Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  3 4 5 6 7  Next ›  Last »  (10 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thefreetradejoke
02:07 PM on 07/23/2012
"Still, I cannot endorse their (or any other responsible individual's) rights to carry handguns and automatic weapons when innocent people in America, every second of every day, end up on the wrong end of a bullet."

So, to summarize: When faced with an armed criminal with an illegal gun, it's quite simple. You will meet your maker. I may, or may not, depending on the circumstances. I like my odds, and neither you nor any government will ever be able to change that. Especially not the latter, especially not in these times.

P.S. I am no fan of the NRA.
photo
maninal2
Without knowledge action is useless
02:35 PM on 07/23/2012
When faced with an armed criminal with any gun, it's quite simple. You will meet your maker. You will only provide the criminal with your gun to use on someone else after you fall. Your bravado is of no consequence.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OCerInTN
Hoplophobics worst nightmare.
04:24 PM on 07/23/2012
News reports on a daily basis prove your emotional response untrue.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jessica Holiday
Social Liberal - Fiscal Conservative
04:45 PM on 07/23/2012
Have you taken a look at the actual numbers where guns are used in self defence? A few years ago it was estimated that a gun saves someones life every ~15 minutes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pizzmoe
Bio Hazard!
04:46 PM on 07/23/2012
Doesn't it bother you to live in such abject fear every day? Doesn't say much for American, does it?
09:30 AM on 07/24/2012
I have a gun. I don't live in abject fear. You, on the other hand are afraid of my gun. Good.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rooster Coburn
Less Gov't + More Responsibility = A Better World
02:06 PM on 07/23/2012
Oddly, the author posted using her computer and the Internet rather than by quill pen and post rider. Modern technology is protected under both the First and Second Amendments.
02:05 PM on 07/23/2012
"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." When this was written, the US did not have a standing army and the thought was that during times of national danger, the states would summon the citizens' militia to ward off the threat. Since then, the U.S. has created the most powerful, dominating, professional military the world has ever seen. And the military supplies the weapons that the soldiers use. Hence, the militia is no longer called. Since the militia is no longer called up why do the people still have the right to keep and bear arms? Not that I have anything against folks hunting and target shooting because I don't.
09:37 AM on 07/24/2012
Because the militia is but one reason the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Take for example the following analogy:

"A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the integrity of an effective election, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

Does this mean that if one does not vote, and therefore is not part of the electorate, that they no longer have the right to keep and read books? Of course not. It is but one reason the right is guaranteed, but in no way represents the only reason.

Or maybe this one, a bit closer to the 2nd Amendment:

"A well-fed militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to grow and harvest food, shall not be infringed."

Only the militia can eat? I think not.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:55 PM on 07/23/2012
What if every single adult in that movie theater had been trained in the use of handguns and had been armed and ready to protect both him/herself and the others? How many lives would have been saved?
photo
maninal2
Without knowledge action is useless
02:37 PM on 07/23/2012
Most likely none. Your straw man has too many assumed variables.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:50 PM on 07/23/2012
maninal2

No, it does not. TRAINED, armed persons would have taked him out after the first shots.
photo
JimInHouston
Arma virumque cano...
05:48 PM on 07/23/2012
Again, your assumption is completely without basis. Intervention by armed citizens is extremely effective. Just Google "Jeanne Assam" to get a recent high-profile example.

P.S., you need to reconsider your mini-bio.
02:41 PM on 07/23/2012
They would all be shooting and the death toll would be doubled.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:51 PM on 07/23/2012
myopinion2

No, it would not have been doubled. TRAINED, armed person would have known exactly what to do.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Berettasskeeter
The Lord will provide
08:49 AM on 07/24/2012
Where has this happened in the past, to make you believe it?
Semper fi
01:51 PM on 07/23/2012
First of all...I am a liberal Vietnam combat veteran who loves our President and hates the NRA. Some are calling for more laws to address gun violence. That approach has not reduced drug use or sale in our country, so more laws are ineffective. Making guns illegal will move the sale and distribution into the hands of gangs and organized crime. You know this is true because of the failed War on Drugs. My recommendation is to continue to track the sale of weapons, ammunition, dangerous chemicals, explosive devices, exotic chemicals, etc, and have local law enforcement investigate people who draw attention to themselves. This will not work if all these items are illegal because they will be supplied by organized crime and there will be no records. Please tell me where I am wrong here. I honestly want to address this problem, but not using the same methods that have failed and expecting different results.
09:42 AM on 07/24/2012
First, thank you for your service. The Viet Nam vet has certainly gotten the short shrift and you have my respect. However, you asked where you are wrong. It is found in the Fourth Amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
01:48 PM on 07/23/2012
In NYC you can not buy any rifle/shotgun/handgun without the NYPD's approval. So Bloomberg not only offends peoples by prohibiting their personal choices in refreshing drinks (which their is no Constitutional guarantee) but also continues to allow US Citizens to be denied their Constitutional/Natural Rights of firearm ownership within the NYC borders by allowing the NYPD to continual usurp the rights of every man and women living/visiting/working within NYC.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pizzmoe
Bio Hazard!
04:47 PM on 07/23/2012
Good for him.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alientotech
Twilight Zoning on "Bermuda Grass"
01:09 PM on 07/23/2012
Have you heard of a man called DaVinci?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Allene Stucki
12:57 PM on 07/23/2012
O'Leary erroneously implies that the difference between a muzzle loader firearm and an AK47 is one of principle, when in reality the only difference is of degree, not of principle. The contemporary definition of "the pursuit of happiness" has undoubtedly undergone an expansion in the last 300 yrs, but it's likewise a difference of degree, not of principle.
photo
maninal2
Without knowledge action is useless
02:11 PM on 07/23/2012
While it's easy to outline the degrees of difference between an AK and a muzzle loader how do you justify your claim that the pursuit of happiness is different now? Guns are specific objects who's attributes can be identified. happiness is relative and subjective. It seems you've tried an apples and oranges comparison.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Allene Stucki
03:48 PM on 07/23/2012
Do you know anybody today who would consider himself happy with only the things that made his great-great-great-great grandfather happy?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cliffstep
02:48 PM on 07/23/2012
Perhaps , but I think what is more telling...before the Volstead Act , the only amendment that dealt with a thing was the second.
When a free press became over time radio , television , the internet it was easy to translate the meaning to fit the vehicle. A true distinction sans difference.
The difference between a Kentucky log rifle and an AR-15 is vast. Both in sheer numbers of same available , rate of fire , accuracy , ease of use....
I have no problem with the second amendment in principle, but in the face of amazing technological advances the blanket phrase , keep and bear arms , is obsolete.
12:46 PM on 07/23/2012
I'm going to give y'all two contrasting examples, and i want you to draw your own conclusion. Switzerland compels every 18 yr old to serve 2 yrs military service. they are provided an issued assault rifle. they are taught to use it. after completing service, the country gives that rifle to them and they keep it. they are required to maintain it and keep it ready for service should they be called up for reserve duty. Mexico has a complete firearms ban that has been in effect for many many years. private citizens are banned from owning ANY firearms. Switzerland has the lowest violent crime rate, especially gun violence, of any nation on earth. Mexico has the highest rate of gun violence and related crime of any country on earth. you figure it out.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alientotech
Twilight Zoning on "Bermuda Grass"
01:13 PM on 07/23/2012
Switzerland doesn't engage in the growth, manufacturing and distributing illegal narcotics through "drug cartels", and they do not use their firearms in intimidating and controlling the populace to do so.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
enlightened45
01:26 PM on 07/23/2012
To continue you saga of firearms in Switzerland you conveniently failed to mention that the Swiss are vigorously resisting this requirement. Maybe they are more aware of the "problems" inherent in guns than you are.
12:31 PM on 07/23/2012
You should probably do some research on the topic you're writing about BEFORE writing. Unless you don't care about honesty and credibility.

You can NOT just go buy an AUTOMATIC assault rifle in NYC.. or anywhere else in the USA.
You can only own AUTOMATIC weapons made prior to 1986. In order to own an AUTOMATIC weapon, it requires fingerprinting, approval from your Chief Law Enforcment Officer, a background check by the BATFE, and payment of a one time $200 transfer tax.

No AUTOMATIC weapons were used in the Colorodo shooting.
12:38 PM on 07/23/2012
So you're saying that you think the distinction between automatic and semi-automatic makes a difference to the families of the killed and wounded in Aurora?
01:41 PM on 07/23/2012
No, what he is saying is that the guns used in the shooting were the types of weapons that the Founders knew about and used. Thus, they are unquestionably the type of weapons covered by the Second Amendment. The author's view that Jefferson and the other Founders could not have conceived of more advanced weapons ignores this fact.
01:54 PM on 07/23/2012
So you're saying you're trying to distort what I said and put words in my mouth?

FACT... the article is WRONG on it's "facts".
FACT... an automatic weapon was not used in the Colorodo shooting.

Furthermore, to discuss the article in even more detail, it claims
"I have known a fair amount of hunters in my life, and not one of them has ever used a handgun or an AUTOMATIC weapon to kill a deer"

This is true... you can't hunt with automatic weapons. But many hunters use semi-automatic weapons. So if we're not distorting the facts.... You can hunt with Semi-Automatic weapons. Which is what was used in the Aurora shootings.

So the author makes a fallacious comparison of "automatic" weapons and semi-auto hunting weapons.
But hey... who cares about honesty and accuracy in reporting?
photo
JBS
Part time misanthrope & full time curmudgeon
12:53 PM on 07/23/2012
A trivial and solipsistic distinction totally without merit.
03:32 PM on 07/23/2012
Not really, because phrases such as "automatic" and "assault weapon" are thrown around in discussion without much in the way of consideration for the meaning, if any, of the phrase. And the original point was made in response to the following direct quote from the article: "Think of this: you cannot buy a 32 ounce soda in New York City, but you can buy a automatic assault rifle because the soda is bad for your health." On the one hand, I think Mayor Bloomberg overstepped with the Big Gulp ban (tho that's another discussion altogether) but at no point in the article was it mentioned that there are high hurdles to clear to legally purchase a true automatic weapon.
09:54 AM on 07/24/2012
No, it is not. It is an intentional deception perpetrated by the gun control lobby and perpetuated by the gullible and uninformed.

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons." - Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988
pernthursday
freedom!!! yeah, right!?
11:59 AM on 07/23/2012
With our mountain of debt, the prospect of being detained indefinitely without charge, drones, unemployment and underemployment percentages, rising cost of food........oh, and lets not forget what will probably happen in November if Romney does somehow beat Obama, yeah I think the Founders would have no problem with the citizenry being armed with the best possible self protection, and machinery to fight against our government if the situation was warranted.
11:53 AM on 07/23/2012
By outlawing guns, you will make it so only criminals will own them and we will be defenseless against them. Also, you've missed the point of the second amendment, which may other posters here have mentioned: one of the main reasons for us to own guns is to protect ourselves against the oppressive government, which seems to be getting more and more oppressive each day. Please, this is so biased. No question who you're voting for in November!
photo
maninal2
Without knowledge action is useless
02:14 PM on 07/23/2012
A few points for you davy.
1) Your first point is almost too juvenile to discuss. No one is calling for the elimination of all guns. That's a poor junior high school level straw man argument.
2) To assert that you, your friends or your town loaded down with the best civilian armament money could buy is in any way an effective counter to the US military only reveals how little you know about combat, technology or the fighting capability of our military.

Time to grow up and put away your cowboy fantasies. Put your efforts back into Call-of-Duty video games and leave reality to the adults.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OCerInTN
Hoplophobics worst nightmare.
04:36 PM on 07/23/2012
"To assert that you, your friends or your town loaded down with the best civilian armament money could buy is in any way an effective counter to the US military only reveals how little you know about combat, technology or the fighting capability of our military. "

History is replete with examples of less well armed forces holding out and defeating more well armed forces. Some modern examples being Vietnam, Libya, Afghanistan (v the Soviet Union).
09:23 PM on 07/23/2012
So "maninal2", in looking through all your comments throughout this site, you are probably Sarah O'Leary trying to regain a shrednity, which won't happen. Just because my first point was simple, doesn't make it juvenile.
11:49 AM on 07/23/2012
Thanks Ms. O'Leary, for being one of the few people to state publicly what is obvious to rational people in this country: the second amendment is outdated and obsolete, like many other things in the 225 year old constitution. People all over the world cling to outdated documents and religious books that have little or nothing to do with the 21st century. The same people who use the 2nd amendment as justification for citizens having access to assault weapons also say things like "the non-Christians that died in Aurora are going to hell". The truth is that Americans who want the right to keep arsenals and feel that their "rights" are more important than the lives of the Aurora victims and the thousands of other gun deaths that take place in this country every year are people motivated by fear, hate and violence. Cowards. Violence and senseless murder have always been America's MO. When does it stop?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thefreetradejoke
02:10 PM on 07/23/2012
It will stop, for you, when you are on the wrong end of a criminal's violence or when the government rounds you up. For the rest of us, that is yet to be decided.
04:02 PM on 07/23/2012
Regarding self-defense against criminals, heck, I understand the desire to protect our homes and loved ones. I watch all the cop shows like everyone else. For that matter, I kept a shotgun in my house for about 30 years. Never even fired it. It got old and I threw it away. Strangely, I haven't replaced it. Somehow locking my doors and having an alarm system has kept me feeling safe. But I might get another home security weapon someday. It just seems to me that an AK-15 is not the right tool. Seems like overkill. Might actually hurt my family with it. Probably shouldn't use a grenade on an intruder either. Did you read the article today about the 59 year-old policeman that accidentally killed his own son, thinking he was an intruder. Cause for pause. Regarding the govt. round up, what is the criteria for feeling so oppressed that we mount an armed insurrection? Single-payer health care? Hmm. How about our government's continued support of corporate-driven wars? I might go for that. But somehow I just don't think my local gun-dealers can sell me enough guns to take on the US military. Maybe we should fight for an amendment that lets us have our own tanks, anti-aircraft weapons, drones, and nuclear missiles. So let me know if there's going to be a revolution because of the Iraq war. I'll start saving for the addition to my garage, for my tank.
02:43 PM on 07/23/2012
Guess what. In a referendum, the NRA would win. (I've never held a gun, and probably never will)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:43 AM on 07/23/2012
Criminals don't care about gun-control laws; they never did and never will. Well-intentioned laws will neither protect the public nor defend the public.
02:03 PM on 07/23/2012
if you continue to make it easy for druglords and criminals to receive shipments of guns, of course it will be easy. The thing is, if you equip every American with guns, it won't stop the bigger guns and the more violent from continuing to slaughter innocents. Also, like the writer points out, a nation whose family homes are filled with guns has more and more innocent children explore these weapons and play with them. There are a lot of people who don't even know how to feed their babies let alone lock their guns away. And if they're locked away how will you defend yourself from these criminals you envision coming to your house? Do you think they'll announce "hey I'm here, take time to unlock your guns"
photo
maninal2
Without knowledge action is useless
02:15 PM on 07/23/2012
Really? So we should stop enforcing all laws because criminals won't obey them? Do you ever think before you write?
03:54 PM on 07/23/2012
No. We should stop making and enforcing laws that only serve to burden the law-abiding. Laws against murder don't burden the law-abiding because once the act is committed they're no longer law-abiding. Owning a mechanical device is not inherently dangerous or harmful to anyone. Murder, rape and theft are. We need to have and enforce laws that punish actions and can therefore act as a deterrent to those actions. A gun cannot act on its own. Whether deliberate or negligent, the weapon must be manipulated to injure or kill someone. There are already laws covering that. Yo will never be able to erase all guns from existence and as long as they exist, bad people will seek to possess them despite any laws. Those people are more likely to manipulate the weapon in a manner intended to injure or kill. Why would you want only those people to have them? The police cannot be everywhere... clearly. Your protection is your own responsibility. You can take that seriously or not and allow the rest of us the same. I guarantee your are not at risk from any weapon I carry, unless you first threaten my life. And that goes for everyone else in the world.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
drkazmd65
Mom Taught me - Question Everything - Thanks Mom!
11:29 AM on 07/23/2012
From the 2nd Amendment: You know,... part of our Bill Of Rights:

"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."

So,... regardless of your attempt at arguing against it - we do have a Constitutional Right to possess weapons in this country.

Now the part I don't get about the unrestricted gun acceess, rabid NRA types is this,...

Why do they always ignore the first 4 words of this Amendment?
12:20 PM on 07/23/2012
Re; The 1st 4 words......drkazmd65, "A well regulated militia"...taken in the proper context of the time in which those words were written, means "well-trained in the use of weapons to defend the home, village, city, state, and nation". If you are really a doctor, I would expect you to be a bit more well-read.
We true supporters of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and especially the 2nd Amendment, believe in the whole document, not just bits and pieces that fit our likes. It would behoove you to be honestly objective in your research.
photo
maninal2
Without knowledge action is useless
02:16 PM on 07/23/2012
Copy and paste does not equal research.... you give drkazmd65 too much credit
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
drkazmd65
Mom Taught me - Question Everything - Thanks Mom!
05:57 PM on 07/23/2012
It is a sign of a person who lacks confidence in their own arguements when they begin a critique of somebody else's point by attempting to belittle their opponent with suggestions that their intellegence is not up to snuff Tec.

You have made assumptions about what I think. You are incorrect in at least some of those assumptions. I am of the opinion that any person of sane mind, adequete mental and physical ability, and that has recieved training in the proper use (and inappropriate uses) of firearms should be able to possess as many firearms as they want.

The 'well regulated' and 'militia' comments apply to those using the weapons - not to regulating the weapons themselves IMO.

If somebody wants to own a 50 cal anti-tank rifle, or a Uzi, or some other particular weapong - and they can afford it, and they have recieved the training to use it - they should be able to have that weapon. Period.

But what's wrong with effective criminal background checks, or presenting evidence of training and certification (like a driver's liscence equivilent), and instituting a waiting period in order to get a new weapon?

Don't assume anything about me, or my research, or my background - you don't know me. I come from a family of hunters and fishers (personally - I fish - more relaxing). I was taught how to shoot - although I do not currently own a gun of any kind.
photo
JBS
Part time misanthrope & full time curmudgeon
01:13 PM on 07/23/2012
No Latin scholars. The middle clause is an ablative absolute, modifying the initial clause.

The founding fathers were mostly classically educated and would have recognized the construction.

In modern English (for the non-classically educated, non-Latin-scholars) it would be written:

"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."

Plus you should pay attention to the capitalization ...

"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."

Note that "Militia", "State" and "Arms" are all capitalized, "people" is not. Why is "Arms" capitalized? Because it refers to the military weapons & equipment that go into arming the militia, not just to guns.

The right is a collective right of the "people" as the "State".

Furthermore, you cannot ignore the Constitution itself in reading the Second Amendment.

Article 1, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power ...

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
10:18 AM on 07/24/2012
Okay professor, riddle me this:

The very same founders who drafted the Second Amendment, also wrote the rest of the Bill of Rights.

The word "people" is used in First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. In each of the other four amendments, the term clearly refers to an individual, not a collective right. Are you seriously trying to assert that the founders, whom you describe as the "most classically educated", for some odd reason decided to change the intent of the term only for the Second Amendment?

Why then, the use of two differing terms in the Second Amendment? Why didn't the founders simply say, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Your analysis is fundamentally and logically flawed.