- Home
- Business & Marketing (839)
- Editorials (696)
- Entertainment (2037)
- Fashion (1035)
- Highbrid (189)
- Honeys (2883)
- Humor (955)
- Music (5234)
- Need to Know (2265)
- News (2133)
- Podcasts (4)
- Politics (15)
- ARCHIVE
Thursday, July 26, 2012 | 9:43am
SOUND OFF: Is the Second Amendment Outdated? Would New Gun Laws Help Ease Violence in America?
Will the National debate be a swinging factor in the Fall’s Presidential election.
If I were ever to point at the one thing about the United States that makes it the best country in the world, its the fact that its not perfect. Our “Framers” created a very loose set of rules upon which to follow. Now over 230 years later we are still bound by these rules much like Christians are bound by the rules of the Bible. Hmmm…here in lies the problem.
Regardless of what party you affiliate with, you probably have a set of fundamental beliefs upon which you subscribe to. Those beliefs probably classify us as either conservative, moderate or liberal. This is similar to how people interpret their religious text. Conservatives follow the letter of the law to the T and the liberals are more open to interpretation and consideration of the era. Is there a right and a wrong? Well that’s the several century old debate.
One of the most fundamental laws of our land is the right to bare arms aka the Second Amendment. While the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech) defines our nation, many would argue the Second should never have been more than a bill and void of permanence. None would argue weapons don’t have the same place in society they did in the 1700′s but many place the same, if not greater value on them as they did then. As a New York City boy, I don’t regularly, check that have NEVER see a gun carried by an ordinary citizen legally. In West Virginia, where I went to college, it would have been abnormal for a family to NOT own an entire collection.
But gun violence is a PROBLEM. That’s a fact. This wasn’t the issue at the timing of the framing of our constitution it was back then. So do we still use the same treatment we did in 1776? Is it necessary for ordinary Americans to have access to all weapons, especially assault weapons made for the military? President Obama hasn’t yet taken a hard stance on stronger gun laws but one would assume he believes in them but may not be able to play that card just yet given election season. Which gives Mitt Romney the power. He has stated that its not the guns but the conditions and the individuals that need be examined in order to reduce crime. He has stated that this is an isolated case and we should be instead be focused on the economy. What do you think? SOUND OFF
SIDENOTE: I’m glad the issue of guns is getting some pub but I wonder if it were 50+ black folks shot at Lindenwood movie theater in Brooklyn, NY if it would have received the same National attention and received political equity.
FILED IN Editorials, Need to Know, News
There is absolutely nothing about the United States Constitution that is “out dated”, that is impossible because of the way it was written in that with the approval of The People it can be amended and the brilliance of the framers to include the first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights) for which without the US would have been a dictatorship not much different than the one they overthrew (The Church of England) with the arms they possessed and knew no citizen should ever be deprived of. In the last few days Obama has been preaching that the Second Amendment is about “hunting and target practice”. That is absurd and complete rubbish. It is about the citizens being able to defend themselves against tyranny. I’m not going to post it here (or The Constitution) since we all have internet access and know how to use Google. But know this, if Obama is planning on campaigning hard for gun control to try and distract from some of the other dumb things he has been saying of late not withstanding his insults to entrepreneurs that succeed in the businesses they started he will lose in an all out landslide. To anyone.
As a successful entrepreneur I don’t think I can 100% agree with you sorry. I agree his policies often make it more difficult for me and cost people money but I think people lose sight of why business was even first started. We were in business to help our community not just ourselves. We don’t do that anymore. We’re so selfish. I know I’m going back but isn’t this argument?
.
If we are unwilling to help others but in the same respect want to turn around quoting Bible verses and talking about God’s idea of the family unit and criticizing gay marriage, something’s wrong with us.
I was speaking more to his comments that “you didn’t build that business yourself” than his actual policies that I’m sure make it tough.
Got it.
Ok, All the roads and institutions were built by A private business? Without Government help the internet wouldn’t be what it is today. Or how about SBA loans?.. Most business start out with these type of loans then move into private capital latter. So no if you have a Business you didn’t directly build all of these things…
Two things… first… roads and bridges couldn’t have been built without the money provided by the taxpayers.
.
Second… There’s a difference between people taking collective action for the good of their city and society (roads, parks, etc), and suggesting that those who built their business from scratch were not the driving factor in doing so.
.
My particular problem with the statement isn’t the statement itself (when heard in its entirety it wasn’t as bad as the right wing media is making it out to be). My problem is the PHILOSOPHY behind making such a statement.
.
After years of hearing libs talking about whether they should ALLOW companies to make a profit; after years of watching companies (and society) being blackmailed by the auto and teachers union… I just sometimes feel like Jack Nicholson is ‘a few good men’: I would much prefer if they just said ‘thank you’ and left it at that.
.
And no, no SBA loan for me when I started my business. I just had to suck it up and work without a paycheck until I could build it enough to get my scratch.
So tax payers didn’t help build the roads and things? But I didn’t take a SBA loans either and working a full time job and work my bussiness and still try and spend time with my family. But I didn’t try and run my business to get tax breaks (I will take them if they are there, but I won’t fight for them.) .i saw a need and I decided to try and fill it. And demand drives my business not what I can get back from the government. (not saying you are different) but as a business owner also I expect to make or break from my type of business and demand or lack there of. That is why I I disagree with businesses expecting all of these breaks. Unless the government needs your technology or product don’t expect to get any breaks. Why do big oil still need there tax breaks they are making enough money now.
It’s a VERY tough question.
.
Part of the problem is indirectly caused by the fact that we are a free country. You could do all of the background checks in the world, but it would not have made a difference in this case since the a**hole who did this did not have a criminal record or a history of mental illness. All of his guns were bought legally.
.
But if he didn’t have the guns, would that have stopped him? If he was hell-bent on mass murder he could have used firebombs, and then the conversation would turn to banning gasoline.
.
I’m not a psychologist, but I think we need to figure out the reason why people are willing to commit violent acts. Attack the root (violence) instead of trying to regulate the method (guns).
.
I own multiple weapons. (in fact, I own 2 of the 3 weapons he used myself). But I would never even consider murdering anyone, because I am a non-violent person. But violent people kill people every day here (Detroit area) with guns, knives, bottles, gulf clubs, tire irons… In fact, I remember one case where someone just picked up a BRICK and beat someone senseless.
.
I don’t know the answer. I just don’t know.
.
Note: here is my current gun collection.
.
http://highbridnation.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/AllGuns.jpg
Dick Armey was making that same claim this morning but instead he use a hammer as an example. Come on Malcolm. So this cat was going to go around the movie theater with a hammer bonking people on the head and no one would have done anything? Guns make you run. Broken glass makes you think…can I take this cat.
He could have done a lot more harn with a simple flame thrower (among thousands of other things):
http://napkindiagrams.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/pvc-and-copper-flamethrower/
Shall we outlaw the internet?
No, but he could have done serious damage (even more than he did) with a few Molotov cocktails.
.
Then, as I said, we would have to ban glass bottles and gasoline.
.
If you ever check out the web site ‘the weekly vice’, it’s full of people who attack their mates with chickens, cans of corn, whatever.
.
The root problem is the mentality of violence, not the methods used.
Precisely.
AmeriKKKa was and is built on violence dating back 2 the settlers being punKKKed Good old Bloody England to them Kidnapping/Murder of Africans being involved in the slave trade. As well as lynchings,assaassinations of Presidents,celebs,children being put in dumpsters,drowned in bathtubs and lakes.
To Presidents sending service men and women over 2 countries 2 destroy cities and kill civilians all in the name of free-Dumb aka money,to the stupid sense of violence like mass-killings to drive by’s. There is no way GUNS will ever be banned do u know what kind of uprising would occur? I do truly beleive that is the 1 thing all Americans agree on is the right 2 bare arms aka Pack a Gat, Hold Heat etc. As I have always said Guns don’t kill people it’s stupid ass ppl who have no regard 4 life that kill ppl and or being careless and laying a gun around 4 an innocent child to get ahold of. Any1 who has a gun or not lay a gun down just leave it, even with it loaded as long as it’s not touched nothing will happen …trust me I have done it b4. This all coming from a liberal Demon-crat.
I do agree with Malcolm when he said; “The root problem is the mentality of violence, not the methods used.” But one must understand that people aren’t being killed with Molotovs, chickens or cans of creamed corn, a four year old boy in the Bronx was shot in the head, this past weekend with a .45 caliber handgun, no creamed corn.
.
While it is unconstitutional to take away our right to bear arms, there are certain provisions taht should take place. My car has a vin number on every door, the hood, the dash, the rear hatch, and probably several other places taht I can’t see, why does a firearm only have one, and one that is easily altered/ removed at that. Why is it taht a handgun can disappear in the public without recognition from the manufacture. There should be a better tracking system in place for firearms to determine at what point the firearm went missing. Then there is the type of firearm being leaglly sold to the public. High calibers, fully automatics, high capacity firearms should not be in the hands of the common citizen. noone knowws a persons breaking point, measures such as those that I mentioned can be placed to thwart incedences like want happened last Thursday.
hahaha when I first read this I thought you said Molotov chickens…hahaha.
Oh yeah, It also makes no sense that a person can purchase an semi-automatic AR-15, two semi-automatic handguns, a shotgun and 6000 rounds of ammunition and noone knocks on his door to question him. Let’s do the math; fully loaded AR-15: 33 rounds, two fully loaded Glocks: 17 each times two: 34 rounds, I don’t know kind of shotgun it was but let’s just assume it was a six shot 12 gauge, six shots can take out about one to two, three if he’s lucky people a shot. If he took his time he could have killed at least 60 poeple in this crowded theater.
“High calibers, fully automatics, high capacity firearms should not be in the hands of the common citizen.”????
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.
Sorry, I don’t see anything in there limiting the type of arms. I’m sure anyone with tyranical ambitions would agree with you though.
Let any government of any political affliation hear that a militia was convening and attempting to bare arms for what ever reason, it would be shut down post haste. Especially, if they were to arm themselves with anti-armour ammunition, .50 caliber handguns, and fully automatic rifles whether the state they were convening allowed it or not.
Not necessarily. There was a big militia case here in Michigan some time back. The feds raided the place, took the guns, and charged them all with being in a terrorist organization.
.
In the end, all of them were found not guilty, and the feds had to give them their guns back.
And I can bet, every single one of them, and every single person they come in contact with is being watch VERY closely. Just because they are on the street does not mean that they are free.
Well regulated Militia? The only Militia we have around deez ere parts is commonly referred to a cults and terrorist cells. Sorry that example TO ME at least is outdated.
When interpreting The Constitution it is helpful to keep in mind the vernacular of the time. If you look at the oldest definitions of “well regulated” and Militia” they are pretty relevant.
According to the supreme court in the DC gun case, the comma in the second amendment makes all the difference.
.
The preamble of the amendment ‘a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state’ is one part. Then a comma, then ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’.
.
According to the court, the comma separates the statement and the preamble is not a limiting factor. So, a militia is one of the reasons for giving the right, but the right itself is not limited to the single reason given (probably a spin on the 9th and 10th amendment).
.
However… listening to one of the justices over the weekend, they DO see limitations in the language. The use of the words ‘BEAR arms’, means ones you can carry, so there’s no constitutional protection for owning weapons you can’t carry (like missiles and cannons)
Exactly Malcolm. People would have you think that, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, means that I have the RIGHT to install a Patriot Missle battery on my CR-V or have the RIGHT to own a M203 Grenade launcher with high explosive rounds, just because the Constitution doesn’t say that I can’t.
The one provision of the Bill of Rights many people always forget is that any BILL/ AMENDMENT that INFRINGES upon another’s rights makes enforcing that BILL/ AMENDMENT invalid. Just throwing that out there.
Yeah, I would say DEATH or maiming is an infringment on someone elses rights.
Although I’m a Democrat, I agree with Mitt Romney that the “Bat Man Movie Massacre” is an “isolated incident”, & that it’s the people using the guns, & not the guns themselves that need to be examined. I also agree with Mitt Romney that the economy needs to be focused on. PEACE!!!
I don’t think more gun control is the answer. May be better enforcment of the current gun laws. I mean think about this what is the point of having guns requirements if i can go to a gun show and by pass all of it in a swipe? I am wondering how much ammo do you have to buy to send off a red flag?
Apparently i can by only so much fertilizer before the FBI is warned. And I have to show ID before i buy certain cold medicines. If i deposit to much money at one time a red flag is sent to the authorities. But when ordering 6k rounds of ammo online and armour on rush doesn’t send a red flag then i am not sure what will. And again why is this fool still alive. I am not saying that we shouldn’t allow someone to be able to buy the ammo. But i am saying there needs to be a system to record ammo at a certain point lets say 4.5k rounds in a month. If someone is lets say a sports shooter then they should have no problem with the extra precautions.
But in general keeping guns out of the hands of irresponsible and unaccountable citizens is just smart policy. It would have been way worst if everyone would have pulled out a gun in the dark and started shooting.
Exactly. I think firearm ownership should be like automobile ownerhip. For legal intent, let’s say your can apply for a firearm permit at 16. That permit allows one to take safety and instructional classes in preparation to obtain license at 18 only if a certain amount of safety and instructional requirement, mandated by your particular state, has been taken. This license will be checked and noted when firearms are purchased, there still will be waiting periods and background checks. I think my proposed improved licensing plan along with background checks covers a broader field while streamlining the process that is currently in place. Aaaaaaand, dear I say, IT WILL CREATE JOBS. Every state will have to establish a department, bureau, or cabinet to oversee this operation and people need to be hired to work. Then you will have private people opening up state regulated training offices, like the 5 hour course for driving, that’s entrepeneurship. So you have licensing, tracking, safety, instruction, job creation, and first and foremost you have responsiblity. Thank You. Mr. Bad Guy for President 2016 Motherbitches.
I vote Mr. Bad guy and his guns..
Actually I don’t own any firearms. I feel the martial arts is fine enough for now, but when I own a home I am planning to have a small cache.
.
Thanks for the nod of approval.
I’d like to vote for you as well but you’ll have to change your stance on creating more government jobs – too many as it is, we need more private sector jobs.
Why is it always the guns fault??? Why is it never the dumb ass psycho who went on a rampage?? If he would have walked in and started bashing in peoples heads with a bat would we be trying to get rid of bats? I dont understand why its always someone or something else s fault. He was a nut, plain and simple. As far as Obama goes look at the UN gun ban he already said if it passes he will make the US follow it. I wonder if people will be so eager to just lay down when those “evil” republicans take back over at some point?….smh
And for that you didnt build that comment BS everyone is still crying about, business owners pay taxes most of the time more than the rest of us so they helped build that road and bridge also. And im sorry if you think no road or bridge would keep the spoiled ass american populus from getting an Ipod you are really crazy. Infrastructure makes life easier but we have survived an grown without roads its really not that big of a deal. Not enough to tell people that their money belongs to the community. He should just force through France like taxes so when it doesnt work we can stop having this stupid ass argument. Good article Juan you my favorite hippie:))
@jimmyt:
I have been a NYC/ Union employee for two years. I have worked in the private sector from sixteen until my current job, except for my time in the Marines. My problem with the private sector is there is too much concern with the bottom line. Employee interests, public interests and safety concerns, amongst other things, get tossed to the side or over looked, once it is deemed ” not in the company’s best interest”, or it effects the bottom line in a negative way. As a union member I can file grievences, there are people, not on the company payroll, to talk to, confidentially, about any concerns that I may have with out being penalized, or victimized afterwards.
.
The fact of the matter is that jobs need to be created everywhere, and anywhere they can be, not just where is fits somebody’s political agenda.
Bad people don’t buy guns or obey the laws..
Good people DO buy guns and obey the laws…
Are changing Gun laws going to help Good people?
YES!! It will help them get shot….Charles…