.jpg)
The Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C.
In 2006, 30,896 people died from the use of a firearm. Each day 276 people were shot and 85 people died, all from a gun. Just a few days ago an 88 year old man walked into a museum in our nation’s capital with a gun bought legally and fired at people. A heroic guard was able to stop him and at the same time got shot. That security officer later died from the firearm injury. There are people who advocated for gun rights so someone like this man could carry a gun. Certainly, nobody is blaming gun rights activists for the events that occurred at the Holocaust Museum last week, but at some point a society has to wonder if letting people own and carry guns is such a good idea.
Gun rights activists have an argument that the U.S. Constitution protects their rights to gun ownership. The problem is their argument is flawed. The 2nd Amendment states: “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.” The 2nd Amendment has to do with law enforcement, not personal gun ownership. In the 1780s citizen militia were the police force, but now local, state, and federal governments have state sponsored guards. Citizen militias are no longer needed to secure a free state, and therefore the right to bear arms no longer exists as the amendment proposes.
Gun control activists advocate for sensible gun laws to protect society. The irony behind gun politics is that gun rights activists argue the 2nd Amendment protects their gun rights, while the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to protect society. Now, gun control activists want to protect society by making, enforcing, and protecting laws that limit gun rights, due to the notion that guns are dangerous and kill people. As a side comment, I find it amusing that the 2nd Amendment uses the words “free state” because every time I see a NRA bumper sticker there is usually a confederate flag bumper sticker next to it, but that is beside the point. As long as conservative congressmen can get campaign money out of the NRA, there will be an opposition to sensible gun control safety laws.
For more info:
Comments
"the right of the people" means the citizens, not the government. I'm sure this won't be the last time people overlook that simple fact.
A simple fact is that the only way to prevent such tragedies is to take away all freedoms of all persons. There'll always be some deranged folks that will seek to hurt others.
Confederate flags are not a statement endorsing slavery. They are a statement opposing the idea of the federal government trampling state's rights under its boots. Right or wrong, that's what happened when the remaining states of the US declared war on the Confederacy, despite the simple clear fact that the Confederate states had a clearly defined right to leave the Union, should it become necessary. For example, if the Union was about to destroy their economy by forcing them to free the slaves their economy relied upon.
please name one law that would have stopped this event.
1)You're arguing a lost cause. The right of the individual to own and carry firearms is a commonly held belief recognized in all but the most draconian liberal strongholds.
2)The right of the people, restrictions on government, are of an incredible importance that is neatly put under a microscope by this debate. The rise or fall of individual and states rights are caught neatly by the metaphore of the gun rights debate
3)While gun rights supporters have the luxury of relying on historical, statistical, and empyrical data, gun control supporters are forced to resort to distorting facts (number of "children" injured or killed annually), bluring lines (assault weapons debate), outright lies (BMG .50 cal), and ad hominum attacks (John Lott et al).
Not an official "bullet" of my response...but um...don't tell anyone, I'm sure its really embarrassing...weren't the very first gun laws "Jim Crow" laws rewritten into racially neutral language after being struck down as unconstitutional?
Jay says: #1 "There are people who advocated for gun rights so someone like this man could carry a gun." #2 "Gun rights activists have an argument that the U.S. Constitution protects their rights to gun ownership. The problem is their argument is flawed." #3 "Gun control activists advocate for sensible gun laws to protect society." #4 "The 2nd Amendment has to do with law enforcement, not personal gun ownership." #5 "As long as conservative congressmen can get campaign money out of the NRA, there will be an opposition to sensible gun control safety laws." Well, Jay, if misinformation and ignorance are virtues, you'll fit in well with the Brady Bunch. #1 Existing gun laws make it a felony for ex cons to carry guns. Oddly, those laws don't seem to protect anyone. #2 I guess you don't read Supreme Court decisions. #3 See #1. #4 See #2. #5 Even most brain damaged liberals don't buy THIS foolishness. Good luck with your new career with Paul and the Bradys. You'll need it.
Jay - You are so spot on. Guns are so dangerous and they do kill people -- just like spoons make people like Rosie O'Donnell fat and stupid! I told my teacher that pencils caused me to put down all those wrong answers and flunk my math tests. Just the other day my stove burned up my supper. My car accelerator pedal made me speed through a school zone. And when my mother caught me with a teen aged boy in my bed, I explained that a frog told me that, if I would kiss him and bring him home to spend the night, he'd turn into a charming prince. Somehow, though, I couldn't get her or any other of these silly conservative Rush Limbaugh crazies to believe any of this. I hope you with your hard facts and sound reasoning can educate these stubborn sceptics so that the light can soon shine through. Then, when we get all these bad "things" outlawed and under control, at long last, we'll be safe and happy.
If you wonder why we fight so hard to maintain our Second Amendment Rights just reread your article. You're not fooling anyone with your extraordinarily malinformed views, we pro-gunners deal with the uneducated types all of the time. What bothers us is that some dunce will ultimately get enough power to attempt ending the Second Amendment (think Australia or England here) and cause the criminals to begin using their guns with impunity.
By the way the term "...the Right if the People" has nothing to do with law enforcement or they would have referred to the Sheriff, Marshall, Constable or some other such other legal officer. Perhaps we could purchase you a big, red clown nose or a jester's hat (complete with bells) so that when you attempt to speak about something you know nothing about your audience will know it as well.
You'd think that with all of its money the Brady Campaign could come up with someone who could deliver their message a bit better...
The museum shooting was done by a criminal nutbag who had no business being in possession of a firearm. No matter how many laws you pass, criminals, by definition, ignore them. Case closed.
Criminals will always find a way to hurt others,If not with a gun,it will be with something else..Take a look at cars for example,how many people are killed each day with a car,should we band ownership of cars because each day so many people are hurt or killed by cars,so should we ban the sale and use of cars? There are so many things that can be missused to hurt or to kill,why not band or control everything and see if this will stop people from hurting or killing others? Criminals would love for the government to pass a law that would take our second amendment rights away,that way they could have a free regin to do as they please to honest law abiding citizens.I bet if a crimianl broke into one of these librals houses and took them and their family hostage with a knife or some other type of weapon they would want a gun to eaqualize the sisuation,or do you think they would want to leave their faith in the hands of this good hearted criminal??
There has been much rhetoric regarding this instance. But so far the media has been saying that this is an example why more control is needed and the new DC laws vetoed. There is one problem with this, the new laws in DC are not in operation yet. This appalling incident occurred with the current, heavily restrictive gun laws. The only reason a major shooting did not occur was that the security guards were armed and those that he had not already shot were near by. In this cocooned enviroment if the guards were not armed the toll would have been worse. Gun free zones create a rich enviroment for those who wish to get noticed.
With all the checks, rules and laws this man still managed to obtain a firearm, more laws will not stop these people but honest law abiding citizens can.
LOL - This is a new take for me. There weren't government law enforcement forces when the US was founded so civilians required the right to be arms? give me a break. Try reading a history book instead of just making stuff up. The right to bear arms in its current form has been debated far longer than this country has been around, and it's always focused on the same essential issues of opposing external intruders, internal tyrants, and criminals of all sorts.
Let me know when the 'state sponsored guards' are posted outside my house so I no longer have to get to a phone, call 911, and wait for a cop arrive to stop that intruder that just came in through the back door. Until then, I won't feel safe.
The meaning of the 2nd A is to protect society? Sorry dude but you got it all wrong. First of all, there is no such thing as a collective right. Rights, by their very nature, apply to the individual. Secondly, if you read the Federalist Papers it becomes very clear that the framers wanted individual citizens to be armed to ensure the government never becomes tyrannical. Don't like it? Well you may campaign to amend the Constitution. Until then though, its meaning is crystal clear when it comes to the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Believe it or not, the Iraqi's had the right to bare arms when Sadam was in power. That really helped them a lot, didn't it?
Again --- the existing (unconstitutional and draconian)gun control laws in D.C. didn't stop the murdering criminal and, hence, didn't protect anyone. The hero who stopped him - used a gun ! What part of this do the gun banners not get? Justice Louis Brandies put it this way: "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insideous encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."
Hey Jay, you are going to present your outline of the law that would have prevented this tragedy aren't you? Anything less would be irresponsible! All those other laws controlling guns in DC must just not be written very well. Come on, show us how this really will work and we will all renounce our NRA memberships and get behind you. Sure, I'll wait....
Umm, Jay.... Jay, you there???
Check out his statement:
"with a gun bought legally and fired at people"
Wow...what a way off base statement to make. Jay you are straight up a retard. I don't care if you dont like guns think there should be more laws...at least get your facts straight before you go off reporting something.
This guy was a felon, therefore it was an "illegally" obtained gun. He could not have "legally" purchased a gun or "legally" owned a gun. He gave up that right (as established by the Supreme Court) when he did wrong years ago.
bottom line - The NRA is an evil and dangerous organization. Their are so many victims of their greed. Good article...
Jay:
Your interpertation of the 2nd Amendment is incorrect. The Supreme Court says its an individual right, majorities in both the House and the Senate says its an individual right, the President says its an idividual right, but above all the majority of the American People believe its an individual right. As to your argument that the right no longer exists today, its total nonsense. The only way you can eliminate any enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights is to amend the Constitution. The chance of doing that is slim to none. So learn to live with it or move someplace where there is no Bill of Rights. We wont miss you.
Fred likes the article.I guess you didn't get much beyond the sixth grade either.Tell us WHY you like the article.What specifically did you like?The idiotic untrue enuendo like:"There are people who advocated for gun rights so someone like this man could carry a gun."Who are these people?Jay doesn't tell us.Or maybe you like the specious reasoning:"...at some point a society has to wonder if letting people own and carry guns is such a good idea" because the founding fathers of America thought so and made it the law of the land in our Constitution.Or maybe, like Jay,you never learned that men carrying guns overthrew the British so that this country could exist and men can enjoy the freedoms outlined in our Constitution and Bill Of Rights.Like Jay, you forgot that a man carrying a gun shot and killed the murdering scum at the Holocaust Museum. Maybe you, like Jay, would have preferred that he wouldn't have acted so violently and hurt the poor criminal-with a gun! Get a clue some day.
Correction. The brave security guard shot and STOPPED the murderer at the museum so that he could not have killed more innocent people, mostly children, whom he KNEW would be unarmed. I guess at this point he is still alive.
Jim:
Thankfully your interpretation of the US Constitution doesn't count. Read the Supreme Court opinion in DC v. Heller. Do you actually research your subject before you write about it?
NRA=racists? Nice try to smear an organization that historically worked to abolish race-based restrictions on gun ownership. Read "Negroes With Guns," which was reprinted in 1998 by Wayne State University Press.
Finally, I hope your piece is not a typical example of the quality of student work product coming out of the University of Dayton Political Science Department.
Well, considering this shooter obviously was a little screwy in the head, how can anyone honestly blame it on the gun? I blame the idiot wanting to go on a killing spree...
Cochran - As you so astutely pointed out, the Iraquis did have the right to bare arms, and you're right, it didn't help them much. The problem was even though they were walking around looking tough, showing off their muscles, they invariably got sunburned. But the whole thing became moot when Sadam mandated long sleeve shirts and they had to cover up for their own good.
Jay - You got a lot of responses. You haven't answered any of them. Where are you, Jay? Jay! What happened to you? Maybe you realised writing isn't your greatest asset, and you decided to get a real job somewhere. Let us know how you're doing with it.
Sorry, misspelled "realized" again. Got so excited writing Jay, proofreading suffered.
Jay! Come in! This is the Moon, calling Jay! Jay, come in! Come in, Jay! Jay. where are you? Won't you straighten out all these Jay bashers? Surely you've got SOME kind of more mindless wisdom for us. What happened? Did Paul take you off the Brady payroll?
Jay, it would be easy to rip the faulty premise of your article,as if you thought it up, but that would be assigning you honor you don't deserve. Like so many others, you simply polly parrot gun banner logic you picked up elsewhere with nary a whit of proof to back up your faulty reasonings, except when you simply alter reality (reference your incorrect interpretation of the Second Amendment), ignore or alter history, or simply make up stories like those in your last paragraph. Pathetic. All this proves to me the justification of the term applicable to you, "mindless liberal".
Jay, I"m completely stultified and bloggulated at people like you, who actually think they know something about something, when what they say or write proves that they actually have NO real knowledge or understanding of that something. Now, I'm quite aware of the many, many things I know very little or nothing about, and therefor I would never try to educate others about or express strong opinions on those subjects, lest I look very stupid. That's why I can't understand not only how you imagine that you know anything at all about guns, civil rights, human nature, criminal behavior, or American history, when you clearly don't, but also how you then write article after article about these things in your gun control blitherings, as if you do (know something). This makes you look sort of like a man walking around with his pants down around his ankles thinking he's dressed for the prom. Why, I wonder? Why? Why?
This is a clear example of how the waiting period needs to be extended to 80 years. THAT'LL STOP CRIME
This shooting does not prove what you want. The real statistics are that after the Bush Admin allowed the ban on assault rifles to expire, crime went down.
In cities where concealed carry exists, crime went down.
During one of the worst economic times gun sales after the Obama Election went up and CRIME went down. Violent CRIME went down.
In Kentucky where concealed carry was allowed by DEMOCRATS, concealed carry reduced crime.
When the guy shot up the Louisville Times and Standard Gravure, one woman had a gun. Had she been a split second faster she would have stopped the gunman before he actually killed anyone. She had her hand on the gun in her purse when she was shot.
For every example of why you want to control guns, I can give you 2 why if we control guns, ONLY THE CRIMINALS will be armed.
Ask the folks in Australia.
The melted all the guns they could find, and Home Invasions went up by I believe the number was 800% while murder went down a few percent for a few months. No
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!