Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Nation's gun cancer spreads
Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | May 3, 2010 | Patrick Walsh

Posted on 05/03/2010 8:52:31 AM PDT by Second Amendment First

After graduating from college, I served four years as an infantry officer in the Army's 25th Infantry Division. I fired everything from 9mm pistols to .50-caliber machine guns, routinely qualifying as "expert" with an M16A2 rifle.

It's not despite such experience, but precisely because of it, that I think the availability of guns in America is stunningly negligent public policy. And it may get worse.

One needn't be a constitutional law scholar to discern the Founding Fathers' intent in the Second Amendment. The original draft presented to the first session of the first Congress read: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." (The emphasis is mine.)

Clearly, the framers placed the right to bear arms within the context of organized military service. They wished to highlight the distinction between state militias and the federal army. They viewed state militias as a check against the misuse of the army to impose centralized tyranny.

Even the treacherous, 27-word version of the amendment with which we contend today retains and begins with the phrase, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state ..."

Scientists talk about gene "expression" when referring to how the inherited instructions of our DNA are converted into working proteins in our bodies - an interpretive process. With interpretation can come error, and serious errors in gene expression can lead to diseases such as cancer.

America has a cancer originating in the misinterpretation of our government's DNA, the Constitution. In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down an erroneous interpretation of the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller, striking down a handgun ban in Washington and endorsing the misconception that individuals have a right to own firearms. Now, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the court could compound the error by striking down a Chicago gun ban, extending the principle beyond the District of Columbia.

The old gun lobby claim "guns don't kill people" is specious. No one rails against the manufacture of axes or baseball bats; there are no campaigns to ban Bowie knives.

With a bolt-action rifle and a telescopic sight, I could put a bullet through my neighbor from a hundred yards away as he crosses his living room. With a Glock 17 pistol stashed in my briefcase, I could enter a boardroom, coolly dispatch a dozen executives, and still have five rounds left to deal with the security guards.

To put it another way, Virginia Tech doesn't happen if Seung-Hui Cho is brandishing a sword. Columbine doesn't happen if Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold are wielding Louisville Sluggers. Charles Whitman doesn't kill 14 people at the University of Texas at Austin if he takes up his sniping position armed with a longbow.

Take it from a former soldier: A gun's power is arbitrary and wildly disproportionate to its price, size, and ease of use. Before the advent of firearms, becoming dangerous meant years of training, if not membership in a warrior caste. Cho simply used a credit card to pay $571 for a Glock 19 and 50 bullets.

A Glock 19 weighs less than a quart of milk; it measures under 7 inches long. Its operation is simple: load, point, shoot 15 times, reload. In one span of nine minutes, Cho killed 30 people and wounded dozens more.

I once carried a rifle in defense of the Constitution. Now I wield a pen and must trust the adage about its superiority. But I admit to feeling outgunned by madmen like Cho and the Supreme Court justices who think more guns are the answer.

Patrick Walsh is a writer who lives in Princeton. He served as a rifle platoon leader, battalion adjutant, and company executive officer in the Fifth Battalion, 14th Infantry Regiment.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; barackhusseinobama; bloggers; obama; obamavoter; shallnotbeinfringed
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-224 next last
To: Dead Corpse

I had similar thoughts. He’s likely gay and confused.

And I’ll bet he spends his evenings in New Hope (for those who don’t know New Hope PA is noted for it’s flamboyant types).


61 posted on 05/03/2010 9:18:59 AM PDT by Frenchtown Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

Agreed


62 posted on 05/03/2010 9:19:03 AM PDT by caver (Obama: Home of the Whopper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First
He looks like one of those guys that "don't ask, don't tell" was invented for.
63 posted on 05/03/2010 9:19:36 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (FYBO: Islam is a religion of peace, and Muslims reserve the right to kill anyone who says otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

With a bolt-action rifle and a telescopic sight, I could put a bullet through my neighbor from a hundred yards away as he crosses his living room.

Yes, and with my car at 55 MPH I can cross the yellow line and cause a most horrific tragedy. But it doesn’t happen because we trust one another to stay on their side of the line. Not withstanding the second amendment and I’m not trying to compare driving a car to owning a firearm. One is a privilege and one is a right.

I’m just taking about trust and the ability to cause tragedy. I trust my fellow citizens to own and to “bear” arms. I feel a hell of a lot safer at a gun show than I do at most any inner city back alley. The difference is between the good guys being armed and the bad guys.

The author apparently doesn’t know the difference.


64 posted on 05/03/2010 9:20:13 AM PDT by gmoore57
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

65 posted on 05/03/2010 9:20:32 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (FYBO: Islam is a religion of peace, and Muslims reserve the right to kill anyone who says otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

I notice the sory shit never held a command. Hmmm?


66 posted on 05/03/2010 9:20:57 AM PDT by Lion Den Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First; All

Tell these people they cannot defend themselves Patrick!

http://ccwsaveslives.blogspot.com/


67 posted on 05/03/2010 9:21:42 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA (Thinking of using 911 for protection? Google "Brittany Zimmerman")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First
I absolutely agree with this nit-wit--the Second Amendment ought to be modified to make clear the right of citizens of the United States to own, carry, and use in self defense or for any other reasonable purpose including enforcement of Constitutional rights and privileges, guns and arms of any character comparable to those on which any field rank military personnel are qualified.

Note his point about dispatching a dozen executives in a board room with a single clip in his Glock--wrong; if any single one of these executives is armed, Walsh is lucky to get off the second shot.

68 posted on 05/03/2010 9:22:40 AM PDT by David (...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: real saxophonist

What people like that forget, or never knew, is that the definition of a militia at the time of the writing of the constitution, and the bill of rights, was every able body man between the age of 16 and 65. That included everyone, so the right was an individual right and still is. Militias weren’t for fighting foreign troops but for fighting our government. The words “a well regulated milita being necessary to the security of a free state” spells out exactly what the right to keep and bear arms is about. That is defending your country against a take over by the government. Couldn’t be more clear that the right is an individual right, not a collective.


69 posted on 05/03/2010 9:22:53 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

“56 million people murdered by their own governments in the 20th century.”

Wow is that a conservative estimate.


70 posted on 05/03/2010 9:23:26 AM PDT by Pan_Yan (I can't believe spell check doesn't recognize 'Metallica'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: edcoil
How did he do this? Four years of college then becoming an “officer” - what program is that? OCS? Then leaves the military to go back to college.

Probably ROTC. A four year commitment after graduation.

71 posted on 05/03/2010 9:24:02 AM PDT by OldMissileer (Atlas, Titan, Minuteman, PK. Winners of the Cold War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gmoore57
Not withstanding the second amendment and I’m not trying to compare driving a car to owning a firearm. One is a privilege and one is a right.

I disagree. They're always telling you that, but I don't buy it. I think driving is a right, but running into other people or their property while you're doing it is not. I'm not saying that's the way the law's written, I'm saying that's the way it's really supposed to be. Can you imagine in the horse and buggy days if they tried to require a license to ride a horse or drive a buggy or wagon? People would have laughed their asses off. What's a car but an functional evolution of those "technologies"?

72 posted on 05/03/2010 9:24:34 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy

Really ironic that an “English” Master doesn’t know the difference between a prefatory and an operative clause.


73 posted on 05/03/2010 9:24:43 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

Gun cancer? What is that, rust?


74 posted on 05/03/2010 9:25:00 AM PDT by Right Wing Assault (The Obama magic is <strike>fading</strike>gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Assault

And politicians.


75 posted on 05/03/2010 9:25:15 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First
I think the availability of guns in America is stunningly negligent public policy.

Ditch yours first, Paddy. Then take out an ad in the local paper to say you've done it.

And I don't feel that great about someone who lists Lolita as one of his favorite books.

76 posted on 05/03/2010 9:25:50 AM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First
The old gun lobby claim "guns don't kill people" is specious. No one rails against the manufacture of axes or baseball bats; there are no campaigns to ban Bowie knives.

There would be if we could somehow magically make guns disappear. Guns, axes, baseball bats and Bowie knives are just tools. Someone intent on committing violence will find a way, and liberal morons will continue to to believe that they can eliminate this behavior by banning inanimate objects.
Eventually, we'll get down to rocks. Then what?

77 posted on 05/03/2010 9:26:05 AM PDT by Malone LaVeigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

“I fired everything from 9mm pistols to .50-caliber machine guns, routinely qualifying as “expert” with an M16A2 rifle.”

Probably soiled himself every time he did, too.


78 posted on 05/03/2010 9:27:00 AM PDT by Southbound ("A liar in public life is worse than a full-paid-up Communist, and I don't care who he is." - HST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First
Clearly, the framers placed the right to bear arms within the context of organized military service

And, in what context do you see the right of free speech? Why is it always THIS amendment that has strings attached to it? Because YOU don't like it, sissy boy?

79 posted on 05/03/2010 9:27:13 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

Tired, old retread of a bankrupt argument. At least
one other poster has referred to the Federalist Pa-
pers. I will go a step further. Refer to Federalist
#46 approximately paragraph nine.

Written by James Madison, deemed ‘Father ot the
Constitution’, this particular article was writ-
ten to show that local governments can balance
the power of the federal government. He GLOATS
at the fact that the American citizens are armed
and states that if European citizens had arms
they would throw off the yoke of their
oppressive governments.

Read it and weep gun takers everywhere.


80 posted on 05/03/2010 9:28:01 AM PDT by Sivad (NorCal Red Turf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-224 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson