An Argument for Repealing or Clarifying the Second Amendment

FILED TO: Politics


Before I begin, I hasten to underline that the chances of this happening are pretty much zero: there’s simply no way the Second Amendment will be repealed or clarified. But it should be, and I’m open to either possibility. In the debate about guns and control, everything comes back to the validity and applicability of the Second Amendment in our modern context. What’s its purpose? Why is it still necessary? Honestly, while I understand the arguments of the gun culture, I don’t grasp why firearms need to be an intrinsic part of our Constitution and therefore untouchable as a product. The only legitimate reason it exists in 2013 is to provide a disproportionately sacrosanct, nearly biblical cover for the corporate, for-profit gun manufacturing industry. There’s simply no other use for it, especially within a document filled with timeless and fully legitimate human rights.

Put another way: the Second Amendment is no longer a necessary means of self-preservation, as perhaps it might’ve been in a rural, agrarian, semi-hostile, slave-holding, post-colonial America. Absent the hazards of the late 18th Century, it’s strictly become a means of protecting the availability of a retail product. Hardware. A hobby. Guns are a product that we don’t absolutely have to own in order for democracy and liberty to flourish — and, in fact, owning a gun is statistically bad for you, that is unless you earn your living manufacturing and selling them.

Therefore, I have no hesitation declaring that the original intention of the Second Amendment is dead. And, based on research by Thom Hartmann and others, the original intention to provide a means of patrolling slave quarters and putting down potential slave revolts (more on this presently) is as antiquated as the slave economy of nearly 150-plus years ago.

So what are the justifications for the Second Amendment? Specifically, what are the perceived reasons for the Second Amendment often cited by gun enthusiasts? (Incidentally, I assure you that James Madison, George Mason, Patrick Henry and the framers of the Bill of Rights never intended to codify an enthusiasm or a hobby as a human right.)

–The Second Amendment is a necessary bulwark against tyrrany. Nonsense. It’s easily the biggest myth surrounding the Second. As I’ve discussed in previous articles, no gaggle of gun-toting rednecks or even a trained backwoods militia is any match for the American government and its military. If anyone is responsible for the exponential growth of the American government’s military might, it ought to be the far-right goons who wallow in These Colors Don’t Run! jingoism whenever the United States launches a war. I don’t care how badass you think you might be, if the government wants to take you by force, it will. Certainly this isn’t a comforting notion, but if you’re worried about the unprecedented strength of the military-industrial complex, blame a conservative — they’ve been foisting it upon us for decades.

–The Second Amendment protects our ability to defend ourselves against criminals. Statistically speaking, you’re less safe if you have a gun in your house. And numbers don’t lie. Via Mother Jones, an Emory University study concluded, “For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.” So basic math obliterates self-defense as a valid justification. But if self-defense is a matter for the Constitution, then what about burglar alarms? Should ADT get an amendment?

–The Second Amendment is necessary in the absence of law enforcement. This is the NRA’s popular Mad Max post-apocalyptic scenario suggesting that when society breaks down and complete anarchy sweeps the land, we’ll need guns or die. Okay sure. And we might need guns to help President Bill Pullman fight off space aliens, too. This argument redirects back to the previous point, which is that an amendment to protect something that’s statistically more dangerous for the average homeowner in the event of a home invasion (before the cops arrive) is completely ridiculous. And, while we’re here, what kind of shoot-outs are occurring during home invasions that require extended magazines and no time to reload? Going back to Hartmann as well, there was, in fact, a connection between this “absence of law enforcement” notion and the too often unspoken intention of the Second. Patrick Henry and other architects of the Second wanted to preserve the southern institution of state militias which were tasked in part with guarding against slave revolts. Given how slaves often outnumbered slave owners, you can imagine why they were terrified enough to work something into the Bill of Rights, and use southern political muscle as a means of getting what they wanted. In the absence of a federal police force, therefore, a “well-regulated militia” became necessary for preserving the institution of slavery and the lives of the wealthy white landowners who benefited from it.

–The Second Amendment is liberty! Sorry, but protecting the availability of firearms does nothing to foster a healthier democracy or perpetuate the existence of the United States. Nothing. The freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights and the further amendments beyond it generally augment the sustainability of basic human rights and American democracy. Gun ownership, however, does not — at least in the modern context. Yes, we’re a nation founded upon liberty and freedom, but the freedom to buy a specific product, in this case, firearms, no longer has any bearing on those values (if it ever did in the first place). There aren’t amendments pertaining to the freedom to purchase any other product, yet our freedom to buy things is as healthy as ever. In fact, more than anything else we’ve become a consumer nation — and without any constitutional amendments protecting the right to consume. Oh, and by the way, isn’t it ironic that the same political faction that’s the most hell-bent on protecting gun ownership and, in their words, “liberty,” are the same people who are making it more difficult to cast a vote — heaping new layers of government regulations and restrictions upon our most vital human right.

–And finally, the Second Amendment protects hunting. First of all, there’s nothing in the Second about hunting, either for sport or for food or as a tradition. Secondly, why should a “sport” or tradition enjoy its own constitutional amendment? As for food, I actually agree that sustenance is a basic human right and so perhaps hunting for food within sustainable limits and regulations should be protected in some way. However, very few people would take seriously an amendment protecting the retail grocery store industry — yet the gun industry gets a constitutional line-item somehow.

This last item is a solid jumping-off point for what I would consider to be a compromise position regarding the status of the Second Amendment. I’ll concede the gun culture’s Second Amendment argument, even though I disagree with it, if the gun culture were to embrace the notion of ratifying a Universal Healthcare Amendment. Sample text: No citizen, regardless of age or personal health, shall be denied access to quality, affordable medical care. When in the event medical care can not be afforded, the government will provide full financial coverage for that care.

If the Second Amendment is ultimately about self-preservation, either as a means of self-defense or for attaining food, and, thus, ought to be codified in the Constitution because of it, then so should the right to affordable healthcare. In fact, the availability of affordable medical care should go hand-in-hand with the availability of firearms, given how gun injuries account for a decent chunk of medical spending. And if attaining food, another pro-gun argument, is necessary sustaining life, then how is medical care any different?

If we’re going to protect important industries in America, industries that manufacture a product or provide a service, then it’s difficult to imagine an industry that’s more important to our survival than healthcare. Sure, healthcare is mostly a for-profit industry in America. But so is the gun industry. Everyone needs healthcare to survive. Not so with guns. Under the current system, healthcare is expensive and costs are rising out of control. Guns are eminently affordable, and there isn’t an epidemic of bankruptcies due to gun purchases.

Whether there’s a Universal Healthcare amendment or whether the gun people are consistent and decide to support it doesn’t change the fact that the Second Amendment is antiquated and should therefore be repealed or, at the very least, clarified. Again, it’ll never happen, but this hypothetical notion speaks to the ridiculousness of the amendment in our modern context.

By the way, I’m not suggesting that all guns be summarily abolished. Like any product that carries certain dangerous consequences, I’ll concede that guns should still be available for purchase but regulated accordingly, not unlike automobiles, tobacco or liquor. In terms of revising the amendment, I would suggest coupling the notion of constitutionally-protected firearm ownership with military service, assuring proper training and use of firearms. Plus, military service provides a specific and unquestionable need for firearms: combat in the name of national defense.

Otherwise, and to repeat, we’re only talking about a constitutional amendment that protects your right to buy a (dangerous) retail product that ultimately carries no value to the perpetuation of the United States and American-style democracy. For all of these reasons, and in the absence of other amendments protecting other retail products, there’s simply no need for an amendment protecting firearms in modern America. Take away this sacred justification, and we’re left with a product, like any other, that falls squarely into the realm of government regulation for the benefit of public safety, just like everything else — food, transportation, healthcare, housing — even water and electricity. Guns shouldn’t be allowed special latitude, especially based on an obsolete line in the Constitution.


If you love what we do here at the Banter, please consider becoming a Banter Member and supporting independent media! Readers get access to the Magazine and unlimited monthly articles

  • Ken Hollar

    What’s the difference between the 2nd amendment
    (guarantees the right to own and use guns) and the 21st amendment (guarantees
    the right to own and use alcohol)?

    One amendment receives special treatment.

    In 1996 the gun lobby with help from congress succeeded in
    preventing the CDC (Center for Disease Control) from collecting and
    disseminating any statistics about injuries or deaths resulting from gun
    violence. Because of this gun advocates can assert without fear of
    contradiction just about any statistic they want. Often numbers of intruders
    thwarted by gun owners from entering homes are quoted, but there are NO
    statistics available nationwide about how many family members have been
    accidentally or on purpose killed by guns kept in their homes. It’s not just
    that this prevents any rational discussion about the benefits and risks of
    keeping weapons kept at home I believe it contributes directly to particular
    tragedies. For instance, just this week an eleven year old boy took a loaded
    shotgun from the closet in his home and murdered an eight –year – old neighbor
    girl because they had had an argument about puppies. Of course, some will be
    able to argue that this is an “isolated “ or “rare” case without fear of
    contradiction because actual statistics are being actively suppressed. An
    obvious preventive measure most Americans would support, if they weren’t
    prevented from knowing the extent of the problem, would be to increase the
    legal liability of parents who don’t secure firearms.

    Legal liability is something every individual, every
    producer of goods, and every manufacturer of products in America face – EXCEPT
    firearm manufacturers.

    How did this happen?

    The same gun lobby with the help of congress put immunity
    from prosecution for gun manufacturers through.

    Congress now not only won’t pass a federal law requiring
    universal ID and background checks (supported by the vast minority of not only
    all Americans but also the vast majority of gun owners – even NRA gun owners)
    as a requirement for the purchase of a firearm but also won’t bring it up for a

    There is not enough money from gun lobbyists, or in the
    whole world for that matter, to explain the lack of action in congress. Sure,
    gun manufacturers are making enormous profits and can afford to lavishly pay lobbyists
    and contribute almost unlimited amounts to the campaigns of those who support
    their views, but even that is surely not enough to convince elected officials
    to support a minority of Americans against the majority.

    Repetition in advertising works and it is the ONLY way to
    explain how an outright lie (they’ll take ALL your gun) can be used by a
    minority of Americans to defeat sensible gun control measures approved by the
    majority of Americans.

    A popular argument of the gun lobby is the first thing the
    Nazis did was make Jews give up ALL their guns. That’s not true. The first
    thing the Nazis did was stereotype Jews and say they couldn’t be trusted.

    The gun lobby is doing exactly what’s been done before
    stereotyping anyone now who opposes them as untrustworthy and more than
    insinuates that “they” want to take ALL your guns away.

    The minority successfully, so far, thwarting sensible gun
    control approved by the majority can only succeed as long as real information
    is withheld.

    Tobacco manufacturers for years fought governmental
    scientific facts and smokers swore they would NEVER inconvenience themselves
    just to protect others from a danger they believed didn’t exist. Now you no
    longer hear that smokers are “real” men – just that they are men who have chosen
    to shorten their life spans and endanger those around them with second hand

    Alcohol, besides being as much an addiction as tobacco, is
    also guaranteed by our constitution just as are firearms.

    For years individuals were able to wipe out an entire family
    in a DUI vehicular homicide, and then another one, and then another one – all
    without spending time in jail or losing their license. This constitutional
    right to own and use alcohol was used as an excuse until the death toll mounted
    so tragically people more concerned with their own conscience than the
    convenience of others decided to act to save lives rather than do nothing. Now
    when drunken driving deaths increase nobody questions increased sobriety
    checkpoints or argues that they wouldn’t have “prevented” any particular
    innocent family wiped out by a drunk.

    I won’t tell you those who ignore history are destined to
    repeat it. By failing to act on gun control you ARE repeating history by
    allowing bodies to pile up in numbers we can only guess at because a minority
    in congress, influenced by the gun lobby, has decided we don’t need to know.

  • Jay Dee

    What hogwash. I suggest to take ample time to review the many arguments of the founding fathers regarding the 2nd amendment. They negate the necessity to “codify” exactly every single reason we have this right.

    Yes, it was mostly about preserving state sovereignty against any future tyrannical government, and about citizens of Sovereign States having the constitutional right to defend themselves against armed threats “both foreign and domestic.” The concepts behind the Founding Father’s arguments apply as much today then they ever have before! Are you living in a nutshell? And wherever you reside, it is not where we all do.

    The cops rarely arrive in time in a life and death situation. My legal weapon saved my life twice in my long life; thereby in itself is the foremost important statistic, one that many who have done the same will unanimously agree. These never make national media, short of a brief blurb. How convenient.

    Your example stating that organized armed militias of citizens and states would be futile against such a government is not valid. George Washington achieved it against all odds with gorilla style warfare and sophisticated espionage and sabotage. Terrorists are crippling a modern world with their inferior numbers. Plus you make the bold assumption all members of the military of this envisioned unconstitutional government, would align themselves with it. I propose that half to most would not!

    Citing “one” study regarding how keeping arms is more dangerous than not is extremely biased considering there are counter studies showing the opposite. Beyond this there is little study about how living in an area where most people keep weapons in there home, shows a decrease in home invasions and burglaries. I will agree gun keeping and handling safety courses should be a requirement. More than that, (since you jumped off subject in proposition to a quid pro quo agreement between argument of gun control and healthcare) I propose we first require far more stringent driving safety and skill courses for Automobile drivers before they can get a license. Driving our highway being among the highest causes of death in out nation. Though since it has little political agenda use , you might just fluff that off.

    I agree we need background checks to keep “legal arms ” out of the hands of dangerous people, and the re-sale of legal weapons must be monitored, but enlighten all here how, in your sophisticated idealistic model of society, can we possibly keep “illegal” weapons out of the hands of criminals? …Like drug cartel gagsters, millionaires and billionaires who can buy any weapon, anywhere, any time in the world and import them here? Warehouses and more warehouses filled to the ceilings with tons of cocaine, millions of illegal immigrants crossing and re-crossing our boarders weekly, and we are suppose to pretend weapons can not?

    Hunting is well regulated today under our conservation laws. It requires firearms safety courses and a certain knowledge of conservation law, to get a hunting permit. Those wishing to supplement food on their table with meat have a right to. They will argue that the prey they hunt has a far better chance than any animal in a slaughterhouse. Go visit a slaughter house one day. Really… take a tour. Gruesome. Trophy hunting is truly as much disgusting, to most hunters. The 2nd Amendment does not say we have a sovereign right to hunt for food. But that would fall under that part of our constitution that declares we have human rights to sustain our wellbeing and Sovereignty!

    You were most correct when you stated: “Before I begin, I hasten to underline that the chances of this happening are pretty much zero: there’s simply no way the Second Amendment will be repealed or clarified. But it should be, and I’m open to either possibility.” It will not be repealed, and it has been “clarified” through the volumes of “arguments” for it by our Founding Fathers, not by what either proponents or opponents state in articles or Face Book posts. I implore you to research and contemplate these profound arguments, since you are open to either possibility.

  • TheFirstRule

    ” Nonsense. It’s easily the biggest myth surrounding the Second. As I’ve discussed in previous articles, no gaggle of gun-toting rednecks or even a trained backwoods militia is any match for the American government and its military. If anyone is responsible for the exponential growth of the American government’s military might, it ought to be the far-right goons who wallow in These Colors Don’t Run! jingoism whenever the United States launches a war. I don’t care how badass you think you might be, if the government wants to take you by force, it will. Certainly this isn’t a comforting notion, but if you’re worried about the unprecedented strength of the military-industrial complex, blame a conservative — they’ve been foisting it upon us for decades.”

    That’s really, really stupid. A gaggle of gun toting people defeated the most powerful Army on the face of the planet in 1783. More recently, in the Ukraine, another motley assortment of people defeated a much more armed and armored government military. This idea that the second amendment doesn’t mean exactly what it says is a bunch of malarkey.

  • disqus_aVBLb3soQS

    My thoughts on
    gun control. First anyone who says that “guns kill people” is not thinking
    logically. Firearms have been a major part of this country since before we were
    even a country, and without firearms the United States of America would never
    have been founded. After the Revolutionary War the Founding Fathers were trying
    to find a way to build a country in a way so that the government could no
    longer impose its will against the wishes of the people. They built a constitution
    that would protect the rights that every American citizen deserved and the
    right to bear arms was one of those rights. The stats prove that owning guns
    makes our country safer, “Over the past 20 years, gun sales have
    absolutely exploded, but homicides with firearms are down 39% during that
    time and “other crimes with firearms” are down 69%”. People
    against guns and who want more laws banning them say that more guns means more
    gun crime but the facts disprove this. Guns also make it so people can defend
    themselves “Approximately 200,000 women in
    the United States use guns to protect themselves against sexual crime every
    single year.” Without firearms those 200,000 women would not be able to
    defend themselves. Guns in America have been a right since our country was
    founded in 1776 and we need to keep it that way. Guns do not kill people,
    people kill people.

  • jg2010

    Bob Cesca needs to re-learn what a “right” is. He also needs to re-examine his premises on which he bases his argument. He also needs to accept the fact that he is a dainty, latte-sipping civilian little b*tch who wouldnt survive the first hour of a real gun-fight. The 2nd Amendment is meant to restrain the govt. Just like the 1st, the 3rd, and all the rest of the Bill of Rights. The ONLY purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to enable the citizens to own and use firearms. Unquestionably, to keep society armed against the govt. All lawful purposes after that are up to the citizen. It has nothing to do with slaves. The sad part is that all you liberals are so safe and cozy in your bubble of a society, that you cant see the forest thru the trees. Go ask a Marine (which I am) about using guns in battle. Go look what happened in Syria and Libya to see how a bunch of gun-toting citizens took down a govt. I have the right to believe what I want, defend myself from threats, and effect the safety of my property (which isnt just land). Naturally, that extends to the restraints placed upon “the state” from disabling my means to do so. Thus… speech, freedom to bear arms, freedom to privacy, and the gov’t protecting those rights. Go do some f*cking research about what a right is and what the proper role of govt is. Go look up how our country was founded, and why “freedom” is a buzzword on July 4th. Snarky, liberal pansy

  • del061

    Are you kidding? How many criminals do you know that obey laws? The “Gun Free Zones” for example, how many shootings have there been in those zones where law abiding citizens are not allowed to bring their guns (wait, I meant to say all Americans, including criminals) because it is a gun free zone. The responsibility for each person’s safety is now transferred from the individual to that of whoever posted the sign. There was a woman who had a CCW permit attending college who obeyed the sign “Gun Free Zone” and was attacked within some 50 feet of the Campus police Station. The attacker, a criminal who didn’t obey the sign. He brought a gun into the gun free zone. He used that gun to brutally rape the female student and later, abducted another female student who was later found dead. The college had a responsibility to protect everyone who entered campus grounds that were gun free zones. They failed. So, should Americans give up their right to self defense? This author, he doesn’t seem to believe in the second amendment. He seems to be afraid of guns.

    I don’t believe the Second Amendment doesn’t force people who are afraid of guns to have them. People should make their own decision. If you want a gun and can legally purchase and or possess one, you have that right. To try and suggest it be tied with military service is crazy. Should we ban cars because people use them to commit crimes? Should we ban knives because people hurt other people with them? Just look at the most recent shooting. 3 killed by knife! 3 killed by gun and several injured by a car. The one thing they all have in common? They are all tools. Yet, the attack is on guns and the NRA as if they acted alone. The shooter and ONLY the shooter is responsible for his actions. You don’t blame tools for being used in crimes. You blame the criminal!

  • Brian

    The Author of this article is a complete moron.

  • Daniel Palos

    Only the People who are a well regulated Militia are necessary to the security of a free State, and may not be Inringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

    Our Founding Fathers got it right, the first time.

    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

  • Crusoe

    So…. I admit I didn’t finish your ahem, article. I reached the part where you said gun toting rednecks would not be a match for the military, how then, do you explain a third world country with groups of teenage boys thwarting the U.S. and Russian military! ; Afghanistan. You can’t “grasp” the need because your background and your predisposition to it require you to bury your head in the sand or up something.. to support your view

    • Brian

      Not to mention where do you think our Military is from? I got news for you they didn’t grow up on Park avenue in New York City. Those gun toting rednecks ARE the military.

      • LeShan Jones

        I know where the military is from. It’s made up of citizens from every corner of our nation and from all walks of life. It would be a mistake to assume it was made up of ONLY rednecks.
        And to the other guy, you might want to look a little more closely at what transpired in Afghanistan before you make such broad assumptions, what makes you think you’d get a majority of the population to follow you into sedition and treason anyway?

  • Libtardharvestor

    There is not 1 true, proven, peer reviewed fact in this senceless diatribe. Check “Warren v. District of Columbia” and the appeals. The Police have NO DUTY TO PROTECT! NOT 1 OF HIS FACTS IS SUPPORTABLE BY FACTS OR EVIDENCE! But no libtard bothers to research facts. Facts always work against them. MANY will write calling me names, assualting my worth, an on and on, but none will present any factual backup. They will also not bother to examine fully the information I will give them or consult the books and articles (all peer reviewed, I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that liberals know what peer review is and the requirements and conditions that are required for it to be dependable) It’s just easier to follow some fool instead of actually EDUCATING your self about the truth. Before you blowhards comment, I know the proof exists because I looked for it, examined it, and tested it where that was possible. Have you done that with YOUR “information”?

  • mike slaney

    It never ceases to amaze me of the Liberal intellect, oxymoron. Guns, alcohol, food, sugar and you add to the list are amoral and don’t act by themselves but are acted upon. Such as Guns don’t kill people, but people kill people. It is sad that people with common sense don’t conclude that Liberals need to be outlawed due to the damage they do as well as their destructive thinking on society as a whole. By some, society is ravagedly manipulated and eaten by wolves until fully satiated until the next feeding frenzy. It is a never end cycle of stupidity and we wonder why the sheep die. Until men and women think critically we are doomed to repeat the past, as Americans we need to cease from listening and heeding to these slick tongue social, political, and judicial empty headed charlatans, our future depends on it.

  • TPM4





  • JackFrancis

    Are you trying to inject logic into this site? You are preaching the laws of the world to people who want all laws to be only those they like. These guys are nuts. And you are nuts if you believe that any amount of facts or logic will change their outlook even a tiny bit. All you can do is amuse yourself with the total lunacy that this site contains.

  • Jim Hoover

    I guess the writer of this article has been asleep since the nineteen seventies about no redneck or well trained backwoods militia is a match to the U. S. military. You know I went to a little country in southeast Asia, Called Vietnam. From 1963 to 1973, Peasents fought and outlasted his invulnerable U. S. military so much the American people finally said enough. He seems to have been asleep in Somalia, remember Blackhawk Down. Those were just backwoods warlords again defeat the most powerful country in the world. You want more let’s look at Afghanistan, This backwoods country defeated the number one and two most powerful countries in the world; the USA and the USSR, and if you don’t think that we haven’t lost it then you haven’t been paying attention to the news. And finally let us talk about Iraq we defeated it’s military but lost the country because of civilians. Hell, I could defeat most of the police officers in my town, and I’m old. Can you imagine if I had my old comrades in arms with me we could control our state and that is with just eight people. While I was in Europe after I came back from a war zone, we played war games with our own army, we played the bad guys, we won most of the time. So this guy who says nobody can best the U. S. Military is just talking out of his ass.

    • LeShan Jones

      You seem to think the military is the same as it was back in the 60s, sorry but that’s not the case. You don’t seem to know anything about modern tactics used by our police forces and the military, you and a bunch of your hick buddies would ONLY be able to accomplish another Ruby Ridge or Waco ending in your own death.

      • Brian

        The people in the military are those Gun toting Red necks hes speaking of. You think there gonna turn on their own? I seriously doubt a Park avenue New Yorker is gonna get enough of the “country boys” to turn on their own people.

        • LeShan Jones

          Trust me, there is nowhere near that many toothless rednecks in the army ranks, most of them wouldn’t be able to handle the structured nature of the military.
          It’s more fun for them to play soldier out in the woods where they all can pretend they’re Rambo rather than have to deal with a chain of command curtailing their killer instinct.

        • JJ

          Brian, I hate to tell you, I am not a redneck and I have spent 15 years in the military. When I enlisted, I swore to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. So I am sorry to say, I don’t care who you are, I will support the Constitution.
          And let me say to all you retards on here. . . The 2nd Amendment does not need to be repealed. Gun owners need to take responsibility of their own weapons. Criminals in the possession of a weapon or in the commission of a crime need to be dealt with severely. Stop blaming guns. Stand up and quit being bitches and demand those who kill or are careless be held accountable. We as Americans, need to quit babying everyone and quit making excuses for our own misfortunes. And by the way, we have a responsibility to enforce the laws just as the police do. Stop hiding behind the “I don’t want to get involved” bull crap and stand up for your rights. If more people did this there would be less crime.

  • NotaTeaPartyNut

    The repeal needs to be done soon

    • Jim Hoover

      like I said good luck on that. You get thirty-two states to ratify it. ROFLMFAO. Ain’t going to happen as long as we have more rural states than Populated states

  • Jon Carpenter

    I disagree on this point, “… yet our freedom to buy things is as healthy as ever.”
    Taxes on cigarettes and soda bans…? I don’t agree with smoking cigarettes or any soda over 12-16oz but freedom to buy them is being limited. (that is a whole other topic and possibly messier)

    I do agree on this though “Oh, and by the way, isn’t it ironic that the same political faction that’s the mosthell-bent on protecting gun ownership and, in their words, “liberty,” are the same people who are making it more difficult to cast a vote.”

    It is a total shame for people to stand for one liberty and not for the one that can give the most power back to where it should ultimately be.

    I almost think you should have led with this statement but am glad you ended with it at least, “I would suggest coupling the notion of constitutionally-protected
    firearm ownership with military service, assuring proper training and
    use of firearms.”

    I love sport shooting and hunting but all of this comes after training and safe use and instruction from friends, family and certified personal. Guns are dangerous and having the fear of them and knowledge of how to use them correctly is a big deal. The first thing they tell you in driver’s ed is that your vehicle can kill people. If you buy a gun because you want one and don’t go through training it is likely to hurt someone. The gun culture is squarely in place. Now it needs to change itself or it is going to go extinct or cut down to flint lock proportions if it doesn’t start supporting education and training programs. The hardest hurdle to get over for getting any of this is the generational guns that get handed down through the years. Nobody wants to give up an heirloom, or start charging widows with felonies for keeping their husbands guns and not getting a background check. What do we do with those? Eh….

    • John Micah Cadornigara

      “if it doesn’t start supporting education and training programs”

      There are plenty of programs that do this already. The NRA has multiple such programs. This is in addition to numerous other non-NRA programs.

    • Jim Hoover

      Gee, Jon Carpenter, how come you can’t see the irony in your own statement where you want to preserve the liberty to vote but want to decrease the liberty of someone wanting to own a firearm

  • Joe Norsworthy

    I do not agree with all of your conclusions, but I do commend you for tackling the core issue: the Constitutional right as it was originally intended and as it remains.

    I won’t attempt to sway you on the issues about which we disagree. I’d simply like to remind any reader of the utmost importance regarding our rights, which is that we must respect and regard all of our rights as precious. We cannot allow politicians to simply dismiss ANY right because it might garner them a few votes in a primary. If you believe in liberty and freedom, then you must live by the 2nd Amendment (and all other express constitutional provisions)! If enough people in society wish to give up that right, they must fight for its proper revocation, as Mr. Cesca is doing here, rather than its circumvention, which Obama is doing today.

    Remember, the next guaranteed right you watch a politician attempt to circumvent might be one you wish to keep.

    Good job, Mr Cesca!

    • LeShan Jones

      I disagree that President Obama is doing that at all. The position that many on the right take is that you should not be allowed to regulate firearms at all,
      they immediately assume that any regulation is aimed at confiscation or an outright ban prior to a full dictatorial insurrection. As such they sabotage the conversation before it even gets started.

      It is imperative that we begin to look at real ways to curtail the prevalence of firearms in our country, but one side of the argument is dominated by people who are convinced that the other side wants to enslave them.

      The current Supreme Court has decided to ignore previous courts stand as pertains to the second amendment and instead go with the NRA’s definition. They however did not close the door to regulation, and it’s up to us to work within that constraint to find a solution.

      • Joe Norsworthy

        President Obama requested that the federal government place restrictions on both gun ownership and on the ability of individuals to use their weapons in a lawful manner. The constitutional issue is whether the federal government has that authority in addition to whether such restrictions circumvent the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment. No one is arguing that there should be no firearms regulation at all, as you tried to characterize the situation. Your premise is fundamentally flawed.

        In US v Miller 1939, the Supreme Court determined that a modified weapon such as a sawed-off shotgun, commonly used by mob members to commit crimes, was not protected as an “arm” because it didn’t have a military purpose and that its only purpose was to commit a crime. Note that shotguns were not included in this ruling — this case was limited to a very specific modification that was construed to be unnecessary to protect our intended rights under the 2nd Amendment.

        Now, move to 2008, the next time the US Supreme Court addressed the 2nd Amendment. In DC v Heller, the court affirmed a lower court decision that federal territories such as DC could not limit a citizen’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, which includes self-defense. Notice the court did not “ignore” a previous court decision in reinforcing what’s actually written in the Constitution.

        In 2010, the US Supreme Court addressed the 2nd Amendment again. This time, the court correctly ruled that this constitutional right is fundamental to the “concept of ordered liberty” and therefore also applies to state and local governments.

        If we have a fundamental right to these weapons for lawful purpose, the government cannot then try to circumvent the rights by placing other restrictions on lawful use. For example, what if the government tried to put a $1000 tax per bullet on all ammo? This would be as unconstitutional as banning the gun itself.

        Is it really a good idea to limit magazine size to 10 bullets? Well, what is the purpose for this limitation? Most people who actually own and use guns for lawful purposes, including self-defense, say no. Such a limit would not have stopped any of the massacres being attached to this proposal. Why then does Obama really want to include this in his proposals? Only he knows, obviously, but don’t blame the NRA or anyone else for exercising healthy skepticism when a politician makes any proposal limiting our rights. It is what Obama is trying to do, even in the wake of our Constitutional guarantees.

        • LeShan Jones

          “President Obama requested that the federal government place restrictions on both gun ownership and on the ability of individuals to use their weapons in a lawful manner.”

          I’ve never heard the President say any such thing, are you certain he said that exact thing?

          The NRA doesn’t come right out and say they don’t want any regulations, we get that from their every action; any gun control that is proposed is opposed by them, and while they decry existing laws not being enforced, they go out of their way to strip the organization tasked with enforcement (ATF) of their ability to do so.

          The Miller decision was the go-to decision whenever any second amendment cases came up to the high court, it wasn’t until our current court made the two decisions you are referencing that the NRA got their definition of the second amendment out of the Supreme Court.

          The problem as I pointed out is that some think that this right cannot be regulated at all; they take the position that any regulation is tantamount to confiscation or banning. They think a gun registry will be used to track them down so that their weapons can be confiscated, we hear this from the NRA all the time.

          I wouldn’t blame healthy skepticism if that were what the NRA was dealing in, it’s not.
          Also, the thing about magazine size comes from the fact that in the last few mass shootings, the time it took for the perpetrator to switch magazines allowed people the time they need to escape or take the shooter down.

          • Jim Hoover

            I am sorry but the government did so well trying to track weapons going to the mexican drug cartels. Tell you what, Leshan, I’ll take two magazines I’ll load one with one round and a full one I’ll put the one round one in a weapon and fire it you can hide where ever you want when you hear that one shot you can jump up and try to stop me, I bet that by the time you raise up I’ll be reloaded and the muzzle will be pointed at you ready to fire before you take one step and I’m 62 years old can you imagine a younger man doing it faster

          • LeShan Jones

            More far-right propaganda no thanks.
            You seem to think that in a firefight I would play by your silly rules, I don’t see what point you think you are proving here other than the fact that you really think you can defeat a squad of soldiers. I think you’d be sniper bait.

          • TPM4

            we need to stop replying to jack’s drivel and ignore him he will eventually shut up because we are all Ignoring his bulls-it he is an Obama man all the way and could care less what happens to this country and the constitution he is what is known as a traitor comunist

          • Fortythreetoeight Cox

            All jack is doing is giving rational arguments for gun control, which is what the article is about , and a bunch of ya’all r calling him a communist traitor and assuming that he is this giant liberal. I havent heard him make one liberal statement out side of his arguments for gun control. On the contrary you neo cons r the ones who r resorting to name calling and turnimg this into a discussion about the merits of conservatism bs the merits of liberalism. What with the supposed “ex law enforcement” guy’s (who apparently has top secret sources) comparison of chicago and oklahoma policy where he relates the wellfare state to gun violence when jack hasnt said ne thing about wellfare. What was his point with all of that? Hiw do u guys figure that a belief in rational gun control automatically labels a person as someone who wants to give a bj to obama? I support sweeping reforms on gun policy in this country but I am not a fan of obama. I dont like that he cut active duty and retired servicemen’s benifits, I dont like the drone strike policy, I dont like that he allowed his healthcare policy to be streamlined by conservative bussiness interst and thrned into lil more then a big payoff for insurance companies, I dont like that he has not lived up to his promise to close Guantanamo, but I more or less agreed whole heartedly with the article up top. And jack hasnt made ne outrageous comments deserving of the name calling he is recieving from u neo cons. He is keeping his comments relating to the topic at hand and when he makes a logical argument that u cant respond logically to u resort to accusing him of being a communist traitor.

          • TPM4

            First you need to learn how to spell, secondly Jack has no brain he shoots off his mouth with no knowledge or redearch about things he knows nothing about he is a weekend worrior not a veteran and he insults the very soul of what America is about he is not one of “we the people” that is for sure he is a jackass with no brain and only idiots listen and praise what he spews because they are just as stupid he is an American hater and when it comes to gun violence he knows nothing! he is an idiot all these reforms do is take away legit people’s rights. gun control starts with getting the nuts away from their guns. interesting statistic is that all these mass murders come from democratic backgrounds believe it or not! all of these mass murders were on medication and when they committed these murders most were off their meds gee ya think???
            newtown shooter did not in fact use a semi automatic weapon in the shooting he used 3 hand guns and a shotgun, yet all the politicians blamed the shooting on semi auto weapons instead of telling the truth so they could try to get them banned it had nothing to do with gun control it was control of us they wanted and people are too stupid to see it. that is because they blindly believe everything the news media says and the news media lies all the time telling you what they want you to hear and believe. do yourself a favor when you hear a story do some research on it on the internet and any other way and don’t be shocked when you find out that what the mainstream media told you was a ball faced lie and the more people like you and Jack believe this crap the deeper this country goes into the crap hole and pretty soon we will never get out and our country will be lost forever, and all the work our forefathers did to make us free will be gone forever and we will no longer be free! and you and jack will be the first to cry about it and you are the ones letting it happen

          • JackFrancis

            That means that you need to be prevented from having one to start with. Then you can’t hurt anybody.

        • JackFrancis

          Unfortunately, we now have a constitutional right to acquire guns for evil purposes. As a result,10,000 Americans are killed by guns each year. The NRA has no answer for that. They are ok with that. What evil people

        • TPM4

          the government has many gun regulations in place now that if they applied them they would work, problem is that government wants the problems so they can make things look bad about guns and anyone that thinks Obama is mr wonderful has their head in the sand he wants them worse and misinformation out there so people like jack Francis read it and believe it and spew his B.S. for him
          making jack a very dangerous man writing lies the leaders of this country and their real intent to gain 100% control over us and we like as-holes, are letting it happen!
          jack will say the government had nothing to do with Fast & Furious but we know different and then they lie and jack believed the lies, i’ll bet he thinks bengazzi is a person too!

      • Jim Hoover

        again you seem to turn a blind eye on your statements I know the NRA does not have a problem with regulation fully automatic weapons, not allowing felons and mental patients having access to firearms. If you trust the government then you can believe them. Myself, they have lied to me too often, WMD’s, The Gulf of Tonkin, out of their own mouths the Brady Campaign has said that their final goal is to remove all guns, Gee, should I believe them now that they say they don’t want to take guns away. I don’t think I will

        • LeShan Jones

          The NRA doesn’t want ANY gun control at all, they have even made it easier for felons to purchase weapons.
          The Brady campaign is looking for better regulation of deadly weapons not outright confiscation, that is NRA propaganda and always has been.
          Tell me again about who lies to you and whom you trust?

          • JackFrancis

            You have been fed NRA/FOX lies. The US is near the top of the list of gun homicides in the world per 100,000 population. Check out the actual statistics;


            Of the top seventy countries, the US at 3.6 firearm homicides per 100,000 people is tenth highest. Eight of the nine higher are South/Central American. The other is Swaziland. NONE of the comparable civilized countries are even close. If you continue to get your distorted info from NRA or FOX or other equally unreliable source, you will continue to have them make a fool of you.

            Note that the United Kingdom, the most comparable country with some of the strongest gun controls, is 63rd!! Don’t believe that NRA stuff just because you want to.

          • TPM4

            I don’t get my info there some of it comes from the FBI I suppose you think they are liars also and with all of the crap you spew from your mouth I certainly would admit I was a retired lt. col.
            UK has a hig rate of murders amd other crimes with knives because of the ban on guns now they are considering a ban on kitchen carving knives.
            but the fact still remains that in areas and states that have open or concealed carry the crime rates have shown a definite drop I am not only ex military, but ex law enforcement also and I am privy to information you don’t have nor have access to.
            so who is the fool now.
            I will fight for this great country obviously you will not. so excuse me if I do not show much respect for you at all. if the time comes will you fight for this country or be one of the military that will shoot and kill American citizens because the asshole traitor in the white house says so?? i’ll bet you will be a shooter

          • JackFrancis

            That is false statistics. The wide open availability means that evil people can get guns from other areas. The local laws are ineffective because of the great loopholes in places like Virginia. It has to be a national ban to be effective. Urban areas are traditionally higher crime areas. These have tried to slow it down with these laws, but the availability from other locations makes them ineffective.

            You do admit that your original statement about killings is wrong. Even including all types of homicides, the US is 4.7 per 100,000 population and that is 4 times as high as the United Kingdom rate of only 1.2.


            That is because it is so much easier to kill people in the US. Note that even with the low 1.2 rate, the UK is still trying to reduce its murder rate as you described. With our outrageous rate of 4.7 the NRA is preventing us from doing anything about it. They are ok with gun murders. Terribly evil people.

            The “Statistics” quoted by NRA and FOX, et al generally compare us with third world countries. Of course they are worse even with nominal gun laws. They hate to compare gun murders with Canada, UK, France Germany, Scandinavian countries, etc. because it doesn’t support their silly arguments.

            I would also fight for our great country, and it would be a much greater country with repeal of the second amendment and replace with a balanced budget amendment.

          • TPM4

            the thing that your feeble mind does not register is that the average Americans who carries a weapon have saved more lives and also cops lives in gun situations the criminals and crazies will always have guns no matter how many laws there are, and the legitimate gun owner is the one who will be punished, because people like you are blind to the reality that normal people do not go out and shoot people, but the crazies, deranged and criminal element don’t care and will do it no matter what.
            so no matter what drivel comes out of your mouth first you need to think rationally and intelligently then you will be capable of an informed decision and THAT’S A FACT JACK
            engage brain before starting mouth, like I said you scare me because if there ever should be a revoloution where we fight to get our country back you would be the one of the ones shooting us because of your retarded thinking, nothing you say has any intelligent value which is obvious because no matter how many people tell you you are an as-hole it never seems to stick it is like you are an Obama programed robot.

          • JackFrancis

            Wrong in the first sentence. Carrying guns haven’t saved more than a handful. If I wanted to shoot you, you would be dead before you could get your gun out. I would already have mine out and ready to fire. That is what happens. Do you think Trayvon Martin would be alive if he had a gun? Not a chance against OJ Zimmerman. If you tried to take our country away from us by force, yes I would be shooting at you. I rated “expert” with the M1911, the M14, and the M16.
            I love the robot comment coming from an NRA/FOX robot. You just parrot what they tell you to say. The first sentence above proves that you NEVER check the “facts” that they pretend are true.

          • TPM4

            well here we go again more misinformation spewing from your mouth yet again you are such an ignorant person who watches the tv news and believes everything they say. if you ever want to know the truth about the trayvon case at least be smart enough to research it before opening your mouth and spewing sh-t instead of intelligence. I did my research thru police channels that were involved and know the truth you as usual watched tv and drew a conclusion based on what the news media wanted you to believe and then made an ass of yourself in writhing about it. people like you will be the first to cry fowl when the crap hits the fan and you will deserve what you get.
            THATS A FACT JACK

          • JackFrancis

            Don’t give me that research crap. You didn’t check your facts and spewed them because you WANT to believe them even though they are crap.

          • TPM4

            you are just a flaming as-hole who has a mind so narrow it fixates on the most mundane things and you are incapable of any logical thinking you are mort. you would not know research if it jumped up and bit you
            you are as ignorant as they come don’t worry I am not going to waste my valuable time on an idiot as big as you.
            one of the things I learned as a police officer is never argue with a drunk and now I guess I can extend that analogy to flaming as-holes and ignorant idiots as well as the shoe fits you very well. hane a great ignorant life jack in la– la land!

          • JackFrancis

            I included the link showing the source of my information. You have ranted and raved and NEVER showed where you got that ridiculous information. I think you made it up and can’t admit it.

          • Libtardharvestor

            Jack, TPM4 is obviously NOT a liberal! Liberals do that, or they go to a site that they can MAKE say whatever they need like, oh…maybe WIK-A-PEDIA. where you have the opportunity to alter the entries no matter how dense you may be. Your “facts” are specious and just plain wrong and made up! I would be happy to supply you with any stastics you need to see. I’m sure TPM4 could use the break!

          • Libtardharvestor

            Jack you’re a bigoted idiot that I would LOVE to debate on any 2nd Amendment topic you wish! Face to Face! You have no knowledge just an angry bias that makes you appear childish!

          • JackFrancis

            There are about 10,000 documented gun deaths each year in the US. If you can document more cases than that where a person who carried a weapon saved a life, I will definitely apologize. In fact, if you can document 1 in a thousand (ten cases) where carrying a weapon saved a life (other that law enforcement people) I would be SHOCKED. These are statements trotted out by NRA types who want them to be true, so they say them without ANY factual support. You just don’t think rationally or intelligently about the crap that the NRA/FOX people put out. You swallow it and parrot it because you WANT to believe it.

          • TPM4

            well jack here is a good one for you since you are a demoncrat, read this then argue with snopes then be smart enough to shut the hell up aboit things you do not know about fool
            that’s a fact jack!!!

          • Libtardharvestor

            I don’t know where you get your “facts” from. According to the FBI crime stastics for 2001 (the most current available) England enjoys a violent crime ratio of 2,034 per 100,000 (100K) and is the highest in the European Union. America posts 466 per 100k and isn’t even in the top 10 worldwide. England experiences a total of 10,872 violent crimes per 100k while we charge 3,959 per 100k and are 28th in the world for gun murders. And by the way, the FBI doesn’t allow computer geeks to play with their information like Wiki does. They are the facts. You could really help yourself to appear more well informed if you listed to TPM4 instead of wik-a-pedia.

          • JackFrancis

            That is an old NRA trick. We started out talking about guns and gun deaths and gun crimes. Since the facts don’t support you, you change the discussion to fistfights. By the way, if you don’t count the third world countries, we are fourth in gun deaths. Same technique. Compare us to Liberia, Somalia and other third world countries and we look like our gun mania is ok. Just fact twisting to make your case isn’t very intellectual.

          • Libtardharvestor

            Been gone so this is late. Interesting you should mention fact twisting. You do exactly that in your cherrypicking to make your already doctored information more horrid. The people who compile these facts ( the FBI, GAO, CDC, etc.) use ALL of them in the studies and they all back me in gun use and gun abuse statistics, period. your liberal fact book lunacy does not represent anything close to fact. I can also fall back on the state by state facts on an ongoing basis as proof that guns in the hands of honest citizens is a huge deterent to violent crime and even spills over into smaller criminal endeavors. Each state (with the possible exception of my own Wisconsin and Illinois due to the time lapse of data collection, corelation, and dissemination. Generally between 1 and 3 years) has running records and information regarding crime rates by crime (and crossreferences to other pertinant facts special to each individual state) year by year. All show decline in accordance with and continued decline in conjunction with adoption of and continued enforcement of “shall issue” concealed carry permits. I have the added information gleaned from at least 4 peer reviewed volumes by such people as Economist John R. Lott Jr., Florida State Criminologist Gary Kleck, Stephan P. Halbrook of Oakland, CA., and Researcher Kathy Jackson. I would add Emily Miller and Rob Olive as well. I must add that ALL aforementioned information has been peer reviewed and approved. Not peer reviewed but historically apt is Federalist Paper 46 by James Madison. It clearly and confidently presents the founding colonies ideas, intents, and requirements regarding the Second Amendment and it’s purpose and unyielding necessity.
            As far as your other comments and “facts” each one of them is not worth the time it takes to read them if I were paid a minimum wage. They had to come from some liberal “how to” book since the facts given are false by our own governments studies and each states compilation as well. The only thing that stops a bad man with a gun, is a good man with a gun. As the Police have insufficient time, overextended duties, enumerable traffic and social blockades, and no legal duty to protect, that good man (or woman) with a gun better be sitting near you when trouble starts.
            by the way, those 3rd world countries you dismiss so lightly are still people being killed. And they are, in those and other 3rd world instances, being killed by state owned and/or sponsored arms. Ah, if only their citizenry were armed!

          • JackFrancis

            What you quoted are arguments by those authors, not facts. You haven’t shown me any crime statistics from any reliable source. you just say they exist. If you want to compare crime rates in the US with the third world, you are grasping. It remains a fact that in the civilized world, gun control results in fewer murders. PERIOD. Undisputed. You can divert the discussion to third world, but I don’t accept it as a valid comparison, just as you don’t accept a comparison to Europe.

          • Libtardharvestor

            You’re an idiot Jack and the world is the worse because of ignorance such as yours. You lie about facts and ignore the ones that don’t fit your claim. I am sick to death of the willful ignorance you libtards possess. Your whole claim is false and ignorant! You cherrypick things that you think will help you but even THOSE are fabricated or just plain wrong. NOWHERE, EVER, HAS A COUNTRY THAT BANNED ITS CITIZENRY FROM POSSESSING GUNS HAS THERE EVER BEEN A REDUCTION IN DEATHS! EVERY ONE OF THEM BECAME A DICTATORIAL HELL. PERIOD. Your “UNDISPUTED” CRAP IS DISPUTED EVEN BY MOST LIBERALS! You are wrong on every single point you make. I will debate you publically on any of this anytime. I’M NOT KIDDING! You are a fool and I WANT to demonstrate your ignorance in public. I,ve laid out the facts and where to find them all along this post thread. Anyone wishing to may check them at will.
            Jack, it scares me that you have a right to breed because we do not need more willfully ignorant voters around. They don’t HAVE to be ignorant! Just a small amount of fact checking ast the sources will teach them. BUT, politics is so much more important than peoples lives, eh, Jack!?
            By the way, your “research” methodology of ignoring those millions of people in third world countries is refuted by nearly every researcher on the planet as bad science!

          • JackFrancis

            The United Kingdom has the most effective gun control in the world. Compare their gun homicides with ours and tell me you aren’t full of it. Your ignorance of these facts is awesome. Gun homicides per 100,000 in US is 3.60, ninety times as high as the United Kingdom. Close behind in gun control is Australia and it has only 1.3 gun homicides per 100,000 people. Even Canada has much stronger gun control than the US. Its rate is 0.5 killings per 100,000 population. The European Union has begun strong gun control. Its rate averages around 0.25. You just have LOWEST controls in the civilized world and the HIGHEST gun homicide rate (BY FAR!!!). It is you that is cherry picking. The NRA wants to compare us only to countries that are totally unlike us with no effective gun control like Liberia, Uganda, etc. They have gun control laws, but no enforcement so it is the same as having none, but he NRA will only talk about them. LIARS ALL. No valid researcher doubts the above. Only the NRA researchers, who are bought and paid for.

          • Libtardharvestor

            I changed nothing! I quoted facts generated by OUR government on gun deaths which is what YOU say is caused by to many guns. I have brought the truth to the issue but I am still on the gun issue!

          • JackFrancis

            No, you quoted yourself and didn’t attribute it to any source, just your anonymous guess. Show me your source.

          • Libtardharvestor

            I’m all done with your illogical ignorance. You completely skip the words that miss your goal. I’ve given you the Government sources to check. If you are incapable of doing so, that’s too bad, but it’s not my problem. I am done with your ignorance. You are wrong on EVERY statement and I am tired of wasting my time with you. Spew all the fertilizer you want. I have a life to live and other, less pedanticly foolish libtards to educate. You will never face me in debate over this because you can’t support a single thing in an examination atmosphere. You just waste my time. I am sorry you are that lonely. Good bye Jack! Enjoy your foolishness.

          • JackFrancis

            Your total lack of facts, just assertions and wild statements is what I was talking about. You haven’t given me ONE source. You just claim that some unnamed source is your source. But you haven’t given me ONE SOURCE or ONE link to ANY facts. You are just making this stuff up and when called on it you just get defensive and decide to run away.

          • JackFrancis

            Note also that violent crime with guns is more lethal than other violent crimes. The US has 5.9 homicides per 100,000 people; England/Wales has 1.6 because their violent crimes don’t involve guns; that is because they care about their citizens and have strong gun laws.

          • JackFrancis

            Just no way you can twist it enough to say that citizens in the US are safer because of lax gun laws or that UK people are less safe because of strong gun laws. Try as you might, it just doesn’t work.

          • Fortythreetoeight Cox

            Those r statistics for violent crimes not gun related deaths. Technicaly spitting on someone is an assault charge so that statistic has absolutly no value in this discussion

          • Libtardharvestor

            The statistics are valid. We compare the crime rates of America and countries that have severely restricted citizen ownership of guns. For your strict identification of gun deaths I would add that America is the 4th highest nation in gun deaths in the world. If we remove Chicago, New York, Las angelas

          • JackFrancis

            OH YES I WILL. If you try to take America away from Americans, WE WILL FIGHT YOU. I have met many ex law enforcement and none are as ignorant as you.

          • TPM4

            well jack if you want ignorant and stupid look in the mirror
            I will no longer reply to your stupidity I have not seen any of the people replying to you agreeing with you in any way, so I am no longer willing to waste my valuable time arguing with your ignorance it is like arguing with a drunk. see ya have a great ignorant life!

          • Libtardharvestor

            Find the World Court stats, or our own FBI facts. Even World Book Encyclopedia is more acuratre than a site that allows anyone with enough fingers to type can make any entry say whatever helps them!

        • JackFrancis

          Removing all guns except hunting rifles is a laudable goal.

          • TPM4


          • JackFrancis

            I am a retired Lieutenant Colonel of the US Army Reserve (Artillery–we shoot BIG guns), And I don’t make the dumb stupid uninformed statements that you made. Your “International Statistics” are either made up or just plain lies. I note that you don’t reveal them. I guess that is best.

          • Libtardharvestor

            Jack, you make nothing BUT assinine statements that have NO BASIS IN FACT! (I include your Lt. Col bullshit in that)

          • JackFrancis

            Well, now you have admitted in writing that you have no belief in facts if they don’t agree with you. I gave you accurate facts and you refuse to accept them. You are just a head-in-the-sand NRA dupe. If you can’t accept facts, then go away and don’t disturb intelligent people.

          • Libtardharvestor


          • JackFrancis

            Yes, my military service is a FACT. You have decided it doesn’t fit with your assumptions so you will just pretend it never happened.
            The same is true of all my other facts. You have just decided to pretend they aren’t true. Ostriches see better.

  • SlapFat

    I was mulling over the notions in this column a couple weeks ago. While I respect the responsible people in America that know how to properly handle their firearms the fact is there is a very occult infatuation with guns in the U.S., one that badly needs a discussion to happen around it. If the cackling and laughing from the NRA doesn’t stop soon it may possibly be time to start moving in the direction of repealing the 2nd amendment. A tall order, but nothing good comes easy.

    • Jim Hoover

      I would sure like you to try and get thirty-two states to ratify it. ROFLMFAO let’s see you could count on California, New York, Connecticut, Illinois, maybe Colorado, but after their recall don’t know if you will but that is far from the thirty-two you need. Good luck on that ROFLMFAO

      • JackFrancis

        It would be nice, but I agree there aren’t the votes to do what is needed. The same is true for a debt prevention amendment to prevent more debt. It is really needed, but nobody, Democrat or Republican, is endorsing it either. both are needed.

  • nicole

    I could not agree more. However, if we ask for a “clarification” of the 2nd, we are unlikely to get an end result that we really can get behind, given the makeup of the current SCOTUS. If Obama can get 1 or 2 more liberal justices in there…….

  • SpaceChief

    The government vs the people idea is absurd on the face, even without going to what would happen if our own military attacked us.

    They simply wouldn’t. We have well over a thousand separate operating units, each has at least one officer responsible for it, many – like larger ships have several ‘flag’ officers. That is a full Navy Captain ( Navy Capt = full bird Major in other services) or higher.

    Each member swears to the Constitution upon induction. Not to Congress, not to the President, but to the ideals of the Constitution. The UCMJ even has rules that demand others to act against those issuing unlawful orders. The Mi Lai officers were tried under those rules.

    In essence, unless you’re going to get several thousand ranking officers to collude, there will be NO attack on our own population. A rogue unit that did would quickly be put down by other units. It is blatantly INSULTING to every thinking service member for the NRA to even suggest the possibility, it is to say that there are not honorable people in the services who would honor their oaths and act as they have been trained and educated to.

    A truly tyrannical government with our power would not even engage in door to door. If they simply leveled three cities of reasonable size (50,000 – 100,000) then dared reaction… they’d start a civil war amongst the population itself.

    • Jim Dolven

      Navy Captain is equivalent to the other services Colonel. That’s two steps above a Major. With the military actions being taken recently (making it against regulations to preach Christianity, removing from active duty those who disagree with this type of regulations, etc.) there’s a lot of reason to doubt that the chain of command won’t be able to cause troops to attack a group of civilians.

    • LeShan Jones

      The right’s reasons for all of this revolutionary talk are based entirely on their own delusions.
      If they take up arms against the government of the United States then they become rebels and the laws do not protect rebellions. American troops have been used against rebels on many different occasions, but in these cases it probably won’t get to the military level. These calls for violence will only ever go in the direction of Waco and Ruby Ridge.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    Really? I get moderated into oblivion over here for cross-posting about the difference between products and services, and between property and contracts? Is that a new rule, that an idea can only be expressed in one place at a time?

    • Bob Cesca

      Hmm. I’ll look into it.

  • GeneralLerong

    What would kill gun culture immediately is the invention of the Anti-Gun – a device that disables a gun, similar to the way a tazer disables a body. Imagine something the size of a cell phone, say, that when pointed at a gun, melts plastic, pops gunpowder, makes metal too hot to handle – you get the idea.

    • KanaW

      :) Where’s Snake Plissken when you need him?

  • linusbern

    One argument that really bothers me is the “since criminals just ignore the laws, proposed gun control laws, such as universal background checks, are just an extra burden on responsible gun owners.” In my mind, part of being a responsible gun owner means taking minimal steps to ensure that you aren’t selling your used Bushmaster to a sociopathic meth head who has spent more time in prison than out for violent crimes. Currently responsible gun owners already do this, so a law which makes it a requirement is no further burden on them.

    One of the (purported) reasons the Republicans killed universal background checks was that it would make it a crime to lend your friend a gun for a hunting trip without doing a check. I have a solution to this. The seller/lender of the gun wouldn’t have to do the background check, but if the buyer/borrower uses the gun in a crime, and it turns out that they would have failed a background check, had one been run, then the owner would have a certain amount of liability. This way, if you felt you knew the buyer well enough, you could avoid the trouble of a background check entirely.

    • GrafZeppelin127

      One argument that really bothers me is the “since criminals just ignore
      the laws, proposed gun control laws, such as universal background
      checks, are just an extra burden on responsible gun owners.”

      Indeed. It means that responsible, law-abiding gun owners would have to stop congratulating themselves for being so responsible and so law-abiding.

    • Sean Richardson

      The entire “responsible gun owners” argument is a basic “No true Scotsman” fallacy. Whenever anybody who was previously a “responsible gun owner” breaks a law, they immediately are no longer a responsible gun owner, and therefore removed from the conversation.

      • Jay Dee

        But when a once True Scotsman becomes untrue, rational people aware of the logic behind the fallacy of the “No True Scotsman” realize the blame should be put upon the untrue Scotsman, not an inanimate object such as a gun. A logical person rationalizes that there are untrue people in society while not condemning true people simply because all people are capable of being untrue.

    • KanaW

      That “since criminals just ignore the laws, proposed gun control laws, such as universal background checks, are just an extra burden on responsible gun owners.” argument drives me nuts, too.

      Sure, criminals ignore the laws. Criminals ignore all laws; that’s what makes them criminals. Does that mean we shouldn’t bother to have laws against murder, because people are still killing people? Against stealing, because there are still thieves in spite of the laws? Against drunk driving, because people still drive drunk? It’s ridiculous.

      • linusbern

        Laws against murder are infringing my rights. I have never murdered anyone, so why should I, a responsible citizen, be burdened by having to comply with a law prohibiting it. It is an utterly unreasonable nuisance.

        • KanaW

          Yup. The mind, it boggles.

        • Christopher Foxx

          I get the point you’re making, linus. But to take you non-satirically for a moment, the answer of course is because you don’t live alone. You’re part of a larger society and we make agreements with each other, stated and implied, on what is acceptable behavior. And those show up in laws that prohibit you from doing what you wouldn’t do anyway.

          (And if you wouldn’t do it anyway, how is making it illegal a burden?)

      • Jim Hoover

        by following your own logic if you make more laws outlawing murder then the murder rate should go down, Bet you a hundred dollars it doesn’t want to put your money were your pie hole is? We already have background checks why make a redundant law, and don’t give me bull crap about the 40% gunshow loophole because that is a fallacy.

        • LeShan Jones

          Well I suppose that as murder has not gone down at all, then we clearly don’t need laws against it. Try to get with the program fella.

        • JackFrancis

          Who told you it was a fallacy? you don’t have good sources. They are lying to you.

        • JackFrancis

          By that logic, you are right. We have laws against murder and I postulate that the murder rate, although high, is FAR lower that it would be in the absence of these laws. Likewise, within a few years the 10,000 gun deaths a year would dramatically decrease (even if it didn’t go to zero) if there were effective laws against guns. That has been proven true in other civilized countries. The right wants to compare gun control to Uganda and other third world countries because they want to believe the comparison is real. They never compare us to England and Europe in gun deaths per year. Their arguments are foolish.

    • LeShan Jones

      The right likes to hold gun control laws to a 100% effective rate; if it’s not 100%
      effective at ending whatever it’s aimed at, they deem it a failure. We don’t
      hold any of our other laws to such a high standard, but because the right wants deadly weapons to be completely unregulated they do hold it to such a silly standard.

      • Jim Hoover

        now that’s a lie try the first amendment, people always say well you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. Yes you can, one if there is a fire and if there isn’t but you do suffer consequences if there isn’t. But, there is no law that say you can’t say it. As, for the state establishing a state religion, haven’t seen one yet but know a few that tried, Maybe Leshan Jones you should heed what my grandpappy used to say better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

        • LeShan Jones

          You would do well to follow your own advice. Yelling for in a crowded theater when there isn’t one catties a penalty so there is a law against doing so.
          You’re just rambling here.

        • JackFrancis

          I think maybe you should read your last sentence and think carefully.

    • Jim Hoover

      Oh, do you mean like New York is doing right now the people who trusted the politicians and registered their rifles and shotguns are now getting letters that the police are coming to take their firearms because now they carry more than five shots. Like the bull crap the Brady Campaign says we don’t want to take your guns, but they have just given the city of New York an “A” sorry but, I won’t let them take mine and will shoot anyone trying to take mine including soldiers, FBI, State police, County Sheriffs, and city Police. By-the-way the DHS already labels me a terrorist because I am a combat Veteran

      • LeShan Jones

        You are clearly misinformed on New York. I can guarantee however that if you do take a shot at federal officials, all you will accomplish is your own death.

      • JackFrancis

        What have you done to be labeled a terrorist. Being a combat Veteran has nothing to do with it. You are making that up. WHY?

  • Tony Lavely

    Maybe we should forget guns and go after bullets? After all, guns don’t kill people. Bullets kill people.
    I know, it’s been said, but I think it needs said some more.

    • linusbern

      At this point, that is the only option. Now that you can print a gun at home on a 3D printer, the ammunition is the only part the government will still be able to control.

      • SpaceChief

        currently, the only plastics that can be printed have a melting temp too low to fire off repeated shots as in semi-automatic style.

        That may not always be the case.

        In the meantime, you can bet a whole bunch of morons are going to hurt themselves printing guns as plastics do have limitations and spec.s must be adhered to.

        For example, ABS has a tendency to suck moisture in (as does nylon), therefore – the resins must be stored correctly or pre-dried immediately before use. The necessary printers can be had for only 2200 bucks or so. This means some real idiots will be trying to print guns.

        It’ll be dark humor – but mighty funny when a few get seriously hurt.

        • linusbern

          Really the best outcome would be a publicly broadcast demonstration of the gun which ends in the creator’s hand being blown off. I don’t really wish harm to anyone, but if his project succeeds, then one man’s hand is the least of our worries. We’ll have 14 yr olds printing guns on their parent’s printers, the worst criminal elements will set up mini factories that will pump them out by the thousands and sell them at a cut rate price to any hood that wants them.

          • Jim Hoover

            so let’s ban technology, Jesus, do you actually read what you post?

  • MontanaSid

    The right wing is going to eat you alive today. I agree totally with yourtheory of healthcare. It should be a right. not a luxury.

    • Joe Norsworthy

      Sid, you make it sound as though the only consideration set is “right” or luxury. The reality is far different.

      Should we really consider it a “right” to force someone to provide services to someone else? No, we shouldn’t. In fact, our rights are explicitly deemed to protect us from government intrusion, retaliation, and/or discrimination — rights are not guaranteed services from the government. Something can be good policy without being considered a fundamental right in society. In other words, governments can use our taxpayer dollars to give access to health care without stipulating this is on par with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

      Let’s be careful what we deem a “right” before we find we have watered down the term to be meaningless.


Subscribe to the Banter Newsletter!