TBD on Ning

In the recent debate about gun control, I am leaning in the direction of the President.  Although pretty conservative economically and socially for the most part, I have no problem with some forms of gun control.  The right to own a handgun and a hunting rifle are rights that I can accept as part of a true democracy.  Owning assault weapons is another story.  The conservative right seems to be countering gun control legislation with a lot of ideological arguments rather than practical arguments.  Practically, outlawing assault weapons hurts no one.  Gun manufacturers will still be able to make handguns and hunting rifles.  The very few of us that own assault weapons might be hurt hobby-wise, but not economically.


The right to bear arms is not an absolute right, but a right that can have restrictions.  Just like the right to free speech or the right of association.  Cars are weapons, but much care has been taken in restricting people to speed limits and instituting mandatory safety features.  If anyone has a practical, rather than ideological argument to the current gun control legislation, I would like to hear from you.


There is some hypocracy in President Obama's calling out of the Republicans who oppose gun legislation just to get votes from the NRA crowd.  Just a month ago, President Obama opposed right to work legislation in Detroit due to his support from the Unions.



Views: 47


You need to be a member of TBD to add comments!

Join TBD

Comment by Mandy Muffin on January 18, 2013 at 6:26pm

I see the media trying to make this discussion a political one.  I don't see it that way. How much damage are guns doing disadvantaged folks who live in the inner city?  In some neighborhoods they pile the bodies up on the sidewalk after nights of shootings.  Gang member carry them and use them to prove their manhood. 

But the average American doesn't need a gun to conduct their every day lives.  I live in a private retirement community in Florida.  It  has been around for about 15 years and the the only gunplay that has taken place is one man killed himself with one on the tennis courts a couple of years ago and one woman shot her husband after an argument.  So much for guns being necessary for protection from thieves.  We have a security gate and a paid patrol car to take care of those problems. 

Comment by ellevan on January 18, 2013 at 4:24pm

I have not heard anyone saying that they are going to confiscate weapons that people already have, am I missing something?  I just keep hearing more and more people talking about how "they" are not going to get MY guns.  My understanding is that there will be a ban on the SALE of assault weapons and on the size of the clips that are available for automatic weapons.  I live in Virginia too but there are no "Muslim compounds" near me nor have I heard of any compounds of any kind Muslim or otherwise where the people are carrying assault weapons and performing maneuvers.  That just does not sound like something that would not be getting coverage of some sort.

Comment by MGDJ on January 18, 2013 at 3:52pm

If anyone suggests that they need assault weapons as a practical argument to defense of their property, why not put up barbed wire around the house and put in land mines?  How about rocket launchers?  There has to be a line somewhere, and the line can be defined by society.  Just as the case with free speech and rights to association.

The second ammendment is the only ammendment prior to prohibition that addresses a right to a physical object rather than a right of the individual.  The object in 1787 was a musket.  No other guns were present and therefore protected under the ammendment.  The fact that the Democrats are not going after the right to handguns and hunting rifles is proof that they are standing up for the second ammendment.  Ideological arguments to the contrary do not look at the facts.


Comment by HAZEL BAYERS on January 18, 2013 at 3:41pm

The county I live in here in VA has two Muslims compounds.  After 9/11, the FBI visited each and deemed them OK.  However, you can see them, from the road, in military dress, performing maneuvers with assault weapons and hear their target practicing.  I want to know when the gov't is going to go in and tell them they have to give up those weapons.

Comment by exedir on January 18, 2013 at 2:51pm

This is not an issue of what the document says but what it has taken to say through court decisions.   The 2nd Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, and as such it has been taken to mean the right of citizens to bear arms.  The entire Bill of Rights has been taken mostly for what it connotes not necessarily what most would ordinarily says the words themselves denote.  

Since the courts have given these rights without the social contract that implies with rights goes some equivalent level of responsibilities and that is where we are at and have been for decades.  Some believe that the right is not subject to any limits, others believe that society can and should impose as many limits it deems necessary inclusive of confiscation of any means to harm the person and public by individuals.

So, we are at loggerheads, rights vs. responsibilities and to the extreme that all citizens are to be left with any means to protect themselves except through government forces and agencies as authorized by authorities. 

Comment by darroll on January 17, 2013 at 4:00pm
They banned dope and that sure worked.
Comment by Mandy Muffin on January 17, 2013 at 3:43pm

The Second Amendment was passed in a day when single shot muskets were the only method of defense of the American citizens who where vulnerable from British or other foreign attacks.  They also need protection from Indians.  

The specific wording:  "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 Constitution also protected the right to keep slaves. 

Times change but over time the Amendment has been expanded way beyond any intent of the original document.  We have a standing militia, it is called the "Armed" forces.  I was a member and was issued a weapon and taught how to use it to protect the American homeland.  When I left the military I checked in my weapon and surrendered the responsibility to the army and police do my protection.  I would estimate that 99.9% of citizens who keep arms don't do so to protect themselves from a foreign invader.  And would good would a sidearm or even a automatic rifle have done against the 9/11 attack? 

I have no problems with legalized guns for hunting.  But guns in homes often end up killing a member of the family or being used as happened in Newtown, Conn.  America is one of the last western nations to still have wholesale ownership of weapons among the populace.  I see no reason for it. 

IMHO, the Second Amendment is an antiquated document that should have gone with the slave owing rights. 



© 2023   Created by Aggie.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service