On the brutal reality of the Uvalde, Texas, school shooting – and all the others in our country dating back to Columbine and Luke Woodham’s rampage at Pearl High School in Mississippi – the “thoughts and prayers” of do-nothing politicians ring particularly hollow and meaningless.
I come at this as a gun owner, a hunter, someone who absolutely will defend my home and family with force, and as one who supports the rule of law and respects the authority of those who wear the badge and stand their posts.
Likewise, I come at this as a father, grandfather, and educator responsible for other people’s children. Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, gun owners and gun opponents, it’s time to come to the table and find common ground that makes us all safer – particularly innocent children.
All of us in this country have let the National Rifle Association and similar groups make us afraid and we as voters have allowed them to hold our political processes hostage. When party primaries are made litmus tests on who can genuflect most to the gun lobby, responsible government and sensible public policy are not the results.
Having safer schools may hit us all in the wallet through higher taxes to pay for the security we say we want. More stringent background checks may slow gun transactions. The current distinctions between handguns, long guns, and assault weapons need to be reconsidered. But our current laws and the enforcement of them - or lack thereof – aren’t working.
No, background checks and other deterrent strategies will not categorically stop school shootings. Yes, those measures will annoy and inconvenience law-abiding citizens. But they almost certainly will decrease incidents like Uvalde, Sandy Hook, Pearl, and Columbine.
As a society, we have made it too easy for the evil, the angry, or the mentally ill among us to get and possess guns. They are using those easily acquired guns to kill our children.
Congress and our state legislatures face the challenge of making schools safer from gun violence and those lawmakers must somehow find the political courage to risk alienating the gun lobby.
The gun lobby makes a lot of noise about activist judges limiting freedom and grabbing guns. Most of it is fundraising nonsense that plays on fear, prejudice, and anger.
I had a chance conversation with a sitting Supreme Court justice at an art gallery opening in Jackson, Mississippi on March 31, 2001. Justice Antonin Scalia, the conservative lion of the high court, was appropriately dressed for the occasion – except for the knee-high snake boots into which his trousers were neatly tucked.
Scalia was in Mississippi that day for two reasons. First and foremost, the jurist was here to go turkey hunting in Jones County. Second, Scalia’s time in Mississippi coincided with the day King Juan Carlos I and Queen Sophia of Spain paid a royal visit to Jackson’s Mississippi Arts Pavilion for a private tour of the state’s “The Majesty of Spain” exhibit.
In talking with Scalia, it became obvious that he loved both the fine arts and rural Mississippi hunting pleasures with nearly equal passions. After his 2016 death (while he was on a hunting trip in Texas), I reflected on the dichotomy of this learned man’s worldview and his surprisingly forthright views on the Second Amendment.
In 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that gun rights did not inure only to those in a “well-regulated militia” as anti-gun forces argued but to individuals in their homes – which affirmed the pro-gun arguments in the case and overjoyed the NRA. Scalia wrote the majority opinion.
But Scalia also wrote something else in the Heller decision that the NRA didn’t applaud: “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Scalia would also assert the belief that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” and that it is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Justice Scalia’s assertion remains as true today as it was 20 years ago. The Second Amendment is not a blank check.
Sid Salter is a syndicated columnist. Contact him at sidsalter@sidsalter.com
63 comments:
Note to Scalia: No, the beloved 2nd is not a blank check, it's massive deposit and down payment on your ass if think you can sell the people on some middling BS about its intent. Americans need to shift their thinking from "Are we committed enough to die for our rights and liberty?" to, "Is the Left willing to die if they attempt to come take them?"
Sid Salter is an imbecile and wouldn't have accomplished anything outside of Mississippi.
Biden and his ilk are also imbeciles for thinking any elected leader would actually turn hellfire missiles and Abrams tanks on its own citizens.... which would be their last gasp of desperation...and would be game on for American Revolution 2.0 - but this time it might look more like what the French did in their overthrow of tyranny with The Bloody Terror via 500 public decapitations a month....
Sid has now officially moved from the territory of an annoying blowhard into the territory of an enemy of liberty. That doesn’t mean much to most people in 2022. But the blog owner should discontinue paying for this treasonous garbage at this point.
There is absolutely nothing the government can do to stop criminals and the insane from getting guns. Biker gangs in Australia handcraft garage machine guns. Filipinos and Thais hand make Colt 1911 pistols. Don’t get me start on Khyber Pass Market cottage guns.
It’s very clear Sid and other leftists have zero understanding of firearms. Therefore they should refrain from sharing their ignorant opinions.
How quickly would the Uvalde murderer been incapacitated had teachers or staff been allowed to carry a firearm to the school? See the West Virginia graduation shooting for a recent example for your answer. Oh, you haven't heard of that one? Gee, I wonder why.
Mentally ill people should not have access to guns, period. I say this as a gun owner and hunting enthusiast. You cannot call yourself pro-life and support the current psychosis of politicians who are willing to sacrifice innocent children for NRA dollars.
By definition, every school shooter has been mentally unstable, and it’s impossible to predict what a mentally unstable person will do. We’re doing something wrong to have suffered from 250 or so school shootings, but we must be doing something right in the 130,000+ schools that haven’t had one. Do we need to tell the taxpayers in those districts to pony up for school improvements that seem to be historically unnecessary?
The only things we haven’t tried are stronger background checks, allowing trained volunteer staff to carry at school, and restricting who can buy an assault-type rifle. There are powerful and strident groups that are for and against all three, so we probably need to keep our thoughts and prayers on speed dial.
Restrictions on guns will likely have little effect on these kinds of shootings, there are too many on the streets now to round up. If you want to make the biggest possible effect on school safety the more sure way to do it is at the schools themselves, by restricting access with fencing and metal detectors at each entrance, and armed people defending the entrances. If you do it right I see no reason why any attempt to enter carrying especially a rifle could be successfully attempted. We do it for many other sensitive locations every single day. What's more, I think that those that would rather approach the problem with gun-related prohibitions are being disingenuous, their real interest is more in trying to control guns (that they hate) than actually keeping the schools safe.
Pearl was stopped with a VP that had to run off campus to get his gun. Want to stop the shootings? Fire all gun hating teachers and arm them.
You ignorant leftists should google “Khyber Pass Market” and realize that if illiterate sand people can figure out how to make full auto AKs from scratch, then a determined criminal with access to a Harbor Freight Tools can do the same. Are you going to ban drill presses and metal lathes next?
Salter only revealed that he drank the Kool-Aid and is both ignorant and foolish. When you blame folks who didn't do it and had nothing to do with it, you are simply evil, Sid.
A couple of points:
-The Second Amendment doesn't contain the word "but."
-The "sensitive places" dictum is cut from whole cloth and comes from nothing in the Constitution.
-There is one strategy that is proven to be, by far, the most effective at reducing the carnage from mass attacks, but those in the media refuse to discuss it.
Active killer math - https://www.activeresponsetraining.net/active-killer-math
For the Sid haters: Tell me where he is wrong.
The biggest issue at hand here is the lack of mental health screenings at schools....it has become taboo to call someone mentally ill. "We are all different" they say....."Celebrate our differences". Well, some of those "differences" are mental illness.
Once we get that fixed, secondary is the necessity to arm and secure our schools with COMPETENT security forces with plans in place for possible infiltration. Making it harder for ANYONE to get into a school is the biggest prevention.
We have a massive public health crisis that is the root cause (or a major contributor) to so many important issues. No one in power really seems to want to address it, and the public similarly seems content with the status quo.
Our poor comparative COVID-19 outcomes can be tied directly to the poor state of our overall health. Our massive healthcare costs - a result of our poor overall health. Addiction is prevalent. Mentally ill persons say and do outrageous things. Our young people are unhappy and discouraged. It's all related to poor health.
I don't know what the answers are, but we are kidding ourselves if we aren't willing to identify the problem first.
The AR-15 is not an assault weapon.
AR-15-style rifles are NOT “assault weapons” or “assault rifles.” An assault rifle is fully automatic, a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934. If someone calls an AR-15-style rifle an “assault weapon,” then they've been duped by an agenda.
Guns are inanimate objects.
The only inanimate object that has ever assaulted me is those trailer hitch extensions that reach out and abuse our shins.
I don't know the answer to this horrific issue either but the fact remains guns don't kill people.
Parents who allow mental illness to go unchecked for years in their spawn create the real weapons and I am all for holding them accountable or even loosening the laws that would allow a parent to commit a child to a mental institution.
But you must forgive me if I fail to trust one single thing this idiotic government suggests after the last 2 years.
Another problem is that all of the old grandmothers are dying off... no one to replace them. Every swing of a belt or switch carried one syllable of a sermon that most people never forget.
And aunties-
Can we go back to blaming 32-bit Doom on DOS and Marilyn Manson like we did in the 1990s? I am aching for some 90’s nostalgia!
@9:36
The aunties are all “Cool Wine Aunts” now who are childless well into their 40s, breed pit bulls, and proudly display a queen of ♠️‘s tramp stamp.
Surely some group has studied all these horrible mass shootings and looked for common factors.If there is a report it would be good to see KF. The AR 15 is just another tool for sick people to carry out their rage. A can of bear spray and a nail gun from Lowes could do similar damage in a locked room. Get rid of one tool and another will be invented. It’s the crazy that has to be prevented from action. I’m also for arming qualified teachers . Why not encourage and pay extra for some teachers to be in the National Guard. Receive special trading in the 6 months basic and attend 2 weeks in summer to get recertification and learn new techniques. I imagine manners would improve a lot with the students .
Also the teacher who stopped Luke Woodham was eventually let go from his position due to coming on campus with a gun, that stopped him and saved other's lives. Tell me how F'ed up that is.
Those who can, do. Those who can’t, work for Universities.
If I go onto the internet and learn how to make a pipe bomb and use it to harm people are we then going to outlaw pipes or the internet?
If God decided to rid the world of evil people there would be none of us left because we all have a little bit in us. The man in Wisconsin used a car to run through a Christmas parade, the Oklahoma City bombers used fertilizer and diesel fuel, the 911 hijackers used airplanes. We could find many other examples of different things being used as weapons so my question is if you ban all guns what will you choose to ban next.
His attempt to patronize us with "I am a gun owner, a hunter...bla bla bla" is analogous to a racist saying "some of my friends are black."
What part of "...shall not be infringed..." is so difficult to understand?
The anti-gun pols synically pray for these horrific mass shootings so they can push for more "take our guns" legislation.
Get to the root of the problem, it all stems from our rotten, perverted culture. Where the left has made right wrong and wrong right...cutting the branch off a tree won't make it healthy if the root system is rotten!
@ For the Sid haters: Tell me where he is wrong.
June 1, 2022 at 8:55 AM
Answer:
Beginning at "On" and ending at "check." That's where he's wrong.
So what are you saying, Sid? Let our government work it out?
Yeah, they're the experts on everything. What could possibly go wrong with that?
If guns where the problem then you would have more mass shootings at places with the most guns like gun stores, shooting ranges, and police stations. But you don’t. Because everyone in a gun store, shooting range, and police station are well armed. You have mass shootings where people are forced to be unarmed. Guns alone aren’t the problem. It is rules disarming the law abiding without adequately protecting them.
Yes I am aware that there have been shootings at gun stores and shooting ranges but there hasn’t been a mass murder event despite all that ammo and all those guns because a shooting range and gun store are full of armed individuals.
As others have said before. This nation is no longer mentally and spiritually healthy to have gun free zones. Since it is impossible to disarm the criminals, it is morally wrong to take guns away from the law abiding.
There is no problems with killer guns. There is a problem with killer humans. Does anyone remember back when parents raised their kids to have some morals? Remember when the parents taught their children the difference in right and wrong. Well, that shit was stopped. Now, many times, it is the kids who are the boss of the family. They have been taught that if their parents do not let them do what they want the government will step in. The government hasn't raised any children. They are too busy paying people to have kids they cannot or refuse to raise.
Think back how long "assault guns" have been around. Now count back how long school shootings and mass shootings have been going on. Something does not add up. The guns are pretty much the same as they were over a hundred years ago. You could order and "assault gun" gun from the Penny catalog and the mail man would bring it to your house. Can you think of a single school shooting in those days. Kids were allowed to bring guns to school.
The way parents raise their children is the reason we see school shootings. Kids are not taught good from bad. The children are taught they should be given everything they want without them putting out even the least bit of effort. They are raised by computers. In many cases when the kids goes on a killing spree the first people they murder are the parents or guardians.
Americans needs to take their country back. Look at the people who are running our country and how their children have turned out. We have a president who is a prime example of how to not raise a kid.
9:36 The grandmothers are now in their 30s and the Great grandmothers are 45
Re: all you gun nuts writing long manifestos
Guns won’t make you a “bigger” man or help you find a lady.
Guns won’t impress anyone but you. So you will stay lonely.
The world doesn’t need more guns. Please just stop.
Happiness is NOT found in a warm gun.
NWR has a new HS. It is as if the school thinks we still in 1950, little security, easy entrance and egress, parents and other adults in and out of the school all day.
Psychotics are endemic in our culture, "mental illness" is embraced by the same woke democrats as those who approve burning and looting across the country.
If the parent(s) neglect duties to teach, protect and discipline their spawn, then violent social media, kill-videos, teacher union selected perverse marxist propaganda, leftist news outlets, Sid Salter types and street gangs fill the void to spread evil throughout the first 25 years of life.
Uvalde - legally purchased firearms
Sandy Hook - mother gave firearms to mentally ill son
Pearl - stole weapon from family
Columbine - illegally obtained firearms from friend who legally obtained them
June 1, 2022 at 9:06 AM
"The AR-15 is not an assault weapon... blah blah blah bullshit..."
Just shut the F up with your braggart gun knowledge. No reasonable, logical, sane individual gives a DAMN what you call the thing that blew their child into unrecognizable smithereens!!!!!!
NOBODY needs them. NOBODY!
And I am a gun owner.
@11:59 thank you for your comment, but guns do impress others, there are gun clubs, forums, and shows, plenty of women that shoot, so happiness can be found in a warm gun. Now go decide your gender for tomorrow.
11:59
Drinking Pine Cone IPA beers does not make you hip.
Wearing jeans that cut off circulation at your ankles do not pick up ladies.
Living in a place deemed "social" yet surrounded by violence does not make you woke.
The world does not need more coffee shops, gauge earrings, and people living in downtown Jackson telling others we are the problem, not the solution.
My guns didn't help me get anything and have never harmed a person. They are locked up in my gun safe. But who are you to tell me I cant have them. The same one telling others they cant tell you what to do? What a time we live in.
Specifically, which politician would change his or her 2nd amendment stance if the NRA ceased donations to his or her campaign?
Apparently, too many people think our Founders were clarivoyent and knew we were too stupid to adapt to modernity of any kind.
Interesting though that you take
The
Constitution literally except in the case of the 2nd Admendment where the definition of " militia" did not mean your weekend warrior ego groups.
In those times, Duke and Princes raised militias from their servants and fiefs in the various principalities.
Our Founders weren't stupid and illiterate.
There was one drunk but all of them were considered well-read and educated.
Gun regualtions work. There's more than a little proof even as close as our northern neighbor.
And, clearly, the 300000 guns and clearly, more guns in more hands ISN'T
WORKING.
I know your egos cannot admit you are wrong, but I assure you, in the face of overwhelming evidence that exist, you look stupid and uneducated, not egotistical.
JFP is homesteading space here. They would love for a weaponized bolshevik bureaucracy to put Constitutional originalists into slave camps and graves.
Such tyranny is precisely why the Founders enabled our self armed protection.
@8:55am Where is Sid wrong?
".....shall not be infringed."
The right to bear arms is not the issue, it's holding individuals accountable. Right now, they become celebrities. If they feared the consequences, they wouldn't dare.
By the way - 99.8% of "mentally ill" folks are NEVER violent, and are more often victims of violence. A psychopath should be put to death, because there is no treatment for it anyway.
"And, clearly, the 300000 guns and clearly, more guns in more hands ISN'T
WORKING."
How do you know it isn't working? How do you know a Russia or China has chosen wisely not to invade the US because of the number of armed Americans? To invade and conquer America, such a nation would be in a constant battle and have extreme difficulty in gaining control of the strategic resources necessary for armed Americans to stand down.
And all of the jambalaya disciples doubled down in the face of another school slaughter and said guns are the answers to guns…give us more! Lather, rinse, repeat.
They cannot even take the guns away from the thugs. What makes them think they can take the guns away from anyone else?
I am impressed that 1:17 has solved this issue.
Why didn't we make it illegal for convicted felons to carry a gun a long time ago?
Seems stopping them first would be the best move, and THEN if that works out...go after lawful gun owners.
Surely that would cut down on the criminal activity because regulation is key.
First of all no one in congress is afraid of the NRA. They are however terrified of voters who know where the problem really is. No one takes people like Sid seriously because they realize that every time one of satan’s spawns kills innocent people the left use it as an attempt to confiscate firearms, ALL FIREARMS!!! The left never let a good crisis go to waste. It’s their agenda. To take guns away from law abiding citizens. These clowns would never go to the South Side of Chicago and demand gang bangers give up their weapons! They hide behind their guarded gates and say you little people are on your own.
The same people who threaten Supreme Court Judge’s if they stop letting them kill 600,000 kids a year now demand guns be taken away from every owner in the country. It’s never been about keeping school children safe! Hypocrites! Now democrats don’t want to harden schools to stop children from being targeted. It’s all lies……an agenda!
Sid makes sense. He's college educated. 78% of Mississippian are not. That's about the same proportion of posters on here that claim there can be no sensible gun legislation to curb these senseless shootings. I'd rather fall in the sensible, educated bunch than the clan(Klan?) of morons who mostly populate these comments with their nonsense. E.g., "The anti-gun pols synically (sic) pray for these horrific mass shootings so they can push for more "take our guns" legislation." All of you who argue against Sid are in the same class as this fool. Birds of a feather, I guess.
@7:35pm "College educated"? You must be joking. That doesn't mean a damn thing and hasn't in a long time.
Sid comes up with some solutions which will help. I appreciate some constructiove conversation other than the other dems politicizing tragic events. I will never vote for Beto for anythign for the stunt he pulled whiel gov was trying to comfort families and provide info
the problem with gun control is, frankly, there is none. at all. and there needs to be.
a 13 year old can't buy booze, or cigarettes, or lottery tickets, or rent a car. but he sure can walk into a gun show and buy himself a weapon. We as a society need get over this sick obsession with guns and pass some reasonable rules.
ban AR-15s. they serve literally no purpose. They're not for hunting or home protection. they are for killing people, many of them, in a quick amount of time.
ban high capacity magazines.
ban bullet proof vests.
pass red flag laws.
pass universal background checks.
raise the age to own a firearm to 21.
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.
What do you people not get about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Government did not grant me any of those rights and has zero authority to take those rights away in any form, shape, or fashion. There are ways to change the Constitution so quit being lazy and form the necessary coalition and use that ability. However, one should tread cautiously as it won't be peaceful.
"Government did not grant me any of those rights and has zero authority to take those rights away in any form, shape, or fashion"
The first three words of the second amendment...A WELL REGULATED. prohibiting access to automatic weapons or tanks or nuclear weapons are all reasonable regulations. The majority also thinks AR-15s should be in that group.
but you're right, congress does have the power to amend the constitution. And they should. the second amendment is frankly ridiculous. The idea that there should be no restriction on access to firearms on anyone at all, crazy or not, is absurd. People in this blog trying to blame bad (or lack thereof) parenting for children shooting up schools or grocery stores...maybe we can agree that in a country of 335M people, that just maybe not everyone in the population is responsible enough to own a gun.
The dead children are the cost of having hundreds of millions of guns flooding our streets. They are a sacrifice to the gun gods. The only way to change the status quo is through the Supreme Court. The right has been able to pack the Supreme Court to advance their views that are incompatible with the bill of rights and the public’s wishes, and that will be the only way the left is able to address gun violence.
I don't argue against Sidney L., I simply ignore him. Kind of like I usually ignore a pompous, self-righteous, idiot, such as you.
Your kind, are the type that give intelligent people a bad reputation by equating education with intelligence, not so.
Your kind, assume because you spent some time at certain institutions and "purchased" a piece of paper saying you had fulfilled the requirements to obtain, with "payment", that piece of paper it makes you superior to those without said "purchased" paper, not so.
Your kind, ride a high horse, thinking your bowel movements don't smell similar to everyone that doesn't have said "purchased" paper, not so.
In Mississippi, you will find "intelligent" people that are successful in every area of the business world. Intelligent people that are problem solvers, innovative developers that get things done. That "purchased" paper doesn't guarantee you will do any of those things. You should climb down from your ivory tower and get to know some of them.
By the way, is your middle initial L ?? If that is the case, you and ole Sidney L. have more than the "purchased" piece of paper in common. That L. stands for loser, and that's the perfect description of you both.
I agree with 8:20, HE is truly OBSESSED with guns.
Why does the left only sound the gun ban trumpets for these large scale events?
There were 797 violent deaths in Chicago in 2021.
Why aren't Dems questioning that, given the strict gun laws there? Are those deaths not important?
I don't know the answer to curb these horrific events, and I am not opposed to civil discussion but pardon my skepticism of all things Liberal given the dementia leader y'all selected.
I am just so tired of the emotion driven political discord with zero intent for actual reform and results.
Not only is Sid not convincing, he is serving to turn me away from supporting MSU since Keenum has this nut-job on his staff.
I have two degrees from MSU and they have gotten their last money from me...other than their portion of the taxes the state steals from me.
The first 10 amendments, commonly but erroneously referred to as the "Bill of Rights" does not recite "rights," it recites restrictions. On the government, not the people. It is a "commandment," if you will, upon the government and the case of the 2nd Amendment, the commandment is that the government shall not "infringe" upon the right of the people to "keep and bear arms." The extreme on one side loves to quote "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?" and wants to focus on "shall not." The extreme on the other side says the key word is "militia" and wants to define "militia" as, basically, no one. Both are completely wrong. The key word, using simple reading comprehension, is "infringed."
Like a lot of words, "infringed" can have more than one meaning, often depending on context and professional usage(s) - "in the legal sense," etc. Also, meanings can change over the years. So the question is, "what would 'infringed' mean to the drafters and ratifiers of the Constitution and these amendments to it?" Webster's current online dictionary has this: "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another[.]" But what if the meaning has changed, what was the meaning in the late 1700s? Samuel Johnson and his dictionary (1785) is helpful. Its definition of "infringe" is: "To violate; to break laws or contracts."
So where does this get us? The government cannot infringe, or break the law, and deprive people of their right to keep and bear arms. Some would protest that "the government makes the laws!" Yes, but what, or more importantly, who, is "the government?" People elect their representatives, who then pass laws, confirm or decline to confirm Article III judges and Supreme Court justices nominated by the President, etc. There is a system in place to deal with challenges of "infringement" by an enacted law.
Which brings us to exactly where we are and always have been - the government is not prohibited from passing ANY and EVERY law(s) restricting gun-ownership or possession (or any other protected right), it is prohibited from passing a law that "infringes" on whatever right(s) it is prohibited from "infringing" upon. A law prohibiting felons, the mentally unstable, and minors from possessing guns isn't *infringing* on the rights of the people, but a law prohibiting an adult under no disability from possessing a handgun in their home and mandating other firearms in a home be stored in an incapacitated state is an unlawful overreach by "the government" because that does *infringe* on the right of the people (Heller). In other words, the "worst system of government, except for all of the other systems" worked exactly as it was intended and designed to work. This is and always has been the case with the other Amendments that have been "tested" (the 3rd has never been and 10th has had very limited application). For example, search warrants, Miranda warnings, etc. in criminal cases, freedom of the press does not permit libel or national security impairment, etc.
The bottom line? If you want to "ban guns," it will REQUIRE a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. The process to do so is clearly stated. Good luck, you'll need a lot of it. If you want to pass a carefully-drafted law that restricts certain aspects of gun ownership and possession but does not *infringe* upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms, keeping Heller in mind will be essential.
"Why does the left only sound the gun ban trumpets for these large scale events?"
Because the Left doesn't really care about gun violence or its victims. They know the 2nd amendment stands in the way of their desire to completely control the lives of others.
"The first three words of the second amendment...A WELL REGULATED. prohibiting access to automatic weapons or tanks or nuclear weapons are all reasonable regulations."
Wait, do you seriously think regulated in that usage means to regulate as in to control or as in an authoritative rule? No, "well regulated" means to be well organized or well disciplined or be in effective fighting shape. It has zero to do with regulations/restrictions. And, folks, here is Exhibit A of how ignorant Liberals are of the Constitution. It's embarrassing that our education system produced an adult posting here in this blog that didn't learn basic Civics in grade school.
Tanks and nuclear weapons aren't relevant to a discussion of the 2nd Amendment. Anyone can own or build "a tank" and there are actual military tanks in private ownership. A gun or guns attached to "a tank" are another matter.
As to nuclear weapons, possession of certain necessary components is prohibited so if you cannot legally possess the raw materials necessary to assemble a nuclear weapon, the issue is precluded before "weapon" comes into play. You could not possess a gun (or a tank or a paperweight or...) made from cocaine or heroin because possession of the raw material is prohibited - again, nothing to do with weapons or the 2nd Amendment.
Lastly, "automatic weapons" are not prohibited, they are regulated, and the regulation of them has been determined to pass Constitutional muster. Which gets us, again, right back where we always have been: "the government" can regulate guns within certain boundaries but it cannot "ban guns" without a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
As a rhetorical question, how many responding or even reading realize that the primary authors of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution were liberal Democratic-Republicans? Not just "liberal democratic republicans," mind you, but actual liberal _Democratic-Republicans_. We sure have come a long way...unfortunately it seems in precisely the wrong direction.
Sid Salter: "So then says I to Scalia" ...
Post a Comment