Quick question. Man enters a public area with the intent of killing as many as he can. What will result in the most damage, man with gun, man with knife or man with bare hands? Tough question isn’t it… No wait, it isn’t at all. The gun lovers would like you to think it is. ‘A person with murderous intent can just use his bare hands’. I’ve never tried this but I can guess it is far more difficult.
No one could ever think that gun control could stop all murders. But, I have no idea how the pro-gun groups can think this is some win for them pointing this out.
Now, the 2nd Amendment. The one that the pro-gun nuts can’t properly read. First off, the damn thing is not that old! I find it very sad that it could be wrapped in so much mystery. Though sadly it had changes even when it was written and the dreaded comma placement is at the root of the argument. Problem is, back then they threw commas around like pieces of meat!
The fact that militias are protected by the federal government does not mean that you can carry (or even own) a firearm where ever you damn well please. A nice editorial on the phrasing of the amendment can be found here.
bang.
dude, the best image in the world showed itself when i hovered your name.
,,,,,,,
Did you ever get the notion that the writers of the bill of rights cared so much about the state coast guard? Or do you read quotes by them them talking about the need for the populace to be armed? How about the other amendments? How many of them talk about states right versus individual rights?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
#’s 1,3,4,5,6,7,8, and 9 seem pretty clearly relating to individual rights. That in addition to quotes I’ve heard (and I’m open to counterexample quotes if you have them), leads me to believe that # 2 fits as well.
Man with bomb wins everytime. It is cheaper and easier than a gun, we need guns to defend our selves. Gun = peace. They are the best deterrent. Making peace with overwhelming force (assault weapons.) So suck on that you pinko commie bastards !
Are you just jerking off into your blog? Laws don’t have magical powers, they only work against people who are willing to follow them in exchange for living in a lawful society. Since murder is against the law already it hardly matters what laws you make against guns today. There’s plenty of guns out there and someone who wants to commit murder will get one, laws be damned. All that gun control laws do is keep guns out of the hands of the law abiding populace, which prevents all those people in your public area from fighting back on equal footing against the murderous man with a gun.
So in summary:
- Gun control does next to nothing to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals.
- When someone goes on a blatant murdering spree as you described, gun control lets that man go on murdering longer than he would be able were the law abiding populace more easily allowed to bear arms.
As noted in your linked article, there were multiple versions of the second amendment with different punctuation ratified, and lawmakers ignored punctuation when creating and interpreting the law. Therefore, why are you (I presume, your specific stance isn’t clear at all from your post), and the article’s author, basing this argument on the punctuation of the amendment being interpreted in your favor? My argument comes from the reality of guns’ existence and the desire to minimize harm in a case where the system of law breaks down. The “comma = militia” argument comes from grammar nazism and apparently the desire for guns to magically vanish from the earth.
For completeness sake though, on the interpretation being in favor of protecting militias’ rights rather than that of individuals, take an unbiased look at it.
“”"
Likewise, when the justices finish diagramming the Second Amendment, they should end up with something that expresses a causal link, like: “Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” In other words, the amendment is really about protecting militias, notwithstanding the originalist arguments to the contrary.
“”"
Yes, the amendment is about protecting militias. I wholeheartedly agree. The means by which the founders sought to protect the militia is to allow “the people to keep and bear Arms”. When I say the people, I mean all the individual persons. If the founders had wanted to mean militiamen, they had a word they could use for that instead: “militiamen”. Let’s see how we interpret “the people” in the other amendments:
1) “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” — all individuals.
4) “of the people to be secure in their persons … and the persons or things to be seized” — all individuals.
5) “No person shall be held to answer … nor shall any person be subject for the same offence” — each individual
9) “or disparage others retained by the people.” — all individuals
10) “to the States respectively, or to the people.” — all individuals.
I included “person” and “persons” as well since “the people” only occurs a few times; if you have a problem with that ignore them, my point still stands. If you were to interpret “the people” to mean “a subset of the people who have contracted to follow the orders of the government” then you lose all these rights as well. Does that sound like what the founders were trying to do with the bill of rights? Is that how you want to run the country?
[...] someone fell for the old not only do commas separate things but can alter the meaning of words [...]
[...] although it really has nothing to do with your point or mine (referring to comments to my past post), the constitution didn’t protect everyones rights. I’d put a after that… but [...]
Good thing we have a first amendment that allows the uneducated to voice their interpretations of grammar. Maybe if you “hope” and “dream” enough you can actually “change” what the second amendment says.