Posted on 05/01/2014 4:49:26 PM PDT by Publius
I don’t believe the Second Amendment was ever intended to support the kind of gun craziness we contend with today, but since it’s always used to ward off any common-sense gun reforms, maybe we ought to just fix the Constitution and be done with it.
Yes, I know the odds against that are immense, but maybe we could start by nibbling away at the idea that the Constitution is infallible or that the founders had the answers to everything. They were smart men but neither perfect nor prescient.
One of the ways they showed how smart they were, was that they made a document that could be updated when it needed to be, and today it needs to be on this issue.
We’ve had another of those disturbing clusters of shootings in Seattle the past week, and gun violence continues to injure and kill across the country in public, and frequently private, ways. Most gun deaths are suicides.
But some Americans embrace their guns even more tightly even as the headlines call out for sanity. You know what I’m talking about.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.com ...
We don't care what you believe Jerry. We have guns and we're going to keep them.
Also, I think the second amendment was written with a view towards organized militia, but personal ownership of firearms was simply never in question. In fact this attitude persisted until very recent times. I read the fascinating picture book, ASSASSINATION! THE BRICK CHRONICLE OF ATTEMPTS ON THE LIVES OF TWELVE US PRESIDENTS by Brendan Powell Smith. "BRICK" refers to the illustrations which are photos of LEGO models.
Anyway, many of these assassins and would be assassins easily bought handguns in e.g. a hardware store. Sarah Jane Moore had a gun confiscated from her by the Secret Service a few days before her attempt on President Ford, and simply went out and bought another one!
I won’t be there when they come for me, I’ll be waiting for his lights to go out for the night at his house.
No.
God gave me my rights. The Constitution just enumerates some of them.
/johnny
I see a lot of similarities between smug elitists like this guy and fellows like Pol Pot.
I wonder how many realize what people like this are capable of given total power?
I completely support the 30 IQ liberal ape, Jerry Large, showing up at my front porch and trying to confiscate my armory.
No, not even then. The Constitution is intended to limit the power and authority of the government. Using it to limit the rights of the people is turning it upside down. Just because a majority vote enables tyranny is not sufficient reason to go along with it quietly....
See my tagline and 2nd Amendment ping.
My only point, JRP, is that this person is playing by the rules. Needless to say, I will fight like hell against him...and he won’t get anywhere.
But it sure beats what the liberals usually do...which is simply IGNORE the Constitution and pass laws that directly violate it.
Absolutely correct, and AMEN!
It's a shame more conservatives don't get that.
/johnny
The vast majority of commenters at the Seattle Times site disagree vigorously with the columnist’s call for repeal of the Second Amendment.
Maybe Seattle’s not as liberal as it seems, or these are Washington staters living outside the liberal bastion.
Probably the worst aspect of his column is his abysmal lack of knowledge about the Constitution & the process of amending it. Maybe he is one of those liberals who dismiss it as having been written by `dead white slaveowning white males’ and therefore worthless to modern society.
Probably cheered when Obama said “I have a phone and I have a pen”. Executive orders can cure all of society’s ills.
From my cold, dead hands, Jerry.
Well, if the Constitution no longer protects gun rights, then we live with that. My point is that we will not lose any battle over changing the Second Amendment, it’s not even close to being a long-shot. But I’d MUCH RATHER have the liberals attacking the Second Amendment and trying to change it, instead of using judges to simply IGNORE it and pass all the laws they want, as if it never existed.
I’ll bet Mr. Large doesn’t live in any high crime black areas of Seattle.
Any takers?
If anyone has a gun and attacks someone the libs will just run over them with their prius or Forrester.
Let’s form a line for Jerry.I suspect if I’m behind you there won’t be much left of him for me however.
I’d feel naked without my 81 mm mortar tube.
Mr Large:
I very sincerely suggest that you travel to Chicago & hook up with Rahm, the Mayor, and try to sell your idea to those who are under siege each & every day & night in that city.
Where I live, it takes the deputies at least 15 minutes to get here—and our deputies have been cut in half with the economy, so I am probably being very over-confidant in how long before I would get any help.
In that 15 minutes or so, alot can happen to me at the hands of someone who doesn’t respect my property boundaries, or my closed, chained gate or my closed door.
I will continue to protect myself, and all my animals as best I can. That includes using any weapon that is effective at a distance of more than an arm’s length. I am pretty sure that you live inside the city limits in Seattle, and since that city is known to be very Liberal, you think you can talk your way out of anything, or at best, you are strong enough to handle any person bothering you.
Well, PERHAPS you can. But you also appear to be a rather hefty MAN who has a different mind set than most of us WOMEN who have to try & stay safe with YOUR ideas of what should constitute a weapon.
I might have a clue about what is going to change your mind, tho.
IMO, a shooting war is coming. Either you are prepared to deal with the chaos that will accompany such a war, or you are not.
IF you are NOT prepared, you will be one of the first victims.
Try to think about how women feel without a weapon they can use effectively.
Have a pleasant day while you contemplate all of this.
Give it your best shot, Jerry. The recent confrontation at Bunkerville proved an armed populace keeps the government at bay.
I would consider amending it. The original version reads:
“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.”
I would propose amending this to read:
“A well armed citizenry being necessary to ensure self and community protection, and as a sure means to guard against any level of government becoming repressive or despotic, the right of the people to keep and bear military grade individual weapons, shall not be infringed at any level of government to include Federal, State, Country, and City.”
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.