Yeah, right.
Posted on 09/14/2006 11:08:33 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
A lot of people have been trying to add amendments to the constitution lately. They want a ban on gay marriage, on flag burning and a few others I won't mention here because they're almost as ridiculous as a ban on flag burning. However, since we're talking so much about adding, I think we need to take one away. Here it is: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
You got it - the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Frankly, folks, I'm tired of it. We debate it all the time and get nowhere, so I say let's just remove it all together.
But no. In America, if you question the Constitution or the founders, you might as well be questioning your own status as an American citizen. The founders are treated like prophets and the Constitution like the Bible. I am so tired of it! People throw quotes from Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin into political debates with me all the time, and I want to hit them in the face. Who cares what James Madison and the rest said? They've been dead for more than 150 years! Yes, they were very smart and did an amazing job with the formation of our country. But they aren't alive today, and their views on guns, religion and - oh, yes - slaves, simply do not apply.
Let's not forget what the founders said about "all other Persons" (black people) in the Constitution. In congressional representation, each non-white was counted as three-fifths of a person. Do we hate the founders for it? No. We may despise the crime of slavery, but over time, we fixed it. Now it's time to fix the crime of the second amendment.
According to the National Center for Health Statistics, there were more than 30,000 gun deaths in the United States in 2003 - all because of guns. Gun-lovers often say things such as, "Guns don't kill people. People do." Well, that's true, it is not the gun itself that kills a person. However, it certainly makes it easier.
Next you'll hear a gun-lover say that if everybody had guns, we'd be much safer. Honestly, I have no idea how that works. I suppose they think that everyone would be able to protect themselves. Man, too bad nobody with a gun was around presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan when they got shot. Oh wait, the United States Secret Service. I'd say that the Secret Service is pretty well trained, but I suppose gun-lovers think that we'd all be much faster than the bodyguards for the President of the United States.
The final argument by gun-lovers, and the one that sounds the best on the surface, is that there are plenty of other ways to kill people than guns. For example, baseball bats. So why shouldn't we outlaw baseball bats? Well, one reason is because there were 150 times more gun deaths than strike (bludgeon) deaths in the U.S. in 2003. Besides, baseball bats are made to hit baseballs. Guns are made for one reason - to kill people.
We talk about the culture of life in the United States, and I think that's good. We need to create a society that values every single life. If we do not start with that philosophy, we'll never agree on anything. I'm against abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia and most wars. I'm also against a system that allows people to carry weapons that have the extraordinary ability to kill people at a very far distance. When it comes to all of those issues, I strongly believe that everyone else should think the exact same thing. When you're talking about people's lives, protection of every single life is the only correct way to go.
Let's repeal the Second Amendment and start over with new gun laws that actually make sense. Hunters should be able to hunt, and policemen should be able to protect our communities, but there are not many other reasons for people to have guns. Wouldn't it be great to appeal one ridiculous amendment and save thousands of lives? I sure think so, and I bet if those Founding Fathers whose words we defend were alive today, they would agree.
It's true. Everything IS bigger in Texas, including Kellerman's absurdity.
The author approaches the Constitution with all the wisdom and insight of know-it-all seventh grader - and the column then degenerates from that peak.
At least he's smart enough to acknowledge that the 2nd DOES AFFIRM THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT
That must be some kind of first for a gun grabber.....
So since we get nowhere in our debate, let's just declare you the winner and repeal the second amendment? Is that it, Mr. Kellerman?
As a side note, Mr. Kellerman's arguments are weak and are based on some fantasy utopia world that will never exist on this earth.
Some truths are constant and timeless. One of those is that "the last defense against tyranny is an armed citizenry."
Yeah, Kellerman, let's just remove the amendments we don't like. I vote to remove the First Amendment, too, so morons like you are not allowed to speak freely.
When I discuss the Second Amendment with those who want gun control I always use the phrase "civil Rights". Who wants to be against civil rights? Leaves most of them slack jawed.
I'm going to use short sentences and small words, just in case this author is reading this.
The non-slave-holding North wanted slaves to not count at all for the purposes of representation. The slave-holding South wanted slaves to count as full persons for the purposes of representation. Why? Because more heads to be counted equals more seats in the House of Representatives and more votes in the Electoral College. But since slaves don't vote, it's kind of unfair to let their heads be counted to the advantage of SLAVE OWNERS.
In the grand scheme of things, it would have been in the slaves' best interests to not count them at all for the purposes of representation. Counting them gave their masters more political power in Washington.
As for simply opposing this compromise on principle, the result would have been that the South would not have joined the Union. Result? Slavery stays! And we probably get invaded and annexed by someone, too.
This is leftist "thought" for you: they just can't get past the "I am NOT three-fifths of a person" emotive garbage and see what the actual causes and effects were. This is just a bumper-sticker slogan to them.
My guess is that he's never been to either the Alamo or San Jacinto. He would not have had the oppotunity to write what he did without the blood shed at either place. Maybe he needs to take up a new line of work?
While we're at it, there is tons of First Amendment jurisprudence. People disagree over that one vehemently. Why not drop that one too?
This guy should get out of this country!. How can he stand it here. Maybe we should get a pool together if he doesn't have the money...
This very convieniently omits the biggest arguement. What will keep criminals from having guns while good citizens disarm? Ask the people of Australia and England. The answer is absolutely nothing.
Taking guns away is simply another effort to make the masses dependent on the elites who think they know better. These elites will also never disarm.
Ask the students of Columbine, ask the family of the man who died because the police waited till evreything was over, would you have wanted some of the teachers to have had access to weapons?
Actually, that's one of the best ways to "debate" a leftist and win. Use liberal buzzwords against them. They can't think past the emotive buzzwords anyway, so they won't be able to fight back. You win by default.
I'm not sure if the author is being satirical or not. Regardless, he ain't no Texan!!!!
Once the Second Amendment goes, the First Amendment won't be far behind.
Or, the City of Malden has violated my civil rights by not having a militia for me to drill with.
Yeah, right.
I don't know about that; all the Second says is that States CAN have militiae and the federal government can't stop them. It doesn't say that States HAVE to have them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.