Letters to the Editor
Join the discussion below, or Read more at Baltimore Sun.
#1 Nov 28, 2007
As Scott clearly indicates, the right for the citizenry to bear arms is not ambiguous, it is clear. The founding fathers, having experienced firsthand the throes of tyranny, and being well-versed on the inevitable trend of dictatorial governments, knew that a well-armed citizenry was a check on a despotic government. It is no accident that every modern authoritarian government has enacted gun confiscation as one of its precursors to full power.
The apologists for those seeking to establish such governments know this quite well. They obfuscate and confuse the obvious, hoping to become part of the elite cadre seeking to rule over an ignorant populace. After they are long gone, people like Kenneth Lasson pick up this mantra - the only difference is they no longer know the vision of these elitists - they serve other interests, like being tied to foundations that support gun-control, and they are fed and nourished through this power base.
#2 Nov 28, 2007
Scott, well said.
I only wish that people would recognize that there is a historical context of the second amendment which can not be ignored (that is, unless one subscribes to the theory that Constitutional construction is so fluid that historical context should be completely ignored).
The framers viewed government power with suspicion and believed that the best way to protect against governments (including our own) is to severely limit the scope and reach of its authority to curtail individual liberty -- and to be ever vigilent against the danger of being lured into beleiving that a government -- even a democracy-- is capable of institutional benevolence. Skeptism of government is patriotic.
#3 Nov 28, 2007
David Fischel, I disagree that the framers of the Constitution did not dream that the Second Amendment would be applied to devices such as AK-47s or concealable handguns. Please note several things from the second amendment.
First, they specifically used the word "arms", not firearms, rifles, or muskets. I think that they did not specifically say which weapons should be covered because they knew that technology changes faster than government. Many different weapons were available at the time of the writing and signing of the bill of rights including flintlock muskets, matchlock muskets, flintlock rifles, flintlock handguns, small cannon (swivel cannon and tripod cannons - "grasshoppers"), large cannon (fired shot, canister, and shell), mortars, and rockets. In addition to this list, many people owned and openly carried swords, knives, axes, and tomahawks. A few people owned and operated privately owned warships equipped with cannon and well armed crews. In fact some historians believe we could not have won the revolutionary war without the warships and firepower of the privateers.
Secondly, I think that the second amendment was included as the people's protection from tyranny. Please note that it include the word "free" before "state". If the word "free" is removed, you change the meaning from protection from tyranny to protection of the government.
When you look at these two things together, I think it can be read that the people need to possess the weaponry to forcibly overthrow the government if needed. To this effect I think the framers would have allowed both concealable handguns and automatic weapons as they both would be reasonable weapons to use to overthrow the government.
#4 Nov 28, 2007
I like guns because I'm scared that crazy socialist commie democrats might come to get me or rob me (besides their infernal taxes that is)--they're everywhere and I need to be armed to the teeth to protect myself.
Can't trust cops (they might be commie librools too) or the govt to do it. I say we get rid of cops, courts and librool govt and just allow everyone to arm themselves with whatever they want.
It is the only way I can protect myself--besides I like hunting and target shooting and having sex with my gun in my hand, just in case the ol' lady turns out to be a librool commie or something.
So keep your hands of my guns you librool pinkos. Next to my pecker they are the most sacred thing in the world to me.
Every vote I cast is based on whether the candidate likes guns as much as I like guns.
I'm my own well armed militia.
I say get rid of the gubment except for my precious second amendment.
#5 Nov 28, 2007
Oh, how sweet, a liberal trying to pretend to be a conservative because he's too stupid to see how transparent he is.
And oh, please rob me, because I'd much rather be robbed by a gun-toting hood so I can tell him what a troubled life he lives. And he will love me for it when I show him that he is just merely misunderstood.
Two social workers walk by a man lying bleeding in the road from a knife wound. One turns to the other, "The man who did this needs our help", and they walk away. Yeah, liberal compassion.
#6 Nov 28, 2007
Don't you caqll me a liberool or stupid you dumb a$$, p*&s poor excuse for a conservative.
I got morre guns than you an I know how to use em mister philly boy- the compassioneate one.
I ain't no pretender. It is little weaklings like you who are ruinin the republican party. You can't handle a REAL conservative can you sonny boy.
Fact I think you the one who be the closet liberool with a name like Phil.LOL Real conservative men would never go by a name like Phil-what is it short for Phyllis.
Get a gun and get a life flathead.
#7 Nov 29, 2007
Quit pretending to be a conservative - you're not intelligent enough.
#8 Nov 29, 2007
Seriously, Phyllis, are you that pathetic that you have to come on this forum, come across as a gun-toting, redneck to supposedly have people believe you are what represents the majority of conversatives who are against gun-control? Look at the prior posts by thinking individuals - these are the reasoned arguments by those favoring the right to bear arms. Your leftist, idiotic attempt to portray such people as hillbilly rednecks is transparent and silly becasue you know you have no logical arguments supporting gun-control.
So, go drink your latte's, moron, and attend the gay rights parade.
#9 Nov 29, 2007
I used to think no one needed a gun. Law abiding people are just that. Criminals don't give a crap and will everyone be happy when the law abiding can't have guns while the criminals have a field day with all the guns that "are against the law". At this point I want to pack a piece that is practical as possible considering our gangsta/thug brothas all totting and freely victimizing the law abiding with their illegal guns. What don't you liberal morons understand about gun control not working.
#11 Nov 29, 2007
Reasoned arguments. What a joke.
Nobody is going to take your guns away and you know it a$$hole.
It is all just a bunch of ratpublican BS to stir up moronic fools like you and the other stooge lackeys on this thread.
You are a bunch of frightened little girls who blabber about what you have been told and act like you said it first.
There is not one shred of originality in any of your idiotic comments. It is the same drivel that you cowards spew endlessly.
Reasoned arguements BAHAHAHA--you think far to highly of yourself you prissy little worm.
I'd like to see how you would fare in a fist fight you ratpublican do uch ebag. I bet you are a fat middle aged punk who couldn't get out of his own way.
Take your "reasoned arguements" ROFLOL!!! and shove them up your well used a$$ you little queer.
You and your gay little buddies would love to have a fascist, big brother government created in your image--just like the one you elected twice you pathetic imbecile.
Don't tell me about protecting yourself from intrusive, big government while you vote for Bush/Cheney and their ilk.
Besides do you think your puny little guns could stand up to an M-1 tank or a B-1 bomber.
You gun nuts are absolute fools and yet you think you're sooooooo intelligent. That is the biggest laugh.
See ya around punk.
“Tu ne cede malis”
Since: Dec 06
Lots of different places
#12 Nov 29, 2007
So, tell us, Pyllis, from whence do you hail?
And, why the attacks?
#13 Nov 29, 2007
Hey Phyllis, you can read - well, that's original for you. I have to admit, your Al Franken, Roseanne Barr impression is very impressive. You are starting to emerge from behind Hilary's ass - is she letting you out for walks?
#16 Nov 29, 2007
Phyllis, the problem with you, and I admit I should have mentioned this sooner, is that you have no self-esteem or confidence in your thoughts or beliefs. Hence, your entire opinion can only be represented by a profanity-laced vulgar tirade which is typical of people who just accept whay they are told and can't even justify what they think. So your frustration or inability to express yourself as an adult results in a childish outburst. To my detriment, I retorted in kind.
The truth is, you don't know any better. The clinton's see you as their wayward children, who need the patronage of government and the sense of entitlement to feel like you are part of something. The Clintonistas thrive on your vacuous thoughts, because since you can muster nothing of any substance to express yourself, you need to depend on others for your self-worth. But enough of this. Good luck in life - you will need it.
#17 Nov 29, 2007
I hail from the U.S. just like you Highlander.
The attacks are in retaliation for the right-wing propaganda and incessant trash talk Phil loves to dish out across these boards.
Phil talks RIGHT-WING TRASH EVERYWHERE HE POSTS. That's why I attack him, because he has a big mouth and he is full of himself.
I actually don't have any problem with responsible gun ownership by law abiding people. I believe if the cops and courts enforced the existing laws with programs like Operation Exile, which targets felons holding guns, we will make a lot more progress against crime than we will passing any new laws.
I just get tired of hearing republicans like Phil incessantly whining and bashing anyone who doesn't toe his republican party line.
Besides Phil and his ilk come off as smug, arrogant know-it-alls who think they are smarter and are better than everyone else.
Don't feel too sorry for Phil, he has a pretty vicious and foul mouth of his own. So it's not like I'm picking a fight with a polite gentleman with a civil tongue,(Phil's grandios claims of "reasoned arguments" not withstanding).
Have a pleasant evening Highlander.
#18 Nov 29, 2007
Phyllis, Sick of Librool, Smith and Wesson, and any other alias you have used and will use:
I also tire of self-serving, self-righteous, sanctimonious, sycophants like yourself that cannot engage in any defense for their opinions, and instead try to paint people as "right-wingers" to save them from havng to come up with anything that involves thought.
And you did pick a fight with me when I had said nothing uncivil, so please don't act magnanimous. And I do tire of people like you who spend their time bashing others because they disagree with your thoughts. Furthermore, I called you out on your primitive attempt to convey a stereotype in your own mind of a gun-toting hillbilly who you tried to portray as a republican.
Typically, I wouldn't bother with someone like yourself - you're too wrapped up in your own opinions to consider anybody else's. But you want to tout your trash here, I just responded in kind.
#19 Nov 29, 2007
And what about Hilary, who definitely thinks she is smarter and better than everyone else? I'm certain you probably have no problem with Hilary. why? Because you agree with her, of course.
And what about the massive tax increases that O'Malley is pushing through - do you agree with them, or do you have such a high discretionary income that it doesn't matter? And do you favor slots - I'm sure you hated slots when Ehrlich was promoting them but with O"Malley, is it now a wonderful plan to salvage the State's budgetary crisis? What about the BGE rate increases that Ehrlich managed to roll back, and that O'Malley at the time criticized. Now we have the full brunt of the increase, and O'Malley has done nothing. Did you also condemn Ehrlich for the rollback, and now support O'Malley for the increase?
So, reason with me. Your reasoned arguments against mine - what am I missing? Enlighten me. Or is it much more convenient to issue your vulgar missives, and paint me merely as the "right-winger"?
#20 Nov 29, 2007
And Phyllis, who do you care about? Do you cry for the poor? Do you hail welfare as good and all those who oppose welafare as "heartless right-wingers", or do you see that welfare has fostered a generational dependency that has created pockets of poverty and doomed those it has "helped" to an irrepressible hell? But that's right, as a "right-winger" I shouldn't be concerned about the poor, that is your purview, and as long as you are being seen as "helping" the poor through creating dependency and stealing their souls, you are considered good. Myself, my tax dollars have to support your silly schemes so you and your ilk can be seen as compassionate. And when these taxes pound the poor and middle class even more, where are you? Yes, attacking right-wingers like myself so you can feel good about yourself. Meanwhile, the poor sink deeper, while you focus your attacks on others so you can close your eyes to the obvious.
The poor and middle class are frightened, and yet you promote your support for polices that creates more anguish. But I am a "right-winger", so no support for your tenuous position needs to be adduced. I would rather have the courage to fight for the rights for others to pursue something greater than themselves, and take your ridicule, then reduce myself to your level, where everyone must be sacrificed to this crushing weight of taxes and entitlements to justify your love for the "enlightened" liberals.
#21 Nov 29, 2007
And you even misquoted me on the "reasoned arguments", as is typical. I was referring to the prio posters for the reasoned arguments, but you twisted it to make it seem like I was referring just to myself. You are definitely a piece of work.
#22 Nov 30, 2007
Phil you have a big mouth and are a hypocritical jerk. A huge phony neoconartist full of feces.
I read plenty of the garbage that you and your neocon sycophants throw all day before I decided it was time somebody took you on.
I really would like to meet you face to face to see if you would have the guts to back up your big mouth with something besides a gun or other weapon. I still believe you are nothing more than an insecure little coward who hides behind your blathering.
Based on the long winded AND MEANINGLESS, SELF-SERVING HARANGUES THAT YOU NEED TO ENDLESSLY VOMIT, it is clear that you don't have an objective or original bone in your body.
As I said before you are an arrogant, pompous, self-centered jerk. A typical neocon like your phony heros Bush and Cheney.
You and your mindless brethren like Porked Yogurt are unworthy of anything other than being despised and ignored.
Buy all the guns you want you paranoid, bombastic friutcake. I don't give a rats behind. BTW I own a gun too. I just don't worship it like you fools, or sit there fretting in my sleep that I'm going to have it taken away because THAT IS NOTHING MORE THAN NEOCON BS to drum up political support.
I don't care much for liberals or Hillary either, but I don't see them cramming these boards with the kind of stupid, outrageous baloney you and your dittohead crank buddies crap out all day long. You are a presumptious, pea brained lunatic. The poster child for what is wrong with america today.
I don't need to post four long, boring balloons of hot air to make my point either. Your like a collicky baby that screams all day long and never says a cogent word.
Why don't you go eat some Porked Yogurt you fat creep.
#24 Nov 30, 2007
Thanks for your reasoned, logical response (sarcasm)- obviously, you can't put forth anthing of substance. Thanks for proving my point, that you are a mere waste of time that doesn't warant any additional commentary.
You are what is truly wrong with America, and that is why the politicians who cater to the envious, the irrational, and those who think that everyone else must fund their social programs, will alwyays remain in power. We had a chance to engage in a rational discussion about why we may differ in our thinking, and you chose to retort with that childish and vulgar rant above. Also, thanks for confirming what I believed about people like you - when they have nothing to support their opinions, that resort to emotional, thoughtless tirades.
Add your comments below
|Cities and states take the lead on banning bump...||3 hr||Watchdog||314|
|Another School Shooting-But Who's Counting?||4 hr||Simplejim||7|
|Lots of talk, little action in Congress after s...||4 hr||Sandra||90|
|Jimmy Kimmel Blames Trump, GOP After School Sho...||5 hr||mary||2|
|Dead Not Counted Before Liberals Started Lying ...||Feb 16||Shelly Bl||1|
|Remington seeks to restructure debt so it can o...||Feb 12||sick of winning||1|
|After Las Vegas massacre, Congress has failed t...||Feb 12||Watchdog||1|
Find what you want!
Search Guns Forum Now
Copyright © 2018 Topix LLC