[marktwain]

This only deserves the semi-barf notice because the writter is a university student, and is thoroughly educated about the vacuity of her opinions in the comments following the editorial.

[rlmorel]

"...fiscally conservative, socially liberal..."

I am coming to the conclusion that these things are mutually exclusive.

[EyeGuy]

“Ignoring the Constitution for a moment....”

####

Captain: “All Stop”.

[Caipirabob]

We’re just sick of commies having free run of things. It’s time to shut them all down.

[Dallas59]

First it’s guns...then it’s knives...then come clubs...then rocks....

[elkfersupper]

I’ve learned not to debate with people 1/3 my age. They are almost always wrong, they just have no understanding of why.

[RetiredTexasVet]

I wonder if the people of Syria, Iran, or Greece, etc. had second amendment rights if they and the governments would be in different positions today. Why should we ship weapons to Syria, they can just exercise their second amendment rights .... oh, wait ... dictatorships restrict gun ownership, don’t they. I wonder what future dictatorship the student is about to support.

[Ouderkirk]

Alissa......you poor sweet thing. So young, so foolish.

Second Amendment protections were put in place so that the people could shoot operatives of an oppressive government.....not deer.

[a fool in paradise]

Lock up the mentally insane. If they are not to be held accountable for their actions, then they should not be permitted to roam about unobserved.

[GeronL]

There is no such thing as a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. Not possible.

[gorush]

"I find it counterintuitive that people shouldn’t need a reason to carry a deadly weapon."

I think we need to diagram this sentence for me to completely understand this guy,s meaning. Maybe the answer will disabuse me of my initial reaction, if not, he's an inexperienced idiot.

[Timocrat]

Eliminating the “good and substantial” clause worries me because it shows our government gives more weight to words scribbled on some parchment more than two centuries ago than to an honest, logical evaluation of current gun policy.

Those words scribbled on some parchment protects your right to pen drivel such as this.

[NoLibZone]

We must now demonstrate a “good and substantial reason” for wanting to exercise our rights.

Lets apply all gun law logic to say ... abortion.

Or voting.

[W. W. SMITH]

Citizens with no criminal record should be able, at will, to carry, concealed or open, any firearm they please, hand gun or long gun, anywhere they please without let or hindrance by government authorities.

[Zeppo]

Alissa Gulin is a senior journalism major and former opinion editor.

Maybe Alissa Gulin ought to have to apply to the government for a license to exercise her freedom of speech.

So that the license can be denied, with no right of appeal.

Because her childish view of the world presents a clear and present threat to my freedoms.

After all, it's just words on an old piece of paper that stand between her and people who would deny her rights, just as it's just words on an old piece of paper standing between "we the people" and dangerous idiots such as Alissa who would so readily take away our rights.

[TigersEye]

Here’s a head-scratching little nugget: If we weren’t conditioned to think we’re entitled to own a gun, would people get all up in arms if someone restricted their right to bear them?

If you had a brain you would, Alissa. Let's put it this way; if someone told you that you didn't have a right to wear clothes around men and further suggested that your clothing choices should be limited, limited to G-strings in fact, would that be OK with you? Would you have any suspicion at all as to why we wanted you naked at all times, Alissa?

[TwoSwords]

She must have meant viscerally conservative. Either could apply. Proud of their lack of intellect aren’t they?

4.
characterized by or proceeding from instinct rather than intellect: a visceral reaction.

5.
characterized by or dealing with coarse or base emotions; earthy; crude: a visceral literary style.

[PubliusMM]

From the article: “The case concerned not the Second Amendment itself, but its scope — which the judge substantially broadened by declaring: “The Court finds that the right to bear arms is not limited to the home.””

Therein lies the faulty logic of the writer. The notion that the judge broadened the scope of the Second Amendment by his declaration that the right is not limited to the home clearly shows this college student doesn’t know a thing about the Amendment, apart from the mental pablum he’s been fed in the government schools.

May God help us all...

[dr_lew]

I think most people intuitively believe in a natural right to protect ourselves, but not in a natural right to endanger others.

So who can tell me what scene from SEMI-TOUGH leaps to mind ?

[SIDENET]

Here’s a head-scratching little nugget: If we weren’t conditioned to think we’re entitled to own a gun, would people get all up in arms if someone restricted their right to bear them? If the founding fathers had relied not on horseback but on horsepower, or understood the importance of highway systems and emergency exit routes, or lived on opposite coastlines, might they have protected the right to operate an engine, making our automobile industry radically different? And if — bear with me — one of their children had attended class on the day of a school shooting, might they have been a bit less hasty on amendment number two?

Painful.

[trebb]

I find it counterintuitive that people shouldn’t need a reason to carry a deadly weapon. It seems problematic for the Constitution to necessitate that if I’m not a criminal, drug addict or psychiatric patient, I can tote around my gun just for shits and giggles.. Eliminating the “good and substantial” clause worries me because it shows our government gives more weight to words scribbled on some parchment more than two centuries ago than to an honest, logical evaluation of current gun policy.

Oh my - college is really educating them, isn't it? I can see why she also says "ignoring the Constitution" because I've never seen the clause that talks about criminal/drug addict/psycho when saying the right to bear arms will not be infringed. She obviously only knows what her "perfessers" told her about the Constitution.