Repeal the Second amendment, Thats what one reporter calls for!

El Jefe

New member
I could not believe the amount of ignorance shown by this writer at the Miami Herald, he even left an e-mail address at the bottom of article, sounds as though he wants and needs to be educated.....Here is the article: http://www.herald.com/content/today/opinion/digdocs/081433.htm


Max J. Castro

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Repeal the Second Amendment
Like a bad dream, like the monster in a horror movie with a never-ending set of sequels, the National Rifle Association just keeps coming back. Unrepentant despite Columbine and countless other cases of carnage in America, the NRA met in convention last weekend to trumpet its alleged comeback, to bluster and to issue political threats. NRA President and former actor Charlton Heston held a musket aloft and challenged anyone to take it away. But he made it clear that his real target is Al Gore and that the NRA will do anything in its power to hand the election to George W. Bush and defeat the vice president.
Bush likes to portray himself as a moderate and a reformer on every issue, including guns, but he isn't fooling the NRA on this one. Politically savvy to a fault, the NRA knows very well who will do its bidding -- Bush -- and who will stand in its way -- Gore. The gun lobby can see through Bush's gesture of handing out free trigger locks to a few thousand Texans as the kind of empty political ploy that interferes with the status quo and the NRA agenda not at all. The Doonesbury comic strip that depicts the NRA answering calls from the White House after Bush has been elected is an exercise in artistic license. But it's not far from the truth judging from the savage way the NRA has been attacking Gore while raising big bucks for Bush.

Like no other issue, the gun issue and the NRA's enthusiasm for Bush expose the contradictions in the GOP candidate's carefully constructed image as a moderate and a reformer. The NRA is an extremist, fundamentalist organization when it comes to guns laws, and it frequently issues inflammatory statements that rival the pronouncements of this country's worst racial demagogues.

The gun lobby's successful use of political money and muscle to block modest gun-control measures in the face of common sense and American's overwhelming support, is Exhibit A in the case for campaign reform. The NRA's warm, fuzzy feelings for Bush betray what it really thinks of the candidate's reformist, moderate posturing and who it thinks is the best candidate for gun fundamentalists. Will voters see that as well?

Meanwhile, the man on the moon or any European or Japanese who is watching the current U.S. debate on gun control must be amused. The fierceness of the NRA attack on Gore and the Million Mom March must seem entirely disproportionate given the mildness of the measures that gun-control advocates favor, especially compared with the toll that guns take in terms of human lives. If cars are registered and drivers are licensed, what can be wrong about doing the same with guns and gun owners?
18th CENTURY NEEDS

Certainly, the availability of guns is not the only factor accounting for America's wide lead in homicide rates compared with other industrialized countries. But the belief that a substantial minority of Americans seem to want to hold on to that guns are not an important factor in the carnage strikes outsiders to the American lore of the frontier and self-reliance as anachronistic and deluded as the long-discarded belief that blacks really were happy on those plantations.

Why is there is no debate at all on the source of the problem: the Second Amendment? The Constitution is a magnificent and venerable document, but it's not perfect or static. The Founders themselves recognized and used the amendment process.

The right to bear arms made sense in the 18th Century to provide for the common defense and afford citizens a guarantee against the encroachment of absolute monarchs. But today we don't rely on a militia to defend the country, and tyranny would involve a monopoly of media, not muskets. Born as a bulwark of democracy, the Second Amendment is the last refuge of gun fundamentalists and their well-financed lobbyists indifferent to the tragedies their liberal gun laws produce. Who will be the first politician to stand up and shout: ``Repeal!''
maxcastro@miami.edu




------------------
...“ They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” --Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

Take care and God Bless, El Jefe

The ANTI-HCI Site!
 
Amazing nothing was said in reference to all the big name celebs putting on fund raisers for the Demos, yet the NRA can't support a candidate that holds their beliefs?

Truly amazing, or sickening.

Gator

[This message has been edited by swampgator (edited May 25, 2000).]
 
Hey Castro, let's repeal the First while we are at it. Carry your rear end back to Cuba if you want Gun Control.

From' my cold, dead hands.

------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."

[This message has been edited by Will Beararms (edited May 26, 2000).]
 
Gentlemen:

I highly resent the nature and content of the aritcle by Max Castro in which he advocates the repeal of the Second Amendment to our Constitution.

Your freedom to publish such  a diatribe is guarenteed by the First Amendment.  The Second Amendment protects the First, and the others.

The Second Amendment does NOT bestow the citizens right to keep and bear arms, rather it is an affirmation of pre-existing right recognized long before the war of revolution.  The very fact that the colonial citizens were individualy armed was instrumental in our ability to revolt and overcome.

Mr Castro trys to make a point over the bodies of school children gunned down by criminals.  He omits the fact that the shootings refered to occured at schools where guns were NOT allowed.  In the states that have NOT recognized the federal gun free school dictate, the students appear to be far safer.

In the interest of brevity I will not go into Mr. Castro's article paragraph by paragraph.  Suffice it to say that there appears to be nothing of truth or substance in his writing.  He does make a point for campaign reform but his exhibit A is erronious.  Exhibit A for campaign reform should be the example of our President and many politicians:  Bought by and delivered to Communist China.  

Mr Castro appears to not be cognizant of the fact that the United States of America was born as a Constitutional Republic; by design.  Governed by the people, for the people.

Compiling a list of your advertisers, and contacting them; will be an entertaining undertaking.

Sam Anderson 

------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
Sent to Mr. Castro, without an ounce of optimism, I'll add ... ;)

*********************************************

Dear Mr. Castro:

I commend you for the passionate delivery in your essay.

I am also surprised at some of your assertions and conclusions.

For example, it is rare for writers to use race references in relation to firearms. Regarding the NRA, you state "...it frequently issues inflammatory statements that rival the pronouncements of this country's worst racial demagogues". Regarding the impact of guns on the country, you state "... as anachronistic and deluded as the long-discarded belief that blacks really were happy on those plantations." What does racism have to do with this debate? For that matter, I found your term of 'gun fundamentalists' rather interesting .... apparently an allusion to Christian fundamentalists?

As far as the NRA being 'politically savvy to a fault', I think one would need to be brain dead to have difficulty determining which candidate is sensitive to the right to keep and bear arms, and which candidate is willing to further restrict Americans' right to self defense. What can be so surprising that the NRA will work to defeat Al Gore in November, and elect George W. Bush? Let me also point out that NRA membership (as well as the Gun Owners of America, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, the Second Amendment Foundation, the Second Amendment Sisters, and on and on) is increasing at a rapid rate. And, it is money from their millions of supporters that actually funds the political support that you abhor. It is not some nefarious corporation or governmental entity ... it is the heartfelt support of individual Americans who are concerned about their right to defend themselves and their families.

More to the point of your essay, the repeal of the Second Amendment is an interesting topic. Many people that feel as you do actually argue strenuously that the Second Amendment does not recognize an individual right to keep and bear arms. Or, alternatively, that even if that right is recognized, then the Amendment does not prevent our government(s) from imposing various infringements on that right. Most anti-self defense activists are not as forthright as you ... in that sense, your statement is courageous in its honesty.

Now, the tone of your article does carry a signficant bit of the gun 'bigotry' we see so prevalent these days. An assumption, usually delivered with a sarcastic smear, that the pro-self defense, pro-civil rights movement is made up of racist, moronic Neanderthals. Now, you may believe that that is the case. But I meet and converse with many attorneys, business owners, military officers, CPA's, doctors, professors and others throughout this country that believe strongly in the individual right to keep and bear arms. These people are not fools, they are not racists, and they logically approach this issue. Any conversation about the right to keep and bear arms will bear more fruit, and result in more reasonable approaches to the problems of violence if each side gives the other some credit, for both brains and compassion.

Let me offer that there are some interesting books that address some of the assertions and core beliefs underlying the message in your essay. 'That Every Man Be Armed' by Stephen Halbrook is an interesting history and analysis of the right to keep and bear arms. Believe it or not, the individual right to bear arms was actually debated by Socrates and Plato. Regarding international perspectives on gun control, you might find 'The Samurai, the Mountie and the Cowboy' by David Kopel to be an interesting read - you may be fascinated, as I was, that Japan has a terrible problem with suicides, even though they have very few guns. And 'More Guns, Less Crime' by Dr. John Lott, Jr. is also a fascinating perspective on the unintended consequences of heartfelt and well-intentioned citizen control / gun control laws.

Finally, let me point out that many of us are greatly concerned abou this issue, and not because of 'reasonable' gun control laws. If you examine the subject carefully, you will note that we are currently experiencing an all out offensive against this fundamental right. At the federal, state, county and local levels we see proposed (and, often passed) legislation regarding the carrying of firearms, features on firearms, magazine capacity, size of ammunition, registration, confiscation (see www.sksbuyback.org ), age restrictions and so on. It takes profound naivete to believe that the anti-self defense movement only wants a few 'reasonable' gun controls.

Mr. Castro, I've taken the time to respond to your excellent essay because I recognize a bit of myself in your writing. Up until about 18 months ago I had little interest in this issue, and even wondered a bit about the need for the Second Amendment. Since that time, I began researching and examining the statistics, facts and arguments offered by both sides in this debate. While neither side is perfect, I have been tremendously impressed by the poor research and misinformation proffered by anti-self defense groups such as Handgun Control, Inc., the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence and others - they prove time and again that their assertions cannot be trusted. I believe that if you make an honest, in-depth investigation of this subject, you too may find your perspective changed on this issue.

*********************************************

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited May 26, 2000).]
 
The author of the Constitution could have never imagined the morphogenesis of sattelite communications and 24 hour/day news coverage. In the 18th Century, information was disseminated through a flurry of small newspapers printed on archaeic presses that were limited in their capacity to produce. The founders would be horrified by the enormity of today's media and the power and influence they wield. Today's high capacity, ultra automatic printing machines allow enormous amounts of information to ruthlessly overwhelm a vulnerable public. The First Ammendment was never designed to protect today's BIG, LARGE capacity media conglomerates from MASS distribution of vulgarity and character assasination. The First Ammendment is therefore an obsolete document that refers only to the freedom of small, local newspapers printed on slow, traditional, black-ink and paper, printing presses.
 
My .02:

Mr. Castro:

I quote you, "Unrepentant despite Columbine...".

The NRA, nor any of its members, have anything to repent. Your referral to Columbine and the actions of other miscreants is abhorrent and insulting. I know many gun owners that would have willingly given, as many have, anything to save the lives of the innocent that day.

In addition, the Second Amendment still serves a very important purpose; it maintains your RIGHT to bad-mouth the NRA, Clinton and his cronies, and your precious Fidel (from a distance, of course).

Finally, you say, "the right to bear arms made sense in the 18th Century to provide for the common defense and afford citizens a guarantee against the encroachment of absolute monarchs." Very true. Now consider that back then, in those rural environs, even up to the 1950's when I was growing up, people didn't much think about locking their doors either. Crime has risen, and the probable need for SELF-DEFENSE has risen exponentially. Even your own beloved Rosie O' is uncomfortable, and rumor has it that her bodyguard is looking for a permit.

Perhaps you need to re-think a few things through. Besides, shooting is fun; it teaches hand/eye coordination, discipline, safety and most importantly, when taught correctly it nourishes an appreciation and zest for life.

Yours truly,
Terry Money
 
I am not at all afraid of the repeal of the 2nd. My right to life (and thus my right to bear arms) exists outside the scope of any written document or other authority administratively created by man.

------------------
"Anyone feel like saluting the flag which the strutting ATF and FBI gleefully raised over the smoldering crematorium of Waco, back in April of ‘93?" -Vin Suprynowicz
 
I suggest sending copies of the letters to the Miami Herald. Max Castro may ignore us but maby his paper won't.
Sam
 
Wasnt one of the principle killers at columbine the son of an hci member?...does anyone know which one that was.....fubsy.
 
fubsy, as I recall, it was the son of and HCI member that sold the Tec-9 to the criminals. Of course, the main stream media never paid much attention to that little detail.
 
"But today we don't rely on a militia to defend the country, and tyranny would involve a monopoly of media",

Straight from the horses mouth, boys and girls.

"Tyranny would involve a monopoly of the media"

This IS what we have in America today!
 
Jeff/Tmoney:

I applaud your efforts but you cannot reason with these imbeciles. The best thing for everyone would be if Castro went back to Cuba where he could get a feel firsthand, for Gun Control.

------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
 
Karanas,

What you said. I'd copied the exact same text in preparation for a bolded-paste job in this thread. Tyranny IS what we have today. The clock is ticking. Soon, VERY soon, the guerilla war will begin. I am horrified at this, but the next revolution is afoot, and gun owners are equivalent to the North Vietnamese.

What will happen THIS time...?
 
Just sent him a letter.

The media is composed of idiotic leftists such as this man. This why we shouldn't concern ourselves with what they will say about us. They hate us.
So go ahead and pass some gun owner dollars!
 
Dennis, ever read the story "Breakdown"? by William Johnstone. Link to "Breakdown" at Amazon.com It hits far TOO close to home.

------------------
...“ They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” --Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

Take care and God Bless, El Jefe

The ANTI-HCI Site!

Edited to fix formatting. - TBM

[This message has been edited by TheBluesMan (edited May 26, 2000).]
 
I don't respond to most of these bozo's, but now and then ...

I liked the 'tyranny ... monopoly of media' comment as well. Another TFL'er called it a 'government-media complex' (ala the military-industrial complex). Right on.

Regards from AZ
 
Subject: Your silly article
To: maxcastro@miami.edu

....Any relation to the "other" Castro?

I won't waste my time answering the lightweight
ranting, baseless statements on your anti-Constitution
article.

Suffice it to say that you must be as ignorant in
20th-Century history as you are clouded by delusions
about the reasons why this Country was founded.

Your article would make me laugh if you were not so
dead serious about it. That, sir, makes me pity you
and wonder what you had to do to get a job with a
major newspaper.



------------------
Private gun ownership is the capital sin in the left's godless religion. Crime is merely a venial mistake.

Check out these gals: www.sas-aim.org
 
Back
Top