Posted on 07/09/2012 5:30:24 AM PDT by darrellmaurina
I came of age when the word “drive-by” entered the American lexicon. By high school graduation, I lost one cousin to gun violence and another was incarcerated for a gun crime. I know many harmed by guns and even more who feared the possibility. I always wonder if, but for the Second Amendment, there would be a more radical commitment to compromise and peacefully working through easy and difficult issues. In writing the Second Amendment, the Framers didn't envision the kind of gun toting that is permitted across this country today.... I am not naïve enough to believe that doing away with the Second Amendment would do away with gun violence, but I know firsthand the impact of guns and gun shots on children. This nation was constructed and reconstructed in the aftermath of violent and bloody conflicts. Still, the Framers believed that not only the Constitution, but also the peaceful way the document was created, would penetrate the Americans' minds and change they engaged. The Constitution would be the only weapon needed unless there was an external enemy.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
To arms! To arms!
The progressives know the second amendment is the only thing standing between us and a leftist dictatorship. I’m not surprised to see them fighting tooth and nail to disarm us.
How about we ban the NY Times instead.
Jim and Onyx, I think this New York Times article needs more attention on Free Republic than a post by me would ordinarily get for it. If warranted, perhaps there are keywords or ping lists which would help in getting attention to this article.
Your call, obviously...
Well, Ms. Price, where do you live, in metro NYC where guns are all but illegal and only criminals have guns?
Gun control is like trying to solve drunk driving by making it harder for sober people to own cars.
under the radar got caught
“I came of age when the word “drive-by” entered the American lexicon.”
That’s only because he and his ilk removed the term “Return Fire” from the American lexicon.
Imbecile. She's only right in the sense that the Framers didn't envision what pusillanimous weaklings their descendents would become. The Framers lived in a time when a gentleman was not properly dressed for going out if he was not carrying a weapon, and irreconcilable differences between men were settled by the rules of code duello. Read about the death of Alexander Hamilton, for God's sake!
I dont know of one person personally who has been shot or got aids. Maybe Dems should tell their supporters to control themselves rather than to expect big daddy gov to take care of them.
The two highest cities with the most expensive rents in America
Were it not for the unconstitutional activities done by the federal government right now I would dismiss these rantings for the horse manure that it is. We really do need to start educating children and adults on the principles on which our country was founded.
There is so much wrong in just that one paragraph that I don’t know what to say....
:(
“the Framers believed that not only the Constitution, but also the peaceful way the document was created”
History was definitely NOT her forte...
I’ve lost family members to the incideous LIB philosopy. I believe we should ban LIB ideas.
I'd be stunned if in both cases the guns involved weren't already illegal and were used by perps who had previous records of violent crime that should have kept them off the streets to begin with.
First, a link to the text of the treaty: "The Arms Trade Treaty (A/RES/64/48)"
Excerpted below is the section of this Treaty that calls on States{nations} for an implementation:
"Calls upon all States to implement, on a national basis, the relevant recommendations contained in section VII of the report of the Group of Governmental Experts (See A/63/334)."Next is a link to the text of the referenced report: "Report of the Group of Governmental Experts to examine the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms (A/63/334)"
Excerpted below is the only one of three section (27-29) in above referenced "section VII" ("Conclusions and recommendations") dictating the responsibilities and required actions of signatory States:
29. The Group acknowledged the respective responsibilities of exporters and importers. In order to begin improving the current situation, the Group recognized the need for all States to ensure that their national systems and internal controls are at the highest possible standards, and that States in a position to do so could render assistance in this regard, upon request. {Emphasises added.}How can America agreeing to implement UN requested "internal controls" of our "nation system" of gun regulations not be surrendering American 2nd Amendment rights?
Once signing such a treaty, what should Americans expect if the UN should "request" a tighter "standard" of US "internal controls" on guns and America's elected government officials refuses to comply?
All out LAWFARE, financed by the same leftist front groups (Soros' included) to force compliance through US courts! Note the "supremacy clause" of the Constitution which provides that the “Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” {Emphasis added}
The framers absolutely did not believe any such thing.
They believed that citizens should be armed to protect themselves from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
And they were especially concerned with an overreaching government so they specifically limited the powers of the government.
Melynda Price is an associate professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law.
Liberals spend a lot of time hobnobbing with reprobates, criminals and perverts. They even seek out their company. It tells me all that I need to know about them.
By this idiots thinking, Mexico should be a Utopia.
As tempting as that might be, I don't think Alexander Hamilton (founder of the New York Post) or colonial publisher Benjamin Franklin would like that idea very much. The First Amendment goes back in concept to the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, a New York City newspaper editor who was arrested and imprisoned on libel charges after criticizing a corrupt New York colonial governor. The refusal of the jury to convict Zenger despite clearly having violated existing law established the principle in America that truth is an absolute defense against libel and that news media have the inherent right (and responsibility) to criticize the government.
As I like to say to my liberal colleagues, it's pretty hard to advocate restrictions on the rights conveyed by the Second Amendment without logically opening doors to restrictions on the First Amendment.
That means the New York Times has every right under the First Amendment to publish this nonsense, and we on Free Republic have every right under the same First Amendment to dissect the nonsense and prove it to be idiotic.
Click on: Click to add topics and/or Click to add keywords and follow the simple directions.
Example: It takes less than 1 minute to add up to 4 Keywords. Then repeat to add 4 more keywords.
Ms. Price:
Perhaps you should look harder at the kind of upbringing your family members were indulged with. I also have a number of ‘cousins’ as you refer to them. I am not sure of the exact usage of your verbage, but will accept ‘cousins’.
I was raised in a household where there were a number of guns. Rifles, shotguns, other combinations of same & handguns.
While we certainly did not have an ‘Ozzie & Harriet’ upbringing there NEVER was one single thought that using a gun or grabbing a gun as a threat was acceptable. As we grew older, guns were used by every child raised in that family.
A GUN is an INANIMATE object. You may have to have someone explain that definition to you.
A gun doesn’t do any harm all by itself. It can actually be owned for many years by someone & never have any kind of problem with it’s usage!!! Surprise!
Nobody did a single thing about banning Oldsmobiles when Teddy Kennedy tried to test his ability to drive while intoxicated & killed his passenger....
You are on the wrong path towards a solution to gun violence.
Your solution starts with proper discipline in the home & in the schools, IMO. Since your ‘cousin’ is now not a threat to others of us who can behave in society, we all can sleep a little better, also.
Hah hah!! You are right.
She kind of forgot the American Revolution thingy. That Washington guy and those Redcoat nasties probably were not in her high school text book.
Bet she was taught all about the brave early 20th century labor leaders however.
Math is hard....
‘...but also the peaceful way the document was created, would penetrate the Americans’ minds and change they engaged.’
The author seems unacquainted w/ the Revolutionary War.
‘The Constitution would be the only weapon needed unless there was an external enemy.’
There are no internal enemies? You need look not further than the WH and the dem party...and much of the republican party as well.
I did read further but this opinion seems not well thought out. OTOH Im sure any number of people will believe it. Sad but true.
If Kentucky is dumb enough to hire this person & pay her to ‘teach law’, then Kentucky gets permanently crossed off my list of possible places to move to in the future.
Danial Boone would be rolling in his grave——
I say that the Second Amendment should be revoked for blacks as a form of reparations for all the the violence they have perpetrated upon society.
The NYT needs to understand the Founding Fathers never anticipated a Godless society, swarming with gangs of lawless thugs.
Most certainly, they never envisioned fascists demanding the law abiding citizen disarming themselves, to become compliant victims of these thugs and Godless government.
And their votes too.
Here in Maryland the first thing Dem gov O Malley did was give convicted felons including traitors and child molesters the right to vote after they leave jail. Naturally after that he got re-elected after raising a number of taxes on us.
Yep...
Finding things like this is what the traditional media are supposed to be doing, and because they aren't doing their jobs, it becomes the job of “new media” like Free Republic.
The New York Times is running a series of articles on proposed revisions to the United States Constitution. Slate magazine is doing the same, here:
http://hive.slate.com/hive/how-can-we-fix-constitution
We in the conservative movement need to take these people at their word. I think they really are trying to advocate amendments to the Constitution, and while their most radical proposals likely will never get serious attention in the Congress or the state legislatures, we need to pay close attention to these discussions to see what the enemies of our historic Republic want to do.
One benefit of having this stuff out in the open is we can use it to force moderate Democrats and conservative Democrats to come clean on where they stand. All over the South, local and state-level Democrats have been able to distance themselves from their national party, but nonsense like this is pretty hard to defend to pro-gun constituencies. Those of us on Free Republic sometimes like to say there are no conservative Democrats left, but the fact is that lots of rural Southern Democrats at least **CLAIM** to be conservative, and at the very least we can use things like this to force them to ask hard questions. Ideally, we may be able to use pressure from within the Democratic Party to kill these ideas before they gain traction.
Given the choice, it's always better to stop a threat before it gets started than fight it once it's gotten ready for a fight.
BUT almost everything I was concerned about then has come to pass in two short decades. The people who ignored me are now either bitter and broken or have buried their heads in the sand for good.
So I agree, we need to educate. And resist to the utmost. But mostly resist to the utmost. The Left wants a "conversation"? Feh. The time for talking is long past. Hit them hard, and hit them until they shut up.
Some of her ancestors were slaves. She should remember that her ancestors became slaves, and stayed slaves, because they DIDN’T have guns.
I see the winner was being educated in the government school system based on the spelling...
We'll get another chance in this state, but only after the Dems run out of Other Peoples Money and the Dignity Card herd grazes their field down to the roots. From the looks of things both may happen soon.
Blue helmet will make good targets.
Elephant, meet the living room.
Liberals are clueless. They don’t understand that the 2nd Amendment was written to provide a way for citizens to protect themselves from the lawless, from invading armies, AND from an overreaching, tyrannical government. Do they really think that criminals care about gun laws? My Mom’s family is from L.A. (Lower Alabama), cotton and peanut farmers. Guns are so ingrained in the culture,and are everywhere, yet gun violence is miniscule. That was the first place I ever fired a rifle as a young boy. The difference is, these are God fearing, hard working, honest law-abiding people. Like the Bible says, murder begins in the heart. A million laws won’t change bad character.
I see the winner was being educated in the government school system based on the spelling...
So were the judges, they missed the spelling errors too.
She should try writing her article with “gun” being replaced by “government tit”.
How about you remove the inner city gun ban and see where that violence goes.
“The Constitution would be the only weapon needed unless there was an external enemy.”
So...the sections of the Federalist where Hamilton explains how the right of the citizens to be armed is necessary to protect the population as a whole from a despot Presidency wielding a small, professional Federal army was all BS?
This clown is an ignorant, hyper-emotional liar.
Really? I beg to differ. It is deeply dangerous to imagine that the enemy is ignorant. The Left understands precisely the right use of the 2A. The lawless are their constituency and the government is their savior. Our guns and our willingness to use them are all that stands between them and their Utopia.
Dr. Melynda Price
The Good Doctor should expend some ink decrying the Gangsta culture indicative in her community which is the real root cause of "drive by's"
Yep..pretty sure if we get rid of the 2nd Amendment, Evil will pack up and go home.
We agree.
Do we have some experts in the history of the Second Amendment here on Free Republic who can help make a credible case on her blog for the traditional view of the Second Amendment? I'm certainly pro-Second-Amendment, but it's not my area of historical expertise.
I participate on the blogs of several academics who are politically left-of-center, some more actively than others. (These are generally Calvinist blogs of professors and doctoral students that would be of no interest to most Freepers, unless you care about the current fight in Reformed church circles about the Two Kingdoms movement arguing that Christians should not use the Bible in politics or sometimes discouraging political activity as being somehow inappropriate for Christians.) Sometimes people on left-of-center websites just like having a token conservative to give them debating practice in what would otherwise be a liberal echo chamber. On occasion, however, I've seen minds changed — not necessarily the blog owner but sometimes some of the participants.
Not all liberals are a lost cause in academia. As we know, some of the most effective conservative thinkers today are former liberals who realized what was wrong with what they'd been taught.
I'm well aware that some leftists don't care about the truth and are propagandists rather than educators. However, a rational and informed conservative who has facts on his side may be able to present arguments which liberals who have spent their whole life in liberal circles may never have seen before. At the absolute minimum, a well-thought-out debate on her blog could expose lots of people to a new way of thinking.
Me thinks Melynda is not old enough to know whereof she writes.............
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.