Court made good ruling

Posted Wednesday, July 16, 2008, at 9:45 AM
View 4 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Very well said.

    -- Posted by Manshima on Wed, Jul 16, 2008, at 1:28 PM
  • "There are some cities where it its statistically more dangerous to live there than it is being deployed in the Iraq war zone. Our nation's capital happens to be one of those cities. We're one of the world's leaders in homicides and most of them are due to handguns."

    Not this again. You do realise the violent death rate (from direct violence - not suicide or accidents) in Iraq for US troops is several hundred per 100,000? How can some US cities be more dangerous? Crazy comment!

    I also think it's a stretch to call the US a world leader in homicide.

    -- Posted by Magna Carta on Thu, Jul 17, 2008, at 3:52 AM
  • "It's the one section of the Bill of Rights for which there are no records of the debate by the founding fathers. As a result, we're not exactly sure what they meant."

    Say what???

    You might try the federalist papers, Washington's letters (Not to mention several others), etc.

    I suppose it's possible you won't find a record of some specific face-to-face debate (though I doubt it), but the founding fathers had mountains to say about it.

    If you do a little checking at the ORIGINAL SOURCE of the gun control crowd's "information" you will find that the majority of their stuff is unsupported, distorted, misquoted, out of context, deceptive, or outright lies.

    Your quote above is widely pushed, but grossly misleading even if it is technically accurate (Which I doubt).

    -- Posted by StarKing on Thu, Jul 17, 2008, at 10:42 PM
  • *

    Overall, a very thoughtful, well written piece. I do disagree with one point, though: "And I reject completely the argument that they're needed for possible "defense" against our own government. Nobody with a .30-06 is going to ever be able to stand up to the nation's standing military forces." You are totally right, a person with a .30-06 is not going to last too long against the military.

    However, just a few paragraphs before you said: "I don't, for example, think people have any need for automatic weapons, including machine guns." The defense against a large, over powerful government is what I believe the 2nd Amendment was written for. Many will say that the National Guard is the militia that the Amendment speaks of. Perhaps in the 1780s and 90s this was the case; however, I totally reject that today. How can the National Guard be used to protect against the Federal Government when in times of unrest it can be called up to active service by the President? No, I believe that the common, every day law abiding citizen has a right to own the same weaponry as the military (however, I will draw the line at ICBMs and Nukes).

    The problem in this country is turning criminals into victims and gun manufacturers into criminals. All that we need are a very few, easy to follow gun laws and then to ENFORCE those laws. Responsibility needs to be pinned onto the appropriate party, not passed around like a hot potato.

    -- Posted by Willys on Wed, Jul 30, 2008, at 1:33 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: