July 25th, 2012 09:21 AM
Ny times op-Ed...not as bad as I thought it would be
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.
July 25th, 2012 09:29 AM
Yeah, but then it goes downhill a bit:
Overall I would say it was slightly left-leaning.
So far, liberals and centrists have done more to adopt a reasonable position.
July 25th, 2012 09:35 AM
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."
July 25th, 2012 09:52 AM
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?
July 25th, 2012 10:17 AM
Well, I agree, but I can understand their using this terminology. Guns are certainly the weapons of choice for most criminals.
Originally Posted by msgt/ret
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.
'Be careful, even in small matters' - Miyamoto Musashi
July 25th, 2012 11:22 AM
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.
July 25th, 2012 02:26 PM
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.
July 29th, 2012 11:56 PM
Originally Posted by scott625
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."
July 30th, 2012 12:34 AM
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."
July 30th, 2012 09:26 AM
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."
Search tags for this page
time op ed second amendment
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors