Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[C in C]

Cliff Schaffer wrote:

<quoted text>
Uummm, I think you just destroyed your own argument. If there are no facts to prove it one way or the other, then there is no justification for any kind of ban, is there?

There is always justification, even if it is only good intentions (and I am aware about the road to hell being paved!). I have never said that I supported gun bans like those in Chicago or D.C. Nor have I said that gun bans work. I'm just saying that there are too many factors involved in crime to be able to simplify it down to a single cause and effect.

And you are right, it cannot be prove it one way or another, and I never claimed that you could. This fallacy is often used in lots of online discussions, and I try to point it out as a fallacy whenever I see it.

On a side note, if you look at D.C., it already had a pretty high crime rate BEFORE the ban went into place:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.h...
To me that was there justification on the ban. They saw a high crime rate and tried to do something to curtail the crime rate. Obviously it didn't work, and sadly they didn't really see that it didn't work. It is easy for emotions to cloud judgment. Some people will always hate guns, regardless of the statistics you put in front of them. That's part of living in a free country.

As I said, there can always be a justification for gun bans, but whether or not those justifications are valid is an entirely different matter. And for the record, I am a gun owner and avid hunter. I think the Supreme Court got this one 100% right.

[Michael Ejercito]

C in C wrote:

<quoted text> There is always justification, even if it is only good intentions (and I am aware about the road to hell being paved!). I have never said that I supported gun bans like those in Chicago or D.C. Nor have I said that gun bans work. I'm just saying that there are too many factors involved in crime to be able to simplify it down to a single cause and effect.
And you are right, it cannot be prove it one way or another, and I never claimed that you could. This fallacy is often used in lots of online discussions, and I try to point it out as a fallacy whenever I see it.
On a side note, if you look at D.C., it already had a pretty high crime rate BEFORE the ban went into place:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.h...
To me that was there justification on the ban. They saw a high crime rate and tried to do something to curtail the crime rate. Obviously it didn't work, and sadly they didn't really see that it didn't work. It is easy for emotions to cloud judgment. Some people will always hate guns, regardless of the statistics you put in front of them. That's part of living in a free country.
As I said, there can always be a justification for gun bans, but whether or not those justifications are valid is an entirely different matter. And for the record, I am a gun owner and avid hunter. I think the Supreme Court got this one 100% right.

One justification is that gangbangers will be able to make more money by going into the arms trafficking business.

There is disagreement as to whether or not this is a valid reason.

[Daniel]

Sore losers.

Not enough brain cells to pen a cogent article, let alone a facetious argument.

[Legally armed]

Unbelievable. What's good for the goose. eh? The left's classic posturing via situational ethics. Murder by gun vs. murder by abortion? One man's pudding is another man's poison The Second Amendment means and has always meant that I have a right to own and keep a loaded weapon on my person or premises.

[Your Mom]

No.

[Notafluxu8tor]

The opinion espoused in this article clearly displays how narrow minded, agenda driven journalism tries to curtail individual rights as long as the journalist gets a free pass to endorse the elimination of everyone elses constitutional rights. Hey genius, read Justice Scalia's majority opinion in its entirety and you would come to realize his zealous protection of the 2nd amendment is a statement to protect all rights including your 1st amendment right to espouse this trash.

[sherry]

I'm sick of the libs trying to take the guns away from good people. Crime rate all over the country to way to high. More people should learn to shot and defend themselves. The gun control thing is just a push for power. Gun control does not save lives it only makes it easier to loose them.

[John Parrish]

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
If you read the Court's decision, you will see that the primary purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect "the people" from the government.
The Court's decision was right.

[Dan Shapiro]

You're full of crap. The first 10 amendments were called the Bill of Rights. They were added because the 13 individual states were not going to ratify a the new constitution with out them. These 10 are INDIVIDUAL rights. What part of that can you not understand?

[samuel colt]

Joe Guzzardo wrote:

Welcome to Dodge City, USA, and we consider ourselves one of the most advanced nations on the face of this planet. The rest of the civilized world is laughing at us. I'm moving to Denmark.

faster, faster

[KCB]

With respect to the Miller decision. The media hype about the abiguity of that decision is pure folly. The decision quite plainly stands for the fact that a sawed-off shotgun could properly be banned by the Federal Government because it was not the type used in combat. Specifically, the Germans complained so much about Wincehster's models 1897 and 1912 shotguns that they sought to get them banned (little known operational item of those models-hold the trigger and pump as fast as you can and it fires like a machine-gun). The best the Germans could do was to restrict how short the barrels were. Aparrently those guns were REAL good at clearing out trenches-they were called trench sweepers. The SCOTUS knew this when making the ruling as it was common knowledge to those who were familiar with WWI (pretty much everybody in their 40s and up by 1939.

[Kim Rowe]

Dear Editorial Staff, please go to this website & do a little more research:http://www.thevrwc.or g/historical/unabridgedSecondA mendment.html.

For that matter, just try reading some of the writings of the founders. Here's a quote for you: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
--Thomas Jefferson Papers

[Leon]

A perfect ultra left comment. They are afraid that as long as average people have guns. They will never be able to rule the USA.

[2nd Ammendment]

Stads wrote:

<quoted text>
Then if you're seen with a gun you get arrested....end of story....cops and criminals have guns, not suburban housewives trying to "defend themselves from the government"....that's such a silly argument. Train the police to identify and neutralize the illegal operations and soon it will curb...

Remember when seconds count the police are only minutes away. Protect yourself of die. A fact of life. Protect your family or watch them die. The Courts have proclaimed the Police don't have to protect you, and you can't sue them if they don't protect them.

[Jim]

Chicago Tribune,so you really want to repeal the 2nd Amendment?
Pull your Head out before it is too late, or you will die at the hands of your tyrannical government!!!!

[Stephen Derrick]

How wrong can you be! It is precisely because the government at all stages cannot and does not protect its citizens that we must keep the 2nd ammendment intact. If you had researched the D.C ban, it also included a ban on shotguns and rifles...stating that the must be kept disassembled and locked if in the home. Ask any beat cop what the true meaning of "To Protect and Serve" that's on the side of their car and they'll tell you they're limited to cleaning up the mess after the crime happens...not preventing it. Get the story straight...If you think your city council is really interested in protecting you see if your mayor will come over and keep that gang-banger from bustin a cap in your happy, gun free tush!

[mrsender]

Apply your logic to the 1st amendment. "Congress shall make no law.......abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" It says
nothing about state or local government banning free speech. The
founding fathers were afraid people that people like you and your ilk would try and strip away my liberties, so they gave me the tools necessary to stop you. They were indeed brilliant men.

[jim]

Repeal this 1rst. Then I wouldn't have to read any more idiotic editorials!

[rellimpank]

--"The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor."

There you have it. Newspaper editors are smarter than everyone else.

[luod]

You have it wrong. The Founding Fathers recognized that a well run militia would be necessary to stay free, but to guard against a military take over by that very militia, they made sure the people could defend their freedom with guns when necessary.