I understand, and have no problem, with responsible gun owners, such as many hunters and gun club members, wanting to protect their Second Amendment rights. What I don’t understand is the National Rifle Association’s zealous attempts to block background checks, safety regulations, and the sharing of data with law enforcement — common-sense measures that would help prevent future tragedies.
It’s almost as though the NRA is determined to ensure that more violent attacks will follow. And make no mistake: More will. As long as members of Congress continue to accept the gun lobby’s contributions and endorsements, and as long as voters continue to elect these officials, the NRA’s undue influence will not subside.
Comments
This comment has been removed.
@Evolver: Well you certainly have an open mind, don't you? "gun crazies", "paranoid rants". Think maybe you are a bit myopic? Nothing like a little name calling to insure a rational discussion, right? Obviously, you haven't "evolved" very much, Evolver.
@Mr. Morrison: I am going to politely correct an incorrect assumption you and many other people have, including gun owners. We do not have a "second amendment right" to own guns. Human beings have a natural right to defend themselves. The Founders recognized this right as something a government does not, and cannot "grant", nor can a government remove that which it does not "grant". It is memorialized as "The right to LIFE, liberty...." The purpose of the 2A can be argued back and forth all day, but the right to life cannot.
Once a person has the right to life, it is obvious that person has a right to defend it. Governments stepping in trying to create laws that define how a person may defend their life is beyond their authority, plain and simple. It is downright stupid if you stop and think about it. As a person, you are not going to think about laws if you are in a fight for you life, you will use whatever means required to survive. The will to live is extremely strong.
See, Mr. Morrison, you said it yourself in your first sentence. You have no problem with hunters and gun clubs
This will to live has to be balanced with some rational thinking. Many gun owners feel that level of thinking occured with the gun laws of the 30's banning machine guns, etc. Also with the laws of the 60's concerning mail order guns, etc.
Very few gun owners are fooled by what you call "background checks, safety regulations, sharing of data", "common sense" anymore. Do the background at a national level include registering the gun being purchased? YOU really do not know do you? Safety regulations? Are you kidding me? One only has to look at MA to see how those "safety regulations" were quickly turned into a tool that is used for everything BUT safety. Then the famous "common sense" is always used to make it appear that anyone who does not agree is a bit crazy. I forgot "sharing of data", oh good, because someone buys a gun, their life data, is "shared" (such a feel good term) with government agencies. Of course, ten years down the road, we do not know what law will be passed allowing that data to be used for other purposes, do we?
See Mr Morrison, you said it yourself in your first sentence, you have no problem with hunters and gun club members. But you do have a problem with everyone else who owns a gun. A huge number of gun owners do not hunt and do not belong to gun clubs. Oh? You did not mean it that way? Maybe that is why the NRA is very careful about the legislation that is proposed, they look at it very carefully, just like I did with your sentence, and find that the "devil is in the details".
Once a person has the right to life, it is obvious that person has a right to defend it
Dont tell that to Dems re: abortion
The 2nd amendment, as written, is an anachronism, and needs to be updated. As is, you can buy a musket as long as you show your militia ID. Other than that...
Lavran: Given your premise, the Declaration of Independence is also an "anachronism", so is it ok if we cancel your right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ?
You do not understand that the right to life is not granted by any government or document, we are endowed with it by the mere fact that we are human beings. We have a right to defend our lives in any manner that we deem appropriate. Folks like you do not have any right to decide what instruments we can use to defend our lives when they are in mortal danger.
Got that?
Your lack of knowledge of how the Declaration, Constitution and the Bill of Rights work together is astounding. But then, being a Californian, yo dude, what could anyone expect?
The Declaration is also anachronistic, and if anyone were to try to apply it verbatim to a current situation, it would need to be updated. The Constitution has been subject to updating whenever "the times they are-a changin' " as well. Most of the Bill of Rights has been subjected to a great deal of judicial and legislative interpretation and updating. The 2nd Amendment is not one of the Ten Commandments, carved in stone and brought down from the mountain. "Folks like me" can only define what rights anybody has if we either get elected to office, or become part of the rich and powerful 1%. You've been tricked into supporting gun manufacturers, and the demagogues who create paranoia and then profit from that fear-mongering. 'Former' Californian- been here in the Northeast (the Brains of the Country) for over half my life.
Because we have a right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, etc., it does NOT follow that we have a right to choose what weapon we defend ourselves with. There is no corelation.
Actually, if you studied one (or more) of the martial arts you would have a higher sense of security, higher self-esteem, and you wouldn't need to carry a weapon. The key word, or course, is study.
Catch any bullets in your teeth lately?
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. [Hans Solo]