Posted on 06/14/2014 12:41:39 PM PDT by holymoly
A news item that emerged a few days ago seemed to encapsulate the increasing helplessness that has gripped America as gun violence reaches new heights.
An Oklahoma company reported that sales of its new product, bullet-proof blankets to protect school children during mass shootings, have “far exceeded our wildest expectations.” Some school officials have determined that the best response to the potential threat of a deranged gunman is to spend $1,000 each on Bodyguard Blankets.
Under normal circumstances, the nation would be engaged in a soul-searching debate about guns, based on the most recent shooting incident.
Which shooting? Santa Barbara? Las Vegas? Troutdale, Oregon? Or all of the above?
Welcome to the new normal.
We have reached a point, with mass shootings occurring nearly on a weekly basis, where our basic freedoms as Americans have collided. The Second Amendment right to bear arms, as rigorously observed, is pushing aside the simple liberty of public safety in everyday life. At the same time, we have lost our collective ability to express outrage when yet another Columbine-style story hits the news.
We’re sliding into a national realm in which the unhinged in our society, mostly young males, believe a nagging emotional problem – even if it’s something as common as girls not liking you – can be solved by pulling a trigger.
A report released last week found that 74 school shootings (including those involving personal issues related to faculty) have occurred nationwide since the Newtown massacre of 18 months ago. President Obama’s response? “We should be ashamed.” The response in Congress? Not much.
So, I have a few questions:
If a parent feels a twinge of fear every day that they send their teenager to school or a family is on edge when going to a shopping center, how does that square with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
When our nation experiences more than 200 shootings per day, have we put far too much weight on gun rights to the detriment of simply having the ability to go to the theater or take a walk on a sunny day?
With our violent culture -- as demonstrated by movies, video games, misogynistic music, a massive prison population and our epidemic of sexual assaults on campuses and in the military -- does the 21st Century United States really deserve an all-encompassing Second Amendment?
With all the anger and anxiety and psychosis simmering in American society, does it make sense that we allow the unfettered purchase of war-style rifles, ammunition drums that fire 100 shots, ultra-deadly hollow-point bullets, and semi-automatic pistols that are more powerful than the guns carried by some police officers?
Certainly, all of our constitutional rights have limits. The 4th Amendment grants me the right to privacy, but it does not prevent the police from obtaining a search warrant for my house. The 1st Amendment gives me the right to free speech, but it does not allow me to slander someone.
Does the Second Amendment, as written for the 18th Century lifestyle, give me the right to carry a modern weapon of war – a semi-automatic, assault-style rifle, slung over my shoulder -- into a restaurant where young children are eating with Mom and Dad?
How can we take pride in a nation where our elected officials won’t close the vast loophole in the background checks system, preventing criminals and those prone to violence from purchasing weapons, or address a woeful mental health system which allows the emotionally disturbed to purchase high-powered firearms?
Mental health professionals warn that far too many severely mentally ill men and boys across America do not receive treatment, particularly emergency treatment when an emotional crisis hits. These are unstable individuals suffering from psychosis – paranoid, ostracized, often isolated, hearing voices and overwhelmed by angry impulses – who “resort to violence to assert their distorted sense of power over their powerlessness,” one psychologist said recently.
Yet, the gun rights groups reneged on their post-Newtown pledge to work with the political establishment to craft legislation making mental health care more accessible and keeping guns out of the hands of these human powder-kegs.
In Colorado, state legislation was introduced earlier this year to establish clear limits on gun rights for the mentally disturbed, and the NRA pounced, blocking the measure. A Colorado-based gun advocacy group outflanked the NRA on the right and defeated a second, watered-down version of the bill.
These state-based gun groups are driving the Second Amendment debate in an ominous direction. The antics of Texas group that recently showed up in restaurants with AR-15-type weapons, a dramatic effort to demonstrate that “open carry” has no limits, drew sharp criticism from the NRA as “dubious,” “scary” and “downright weird.”
But the return fire was so furious, with Open Carry Texas claiming the NRA has become too liberal, that the NRA quickly removed the commentary from its website and blamed it on a single, wayward employee.
These fanatics who dream of their Clint Eastwood moment will never draw the line. They believe that their Second Amendment freedoms are boundless, not just for those with sound minds and adult dispositions.
So, one last question: When did our nation become so weak, collectively and politically, that we allowed the gun nuts to put their agenda ahead of our rights?
At this pace, we’ll all be buying Bodyguard Blankets soon.
Am toothless ....
You know, that Old School Amendment written for rich white guys in powdered wigs...so they could hunt freely in the 18th Century wilderness...
Guess the world is still learning to fly.
and there are those that want to relegate me to the White Room, where the Sun never shines. Let no strings secure you at the station.
Cross the Road America! Chicken? Am having chicken for dinner.
If can borrow a flame thrower ... Will have roast chicken.
Yep! Give up God and embrace liberal “morals”, this is the end result.
The simple liberty of public safety is an oxymoron. There is no liberty in safety. There is no safety in liberty. Stopped reading right there.
Really is sad that we are forced by Federal Edict to send our children into defenseless death traps that are public schools.
How much does it cost to keep armed guards in the schools?
” - - - How much does it cost to keep armed guards in the schools? - - - “
Nothing, as the NRA offered to do it for free.
My comment in reply..
Is the U.S. still deserving of a 1st Amendment?
Given the author’s blatant willingness to trample unalienable (impossible to take away or give up) rights, perhaps the question we should be asking ourselves is more directly involved with the First Amendment and the author’s ability to pen a screed so directly anti-American and unconstitutional?
Surely the progressives won’t mind a small limitation [upon their 1st Amendment rights] such as governmental approval - say from a group of Constitutional experts who judge solely upon the expressed intent of the framers and those who ratified the Bill of Rights - prior to their being able to voice an opinion that is likely to be in direct opposition to our supreme law.
Think of it as a means of governmental protection against stupidity, ignorance, distortion, lies, and tyranny all in one.
The Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments) has a common theme: absolute prohibition against specific government actions. In fact the words ‘shall not’ appear in 4 of the first 10 Amendments (while the other 6 Amendments include language that is equally prohibitive with regards to the government’s ability - legal or otherwise - to act in a manner that restricts those specified, recognized, rights).
‘Shall not’ is a very straight forward directive - meaning under no circumstances can the government engage in actions that restrict the recognized rights (not even when some among us really, really want to).
What’s that you say?
Congress shall make no law abridging (to lessen or restrict) the freedom of speech, or of the press?
To which I note: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (restrict or lessen).
Fortunately (for those who cherish freedom anyway - not so much for the author and his ilk) the good men who made the Constitution our supreme law saw fit to clarify things a bit further; as if unalienable rights and prohibitions on government actions that serve to diminish those rights wasn’t enough clarification (seemingly they knew there’d be dishonest people advocating tyranny in our future).
The 10th Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
That slams the door shut on the author’s fascist fantasy.
I know, I know - you’re going to pretend the states could engage in your petty whims (legally) - right?
So much for your love of the 14th Amendment (go ahead - read it).
As I stated above - that slams the door shut on the author’s fascist fantasy.
Now for the “rights aren’t absolute” crap.
In my best Bill Clinton voice - that depends what the definition of is, is.
Or, in this case, what the definition of absolute is.
If by absolute we mean that the government has no power (or right) to impede upon my rights - then yes, our rights are absolute. That much is made clear by the fact that our rights are unalienable - meaning you (dear author) cannot take them away, nor can the fascist government that you so desperately crave take them away (nor can I give them up). And, as pointed out above - the Bill of Rights goes even further and explicitly denies government the ability to act upon your whims.
Where the government does have (legal) power is with actions undertaken. Even then the government has severe limitations upon its powers (but I digress).
Slander isn’t an example of free speech carried to the absolute; slander is an example of actions undertaken and harms caused by means of those actions. Likewise with the actions of some crazed idiot - most of whom have been progressives - with a gun. (We might want to have a national discussion with regards to banning progressives - as they clearly endanger everyone and the nation as a whole)
The dirty word here - to progressives anyway - is ‘responsibility.’ We can, and must, be held responsible for our actions. It is the person whose actions caused harm that is held responsible; not the tool used, and most definitely not the law abiding users of a similar tool.
Put another way: We don’t punish everyone with a keyboard simply because some use theirs to create dishonest articles (and false premises) as a means to restrict freedom for others. Nor do we blame the keyboard for those among us who author articles that call for harmful actions, and freedoms infringed, on the basis of ignorant, selfish whims.
I do wonder if the author is using an assault keyboard though - you know what I mean; black and all military-looking but insignificantly different for all other purposes, which in retrospect makes the adjective entirely meaningless but sufficiently scary so as to frighten the idiots who are prone to swallow that kind of crap in the first place.
If only someone would make a blanket that protected us from those idiots who foolishly desire government intrusion upon our rights. I’d buy a dozen of them.
“They take that and they’ll deny your ‘right’ to breath next.”
Actually, they are going to let us inhale, we just can’t exhale. Too many CO2 emissions killing mother earth, minorities, the poor, women and children, you know.
All of the above Travis. All of the above. But I enjoyed the Second one best or all five.
No, it does not.
The Constitution does not GIVE you any rights at all. It can do no such thing.
The Second Amendment in particular and the Constitution in general PROTECTS your inherent, God-given rights, including particularly your right to defend yourself. Even by carrying an infantry rifle around with you, if such is your desire.
Certainly, the Second Amendment protects our right to keep and bear hunting arms, and to take to the field in due season to kill wild animals for food. But this is not why we have a Second Amendment.
Certainly, the Second Amendment protects our right to keep personal defense arms, to carry them about with us, to defend ourselves against murderers, robbers, rapists, burglars, and the like. But this is not why we have a Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment protects our right to keep and bear MILITARY arms, to practice with them, to hold them otherwise in abeyance ... unless and until tyrants threaten the Security of a Free State. This is why we have a Second Amendment ... and this is why tyrants and would-be tyrants always seek to chip away at the Second Amendment.
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.