Comments on: Six Views on the Second Amendment

By: McGehee

McGehee — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:55:01 +0000

Re #14: I could look it up myself but it’s past my bedtime back here on the Unleft Coast so I’ll just ask:

Is Major Owens still in Congress? And is he still introducing his annual “Repeal the Second Amendment” resolution?

By: Dana

Dana — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:56:04 +0000

It would be interesting if one our honorable Members of Congress would introduce the following constitutional amendment for consideration:

The Second Amendment to this Constitution is hereby repealed. The Congress, the states, and municipalities have the authority under the Constitution to regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, inheritance and possession of firearms and other deadly weapons within their jurisdictions.

I wonder just how far that would get? But, of course, such would be an honest attempt at addressing the right to keep and bear arms, rather than trying to do so through subterfuge; one should never expect such honesty from a liberal.

By: nk

nk — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:03:45 +0000

The collective right is found elsewhere in The Constitution and the states’ constitutions. Americans, as a free people have the “right” to armed forces, armed police, and to otherwise arm their citizens as they may choose for common defense, domestic peace and game animal overpopulation. So is the Second Amendment just an “inkblot” in the Bill of Rights?

By: SayUncle » Schools of thought

SayUncle » Schools of thought — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:45:57 +0000

[...] has six schools of thought on the second amendment. Pretty much sums it [...]

By: TexasFred

TexasFred — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 01:49:36 +0000

Here’s the part I don’t understand, how can anyone fail to grasp the mean of these simple words?

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.

It seems to me that those few words are so easily understood that all but the most dense would be able to grasp them.

By: Jim W

Jim W — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 22:02:33 +0000

I think the NRA will come to hold progressively more pro-gun views once they think the public is receptive to them. As I stated at the end of my post above, I think the biggest threat is in “scaring white people.”

By: Dana

Dana — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 21:56:11 +0000

You mentioned on my poor site that had Robert Bork been confirmed, Heller would probably have gone the other way; I hope that you’ll expound on that more fully.

But your line, “I’d rather elect McCain and hope he’s telling the truth than elect Obama and hope to God he’s lying,” was brilliant, and is my new blog tagline! :)

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 18:42:32 +0000

Jim W., 6 Kings: I disagree that the GOA view and the NRA view are the same. Aside from differing sharply on tactics (one group wheels and deals to get the best political result possible, while the other prides itself in a record of 30+ years of no compromise/results), they also differ philosophically on the definition of the word “infringe.” The NRA goes after outright bans and highly onerous restrictions that tend to have that result, while GOA asks us to forget the meaning or history of the word “infringe” and replace it with a princess-and-the-pea definition whereby anything that burdens the right to bear arms, however slightly, is automatically deemed an infringement.

In other words, GOA actually holds the cartoonish, knee-jerk views the anti-gun media wrongly attributes to the NRA.

By: 6Kings

6Kings — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:37:26 +0000

I’m with GOA: Seems many people have reading comprehension issues including supreme court justices.

I am sure there are people out there arguing that 2+3 is not 5 and a Stop sign doesn’t mean stop but they are completely wrong and as much so as 3-6 above.

By: BobG

BobG — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:36:10 +0000

I agree with Carteach0 completely on that. It’s my life, let me defend it in the best way I know how.