the intent of the second amendment, it would have read "everyone can have their own little militia to use as they see fit". This guy had semi-automatic firing, spare magazines to relode instantly, and the firepoter to shoot people through doors. We really need to think about some type of regulation."
We do have regulation, the problem is that no type of regulation is going to prevent someone without a conviction from buying a firearm. That a teacher made had a problem with him is not something that is reportable.
Your conclusions are based on completely errorenous sets of information. You have no idea about the firepower of firearms is specific time periods is, you have no idea about how a modern semi-automatic pistol works, and you have no idea about how current regulations on firearms work, yet despite this giant gulf of ignorance, you think you can draw correct conclusions.
A conclusions based on ignorance is worthless.
-
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State ...
Those thirteen words that begin the 2nd amendment are the ones that our Supreme Court tend to ignore, deciding time and again that the right to bear arms is an individual right, rather than, as indicating by the beginning clause, a collective right (which, as written, it most clearly is).
This tendency to gut the 2nd amendment of its true meaning is by far and away a larger transgression on the part of SCOTUS than is their decision to place their Roe vs. Wade decision under the umbrella of 'privacy rights.'
I would like to note that in my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, gun owners tend to natter on about needing their guns in order to protect their god-given rights to own their guns, but you seldom hear them talking about taking up arms to defend the remainder of our bill of rights, which the current Republican Administration have been dismantling brick by brick. Many of the responses to this article suport my observation.
I would hope that eight years of a liberal administration will result in stacking the Supreme Court in such a way that the majority of the justices actually read, parse, and understand the Constitution that should act as the basis of the decisions they render.
-
Come on, dreamweapon, at least try
My last post pointlessly defensive and hostile? You don't consider that to be meaningful debate? And then you triumphantly sign off? How embarrassing. What a phony.
-
banning handguns isn't the answer
The VT massacre claimed 32 lives. I don't want to downplay the tragedy, but for a little perspective: 168 people were murdered in Oklahoma City 12 years ago, and over 3,000 people were murdered on 9/11/2001. Handguns were not involved in these other mass murders that claimed many more lives.
Surrendering your rights won't make you more safe from psychopaths with an agenda. Don't be fooled.
-
But Wait a Minute, Bill Radvin ...
" ... 168 people were murdered in Oklahoma City 12 years ago ..."
Didn't we tighten up the regulations on the raw materials used to blow up the building in Oklahoma City? Wouldn't you say that worked, to some degree?
"... and over 3,000 people were murdered on 9/11/2001."
Didn't we harden cockpit doors in response? Doesn't that result in lowering the number of people that can be killed in any attempted or successful hijacking to the number of people on the plane plus the random casualties that may or may not take place on the ground when the plane hits?
I've been surrendering my rights to our government ever since the morning of September 12, 2001. What makes you think the right to purchase and own handguns is somehow special?