Gun control? How about gun elimination?

Baltimore Sun ^ | October 19, 2003 | G. Jefferson Price III, Perspective Editor

[Cincinatus' Wife]

THANKS to New York Times columnist Bob Herbert for revealing to us that the National Rifle Association has an enemies list, though that's not what they call it. A spokesman for the NRA told Herbert the list is compiled just so members will "know which organizations support the rights of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms, and which organizations didn't."

.............There are more enemies listed, many more. But you get the point. A vast cross-section of talented, thoughtful Americans, many beautiful people and just plain all-American companies and organizations are on the NRA bad list. They should be proud, because the NRA is about a lot more than making sure "law-abiding Americans" get to "keep and bear arms."

The Second Amendment is the dubious source of the NRA's claim to protect American rights: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

.............Nation dithers

Actually, I'm not for gun control. I'm for gun elimination. Guns don't kill people, the NRA tells us, people kill people. Take away their guns and killing would be a lot harder. I'm for taking away guns from anyone who can't prove a real need. That's more radical than most gun control advocates seem willing to state. But while this country has dithered on the issue - unlike most other civilized places - and politicians have been intimidated by the NRA, tens of thousands of innocent people have been killed, and for what? For the sake of preserving "the right to bear arms"? That's not good enough.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

I don't think they think. They want to rub elbows with the stupid but "beautiful people." They live and work with LIBERALS and they don't know #hit.

[scan58]

Now, in Iraq, America's appointed governors are supposed to come up with a good American-style constitution. Let's make sure they have a Second Amendment giving every Iraqi the right to bear arms. That's just what Iraq needs.

Not only is this guy a total leftist...he's a total idiot, too. Guess he made that list. I'll bet he's proud.

[Jim Noble]

I'm for taking away guns from anyone who can't prove a real need

Members of the Party will always have a real need, I suppose...

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

G. Jefferson Price III, Perspective Editor:

"Actually, I'm not for gun control. I'm for gun elimination. Guns don't kill people, the NRA tells us, people kill people. Take away their guns and killing would be a lot harder.".............

"But while this country has dithered on the issue - unlike most other civilized places - and politicians have been intimidated by the NRA, tens of thousands of innocent people have been killed, and for what? For the sake of preserving "the right to bear arms"? That's not good enough."

=================================

Guys, It appears that the blithering idiocy of the BS's Editorial staff shall continue. Even after ALL of the BS's stories about millions of countless LAW-ABIDING unarmed people being killed by "militias" {POLITICIANS} in Bosnia, Rwanda, Cuba, Iraq, and other governments "gone bad", this blithering idiot gives US the same old unadulterated BullShit {"BS"!} The BS {Baltimore Sun}; Owned and operated by the same folks who give US the Los Angeles Times. Peace and love, George.

[risk]

FMCDH

[dpa5923]

I am not a constitutional expert. But the Second Amendment seems to me to be about as relevant to modern reality as the Book of Leviticus.

I wanted to put a smart@ss comment at the end of this, but I think this statement stands alone. The fool really believes this.

Now, can I get on that list? Please?

You just made the list, Francis.

[Dave Elias]

The second amendment is all about the right of having weaponry as an equaliser. To enable the hunted to be on an equal footing with the tyrannical hunter so he no longer needs to live in fear.

Therefore shouldn't we push for right to arm bears?

Ha ha - sorry couldn't resist.

[sauropod]

Normally, I do not advocate buying a copy of the Baltimore Eclipse or visiting its website as it is not even fit for birdcage liner.

However, snobbish elitists like this "G. Jefferson Price III" that wouldn't set foot outside a gated community in "the city that bleeds" really need to hear from people in the real world.

More guns, less crime, people. Its really that simple.

[Quiller]

It is interesting to note that among the people mentioned by the article as being on "the list" are a number of actors who have "starred" in action films using weapons to deal out gratuitous violence to their enemies. A way to communticate their opposition, or just more mercenarial hypocrisy? Of course, maybe Alec Baldwin was showing his opposition to firearms violence when he advocated stoning a man and his family to death because Baldwin disagreed with him.

It is unlikely that the extremists on either side will be swayed (Susan White's "Through the Looking Glass" artile linked in post 12 is a rare look at such a person) unless, as with White, they are subjected to some sort of person initiation into the helplessness and lack of self-determination that being victimized instills. And with many of today's liberal theologies, victimization often brings with it guilt for having somehow invited a criminal's intrusion. In truth, anti-gunners rely on some degree of insulation or distancing from any crime. Such examples are Rosie O'Donnell's insistance that while she is against firearms ownership, her hired guards should be armed, or Diane Feinstein's opposition to firearms while she herself has security guards AND a permit to carry the revolver in her purse. Intrusion by a criminal generally comes when that insulation or distancing breaks down and the firearms opponent enters the part of the world where the majority of us have to live.

I'm sorry, but there are way too many hypocrites who oppose firearms ownership for ME, but want it for THEMSELVES. I'll just hang on to what I've got.

OBTW--there is no "NEED" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, nor is there any "IF". There is only a "SHALL NOT". What part of that is confusing?

[sauropod]

Another name for this paper is the "Calvert and Center Street Democratic Club."

[sauropod]

I've got one on my car that says "guns cause crime like flies cause garbage."

[Sender]

Amendment I-Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I guess the first is a 'dubious source' as well. How about taking away religion, unless someone can prove 'a real need'?

How about censoring the press except for media the government feels has 'a real need' to print information?

How about prohibiting gatherings of people or dissent unless a group can prove 'a real need'?

Not to mention the fact that 'The People' only refers to official government speech, not individuals. The authors never intended common people to be able to speak freely.

[Gritty]

"I am not a constitutional expert...."

This is the only statement he makes that is correct. He's right. He isn't. He's an utter fool.

I never forgot the encounter with this (Christian Lebanese) militiaman who must have felt some perverse right to carry a gun and to kill people with it.

Maybe he forgot they were in a Civil War started by Muslims, who mercilessly and cruelly tortured and slaughtered thousands of Christians in their peaceful towns and turned Lebanon from a beautiful, peaceful multi-cultural society into a charnel house.

G. Jefferson Price III is a pathetic, anti-Constitutional loser who would rather emote on his precious emotions, instead of taking the effort to study our Constitution, which he ignores completely and attempts to write about in his fevered rantings.

[wearredcaps]

Every man carries the equipment to be a rapist. The man does the raping, not the equipment. shall we get rid of men or their equipment, or both. Wake Up America!

[IronJack]

A vast cross-section of talented, thoughtful Americans, many beautiful people and just plain all-American companies and organizations are on the NRA bad list.

"Beautiful people????" Is it just me or does this statement sound like it was written by Barbra Streisand?

[Dutch Boy]

Let's propose this.....

When the gun grabbers can successfully get all criminals to unilaterally disarm and leave the life of crime we promise not to shoot them as they break into our houses. We also promise to stay trained for the defense of our country, city and home. We promise to stay well stocked.

Let's sum up... No armed criminals, check. A well trained civilian defense force, check. A well supplied civialian defence force, check. The bad guys disarmed... everyone else armed. It's a win-win situation.

BTW - I will give up my guns when I can trade up to phasors.

[Bernard Marx]

I'm for taking away guns from anyone who can't prove a real need.

I'm for taking away word processors from anyone who can't prove a real need or intellectual competence. Like the G. Jefferson Price III, "Perspective Editor," for instance.

[R. Scott]

…so much more moral then us…

Not only that, but they are Very Important People – just ask them.

[KC_for_Freedom]

When the gun grabbers can successfully get all criminals to unilaterally disarm and leave the life of crime

I debated a liberal on gun control and he seemed to be foresquare for it, so I asked him if thats what he thought we should do? "No, he said, "all gun control will do is disarm lawabiding people. The criminals will not give up their guns."

Wow, I thought this was quite perceptive. He knew what gun control would do, did not like guns, but did see the reason for the second amendment.