Put limits on the Second Amendment now
Yael T. AbouhalkahToday’s gun hearing in Washington is making it clearer than ever why there have to be limits on the Second Amendment.
A civilized society does not exist when people like the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre are running around, clinging to their guns and claiming - without proof - that they need to have high-capacity magazines to defend themselves, especially against the federal government.
Instead, Congress needs to place strong limits on how far the Second Amendment can be used to arm Americans.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, has it exactly right: We have limitations on our other important rights - especially on free speech and against unreasonable search and seizure.
“Just like on the First Amendment, we say you can’t scream fire in a crowded theater falsely,” he said on “Meet the Press” over the weekend. “We have anti-pornography laws. We have anti-libel laws. There are reasonable limitations. And some in the pro-gun movement, and the NRA in many instances, doesn’t believe in any limitation at all. That is not unconstitutional, that just is dumb.”
Schumer and other gun control advocates need to stop kowtowing to those gun lovers who claim the Second Amendment is absolute.
It isn’t. Let’s put some very strong limits on it to save lives in the future.
George Hunsucker
Northland
3 months, 2 weeks agodrum, drum, drum, we want your guns. We, the libs, have shown gun control is working well in our beloved Chicago and we want more of that…..
Matt Henry
3 months, 2 weeks agoYou say that very strong limits on the second amendment will save lives. ‘Without proof’ you say this. I mean, you skewer LaPierre for shooting off his mouth without prof and then you go on to claim that your policies will save lives. Where is your proof? How is that policy working out in Chicago?
Must you not live by the same standard? Must we not see you now through the same haze of hatred that clouds your ability to see?
Man, what a caricature you have become….
Mark Hastert
3 months, 2 weeks ago“Put limits on the Second Amendment now”
… we don’t have to put limitations on the 2nd amendment, they are built in. LaPierre seems to be of the impression that steadfast intransigence will win out but he’s starting to sound like a man in a crazed panic.
Phil Cardarella
3 months, 2 weeks agoDear George:
We do not want your guns. Cross our hearts. We just do not want you — ar anyone else —to be able to massacre rooms full of schoolchildren without at least haveing to go through the trouble of reloading.
Dear Matt:
Sensible regulation will not prevent every act of gun violence (although when the CONSERVATIVE government of Australia banned asssault-type weaponry, their mass murders dropped to ZERO since 1996 — a pretty good record!) You cannot legislate universal sanity.
But…Speed limits do not prevent every auto accident. Locks do not prevent every burglary (a major source of guns for crooks, by the way). Neither is an argument for eliminating speed limits or removing door locks.
And, consider this: Adam Lanza’s mom could not have purchased the weapon he used if the NRA had not killed the Assault Weapons Ban. He might have been able to kill some kids anyway. But, you do the math: 80 bullets a minute v. 6 or 9.
Finally, let us suppose that you are right and it would make no difference at all. What have we lost by not being able to fire 80 rounds a minute? A little fun? Is that so great a sacrifice?
But, if we are right, kids get to live.
Matt Henry
3 months, 2 weeks agoWow. Talk about missing the point.
YTA rails on LaPierre for making claims without proof. Yet he has no proof to back up his claims. His, or your, logic progressions are not proof. But LaPierre has to have it or he is an evil bastage?
My argument from the beginning regarding this author is that his hostility, arrogance and blind arrogance, coupled with his complete lack of filter when it comes to insulting anyone who doesn’t think exactly how he thinks, cannot help solve this problem. Perhaps he doesn’t want to.
Matt McKinley
3 months, 2 weeks ago“And, consider this: Adam Lanza’s mom could not have purchased the weapon he used if the NRA had not killed the Assault Weapons Ban.”
The 1994 AWB was never sunsetted in Connecticut in 2004. All the weapons used in the Newtown shooting were ban compliant. Phil, maybe you should spend more time polishing your Baal’s statues.
Mark Hastert
3 months, 2 weeks agoThe gunzies (gun zombies) seem on the verge of setting their hair on fire. Let’s light up the night!
Bryan Casey
3 months, 2 weeks agohttp://sofrep.com/16644/1000-green-berets-sign-letter-of-support-for-2nd-amendment/
Please, please understand this: most of you would fight to the death to keep your right to free speech. Those of us who own guns feel the same way. We don’t impede on your right to speak your mind, so please don’t make criminals out of us. We will fight back. We defend our rights. And without us, your rights will be taken even more easily and then there will be no one left to defend them. And stop listening to the people who know nothing about guns and crime. Look at the facts: around 300 people are murdered annually by rifles in general (not just “assault rifles”). How many of these are committed by people who were law abiding and obtained them lawfully? I don’t know exact figures, but considering the fact that most of the murders that happen in the US are gang or drug related, it’s a safe bet that most all of them were not and no further gun controls would help. Additionally, the last two mass shootings, like most of them, were done with guns obtained illegally and for which the proposed bans wouldn’t have prevented. And let’s take it to one a little more personal: how many mass shootings were done by an NRA member/Republican? Not one of them. They have all been by registered democrats.
JR Beillenhouser
3 months, 2 weeks agoYeal - google Constitution. Then read it
Chris Bailey
3 months, 2 weeks agoWhat good will it do to create more laws for gun restrictions when the laws that are already in place are cast aside. Most of the crimes involving gun violence are commited by someone who has already been involved in a gun related crime, but was only given a slap on the hand instead of a long jail sentence,only to go out and shoot/murder again.
Greg McFarland
3 months, 2 weeks agoAnd another study disproves the myth that more guns means more death and violence. In fact you might conclude just the opposite.
http://mobi.timesdispatch.com/richmond/pm_19543/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=zF8WDNyd
The gun control group had better start coming up with credible evidence that any type of gun control works if they want to make changes.
Matt Henry
3 months, 2 weeks agoThey don’t have to come up with evidence. They have demagoguery on their side. This column alone, let alone the other 50 this crackpot has written, prove that. And as November proved to us, there are plenty of suckers out there to buy this kind of a line.
Jordan Stapp
3 months, 2 weeks agoPhil Cardarella: New Zealand had a few mass shooting similar to Australia, they instituted no gun control, and yet, New Zealand has had no mass shooting as well. The US NON-firearm-related homicide rate is almost four times Australia’s. If guns are the cause then why aren’t our non-firearm homicide rates the same?
Adam Lanza’s mother COULD have purchased her AR even if the Federal “assault weapons ban” had been in place. In fact, Connecticut’s CURRENT restrictions on semi-auto rifles mirrors the former Federal assault weapons ban.
How about ending the government sponsored victim disarmament zones-er “gun free zones”? If we won’t secure our schools like we do our airports and court houses, then leaving educators and children completely defenseless is ludicrous.
You know what stops a bad guy with a gun? A good guy with a gun. How do we keep bad guys from getting guns? It’s not by taking guns away from the good guys.
Britains gun crime DOUBLED after out right firearm confiscation. Norway has far stricter gun laws than the U.S. and most other European nations, yet a madman with a gun slaughter 70+ of their children.
Lets get serious about the violence in this country. Further restrictions on guns will have zero impact, even if it makes people “feel” safer.
Jason Hartwell
3 months, 2 weeks agoMaybe we need to put limits on the first amendment while we’re at it. Maybe we should limit your right to free expression. Afterall, a blog post like this is pretty dangerous no? Directly calling for curbing of a constitutionally protected ammendment? You wouldn’t feel the same about that would you?
Maybe, while we’re at it, we should limit your right to freedom of religion. Clearly, there has been a rise in Muslim extremism lately. 3,000 plus people were killed on 9/11 by the hands of Muslim extremists. Wouldn’t the world be a safer place if we outlawed the Muslim religion? Ludicrous no? Just as ludicrous as limiting the 2nd ammendment over knee jerk reactions.
You say high capacity magazines are the problem? How many people are killed every year due to the 11th bullet in a magazine? How many people are killed every year in this country by “assault weapons”. Miniscule in relation to your everyday handgun. Miniscule in relation to the number of people bludgeoned to death too. But go ahead with your knee jerk emotional reaction. It shows your ignorance.
Chris Bailey
3 months, 2 weeks agoWant to see the gun murders drop off to almost nothing, go after the gangs. Gangs are all about drugs and murder,so if you are caught as a gang member you get 25 years of hard labor,no exceptions.Thats right, you and you gang buddies can be part of a different gang,digging ditches and busting rocks for 25 years.No one would want anything to do with a gang,the shootings would almost disappear. But OH NO,we cant have that,thats cruel and unusual punishment.We will just light candles and let ballons go after every gang related shooting,that will make everything better.
George Hunsucker
Northland
3 months, 2 weeks agoMaybe zero’s Executive Orders on guns will work as well as this one did….
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2013/01/31/obamas-jobs-council-shutting-down-thursday
What a “leader” zero is…..
Matt Henry
3 months, 2 weeks agoChris - as an answer to your question I will pose another….
Imagine for a moment our roles were reversed, the Republicans were arguing for tougher assault weapons and high-capacity mag bans while leaving handguns out on the street. The prompt for this push by these Republicans is the same as in our reality; the mass shootings in Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut.
Would the question be out in the media as to why the push for JUST these types of weapons with only mild refinement to access to handguns when, in reality, waaaaaay more people are killed by handguns than assault rifles? Is it because the vast majority of the victims of these higher-visibility shootings are white while black people are offing each other in record numbers with handguns?
In other words, why are Mark, Phil, YTA, Dianne Feinstein, Chucky Schumer and all of the other leftist fanatics only trying to get their hands on assault weapons? Is it because these are the weapons of choice for the mass murders of white people but they are just fine watching black folks die by handgun in numbers far, far exceeding anything like what has motivated them to go after assault weapons and high-capacity mags. Not only that, this same party, in most cases, has completely neutered the citizens of these communities from arming themselves in defense of their families. They have created “defense-free zones” and actively govern to stop that from changing, despite the growing death toll.
Don’t pretend for a second that the Democrats and the media wouldn’t be portraying Republicans as racists who only care about the murder of white people. Is it possible, just possible, that Democrats are fine leaving some communities poor and riddled with crime so that they can keep their voting block farms full and growing? Believe me, that is exactly what they would be saying about Republicans.
George Hunsucker
Northland
3 months, 2 weeks agoYou mean libs might be fine leaving the poor defenseless and beholden to the libs Matt? Why that is simply shocking, yes shocking to me…..
Libs keep the poor, poor, to have a voting block since the libs have convinced the poor they care soooooooooooooooooo much about them. Yep, care enough to keep ‘em poor and voting lib!!!
Barry Hirsh
3 months, 2 weeks agoOne-word answer: “NO.”
Here’s a question for you, Yael.
Once you limit that one, which one would you prefer NEXT?
We will not allow the government to limit ANY, period.
How’s that work for ya?
Mark Hastert
3 months, 2 weeks agoWe will not allow the government to limit ANY, period.
How’s that work for ya?
One word answer YES…Go buy a fully automatic weapon, or shoulder launch stinger or any one of the other weapons that are banned, you can’t legally. The 2nd amendment is not unlimited and never has been. All this hysterical intransigence isn’t furthering your cause.
Barry Hirsh
3 months, 2 weeks agoMark Hastert -
There is SCOTUS precedent that draws a bright line protecting the types of arms in question, i.e. those in common use that have a reasonable relationship to the efficiency of a militia.
The first prong, “in common use”, eliminates shoulder-fired rockets, machine guns, grenades (which are really ordnance, not small arms), etc. It PROTECTS, however, AR-15’s and AK semi-auto variants, and their component parts, as well as the ammunition necessary for them to function. They are in common use, and have been for decades. magazine-fed semi-autos have been in common use for over half a century.
The limitations to which I refer are any beyond what is already in precedent, which, by the way THE CONGRESS IS BOUND TO OBEY.
¿Comprende?
Mark Hastert
3 months, 2 weeks agoSo..there ARE some types or weapons that can be banned. That’s progress and more than the NRA’s been willing to admit thus far. So… “no not any, period” just ain’t so.
Add to that the NRA’s agreement that crazies & known criminals ought to be restricted and you have consensus that, yes we can ban certain weapons and yes we can keep certain types of people from having any weapons at all. So you see the 2nd amendment isn’t absolute and unrestricted. It’s perfectly constitutional. So all this hysterical hyperbole is just so much theater.
If we could all use that as a starting point we might be able to do something meaningful.
Mark Hastert
3 months, 2 weeks agoA 3 year old from Mission was shot in his father’s apartment today with a 9mm thought to belong to his father. So much for home defense. Maybe we should add morons to the list of people who shouldn’t be allowed to own guns along with criminals and the insane.
Joe Wright
3 months, 2 weeks agoYael,how about we put limits on the First Amendment ? The Second is there for a reason, and maybe you will figure it out, when the Government shuts down your rag.
Mark Hastert
3 months, 2 weeks ago“Yael,how about we put limits on the First Amendment ?”
Well actually we do have limits on the 1st amendment. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, a paper or journalist cannot slander or libel. It’s disconcerting that so many people righteously cite the Constitution yet are not really familiar with it. Rights are never unconditional.
Barry Hirsh
3 months, 2 weeks agoMark, you still miss the point.
The arms that can be banned HAVE been banned.
Those the administration and Congress are targeting are protected by precedent, recognized as those the people have a right to keep and bear.
That argument is over before it begins.
But it never is with liberals, is it….?
Barry Hirsh
3 months, 2 weeks agoMark, quit with the inane “fire in a crowded theater” nonsense.
The government can’t prohibit you from having a mouth and a brain, and it can’t make you leave either at home or in your car because you MIGHT flip out and scream “fire” in a crowded theater.
You can’t abridge a fundamental right, you can only punish its abuse.