Weaponry today
December 13, 2013 8:53 PM
I?m sick and tired hearing about our Second Amendment. No one expects to take the Second Amendment off anyone, but when that was written, they didn?t have guns that shot 30 bullets at a time.
Think how many of those children from Sandy Hook Elementary School would still be alive today if a muzzleloader had been used.
TRUDY
Post
18 Comments
Richard -
that may be true but to punish law abiding gun owners for those who want to do us harm isn't the answer. to say we must do this while most if not all gun crimes are done with illegal guns is the problem but we a told by the aclu we can't stop and frisk those we know have them because of the 4th amendment so should we get rid of that? no i think you would say so why is everyone want to do the same with the 2nd amendment. it seems we need to do the right thing and just pass a law that would make the present gun laws stronger but that will not work if the laws we have now don't so let the law do their job by helping them do theirs and tell what we know.
Ed -
We should remember that the NRA used Republicans in Congress to abolish federal funding on research into gun violence. http://www.busi*nessinsider.com*/cdc-nra-kills-*gun-violence-re*search-2013-1
So it is the NRA which controls all research into gun violence now, and their researchers don't even bother with academically responsible methodology. http://www.wash*ingtonmonthly.c*om/...4/*gun_policy_frau*dster_john_lott*036987.php
The idea has been advanced (and as far as I can tell not refuted) that the second amendment was written to reassure the South that Congress would not take away their "slave patrols", the practice of arming every white male from 18 to 54 in order to be able to put down slave rebellions. http://papers.s*srn.com/sol3/pa*pers.cfm?abstra*ct_id=1465114
The Civil War should have put an end to that particular original intent of the Framers. But of course, as I pointed out above, gun absolutists have their own facts that they claim show all gun crime is committed with illegal guns, but because the second amendment does not permit records of straw purchases by rich white people, the only way to prevent gun crime is to search every person of color on the street., to profile everyone who is not white.
And of course there is the argument that Democrats are to blame for releasing all mental health patients into the community in the 70's and 80's, which conveniently forgets Ronald Reagan and his cuts for mental health funding. http://www.salo*n.com/2013/09/2*9/r...ga*cy_violence_the*_homeless_menta*l_illness/
We all know that if it got too expensive to warehouse the mentally ill as gun absolutists seem to be advocating for, the next Republican solution would be "Death Panels" as the only "humane" solution to mental illness. Anything besides limits on types of guns or magazines, or universal background checks.
Edward -
Well, let's extrapolate your argument.
When the 1st Amendment was written, there wasn't an internet for an individual to share their opinions with the entire world with the click of a key...I'm sick of the First Amendment. If you type reasonably well (60WPM), you have to consider that when the Bill of Rights was written it took hours to typeset a single page, so think how many ridiculous opinions wouldn't be shared if one had to take to parchment with ink and quill rather than her keyboard.
That being said, I'm not overly surprised that this made the editorial page in this leftist rag.
John -
The cost, time and effort involved in using quill and parchment probably would have precluded the use of unnecessary pejoratives like "leftist rag."
John -
Ms. Wetzel-The proposals that you posit, although veiled, play to emotion rather than fact. Firearms are the most heavily regulated consumer product in America. You likely are not aware of the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968 and 1986, BATFE regulations on sale and transfers of firearms, and the SAAMI specifications that are adhered to by arms and ammo makers. So far as modern day firearms, aside from appearance there have been little changes in function, magazine capacity, and bullet designs since around 1898 when the metallic cartridge and smokeless powder came into play. The most popular of handguns has been in use by civilians and military since 1911. Modern day high capacity firearms is a red herring. They've been around for over a century.
Ed -
You are saying that research into gun design comes only from "the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968 and 1986, BATFE regulations on sale and transfers of firearms, and the SAAMI specifications that are adhered to by arms and ammo makers"? And that all current guns are functionally the same as the Mauser Broomhandle? I don't recall the C 96 Mauser being able to use a hundred round drum or even a thirty round clip, but I may be mistaken.
In any event, I think Ms Wetzel's point was that common sense gun control would take into account the difference between the framer's original intent and what has been accomplished with technology (regardless of your specious argument) even one hundred years, not to say more than two hundred, after the Second Amendment was written.
Ken -
Thermonuclear weapons don't kill people. People kill people.
Edward -
Only in Japan...only 68 years ago. USA! USA!
Oren -
The easy availability of guns, the gun culture, and the prevailing view of a strong minority that the Second Amendment should be virtually unlimited have made it easy for the gun homicide epidemic to continue unabated, a phenomenon which is unique to our country.
John -
Oren-there are by most estimates, some 110 million lawful firearms owners in the United States. Hardly a "minority". And oh by the way, here in Pennsylvania, if you discard the carnage in Philadelphia's poor neighborhoods, as well as Pittsburgh's, the Commonwealth is safer than living in Japan. Perhaps real consequences for gun crimes instead of feel good plea bargains might contain the felonious folk who regard "laws" as simply something good people obey?
Oren -
First on the issue of the 110 million firearms owners, you seem to presuming that every one of them is against any legislation such as that which even National Rifle Association darling Pat Toomey proposed. I do not lump them all into that category. On the issue of dispensing severe penalties to those that violate our laws, we are in complete agreement. I believe that our system is justice is impotent as I see case after case in which probation or house arrest for short periods of time are dispensed for serious infractions.In instances in which a prison term is meted out to the criminal, it is often too brief to offer protection to innocent people. It is particularly sickening when an individual that has demonstrated that he is a violent menace to society is released to the streets to commit more mayhem.
Ed Heath -
Law are "imply something good people obey"? You mean like the laws obeyed by the banks and other financial institutions are bundling and selling mortgage back securities that they knew were toxic?
Ans as for :"feel good plea bargains" how do you account for the fact we have more people in prison per capita and in absolute terms than any other country on earth.
And it must be nice to be able to dismiss the rights of people to be able to live, just because they are poor and happen to live in poor neighborhoods. I guess the thought of trying to track and stop the flow of illegal guns is out of the question, since it might involve the arrest and prosecution of wealthy white people.
Edward -
Wow...are you the same type of individual that tells everybody not to judge all Muslims by the acts of a few?
I can hear it now, "Not all Muslims are terrorists."
And yet you seem to paint all gun owners with the same brush.
Eric -
Trudy,when the 2nd Amendment was written, governments didn't have guns that shot 30 rounds at a time, either.
Ed -
Are you saying Adam Lanza, Jared Lee Loughner and/or Nidal Hasan were government agents?
Mike -
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The problem isn't the guns, it's the mentally defective people and the ways they get hold of guns. Sandy Hook would have never happened if that boy was locked away like he should have been or if his mother had not brought guns into the home of a person that was mentally ill. And, when second amendment was written, nobody had guns that shoot 30 rounds, including governments that the people have the right to protect themselves from.
John -
And who is going to be the "decider" about who is mentally ill and who should be "locked away"? The government? Are you cool with that? It was impossible to predict that Lanza would go off like he did. For every Lanza there are hundreds of thousands of others with the same exact symptoms who will NOT go off and kill anyone.
Ed -
I thought social program spending is what is bankrupting America.
December 13, 2013 8:53 PM
I?m sick and tired hearing about our Second Amendment. No one expects to take the Second Amendment off anyone, but when that was written, they didn?t have guns that shot 30 bullets at a time.
Think how many of those children from Sandy Hook Elementary School would still be alive today if a muzzleloader had been used.
TRUDY
Post
18 Comments
Richard -
that may be true but to punish law abiding gun owners for those who want to do us harm isn't the answer. to say we must do this while most if not all gun crimes are done with illegal guns is the problem but we a told by the aclu we can't stop and frisk those we know have them because of the 4th amendment so should we get rid of that? no i think you would say so why is everyone want to do the same with the 2nd amendment. it seems we need to do the right thing and just pass a law that would make the present gun laws stronger but that will not work if the laws we have now don't so let the law do their job by helping them do theirs and tell what we know.
Ed -
We should remember that the NRA used Republicans in Congress to abolish federal funding on research into gun violence. http://www.busi*nessinsider.com*/cdc-nra-kills-*gun-violence-re*search-2013-1
So it is the NRA which controls all research into gun violence now, and their researchers don't even bother with academically responsible methodology. http://www.wash*ingtonmonthly.c*om/...4/*gun_policy_frau*dster_john_lott*036987.php
The idea has been advanced (and as far as I can tell not refuted) that the second amendment was written to reassure the South that Congress would not take away their "slave patrols", the practice of arming every white male from 18 to 54 in order to be able to put down slave rebellions. http://papers.s*srn.com/sol3/pa*pers.cfm?abstra*ct_id=1465114
The Civil War should have put an end to that particular original intent of the Framers. But of course, as I pointed out above, gun absolutists have their own facts that they claim show all gun crime is committed with illegal guns, but because the second amendment does not permit records of straw purchases by rich white people, the only way to prevent gun crime is to search every person of color on the street., to profile everyone who is not white.
And of course there is the argument that Democrats are to blame for releasing all mental health patients into the community in the 70's and 80's, which conveniently forgets Ronald Reagan and his cuts for mental health funding. http://www.salo*n.com/2013/09/2*9/r...ga*cy_violence_the*_homeless_menta*l_illness/
We all know that if it got too expensive to warehouse the mentally ill as gun absolutists seem to be advocating for, the next Republican solution would be "Death Panels" as the only "humane" solution to mental illness. Anything besides limits on types of guns or magazines, or universal background checks.
Edward -
Well, let's extrapolate your argument.
When the 1st Amendment was written, there wasn't an internet for an individual to share their opinions with the entire world with the click of a key...I'm sick of the First Amendment. If you type reasonably well (60WPM), you have to consider that when the Bill of Rights was written it took hours to typeset a single page, so think how many ridiculous opinions wouldn't be shared if one had to take to parchment with ink and quill rather than her keyboard.
That being said, I'm not overly surprised that this made the editorial page in this leftist rag.
John -
The cost, time and effort involved in using quill and parchment probably would have precluded the use of unnecessary pejoratives like "leftist rag."
John -
Ms. Wetzel-The proposals that you posit, although veiled, play to emotion rather than fact. Firearms are the most heavily regulated consumer product in America. You likely are not aware of the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968 and 1986, BATFE regulations on sale and transfers of firearms, and the SAAMI specifications that are adhered to by arms and ammo makers. So far as modern day firearms, aside from appearance there have been little changes in function, magazine capacity, and bullet designs since around 1898 when the metallic cartridge and smokeless powder came into play. The most popular of handguns has been in use by civilians and military since 1911. Modern day high capacity firearms is a red herring. They've been around for over a century.
Ed -
You are saying that research into gun design comes only from "the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968 and 1986, BATFE regulations on sale and transfers of firearms, and the SAAMI specifications that are adhered to by arms and ammo makers"? And that all current guns are functionally the same as the Mauser Broomhandle? I don't recall the C 96 Mauser being able to use a hundred round drum or even a thirty round clip, but I may be mistaken.
In any event, I think Ms Wetzel's point was that common sense gun control would take into account the difference between the framer's original intent and what has been accomplished with technology (regardless of your specious argument) even one hundred years, not to say more than two hundred, after the Second Amendment was written.
Ken -
Thermonuclear weapons don't kill people. People kill people.
Edward -
Only in Japan...only 68 years ago. USA! USA!
Oren -
The easy availability of guns, the gun culture, and the prevailing view of a strong minority that the Second Amendment should be virtually unlimited have made it easy for the gun homicide epidemic to continue unabated, a phenomenon which is unique to our country.
John -
Oren-there are by most estimates, some 110 million lawful firearms owners in the United States. Hardly a "minority". And oh by the way, here in Pennsylvania, if you discard the carnage in Philadelphia's poor neighborhoods, as well as Pittsburgh's, the Commonwealth is safer than living in Japan. Perhaps real consequences for gun crimes instead of feel good plea bargains might contain the felonious folk who regard "laws" as simply something good people obey?
Oren -
First on the issue of the 110 million firearms owners, you seem to presuming that every one of them is against any legislation such as that which even National Rifle Association darling Pat Toomey proposed. I do not lump them all into that category. On the issue of dispensing severe penalties to those that violate our laws, we are in complete agreement. I believe that our system is justice is impotent as I see case after case in which probation or house arrest for short periods of time are dispensed for serious infractions.In instances in which a prison term is meted out to the criminal, it is often too brief to offer protection to innocent people. It is particularly sickening when an individual that has demonstrated that he is a violent menace to society is released to the streets to commit more mayhem.
Ed Heath -
Law are "imply something good people obey"? You mean like the laws obeyed by the banks and other financial institutions are bundling and selling mortgage back securities that they knew were toxic?
Ans as for :"feel good plea bargains" how do you account for the fact we have more people in prison per capita and in absolute terms than any other country on earth.
And it must be nice to be able to dismiss the rights of people to be able to live, just because they are poor and happen to live in poor neighborhoods. I guess the thought of trying to track and stop the flow of illegal guns is out of the question, since it might involve the arrest and prosecution of wealthy white people.
Edward -
Wow...are you the same type of individual that tells everybody not to judge all Muslims by the acts of a few?
I can hear it now, "Not all Muslims are terrorists."
And yet you seem to paint all gun owners with the same brush.
Eric -
Trudy,when the 2nd Amendment was written, governments didn't have guns that shot 30 rounds at a time, either.
Ed -
Are you saying Adam Lanza, Jared Lee Loughner and/or Nidal Hasan were government agents?
Mike -
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The problem isn't the guns, it's the mentally defective people and the ways they get hold of guns. Sandy Hook would have never happened if that boy was locked away like he should have been or if his mother had not brought guns into the home of a person that was mentally ill. And, when second amendment was written, nobody had guns that shoot 30 rounds, including governments that the people have the right to protect themselves from.
John -
And who is going to be the "decider" about who is mentally ill and who should be "locked away"? The government? Are you cool with that? It was impossible to predict that Lanza would go off like he did. For every Lanza there are hundreds of thousands of others with the same exact symptoms who will NOT go off and kill anyone.
Ed -
I thought social program spending is what is bankrupting America.
