by Worthington Daily Globe
January 8, 2013 at 6:00 pm in Worthington Daily Globe
Miss April Wallace’s previous letter on this subject claimed that guns make it much easier to kill people. Guns also make it much easier to defend people. Continue Reading
Tags: guns, letters, Opinion, Politics 25 Comments »
Seems to me these violent attacks have evolved right along the same timeline as violent video games. I can see no other use for these games except to teach violence, the more people you kill the better you are, WTH Ban them. Gun violence in movies, same O. The media’s drawn-out coverage is of no help either. Of course all these people are mentally ill which the above no doubt exacerbates. The lack of discipline in schools, on and on. We have had guns forever but these attacks only a couple decades. More gun control will do nothing to solve this problem.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 40 18
deano, your absolutely right my friend, but no one wants to talk about it.
No credible person can argue that our country has not been slowly becoming a very violent place. Mostly inner cities but not always. We love our violence. At least for entertainment purposes. We crave it. Forget the statistics. Let’s all acknowledge that we live in an increasingly violent society and that it really doesn’t matter where we are on some list we found on wikipedia. There. That issue is settled. Now lets move on to the real question which is, why? Guns you say? Really? Guns are why we are seeing more and more violence?
Do you know why they put explicit warning labels on video games, music cds and rating on movies? Because there is a clear consensus among resonable minds that certain images and messages could be harmful to young developing minds. How many understand that those same warning labels and ratings do absolutely NO good at all. I won’t even mention what you can get on the internet.
Now put those kids in a world in which they become isolated, maybe a broken home with divorce, no real friends to speak of, a society that has no real moral compass anymore, throw in a bully at school, maybe a parent who has “no time”, more and more time spent taking frustrations out on a video game where they can “shoot and kill” to get the high score, watch a good “shoot em up” action movie and when they do go out they have wires in their ears pumping in the latest hip hop lyrics.
But wait you say, that’s not your typical kid. Most kids can handle all of the above with no ill effects. Well maybe, maybe not. I’m not so sure. What I do know is that most will NOT go out, find a gun and kill people. That, so far at least, is not the norm. We are however, seeing it more and more frequently. Wonder why? Because of more guns?
Guns are not the cause of gun violence anymore than cars are the cause of traffic fatalities and all the useless statistics which show our country to be a violent society (as if we didn’t know) do not address the reason why that is. But we know don’t we? We know why. Violence is entertaining.
For years the progressive humanists have been crying out for a godless society. We are now beginning to see what that looks like. Unfortunately, it’s going to get much worse. Might as well microwave yourself some popcorn and go rent the latest Tarantino.
Ask any farmer…… “you will reap what you sow.”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 25 10
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Virtual guns = bad. Real guns = good. Maybe video guns and Hollywood has played a part in how violent our society has become but to say that is the only reason.. and actual guns have nothing to do with it is ridiculous. The antigun control side will blame everything and everyone before it looks at itself. We need to stop taking advice from the NRA. It is a lobbying group…which means they only care about selling guns.. not actually keeping us safe.
And another irrational argument comparing cars and guns. Go hunt with a car (or bat, rock, etc) then come back and tell me how similar the two are.
How funny it is to hear another right winger blame a ‘godless’ society, that liberals have ‘cried’ too long to keep our government secular. Right wingers claim to love the constitution and the founding fathers but forget they didn’t want a theocracy. That is what they were running from.
Do you know all the wars that were fought in the name of religion? Most. But whatever helps push your agenda I guess.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 12 22
“Do you know all the wars that were fought in the name of religion? Most.”
A: Less than 10% according to the data I found.
“But whatever helps push your agenda I guess.”
Like or Dislike: 8 17
I stand corrected (partially). War was the wrong word to use. But how many reasons for going to war.. were out of “because God told me so.”? Maybe your ‘source’ would shed some light on this.
War was too technical, I should have used ‘violence.’ So instead of conflicts like ‘War on Terror,’ it would also include a more broad meaning. Violent acts like The Inquisition, Crusades, etc. For example, the Civil War was fought over slavery.. which people thought was justifiable because it was found in the bible. Hitler thought he was conducting himself “in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.” Manifest Destiny here in early America.
Do you understand the connection here?
Take the modern day GOP if you still don’t understand. They hide behind God to hate. Rape is now ‘Gods will.’ Gays are hated because the bible says so. And they don’t much like using their ‘Christian Values’ on the poor.
Surely, you can now see the connection and how ludicrous it is to now blame a godless society (you blame liberals but they could argue they are fighting for a different right.. the freedom of religion). So many GOPers know exactly what God wants.. and how ironically it follows their own desires and agenda.
Like or Dislike: 9 16
“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.”
The subject of that sentence isn’t “the people”. It it is “well regulated militia”. That being established, the ability “to keep and bear Arms” is granted by “the right of the people”. Anyone with simple elementary English can determine that the 2nd Amendment isn’t talking about a right of the people, but establishes the right of a military to carry and use arms to protected the people. These rights are granted from the people.
If the founders wanted to give the people the right to have arms, they would have simply included it in the 1st Amendment (Congress can’t make laws against religion, speech, press, assembly, or petition) without mention of “militia”.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 19 43
Nothing about the bill of rights protects govt powers from the people, quite the contrary. In fact, read the Federalist papers and study the history of where we were at the time of the revolution and how we got our current constitutional republic, everything was based on the idea of promoting individual liberty and freedom and curtailing the government’s power to avoid tyranny. It is the underlying foundation to our entire system of government.
Your statement that the 2nd amendment does not provide an individual right is simply ignorant quite wrong, as the Supreme Court recently confirmed yet again in Heller (rejecting DC’s gun ban and affirming a fundamental individual right in the 2nd amendment) and other subsequent cases such as MacDonald in Chicago.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 35 13
Chief Justice Warren Burger, when asked for his opinion on the Second Amendment, said it was “…one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I’ve ever seen in my life time. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies–the militias–[preamble] would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment [referring to the preamble] refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.”
The 2nd was even viewed early on to only limit Congress from such laws and not the states rights to enact such laws if they saw fit. The courts rulings have changed vastly in the past 100 years with more pressure from lobby groups such as the NRA.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 16 38
The Heller case was a 5-4 case. Clearly the view on the 2nd has changed with more pressure from outside groups and political pressures over the past 100 years. Which is seen when one looks at the Courts history on the 2nd Amendment.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 13 34
mi·li·tia (m…-l¹sh“…) n. Abbr. mil. 1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. 2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
Sounds like the average Joe to me. Spinner Merc!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 41 15
Webster has the definition as;
1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
Nice attempt to change a definition of a word (spinning?). Our current military (word based from militia) meets that definition, with the exception to part 2…women can join. Key to the definition is ORGANIZED. Free rein of guns to the public as a whole is far from organized. Again, 2nd amendment gives rights to form a military and bear arms to those in it. NOT to the public at large.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 19 38
Also if one were to use your definition (and not Websters), you just described the National Guard. Not the public as a whole. So you have shown that the 2nd Amendment gives rights to have a National Guard, which we do.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 20 35
I think you are missing the point of the initial letter from Wallace. Letter doesn’t state in support of a ban and taking away our guns. But rather implement some gun controls. This could mean seveal things such as having a longer wait to be able to get a gun, etc. people continue to amaze me with their constant paranoia and then dream up these conspiracy theories….
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 18 32
No Merc, I doubt the writers would of thought it necessary to add an amendment to make sure the government could arm the military! Even then as now that would have been a given. I think it’s more likely that it was put there so (The People) like myself or you could protect ourselves from people like you that would like to take their rights and freedoms away! We need to deal with this problem without taking the freedoms of the vast vast majority, especially when it will in no way solve the problem.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 31 15
I’m not so sure the author really read Miss Wallace’s letter. Instead, points that Wallace made were simply ignored and old talking points were repeated.
Like Merc has pointed out… we cannot continue to look at only the last half of the 2nd Amendment and ignoring the actual words as a whole statement, which the NRA and antigun control likes to do. Putting things into context is essential. Although the 2nd Amendment doesn’t say we can’t half assault style weapons, it surely doesn’t give us that authority either.
Now for the many points that were ignored in the letter he claimed to be addressing. In Wallace’s letter, she specifically addresses the logic that ‘criminals will get them anyway.’ She explained that laws deter undesirable behavior. Disagree or agree and state why but don’t repeat the exact same talking point she just addressed. It just makes it seem like you didn’t actually finish reading the article, stopping at the title that said gun control made sense. “Guns also make it much easier to defend people.” She also addresses this, in the nuclear weapons argument. Where do you draw the line? Should we start handing out rocket launchers because those too make it easier to defend yourself?
The ‘Tommy Gun’ analogy doesn’t really make sense either. Maybe it didn’t immediately cut down on gangsters with machine guns but I would make the argument that it certainly has cut down on machine guns used today, wouldn’t you agree? We shouldn’t be so selfish to make laws that only help us immediately but create those that would also help us years from now.
Miss Wallace really should have used ‘assault style’ rather than the term assault weapons but it is clear that you got the drift. And you point out that an assault style or semi automatic weapon ONLY shoots once for every trigger pull? Don’t pretend like that isn’t a lot. That also seems a point in her article; is it necessary to have that power? Is it necessary to have high capacity clips?
She continues by further addressing the ‘necessary’ argument. It is a ridiculous talking point that “cars, planes, and even bats” also kill people, so we should ban them too. We could easily put fire under this category. Fire is used for alternate purposes, is it not? Fire has practical uses. It is quite debatable if assault style weapons serve a practical use (not guns in general but assault style). Again, did he not actually read the letter?
It is also ironic that an antigun control person is arguing that we should put reason in front of fear. If we did so, we wouldn’t need these assault style weapons. Radical gun owners are the ones that FEAR a tyrannical government. They FEAR that all their guns will be taken away. It is the NRA and the antigun control side that instills FEAR into Americans; convincing them they need their own personal arsenal to feel safe. Please, put reason over fear. Only reasonable gun controls will then follow.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 19 37
The 2nd amendment, accd. to Dr. Bogus, an East Coast law school prof., was made a part of the Bill Of Rights only to satisfy the slave states who wanted the right to have a militia to inspect slave qters.as often as needed to make sure no slave rebellions were being planned. The Constitution wouldn’t have been ratified without the vote of Virginia because the rest of the states were anti-Federalist and not going to vote for it anyway.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 7 19
I know Dr. Bogus, he usually consorts with Dr. Ersatz, Dr. Contrived an of course Mr. Phony Baloney! All well respected individuals. We now have Mr. BS Spearman to compete for Top Spinner. That might land you in that hidden area; see above, although you’ve got a couple of bright bulbs going for you already!
Like or Dislike: 13 13
Let concentrate on what the U.S. Supreme Court has said regarding the 2nd Amendment. I mean seriously what’s your point?
Some nutjob wrote a paper proposing a theory about why the 2nd amndment was included in the Bill of Rights. OK so now what? The fact remains that it’s in there!! The courts have ruled on the meaning. Courts and Judges and Justices decide law, not some overpaid law professor in a cheap suit that wrote an article. So Booger or Bogus or Beanie doesn’t even matter!
What’s your point sir? State your point please.
Like or Dislike: 17 9
Mr. Bogus is considered the countries top legal scholar on the 2nd amendment having researched and written widely. If you can’t understand what the point of his angle on the second amendment is go to his essays.
His point is that the reason for including the 2nd amendment in the Constitution has everything to do with protecting slavery and nothing with defending ourselves as individuals. The Founding fathers from the north didn’t want a right to bear arms or a standing army during peacetime. They only included it to get the Constitution ratified by getting Va. to vote forit. Therefore the courts interpretations of the 2nd have been made without the knowledge of Dr. Bogus’ historical research as to the origin of the 2nd amend. The right to bear arms is no longer a tenable position. If we hadn’t followed the false logic of the gun lobby yrs. ago we wouldn’t be in this predicament as a society.
Like or Dislike: 8 15
That’s one man’s INTERPRETATION. Since he wasn’t there he can only speculate by reading and trying to interpret. For every position written you can find an opposing position. For every interpretation there is a different interpretation. Even the Supreme Court can decide a case and 4 vote one way and 5 vote the opposite. Same case, same facts, and the SCOTUS can reach 2 or more opposing opinions.
Mr. Bogus’s article is not “dispositive” of the issue. Trust me I studied law. His theory and interpretation and brilliantly written article is not “controlling” on the courts.
I realize you think you figured out the answer to all our problems. We can now just throw out the 2nd Amendment and confiscate everyone’s gun and all our troubles are over. I’m telling you, it’s not going to work. But thanks for the suggestion. Give it a rest now will ya.
Like or Dislike: 16 10
One man’s interpretation based on a study of the original constitutional convention docs. tracking the debate between the primary actors. Just one man’s opinion? LOL.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 6 17
“[The Second Amendment] has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
— Former (CONSERVATIVE) Chief Justice Warren Burger, The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, December 16, 1991
First of all Burger is dead. Second that quote was made after he retired from the Court in 1991. Third, the 2nd Amendment has been challeged most recently in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). In Heller the SCOTUS stated that the 2nd Amendment applies to an individual right to bear arms.
Now, how in the world do you think a quote by a dead guy which he said after he was off the bench, 17 years prior to a landmark decision by the US Supreme Court affirming the right of an individual to own and carry a gun has anything to do with the current discussion?
He didn’t even write it up as an opinion. He said it on a TV show and later the interview was published in the Parade Magazine. The Parade Magazine. Do you know what that is? It’s a little tiny paper they stick in the Sunday paper with all the ads.
Come on now. Be serious will ya.
Like or Dislike: 16 11
A quote from a dead guy, huh?? The 2nd Amendment was created by a bunch of dead guys.. good argument if you don’t think about it though!
Because he wasn’t currently serving and because his WORDS were printed a magazine also discredits the quote. Good one.
Yes, the Heller case did rule in favor of the 2nd Amendment. By 5 to 4, don’t act like its common sense that we can’t talk about gun control. “The court also ruled, though, that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” (Despite what many conservatives think). Justice Scalia has also come out and said there has ‘undoubtedly’ limits to the 2nd Amendment. These comments were months ago though, that may be to outdated for you.
You sir, are the one that believes the 2nd Amendment is in jeopardy of being abolished (As liberals believe – “We can now just throw out the 2nd Amendment and confiscate everyone’s gun and all our troubles are over.”) and blaming the lack of god in our society as the reason for all this violence.
When will you get serious?
Like or Dislike: 12 17
It’s not what enters a man that defiles him, but what proceeds from his heart.
The violence of today’s culture is reminisent of the times of Noah. Are you ready?
Like or Dislike: 13 4
Click here to cancel reply.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
To start connecting please log in first.
Topics is proudly provided by the Forum Communications Company