Gun owners abuse constitutional right

Gun owners abuse constitutional right

There are 5 comments on the Miami Hurricane story from Oct 22, 2012, titled Gun owners abuse constitutional right. In it, Miami Hurricane reports that:

Gotham city's Dark Knight refuses to use guns to subdue his adversaries. Conversely, us Americans are so "gun-ho" that we are the world's leader in gun-related deaths, and there are roughly 270 million guns in the hands of civilians.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Miami Hurricane.

And yet

Tempe, AZ

#1 Oct 22, 2012
And yet, The Dark Knight is saved from death at the end when his opponent is gunned down with the Dark Knights own guns, the ones he refuses not to give up having even if he disdains using them himself.. Hmmm OK I get the sentiment intended here, but perhaps the author could have used an analogy that's not still so subversively pro-2A? The one from this movie fiction example only serves to prove that if one goes into the world with guns yet hesitant to use them, then they may save your life someday..
Dr Freud

France

#2 Oct 22, 2012
And yet wrote:
And yet, The Dark Knight is saved from death at the end when his opponent is gunned down with the Dark Knights own guns, the ones he refuses not to give up having even if he disdains using them himself.. Hmmm OK I get the sentiment intended here, but perhaps the author could have used an analogy that's not still so subversively pro-2A? The one from this movie fiction example only serves to prove that if one goes into the world with guns yet hesitant to use them, then they may save your life someday..
"Hmmm OK I get the sentiment intended here, but perhaps the author could have used an analogy that's not still so subversively pro-2A?"

DO TELL: How does one use an analogy which is 'subversively' "pro-2A?"
If the second amendment speaks of a RIGHT of the people, then JUST HOW do YOU presume to declare that the 2nd Amendment is SUBVERSIVE?
Are the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, or Tenth Amendments to be seen by you as SUBVERSIVE?
Left Coast Conservative

United States

#3 Oct 22, 2012
I tried to post a comment on the Miami Hurricane website, but was unsuccessful. This site limited the comment length. To see the rest, go here:

http://leftcoastconservative.blogspot.com/201...

"We have strayed away from the purpose of the Second Amendment. Our founders afforded the right to bear arms to citizens for the purpose of a “well-regulated militia” and to insure the following: locals could organize and defend themselves in the event of an English invasion, and citizens could protect themselves from government officials illegally entering their homes and taking property as the English government had done."

Completely and totally wrong. The Second Amendment exists to codify a natural right that pre-existed the Constitution. The purpose of the right was to defend against "any" invasion, not just an English 18th Century invasion, as well as to defend against a tyrannical domestic government, and to provide a means for self-defense against criminals.

"Guns were far less dangerous at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. Semi-automatic rifles, uzis and 12-gauge shotguns did not exist. As Michael Moore told Piers Morgan,“There were only one-shot, long rifles back then. Guns couldn’t spray hoards of people like they can today.” "

This is a specious argument. The flintlock musket of 1780 was a state-of-the-art military grade weapon. To argue that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear only those weapons is the same as arguing that the 1st Amendment only protect speech that is transmitted via a hand-operated printing press, but not television, radio, or the Internet.

"A study by the Harvard School of Public Health concluded that there tend to be more gun deaths in states and regions where guns are more populous and accessible."

Another specious argument. There tend to be more traffic accident deaths in places that have more roads and automobiles.

"There is logic in the argument that legal gun ownership protects against criminals. However, that we would always have to be armed to be prepared to defend ourselves against criminal activity – bad idea."

So, there is logic to the argument that firearms are useful for self-defense, but there is no logic to the idea that citizens should always be armed in case of confrontation? This is just a swipe at the increasingly common liberalized concealed carry laws that have swept the nation in recent decades. Millions of concealed weapon permit holders would flatly disagree with Mr. Ivory on this, as would the individuals involved in these 50 incidents of successful armed self-defense:

http://leftcoastconservative.blogspot.com/p/a...

"As for the protection of our homes, we are safer via alarm systems that trigger lights, sirens and immediately alert local authorities upon a break-in, as opposed to criminal hunting in the dark while panicking under ill-advised, adrenaline inspired judgment."

Firearms are not a self-defense panacea, but rather an additional layer of protection, another option to be used in the gravest extreme. What happens if the "local authorities" do not arrive in time? Is the author of this article aware that the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled in Warren v. District of Columbia that despite demonstrated ineptitude and abuse on the part of police that innocent victims are not entitled to police protection, that there is no duty for police to protect any individual? In essence, each citizen is on their own when confronted with a criminal. If the author, a 2nd year law student does not know this, then perhaps he should pay better attention in class, or request a refund from the law school.

“"Stand and Fight"”

Since: Sep 10

United States

#4 Oct 22, 2012
For that idiot editor who wrote "Miami Hurricane", we are not the Dark Knight and stop mixing fantasy with reality. We are not the Dark Knight and we use firearms and defensive weapons to protect ourselves from criminals, not some silly gadgets and an outrageous custom.
And yet

Tempe, AZ

#5 Oct 25, 2012
Left Coast Conservative wrote:
I tried to post a comment on the Miami Hurricane website, but was unsuccessful. This site limited the comment length. To see the rest, go here:
http://leftcoastconservative.blogspot.com/201...
"We have strayed away from the purpose of the Second Amendment. Our founders afforded the right to bear arms to citizens for the purpose of a “well-regulated militia” and to insure the following: locals could organize and defend themselves in the event of an English invasion, and citizens could protect themselves from government officials illegally entering their homes and taking property as the English government had done."
Completely and totally wrong. The Second Amendment exists to codify a natural right that pre-existed the Constitution. The purpose of the right was to defend against "any" invasion, not just an English 18th Century invasion, as well as to defend against a tyrannical domestic government, and to provide a means for self-defense against criminals.
"Guns were far less dangerous at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. Semi-automatic rifles, uzis and 12-gauge shotguns did not exist. As Michael Moore told Piers Morgan,“There were only one-shot, long rifles back then. Guns couldn’t spray hoards of people like they can today.” "
This is a specious argument. The flintlock musket of 1780 was a state-of-the-art military grade weapon. To argue that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear only those weapons is the same as arguing that the 1st Amendment only protect speech that is transmitted via a hand-operated printing press, but not television, radio, or the Internet.
"A study by the Harvard School of Public Health concluded that there tend to be more gun deaths in states and regions where guns are more populous and accessible."
Another specious argument. There tend to be more traffic accident deaths in places that have more roads and automobiles.
"There is logic in the argument that legal gun ownership protects against criminals. However, that we would always have to be armed to be prepared to defend ourselves against criminal activity – bad idea."
So, there is logic to the argument that firearms are useful for self-defense, but there is no logic to the idea that citizens should always be armed in case of confrontation? This is just a swipe at the increasingly common liberalized concealed carry laws that have swept the nation in recent decades. Millions of concealed weapon permit holders would flatly disagree with Mr. Ivory on this, as would the individuals involved in these 50 incidents of successful armed self-defense:
http://leftcoastconservative.blogspot.com/p/a...
"As for the protection of our homes, we are safer via alarm systems that trigger lights, sirens and immediately alert local authorities upon a break-in, as opposed to criminal hunting in the dark while panicking under ill-advised, adrenaline inspired judgment."
Firearms are not a self-defense panacea, but rather an additional layer of protection, another option to be used in the gravest extreme. What happens if the "local authorities" do not arrive in time? Is the author of this article aware that the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled in Warren v. District of Columbia that despite demonstrated ineptitude and abuse on the part of police that innocent victims are not entitled to police protection, that there is no duty for police to protect any individual? In essence, each citizen is on their own when confronted with a criminal. If the author, a 2nd year law student does not know this, then perhaps he should pay better attention in class, or request a refund from the law school.
"Subversive 2A" to the original movie intend, which was toted as "anti 2A". Calm down and read more carefully before you comment. You're not helping.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Appeals court upholds MD assault weapons ban 4 hr POP 28
News Court: Banning Doctors From Asking About Firear... 22 hr payme 5
[ Uga-Buga Turbans and Commie Pink Hats ] Sat Buddy Baker 1
News With Obama leaving, Congressional Republicans l... Feb 22 WasteWater 38
News Those Who Plan and Enjoy Murder Feb 21 justice 1
News Pennsylvanians ask feds to help disarm intimida... (Aug '13) Feb 21 Sisboi Markie 22
News Will Sixty Senators Vote To Protect The Second ... Feb 19 Trump your President 8
More from around the web