While poking around for efforts to repeal the 2A...

azurefly

Moderator
I found this article (from 2002) in The Harvard Crimson online...

Note how whatever ultraleftist wrote this abomination actually says that America needs to ban handguns and beyond that, repeal the 2nd Amendment! :mad:


And that would solve our crime problems. Yup.

When two-thirds of the murders in the U.S. are committed with guns, one would hope that politicians would be taking prudent steps to restrict access to firearms. Against all common sense, Attorney General John Ashcroft is working to make guns more easily available. Last Monday, the Justice Department reversed its longstanding position on the Second Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear arms,” reinterpreting it as an individual right to own guns rather than a collective right to bear arms in a militia. Ashcroft’s policy reversal confirms many concerns about his appointment and verifies the National Rifle Association’s boast during the 2000 election that it would be working out of the Bush White House.

Ashcroft’s new interpretation flies in the face of the Supreme Court’s last decision on the Second Amendment. In the 1939 case United States vs. Miller, the court established that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms only with some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia. In fulfilling his oath of office, Ashcroft must respect that the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court is “the supreme law of the land.” He should encourage the Justice Department to follow the justices’ directive and not push his own personal interpretation on the department or on the American people.

Regardless of the Supreme Court’s current position, it is frightening that Ashcroft, in the position of the nation’s top crime fighter, wants to liberalize federal firearm policy. A good attorney general would work to take the country in exactly the opposite direction. America needs tougher laws to keep weapons away from criminals and children, ban handguns and create a national gun registry to keep track of weapons and their owners.

The obstacle to taking these steps goes beyond Ashcroft’s hard-line policy. The vague wording of the Second Amendment leaves open the possibility that a future Supreme Court will reinterpret the Constitution the way Ashcroft does. The amendment has the potential to obstruct future federal gun control legislation that could prevent thousands of needless deaths. Therefore, the American people and the individual states should vocally push for the repeal of the Second Amendment.

Repealing a constitutional amendment is not an action to be taken lightly; [Really? That's exactly what you are doing. -azurefly] America is obviously a nation that prides itself on the rights and freedoms of individuals. But the time has come for the U.S. to weigh the right to bear arms against the right to be free from gun violence in schools, workplaces and city streets.


-azurefly
 
I don't even know what to say to this kind of thing anymore. We say that responsible citizens having guns reduces violence, they say it increases it, repeat repeat etc. The same arguments are being thrown back and forth to little effect. Each side has it's own "statistics" that "prove" their claim is correct. Both sides of the gun control debate appeal to peoples emotions such as fear and anger (ie. Fear: If you don't have a gun you can't protect your family vs. If you have a gun it will kill people. Anger: Your 2nd amendment rights are being violated! vs. Ban guns now, they are killing school children!, etc.)
I don’t see an easy solution. Obviously I’m biased here, but pro-gun facts are far superior and far more logical than anti-gun “facts,” but this doesn’t change anything as long as there are people willing to believe in the other side. I can’t think of a good way to end my thought, so I’ll just stop here.
 
When two-thirds of the murders in the U.S. are committed with guns, one would hope that politicians would be taking prudent steps to restrict access to firearms.
When two-thirds of assaults are committed to rob the victim of paper money, jewelry, credit cards and cell phones, one would hope that politicians would be taking prudent steps to eliminate paper money, jewelry, credit cards, and cell phones.

When two-thirds of assaults are committed with rocks, one would hope that politicians would be taking prudent steps to collect all rocks and sink them deep into the ocean.

When two-thirds of murderers have read read Harry Potter, one would hope that politicians would be taking prudent steps to ban such an antisocial book.
 
I disagree with C Philip on one major point:

Pro-gunners generally are not fear-mongers in any way near the way that anti-gunners are.

If a pro-gunner says, "If your home is invaded, you may have a hard time defending your family if you don't have a gun," he is simply stating the truth, and imploring the listener to evaluate his own ability to mount an adequate defense against an attacker.

That is hardly the same as, "If you don't have a gun, you gonna DIE!"

And it is a world different from saying, "If you get that gun, your family is 43 times more likely to die from gunfire!"

We are NOT the side using fear tactics. We are using REASON, and that is what separates us from the antis.

How do I know that we use reason and they do not? Because clearly it is not reasonable to suggest that a person who LACKS defensive capability is safer than someone who HAS it.


-azurefly
 
"We are NOT the side using fear tactics. We are using REASON, and that is what separates us from the antis."

Exactly... and that's why it's so frustrating, if not an outright waste of time, to argue with an anti. It's like Spock trying to convince a nine-year-old that astrology doesn't work--it so boggles his mind that his opponent is not swayed by clear, obvious facts, eventually he can't figure out how to proceed.

Tim
 
Back
Top