Posted on 04/20/2007 10:26:44 AM PDT by Thunder90
There was a time in American history when the Second Amendment’s “right to bear arms” promoted safety and a sense of well-being among the citizenry of the United States. Today, however, the Second Amendment seems to do nothing more than act as a precipitant of violent and life-threatening behavior. The days when the “right to bear arms” was relevant are now more than 200 years past, and furthermore, the demographics of America have changed beyond anyone’s wildest prophecy.
We no longer live in tight-knit farming villages where family solidarity is vital. Nor do we live in a country where minutemen need to be able to arm themselves with muskets at the drop of a hat and defend their nation. Today, we no longer even live in a country where children can safely play outside unsupervised. There are just too many lunatics, too many gangs, too many guns. And, tragically, everyone witnessed this week what happens when you mix lunatics and guns.
On the day of the Virginia Tech massacre, President Bush attempted to offer a “heart-felt” apology that had all the warmth and pathos of a public relations sound bite. I do not doubt the president’s condolence for the lives lost that day, but what is our leadership doing to keep these horrific incidences from happening? The answer, surprisingly enough, is nothing.
On May 4, 2000, before the Bush war machine even came into power, The Washington Post ran an article about a closed meeting of National Rifle Association members, during which these members boasted that if Bush won in November, they would “have … a president where we work out of their office.” The NRA is not skittish of their ties to the Bush administration, and it is these ties that many point to as the reason President Bush allowed the federal ban on assault rifles to expire in 2004. Yet, the special interest favoritism of the Bush administration is nothing new. It is merely just another stick shoved in the gears of political progressivism.
Let us reason together. Whoever imagined that we could defeat smallpox, malaria or polio? These diseases that were once considered the scourge of humanity are negligible in comparison to the rampant violence and killing of our population with weapons that none should possess. It is time that we take firm steps to eradicate this epidemic, and it most certainly can be done.
American history has been and continues to be riddled with tragedies caused by gun violence. Stricter legislation has slowly been enacted over time. Antigun commercials have flooded television sets. And despite all the different forms of identification a gun owner may have to produce in order to get his hand cannon, guns continue to fall into the wrong hands. It may sound radical, to some very radical, yet every hand is a wrong hand when it comes to gun ownership.
I know that to the gun enthusiast, the idea of giving up even one pistol sounds like an atrocious encroachment on personal liberties. After all, they don’t use their guns to harm anyone. However, the same right that allows a man to cabinet his pistols and rifles permits the opportunity for the mentally dysfunctional person to commit appalling acts of violence. Since it is difficult, at best, to mandate psychological testing for potential gun owners, the solution we need to embrace is to disallow all gun ownership to protect the many from the few.
Granted, the abolishment of guns would take years after its enactment for illegal and legal gun owners to be deprived of firearms through attrition and lack of availability. Still, I feel the dividend of this seemingly drastic alternative will save many more lives compared to hiding behind an archaic amendment in the Bill of Rights.
So, to all those who can’t seem to make it through a day without covering their forearms in gunpowder residue, I suggest that police stations allow for civilians to test fire weapons under supervision. To all those who feel the need to kill their own dinner as opposed to making a trip to the local grocer, I suggest that you craft yourself a bow and arrow and practice your aim. And to all those who fear they may need to take the life of another at any moment, I suggest you take up martial arts. The “right to bear arms” should become something that exists only in history textbooks and the video game “Grand Theft Auto.”
Just some campus commie kid trying to impress his commie teachers. Probably majoring in journalism or education.
“So, to all those who can’t seem to make it through a day without covering their forearms in gunpowder residue, I suggest that police stations allow for civilians to test fire weapons under supervision. To all those who feel the need to kill their own dinner as opposed to making a trip to the local grocer, I suggest that you craft yourself a bow and arrow and practice your aim. And to all those who fear they may need to take the life of another at any moment, I suggest you take up martial arts”,
To Max Schlusselberg, who is quoted above and who can’t seem to make it through the day without trying to usurp my freedoms, I say:
Molon Labe Pantywaist. Bring it on. If we are gonna have a war over this issue, let’s do it before I’m too damned old to kill cretins like you.
I agree. It needs to be up-dated to read,:
". . . shall not be infringed, and any government official or employee found guilty of preventing a person from carrying arms or defending their life with arms shall be hung at dawn and all of their personal property shall be awarded to the victim's next-of-kin."
I'm in agreement. Words fail me...
These libs are like a$$h*les...they keep producing sh*t after day...
There, I feel better!
When they start shoving this ass**le into the gas chamber I am sure he will yell. Gun control! Gun Control! He can then remind his executioners how only governments should have all the guns.
It is estimated that somewhere in the vicinity of 100M people died in the Americas from these "neglible diseases" during the course of the 17th century. Not to mention the many millions that have died before and since elsewhere.
Compare this to the roughly 12,000 murdered using firearms each year in the USA.
This is about 1/3 of those who die in traffic accidents each year in this country.
AMEN
In Great Britain, there is a movement to disarm people by removing KNIVES. I'm sure this dolt would be campaigning to outlaw "assault arrows" in no time at all.
Who needs a cross-bow? They should have to provide the loading force without mechanical advantage. Who needs a longbow? There should be a limit on how large a bow can be? Who needs "high-capacity" quivers? Ten arrows should be enough for anybody. Or will it be five? Or three?
I had the displeasure this morning of receiving a fund-raising call from a guy representing Republicans. When I told him that I can't support the party directly because I won't tolerate having ANY of my money go to anti-gun candidates, he proceeds to educate me as to the fact that nobody needs a .50 caliber rifle and that such rifles are "weapons of mass destruction" because they can take down airplanes.
When I asked if a .460 should be allowed, or a .308, he continued to ask why anybody would NEED to have such a weapon?
Imagine Cho on one side of the door, firing 9mm rounds that expend much energy piercing the door, and the brave Holocaust survivor on the other side, firing a .308. It's unfortunate that the liberals are determined to allow the bad guys to out-gun the good guys.
After the Ma’alot school house massacre in 1974 the Israelis didn’t put up “This is a gun free zone” signs they did this!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1820470/posts?page=9#9
Why haven’t our faint hearts learned the same lesson.
If you succeed, there is still the Declaration of Independence, and you’ll have a tougher time repealing THAT.
(We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.)
My sentiments exactly.
He’s a freshman majoring in journalism. The guy is a CHILD! He’s barely outta mommy and daddy’s protective embrace. I don’t listen to children on serious issues like the law.
Maybe we should all shrug and move and let the liberals face their reality. A world where nobody works or grows food, where the most vile members control through terror and violence. As has been pointed out many times, “a liberal is a conservative who hasn’t been mugged yet”. Once many of them are forced to face reality, only then will they change (and even then, some won’t — they are lost souls who lost their humanity).
Max Schlusselberg is a fool.
What is it with Jews who have learned NOTHING from the Holocaust and the events that led up to it? I wish someone from the JDL would go beat some sense into this fool.
“Let us reason together. Whoever imagined that we could defeat smallpox, malaria or polio? These diseases that were once considered the scourge of humanity are negligible in comparison to the rampant violence and killing of our population with weapons that none should possess. It is time that we take firm steps to eradicate this epidemic, and it most certainly can be done.”
I don’t think anybody can claim that we violated the rights of these diseases when we worked to eradicate them. It’s a very silly comparison, just as it’s very silly to try to say that modern day man-to-man violence is more of a scourge than disease that wiped out millions. This guys desperately needs a reality check.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.