Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
All these mass shootings were ended by someone shooting them. It's that vicious cycle argument, we NEED guns to STOP guns. Think about that. We don't NEED guns. If we took the most obvious and logical step, taking guns out of that equation, then there wouldn't be an equation to be balanced out. That is the end run here and it's pretty obvious. Repeal the 2nd amendment.
The whole monologue is built on a foundation of false strawmen. It is, simply, a lie.Written by uber-conservative Bret Stephens.
Opinion | Repeal the Second Amendment
I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment.
From a law-and-order standpoint, more guns means more murder. âStates with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides,â noted one exhaustive 2013 study in the American Journal of Public Health.
From a personal-safety standpoint, more guns means less safety. The F.B.I. counted a total of 268 âjustifiable homicidesâ by private citizens involving firearms in 2015; that is, felons killed in the course of committing a felony. Yet that same year, there were 489 âunintentional firearms deathsâ in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Between 77 and 141 of those killed were children.
From a national-security standpoint, the Amendmentâs suggestion that a âwell-regulated militiaâ is ânecessary to the security of a free State,â is quaint. The Minutemen that will deter Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un are based in missile silos in Minot, N.D., not farmhouses in Lexington, Mass.
From a personal liberty standpoint, the idea that an armed citizenry is the ultimate check on the ambitions and encroachments of government power is curious. The Whiskey Rebellion of the 1790s, the New York draft riots of 1863, the coal minersâ rebellion of 1921, the Brinkâs robbery of 1981 â does any serious conservative think of these as great moments in Second Amendment activism?
And now we have the relatively new and now ubiquitous âactive shooterâ phenomenon, something that remains extremely rare in the rest of the world. Conservatives often say that the right response to these horrors is to do more on the mental-health front. Yet by all accounts Stephen Paddock would not have raised an eyebrow with a mental-health professional before he murdered 58 people in Las Vegas last week.
What might have raised a red flag? Iâm not the first pundit to point out that if a âMohammad Paddockâ had purchased dozens of firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition and then checked himself into a suite at the Mandalay Bay with direct views to a nearby music festival, somebody at the local F.B.I. field office would have noticed.
Given all of this, why do liberals keep losing the gun control debate?
Maybe itâs because they argue their case badly and â letâs face it â in bad faith. Democratic politicians routinely profess their fidelity to the Second Amendment â or rather, âa nuanced readingâ of it â with all the conviction of Barack Obamaâs support for traditional marriage, circa 2008. People recognize lip service for what it is.
*SNIP*
Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage itâs worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones. Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isnât outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesnât need a blanket Constitutional protection, either. The 46,445 murder victims killed by gunfire in the United States between 2012 and 2016 didnât need to perish so that gun enthusiasts can go on fantasizing that âRed Dawnâ is the fate that soon awaits us.
*SNIP*
Some conservatives will insist that the Second Amendment is fundamental to the structure of American liberty. They will cite James Madison, who noted in the Federalist Papers that in Europe âthe governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.â America was supposed to be different, and better.
I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today, when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War. My guess: Take the gunsâor at least the presumptive right to themâaway. The true foundation of American exceptionalism should be our capacity for moral and constitutional renewal, not our instinct for self-destruction.
You should go read the parts I snipped out.
The National Guard is considered, well regulated. The unorganized militia is not, well regulated.Well regulated militia of the People, are necessary to the security of a free State.
There should be no security problems in our free States.
"The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted."
Thomas Jefferson, by no means an imprecise thinker, was well aware of this consideration. In commenting upon how the Constitution should properly be read, he said:
"On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed."
Yet despite this clear evidence, gun control and prohibition proponents attempt to squeeze out of the text of the Second Amendment the meaning that only a âcollectiveâ â not an individual â right is guaranteed by the amendment. They argue that the words of the amendment allegedly apply only to the group in our society that is "well regulated" and "keeps and bears arms," the National Guard. But they are wrong.
David I. Caplan, who has examined this issue in depth, provides this analysis:
"In colonial times the term âwell regulatedâ meant âwell functioningâ â for this was the meaning of those words at that time, as demonstrated by the following passage from the original 1789 charter of the University of North Carolina: âWhereas in all well regulated governments it is the indispensable duty of every Legislatures to consult the happiness of a rising generationâŚâ Moreover the Oxford English Dictionary defines âregulatedâ among other things as âproperly disciplined;â and it defines âdisciplineâ among other things as âa trained condition.â"
Privately kept firearms and training with them apart from formal militia mustering thus was encompassed by the Second Amendment, in order to enable able-bodied citizens to be trained by being familiar in advance with the functioning of firearms. In that way, when organized the militia would be able to function well when the need arose to muster and be deployed for sudden military emergencies.
Therefore, even if the opening words of the Amendment, "A well regulated militiaâŚ" somehow would be interpreted as strictly limiting "the right of the people to keepâŚarms"; nevertheless, a properly functioning militia fundamentally presupposes that the individual citizen be allowed to keep, practice, and train himself in the use of firearms.
The National Guard cannot possibly be interpreted as the whole constitutional militia encompassed by the Second Amendment; if for no other reason, the fact that guardsmen are prohibited by law from keeping their own military arms. Instead, these firearms are owned and annually inventoried by the Federal government, and are kept in armories under lock and key.
The James Madison Research Library and Information Center
Muskets for All!The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. It ruled that the type of weapon that is available to the public could be regulated by using licenses to determine if the person buying that gun would be a public menace. That is why it takes a special license to own a fully auto .45 Thompson. That rule should extended to all the semi-auto assault rifles. Furthermore, the magazines should be limited to no more than 10 rounds. That would at least slow down the crazy.
I don't belong to a well regulated militia. You can tell, because I am not authorized to fly, colors, standards, banners, and guidons.Which well-regulated militia do you belong to, and who is regulating you?Well regulated militia ensuring the security of our free States, is our right.The left cannot even convince the victims in these shootings to give up their rights.
Don't worry about that. Run on repealing the 2A, please. Keep telling yourself its a winner.
To make regular.Which well-regulated militia do you belong to, and who is regulating you?Well regulated militia ensuring the security of our free States, is our right.The left cannot even convince the victims in these shootings to give up their rights.
Don't worry about that. Run on repealing the 2A, please. Keep telling yourself its a winner.
Well regulated means "IN GOOD WORKING ORDER". It has nothing to do with government control you twit.
"The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."
Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"
Repealing the second amendment would cost millions of lives, But it wonât happen people know better than to hope for childish things... lolWell... if you have a problem like your house has a leaky roof, or your water heater is leaking. You fix it. You won't stand around and hem and haw. You fix it. American has a gun problem It seems simple enough, confront it, and then look deeply at it, then find a way to fix it. Repealing the second amendment, it's like that. Confront the issue, remove it and get on with life.
Congress has to the power to define, wellness of regulation, for the militia of the United States.Who is the arbiter of whether it is in good working order?Well regulated means "IN GOOD WORKING ORDER". It has nothing to do with government control you twit.
...only a fool trusts the federal governmentThe National Guard is considered, well regulated. The unorganized militia is not, well regulated.Well regulated militia of the People, are necessary to the security of a free State.
There should be no security problems in our free States.
"The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted."
Thomas Jefferson, by no means an imprecise thinker, was well aware of this consideration. In commenting upon how the Constitution should properly be read, he said:
"On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed."
Yet despite this clear evidence, gun control and prohibition proponents attempt to squeeze out of the text of the Second Amendment the meaning that only a âcollectiveâ â not an individual â right is guaranteed by the amendment. They argue that the words of the amendment allegedly apply only to the group in our society that is "well regulated" and "keeps and bears arms," the National Guard. But they are wrong.
David I. Caplan, who has examined this issue in depth, provides this analysis:
"In colonial times the term âwell regulatedâ meant âwell functioningâ â for this was the meaning of those words at that time, as demonstrated by the following passage from the original 1789 charter of the University of North Carolina: âWhereas in all well regulated governments it is the indispensable duty of every Legislatures to consult the happiness of a rising generationâŚâ Moreover the Oxford English Dictionary defines âregulatedâ among other things as âproperly disciplined;â and it defines âdisciplineâ among other things as âa trained condition.â"
Privately kept firearms and training with them apart from formal militia mustering thus was encompassed by the Second Amendment, in order to enable able-bodied citizens to be trained by being familiar in advance with the functioning of firearms. In that way, when organized the militia would be able to function well when the need arose to muster and be deployed for sudden military emergencies.
Therefore, even if the opening words of the Amendment, "A well regulated militiaâŚ" somehow would be interpreted as strictly limiting "the right of the people to keepâŚarms"; nevertheless, a properly functioning militia fundamentally presupposes that the individual citizen be allowed to keep, practice, and train himself in the use of firearms.
The National Guard cannot possibly be interpreted as the whole constitutional militia encompassed by the Second Amendment; if for no other reason, the fact that guardsmen are prohibited by law from keeping their own military arms. Instead, these firearms are owned and annually inventoried by the Federal government, and are kept in armories under lock and key.
The James Madison Research Library and Information Center
The People are the Militia.
The right wing prefers fantasy to reality.
We have a Second Amendment. We should not have security problems in our free States.Well... if you have a problem like your house has a leaky roof, or your water heater is leaking. You fix it. You won't stand around and hem and haw. You fix it. American has a gun problem It seems simple enough, confront it, and then look deeply at it, then find a way to fix it. Repealing the second amendment, it's like that. Confront the issue, remove it and get on with life.
Muskets for All!The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. It ruled that the type of weapon that is available to the public could be regulated by using licenses to determine if the person buying that gun would be a public menace. That is why it takes a special license to own a fully auto .45 Thompson. That rule should extended to all the semi-auto assault rifles. Furthermore, the magazines should be limited to no more than 10 rounds. That would at least slow down the crazy.
The People are the Militia....only a fool trusts the federal governmentThe National Guard is considered, well regulated. The unorganized militia is not, well regulated.Well regulated militia of the People, are necessary to the security of a free State.
There should be no security problems in our free States.
"The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted."
Thomas Jefferson, by no means an imprecise thinker, was well aware of this consideration. In commenting upon how the Constitution should properly be read, he said:
"On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed."
Yet despite this clear evidence, gun control and prohibition proponents attempt to squeeze out of the text of the Second Amendment the meaning that only a âcollectiveâ â not an individual â right is guaranteed by the amendment. They argue that the words of the amendment allegedly apply only to the group in our society that is "well regulated" and "keeps and bears arms," the National Guard. But they are wrong.
David I. Caplan, who has examined this issue in depth, provides this analysis:
"In colonial times the term âwell regulatedâ meant âwell functioningâ â for this was the meaning of those words at that time, as demonstrated by the following passage from the original 1789 charter of the University of North Carolina: âWhereas in all well regulated governments it is the indispensable duty of every Legislatures to consult the happiness of a rising generationâŚâ Moreover the Oxford English Dictionary defines âregulatedâ among other things as âproperly disciplined;â and it defines âdisciplineâ among other things as âa trained condition.â"
Privately kept firearms and training with them apart from formal militia mustering thus was encompassed by the Second Amendment, in order to enable able-bodied citizens to be trained by being familiar in advance with the functioning of firearms. In that way, when organized the militia would be able to function well when the need arose to muster and be deployed for sudden military emergencies.
Therefore, even if the opening words of the Amendment, "A well regulated militiaâŚ" somehow would be interpreted as strictly limiting "the right of the people to keepâŚarms"; nevertheless, a properly functioning militia fundamentally presupposes that the individual citizen be allowed to keep, practice, and train himself in the use of firearms.
The National Guard cannot possibly be interpreted as the whole constitutional militia encompassed by the Second Amendment; if for no other reason, the fact that guardsmen are prohibited by law from keeping their own military arms. Instead, these firearms are owned and annually inventoried by the Federal government, and are kept in armories under lock and key.
The James Madison Research Library and Information Center
The People are the Militia.
The right wing prefers fantasy to reality.
The "Framers" Framed Us, the PeopleWritten by uber-conservative Bret Stephens.
Opinion | Repeal the Second Amendment
I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment.
From a law-and-order standpoint, more guns means more murder. âStates with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides,â noted one exhaustive 2013 study in the American Journal of Public Health.
From a personal-safety standpoint, more guns means less safety. The F.B.I. counted a total of 268 âjustifiable homicidesâ by private citizens involving firearms in 2015; that is, felons killed in the course of committing a felony. Yet that same year, there were 489 âunintentional firearms deathsâ in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Between 77 and 141 of those killed were children.
From a national-security standpoint, the Amendmentâs suggestion that a âwell-regulated militiaâ is ânecessary to the security of a free State,â is quaint. The Minutemen that will deter Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un are based in missile silos in Minot, N.D., not farmhouses in Lexington, Mass.
From a personal liberty standpoint, the idea that an armed citizenry is the ultimate check on the ambitions and encroachments of government power is curious. The Whiskey Rebellion of the 1790s, the New York draft riots of 1863, the coal minersâ rebellion of 1921, the Brinkâs robbery of 1981 â does any serious conservative think of these as great moments in Second Amendment activism?
And now we have the relatively new and now ubiquitous âactive shooterâ phenomenon, something that remains extremely rare in the rest of the world. Conservatives often say that the right response to these horrors is to do more on the mental-health front. Yet by all accounts Stephen Paddock would not have raised an eyebrow with a mental-health professional before he murdered 58 people in Las Vegas last week.
What might have raised a red flag? Iâm not the first pundit to point out that if a âMohammad Paddockâ had purchased dozens of firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition and then checked himself into a suite at the Mandalay Bay with direct views to a nearby music festival, somebody at the local F.B.I. field office would have noticed.
Given all of this, why do liberals keep losing the gun control debate?
Maybe itâs because they argue their case badly and â letâs face it â in bad faith. Democratic politicians routinely profess their fidelity to the Second Amendment â or rather, âa nuanced readingâ of it â with all the conviction of Barack Obamaâs support for traditional marriage, circa 2008. People recognize lip service for what it is.
*SNIP*
Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage itâs worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones. Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isnât outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesnât need a blanket Constitutional protection, either. The 46,445 murder victims killed by gunfire in the United States between 2012 and 2016 didnât need to perish so that gun enthusiasts can go on fantasizing that âRed Dawnâ is the fate that soon awaits us.
*SNIP*
Some conservatives will insist that the Second Amendment is fundamental to the structure of American liberty. They will cite James Madison, who noted in the Federalist Papers that in Europe âthe governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.â America was supposed to be different, and better.
I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today, when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War. My guess: Take the gunsâor at least the presumptive right to themâaway. The true foundation of American exceptionalism should be our capacity for moral and constitutional renewal, not our instinct for self-destruction.
You should go read the parts I snipped out.
Keep the 2d Amendment, repeal the 2d Amendment, it really doesn't matter to conservative gun owners. We're gonna keep our guns either way.
Written by uber-conservative Bret Stephens.
Opinion | Repeal the Second Amendment
I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment.
From a law-and-order standpoint, more guns means more murder. âStates with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides,â noted one exhaustive 2013 study in the American Journal of Public Health.
From a personal-safety standpoint, more guns means less safety. The F.B.I. counted a total of 268 âjustifiable homicidesâ by private citizens involving firearms in 2015; that is, felons killed in the course of committing a felony. Yet that same year, there were 489 âunintentional firearms deathsâ in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Between 77 and 141 of those killed were children.
From a national-security standpoint, the Amendmentâs suggestion that a âwell-regulated militiaâ is ânecessary to the security of a free State,â is quaint. The Minutemen that will deter Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un are based in missile silos in Minot, N.D., not farmhouses in Lexington, Mass.
From a personal liberty standpoint, the idea that an armed citizenry is the ultimate check on the ambitions and encroachments of government power is curious. The Whiskey Rebellion of the 1790s, the New York draft riots of 1863, the coal minersâ rebellion of 1921, the Brinkâs robbery of 1981 â does any serious conservative think of these as great moments in Second Amendment activism?
And now we have the relatively new and now ubiquitous âactive shooterâ phenomenon, something that remains extremely rare in the rest of the world. Conservatives often say that the right response to these horrors is to do more on the mental-health front. Yet by all accounts Stephen Paddock would not have raised an eyebrow with a mental-health professional before he murdered 58 people in Las Vegas last week.
What might have raised a red flag? Iâm not the first pundit to point out that if a âMohammad Paddockâ had purchased dozens of firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition and then checked himself into a suite at the Mandalay Bay with direct views to a nearby music festival, somebody at the local F.B.I. field office would have noticed.
Given all of this, why do liberals keep losing the gun control debate?
Maybe itâs because they argue their case badly and â letâs face it â in bad faith. Democratic politicians routinely profess their fidelity to the Second Amendment â or rather, âa nuanced readingâ of it â with all the conviction of Barack Obamaâs support for traditional marriage, circa 2008. People recognize lip service for what it is.
*SNIP*
Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage itâs worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones. Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isnât outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesnât need a blanket Constitutional protection, either. The 46,445 murder victims killed by gunfire in the United States between 2012 and 2016 didnât need to perish so that gun enthusiasts can go on fantasizing that âRed Dawnâ is the fate that soon awaits us.
*SNIP*
Some conservatives will insist that the Second Amendment is fundamental to the structure of American liberty. They will cite James Madison, who noted in the Federalist Papers that in Europe âthe governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.â America was supposed to be different, and better.
I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today, when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War. My guess: Take the gunsâor at least the presumptive right to themâaway. The true foundation of American exceptionalism should be our capacity for moral and constitutional renewal, not our instinct for self-destruction.
You should go read the parts I snipped out.
Whither Went the Wither?
Written by uber-conservative Bret Stephens.
Opinion | Repeal the Second Amendment
I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment.
From a law-and-order standpoint, more guns means more murder. âStates with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides,â noted one exhaustive 2013 study in the American Journal of Public Health.
From a personal-safety standpoint, more guns means less safety. The F.B.I. counted a total of 268 âjustifiable homicidesâ by private citizens involving firearms in 2015; that is, felons killed in the course of committing a felony. Yet that same year, there were 489 âunintentional firearms deathsâ in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Between 77 and 141 of those killed were children.
From a national-security standpoint, the Amendmentâs suggestion that a âwell-regulated militiaâ is ânecessary to the security of a free State,â is quaint. The Minutemen that will deter Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un are based in missile silos in Minot, N.D., not farmhouses in Lexington, Mass.
From a personal liberty standpoint, the idea that an armed citizenry is the ultimate check on the ambitions and encroachments of government power is curious. The Whiskey Rebellion of the 1790s, the New York draft riots of 1863, the coal minersâ rebellion of 1921, the Brinkâs robbery of 1981 â does any serious conservative think of these as great moments in Second Amendment activism?
And now we have the relatively new and now ubiquitous âactive shooterâ phenomenon, something that remains extremely rare in the rest of the world. Conservatives often say that the right response to these horrors is to do more on the mental-health front. Yet by all accounts Stephen Paddock would not have raised an eyebrow with a mental-health professional before he murdered 58 people in Las Vegas last week.
What might have raised a red flag? Iâm not the first pundit to point out that if a âMohammad Paddockâ had purchased dozens of firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition and then checked himself into a suite at the Mandalay Bay with direct views to a nearby music festival, somebody at the local F.B.I. field office would have noticed.
Given all of this, why do liberals keep losing the gun control debate?
Maybe itâs because they argue their case badly and â letâs face it â in bad faith. Democratic politicians routinely profess their fidelity to the Second Amendment â or rather, âa nuanced readingâ of it â with all the conviction of Barack Obamaâs support for traditional marriage, circa 2008. People recognize lip service for what it is.
*SNIP*
Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage itâs worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones. Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isnât outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesnât need a blanket Constitutional protection, either. The 46,445 murder victims killed by gunfire in the United States between 2012 and 2016 didnât need to perish so that gun enthusiasts can go on fantasizing that âRed Dawnâ is the fate that soon awaits us.
*SNIP*
Some conservatives will insist that the Second Amendment is fundamental to the structure of American liberty. They will cite James Madison, who noted in the Federalist Papers that in Europe âthe governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.â America was supposed to be different, and better.
I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today, when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War. My guess: Take the gunsâor at least the presumptive right to themâaway. The true foundation of American exceptionalism should be our capacity for moral and constitutional renewal, not our instinct for self-destruction.
You should go read the parts I snipped out.
The "Framers" Framed Us, the PeopleWritten by uber-conservative Bret Stephens.
Opinion | Repeal the Second Amendment
I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment.
From a law-and-order standpoint, more guns means more murder. âStates with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides,â noted one exhaustive 2013 study in the American Journal of Public Health.
From a personal-safety standpoint, more guns means less safety. The F.B.I. counted a total of 268 âjustifiable homicidesâ by private citizens involving firearms in 2015; that is, felons killed in the course of committing a felony. Yet that same year, there were 489 âunintentional firearms deathsâ in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Between 77 and 141 of those killed were children.
From a national-security standpoint, the Amendmentâs suggestion that a âwell-regulated militiaâ is ânecessary to the security of a free State,â is quaint. The Minutemen that will deter Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un are based in missile silos in Minot, N.D., not farmhouses in Lexington, Mass.
From a personal liberty standpoint, the idea that an armed citizenry is the ultimate check on the ambitions and encroachments of government power is curious. The Whiskey Rebellion of the 1790s, the New York draft riots of 1863, the coal minersâ rebellion of 1921, the Brinkâs robbery of 1981 â does any serious conservative think of these as great moments in Second Amendment activism?
And now we have the relatively new and now ubiquitous âactive shooterâ phenomenon, something that remains extremely rare in the rest of the world. Conservatives often say that the right response to these horrors is to do more on the mental-health front. Yet by all accounts Stephen Paddock would not have raised an eyebrow with a mental-health professional before he murdered 58 people in Las Vegas last week.
What might have raised a red flag? Iâm not the first pundit to point out that if a âMohammad Paddockâ had purchased dozens of firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition and then checked himself into a suite at the Mandalay Bay with direct views to a nearby music festival, somebody at the local F.B.I. field office would have noticed.
Given all of this, why do liberals keep losing the gun control debate?
Maybe itâs because they argue their case badly and â letâs face it â in bad faith. Democratic politicians routinely profess their fidelity to the Second Amendment â or rather, âa nuanced readingâ of it â with all the conviction of Barack Obamaâs support for traditional marriage, circa 2008. People recognize lip service for what it is.
*SNIP*
Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage itâs worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones. Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isnât outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesnât need a blanket Constitutional protection, either. The 46,445 murder victims killed by gunfire in the United States between 2012 and 2016 didnât need to perish so that gun enthusiasts can go on fantasizing that âRed Dawnâ is the fate that soon awaits us.
*SNIP*
Some conservatives will insist that the Second Amendment is fundamental to the structure of American liberty. They will cite James Madison, who noted in the Federalist Papers that in Europe âthe governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.â America was supposed to be different, and better.
I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today, when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War. My guess: Take the gunsâor at least the presumptive right to themâaway. The true foundation of American exceptionalism should be our capacity for moral and constitutional renewal, not our instinct for self-destruction.
You should go read the parts I snipped out.
Keep the 2d Amendment, repeal the 2d Amendment, it really doesn't matter to conservative gun owners. We're gonna keep our guns either way.
Which proves that you support your anti-democratic Constitution for other reasons.
Whither Went the Wither?
Lizardtarians like Molyneux will establish a police state "to protect rugged individualists from mob rule." Since both Communism and Libretardianism come from the same upper-class source, they are trying to repeat Lenin's scam of "the withering away of the State."
