Posted on 04/19/2007 11:04:40 AM PDT by voteNRA
the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, drafted in 1789, reads:
"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."
But what happens when the very "security of a free State" is directly infringed by "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms?"
That, my friends, is known as a contradiction in terms, and in the science of logic, a statement that goes on to deny itself becomes inherently false.
(Excerpt) Read more at mndaily.com ...
A man who has been diagnosed as criminally insane 2 years prior should not have freedom to roam as he pleases.
He is a threat to himself and those around him, attempts at “chemical balance” are no protection from an evil mind.
We lock up drunks (Public Intoxication and Drunk Drivers) BEFORE they do harm.
He didn’t need to be locked up in a prison, he could’ve remained under “house monitoring” (ankle bracelet) and supervised leave.
We are told he was “functional”. No he was not. This is why he persisted in dark fantasy and ultimately in cold plotted massacre.
It’s a novel concept. It’s not a gun that did the killing, nor a nut. It was the constitution that drug itself out of the National Archives and killed a bunch of people.
Lucky Sandy Berger didn’t stuff that in his socks, huh? Who could they blame then?
Why do they ALL look like that?
Sometimes it is best to remain silent and learn the local customs/etiquette before jumping into the fray, welcome!
She does? Is it something you can post here...........LOL.
Here he is comparing the WTC towers to Jenga blocks. I guess he isn’t majoring in architecture or mechanics.
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2007/01/18/70347
Me thinks they don’t understand the adjective free before the noun State.
He’s also a writer for the Onion and has a band named Banned Citizens.
Funny how he wants to do some banning of his own.
http://www.myspace.com/bannedcitizens
Comment posted
Comment posted
Comment posted
No, Ari, it isn't, and no, it doesn't. The model number is arbitrary and the standard magazine contains 15 cartridges, not bullets. It's numbered differently because it's a .40 S&W, not a 9mm like the model 19.
You'd figure a fellow who likes to flash logic terms around so much (improperly, as well) might have a bit more care with his premises.
If only Adri Mehra could have been there, he could have negotiated with the shooter.
Guns are bad, 9-11 was an inside job, Rosie is smart and Hamas does some good.
What a whack job lib.
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/02/17/67192
Over a million Americans a year are killed by “safe legal” abortion.
Interestingly enough, it’s an infringement of the Second Amendment of the Constitution that contributed to the murder of more than 30 people...
Mark
What's great about America is that if you want to go on a killing spree, all you need is a plane ticket and a box cutter (9/11), a Ryder truck, 5,000 pounds of fertilizer and fuel oil (Oklahoma City Bombing), or a whole lot of people with machetes (Rwandan genocide). A person with homocidal tendencies will use whatever tools happen to available to them. If guns are not an option, then bombs, if not bombs, then poisonous gas.
Did the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protect the 32 innocent Americans gunned down this week? Or did the long-since-antiquated law fail them, and render them nothing more than breathing target practice for a pissed-off civilian?
The Second Amendment might have, had it not been usurped by the state of Virginia. Virginia Tech is a "gun free zone" meaning that law-abiding citizens aren't permitted to carry guns in the area. Unfortunately, as I've harped on so many times, criminals, by definition, have no respect for the law, hence, they will carry guns in a "gun-free zone" in spite of the law. Had someone had a gun besides Cho, maybe he would have been stopped before the body count reached 30.
The second reaction is that the shootings could have been prevented by more stringent gun control laws, i.e. the banning of nonservice civilian handguns. This is to me the most sensible and inevitable conclusion one can make in the wake of such a bloodbath.
How much more stringent can you make gun control laws beyond a "gun-free zone"?
The fact is, last time I checked, we weren't (yet) living in a police state, yet we are apparently a nation of laws, although one of them regularly kills nearly 30,000 of its own people (roughly half are homicides and half suicides) every year, compared to only 163 firearm-related deaths in the United Kingdom in 2003, according to the Centers for Disease Control and British government figures.
The police state will happen much more quickly when only the police possess the most efficient means to deal in violence, but I digress into rhetoric. While it is true that according to the last CDC statistics that people died in incidents that involved firearm was around 30,000 in 1998, automobiles killed 41,000 people in the same year. And the 163 number of firearm-related deaths in the UK is disingenuous and misleading. The number of homicides in the UK has risen since their ban on firearms in civilian hands.
Thirty-two bright young college kids are dead because of two devices that were designed to kill them. It's time we shot down the Second Amendment. Our lives depend on it, just as theirs did.
32 people died because they crossed the path of a psychopath who planned, prepared for, and executed a killing spree before finishing with himself. But we really should ban guns because no one was murdered before those nasty things came along, right?
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.