Ny times op-Ed...not as bad as I thought it would be

This is a discussion on Ny times op-Ed...not as bad as I thought it would be within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/op...n-madness.html THE national conversation about guns, since James E. Holmes shot 12 people to death and wounded 58 others at a movie theater in Aurora, ...

Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Ny times op-Ed...not as bad as I thought it would be

  1. #1
    Member Array scott625's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    171

    Ny times op-Ed...not as bad as I thought it would be

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/op...n-madness.html

    THE national conversation about guns, since James E. Holmes shot 12 people to death and wounded 58 others at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., has been a dialogue of the deaf. Unless gun-control advocates and gun-rights supporters stop screaming at each other and look for common ground on how to deal with gun violence, the next massacre is only a matter of time.
    Related in Opinion

    Editorial: 6,000 Bullets (July 24, 2012)
    Op-Ed Columnist: More Treatment Programs (July 24, 2012)

    Connect With Us on Twitter

    Liberals have to deprive the National Rifle Association of its core argument, that the real aim of all gun control measures is to strip Americans of their right to have and use firearms. Gun-control supporters must make clear that they accept that Americans have had this individual, common-law right since Jamestown and the Plymouth Colony; that this right was recognized in the Second Amendment to the Constitution in 1791; and that the Supreme Court affirmed its constitutionality in 2008. Liberals should accept that the only realistic way to control gun violence is not by keeping guns out of the hands of as many Americans as possible, but by keeping guns out of the hands of people we all agree should not have them.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Senior Member Array highvoltage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    1,121
    Yeah, but then it goes downhill a bit:

    So far, liberals and centrists have done more to adopt a reasonable position.
    Overall I would say it was slightly left-leaning.

  4. #3
    VIP Member
    Array msgt/ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    7,143
    They keep erroneously calling it a gun violence problem when in reality it is a “criminal” violence with guns problem. Take away and control the criminals and the so-called gun violence problem will be greatly reduced.
    When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
    "Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."

  5. #4
    Member Array revldm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    463
    The gun is only a tool. Criminals will always find a way to get that tool. Swinging door justice just won't get the job done. Too many criminals are given a slap on the wrist and turned back out on the puplic. In almost every case we find that the crook had a long record with many arrest. why are they not kept behind bars when we get them the first time?

  6. #5
    Senior Member Array Chevy-SS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by msgt/ret View Post
    They keep erroneously calling it a gun violence problem when in reality it is a “criminal” violence with guns problem. Take away and control the criminals and the so-called gun violence problem will be greatly reduced.
    Well, I agree, but I can understand their using this terminology. Guns are certainly the weapons of choice for most criminals.

    Additionally, it's virtually impossible to "Take away and control the criminals" 100% of the time, especially the occasional, over-the-top maniacs like Holmes, who have no prior record. It's much easier to simply "take away" the guns from all law abiding citizens, which leads most anti-gunners to ASSUME (and we all know the definition of 'assume') that jerks like Holmes will be caught in that massive gun grab.

    IMHO, there's just no easy answer. It's not a perfect world and humans are decidedly IMPERFECT. Unfortunately, I think incidents like this will happen from time to time, with the perps utilizing whatever weapons are available. All the more reason to be prepared and use SA at all times.

    Peace
    'Be careful, even in small matters' - Miyamoto Musashi

  7. #6
    Member Array Lanner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    263
    I liked that at least the writer saw flaws in both positions. If it was slightly left maybe but he wasnt screaming for bans on pistols and ars either whuch is different.

  8. #7
    Member Array scott625's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    171
    I thought comment about the Brady bunch moderating was interesting. Although, I think the cause is not because they want to but because they have to. Nobody will listen to them so instead of sweeping changes they chisel At the 2a.

  9. #8
    Senior Member Array sensei2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    washington state
    Posts
    1,050
    Quote Originally Posted by scott625 View Post
    I thought comment about the Brady bunch moderating was interesting. Although, I think the cause is not because they want to but because they have to. Nobody will listen to them so instead of sweeping changes they chisel At the 2a.

    i agree 100%. and i'd like to see if any user of this forum really believes that the Brady bunch truly recognizes our right to keep and bear arms? IMO, their current 'reasonableness' is just tactics born of necessity. notice that virtually all the liberal gun-banners who are commenting in the wake of Aurora, begin their spiels with, "i support the Second Amendment, but..." then it's something along the lines of, "i don't see why any person needs..." an assault rifle capable of firing so many rounds a minute. or 6000 rounds of ammunition. or high capacity magazines. or whatever it is that they would like to see outlawed. they don't understand that it's not a case of what they think anyone "needs". as they are so fond of pointing out, rights are not absolute. but, IMO, personal weapons, supressors, NVD's, ballistic armor, and as much ammunition as one wants to buy, are well within 2A boundaries. i, personally, would draw the line at selling RPG's, jet fighters, or tanks, let alone nuclear weapons, to the general population, but their limits are much narrower.



    "whenever there's a spree shooting, they always want to take the guns away from people who didn't do it."

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    From the article:
    "Gun owners and their advocates must, in turn, stop insisting that gun ownership is an absolute right. The Second Amendment is not a law unto itself."

    If the 2nd amendment isn't absolute than the 1st amendment (which protects the NY Times) isn't either.

    I for one am already sick of hearing all the banter over 6000 rounds. 6, 60, 6000 or 6,000,000 has nothing to do with anything. In fact what type of weapons one uses has nothing to do with anything. The Aurora shooter could have achieved the same results with 200 rounds and no so called "assault rifle" that night.

    The main problem with someone committing mass murder is virtual the same as violent criminals using guns. No way to know(in most cases) until they execute the action(crime).

    More laws that will restrict only law abiding citizens will solve nothing. Doing so amounts to punishing the good while the bad roam free.
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  11. #10
    Senior Member Array bklynboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    567
    neither the Second nor First Amendments are absolute. As Justice Scalia wrote in Heller:

    "There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text
    and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an
    individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the
    right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s
    right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v.
    Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the
    Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry
    arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read
    the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
    speak for any purpose."

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

time op ed second amendment

Click on a term to search for related topics.