Story Comments
Posted by: Mdiar 1 year, 5 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
92%
Mdiar1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
All the Amendments are important and should be protected, including the Fourth.
"If the founders meant to confer an individual right to bear arms, why did they begin by highlighting how important a citizen militia is to a free state, and conversely what a danger large standing armies (like we have today) pose to liberty?"
I stringently disagreed with this logic though it had little to do with the Op-Ed as a whole. Actually, I find the whole logic in this sentence to be self defeating. The author was venting here, I think.
Overall, I agree. Those who support the Second Amendment should also wonder why the government gets to outlaw drugs if they can't outlaw guns... neither ban works and it seems awfully presumptuous of the government to state what I can or cannot put into my body or possess. Or other activities the government engages in.
Reply-
88%
willottica1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"If the founders meant to confer an individual right to bear arms, why did they begin by highlighting how important a citizen militia is to a free state, and conversely what a danger large standing armies (like we have today) pose to liberty?"
I think the author intended this as a rhetorical... but it's not, there's a simple answer.
Reply
They conveyed the importance of a citizen's militia precisely because they knew this particular right would need defending. They knew that some lawmakers over the years would take issue with people having and carrying weapons. And wanted to ensure that there was sufficient reason laid down that the Amendment would not be stricken at a later date.-
67%
Natureboy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OK, let's approach this with historical context. When Jefferson wrote that the tree of liberty must be regularly watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants, to what activity was he referring? (hint, he made this remark in connection with the pardoning of the leader of a peasant rebellion)
I would suggest that when weapons are possessed only by the police and the military, that tree will wither in the ensuing drought, and the only blood spilt will be that of those brave or foolish enough to dissent.
Reply
-
-
67%
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You know how I feel on this, Mdiar. I don't think people as violent as Americans need to be giving themselves greater access to weapons. More access= more Columbines, more toddler deaths, more domestic work and traffic disputes that might have ended with perhaps slaps, punches or broken bones (at worst) ending in massive internal injuries, paralysis, and death. I really don't want more right wingers with guns. OMG. ;-( Just look at our warring ways...Just LOOK at us!
Reply
;-(-
67%
Endoscopy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How about England. They passed a law prohibiting guns of any kind. They stated that the police are the only ones that are allowed to protect people. People are not allowed to protect themselves with guns. Crime has soared immediately after that was accomplished. Now if someone breaks into your house you can call the police but not defend yourself with a gun. One man did after several break ins and they sent him to jail.
Reply
If you live in England you better live next door to the police if you want to be safe. -
67%
Mdiar1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I understand and respect how you feel. However, the gun crime statistics are fear mongering. How have gun bans actually effected the rates, anywhere? They don't work. They never have. They are as ineffectual as drug bans. Its not right to compare two different areas, one with a ban and one without, because that's apples and oranges. Compare the stats of one area before and after the ban. I have a few rather controversial ideas on how to address the gun violence rate in the country and the first thing you have to look at is the attitudes of areas where it is highest. Washington DC, where the gun ban was in effect is an example. I believe that we should educate our kids on guns... if we do that, they will respect them. If they respect them then they understand the responsibility involved with a gun and they will be less likely to use it then if they know very little about the gun. That is just one aspect of reducing violence in general and probably the smallest one. Its a social issue and it CANNOT be solved by bans, anywhere. It can be solved by addressing the social issues themselves... why is the violence rate so high in the United States? If you can solve that you can solve the problem. You can't solve the problem by removing the tools because then other things come into play and that's what you are trying to do with a ban.
Reply -
50%
buckncindykill1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ban handguns, and watch the crime rates to up! It's a lesson as old as the idea of gun control, but liberals just seem to be real slow learners.
It doesn't take much more than a room temperature IQ to figure out that when the law says that you can't have a gun, only people who obey the law are likely to get rid of their guns. In the meantime, those who prey on others relax in the knowledge that it is less likely that their victim is going to be armed.
And so it is around the world. Ban guns and gun crimes increase. Legalize guns and crime rates drop. How in the world do we get liberals to understand this?
Reply-
60%
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is simplistic in the extreme. You talk as if a ban or lack thereof alone is the reason crime goes up or down. Cons are very hard-headed and love to provoke others by shooting off their ignorant mouths. As a result, they are constantly looking over their weaning shoulders in fear that someone is out to get them. You reap what you sow, cons. Exercise your right to freedom of speech all you want. Have a field day saying any and everything you want to anyone else (regardless of the harmful impact it might have on them) and continue begging others to die in senseless illegal wars for you. You'll screech for the right to blow someone's head off and make jokes about civil liberties as if this is just part of a "liberal" plot. Cons must not be given more avenues to cause mayhem. They're destroying the planet as it is. ;-(
Reply
-
-
-
loading ...
berkeley
tchef
MacR
fsev41
Will1313
mesodude
PsychoHosebeast
raza9
scott4261
cptnkrk
cowboygrandpa
bluetexasvalley
Wolfie2007
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.