OPINION: Politics of Gun Prevention Shifting to the Middle

By The Brady Campaign , To Prevent Gun Violence - November 25, 2008

Comments(2) | (0)
Bradycampaign03
By Paul Helmke | President, the Brady Campaign Earlier this week we released the results of a poll on the gun issue, taken by the prominent Penn, Schoen & Berland firm, of 1,083 confirmed Election Day voters. Before discussing the responses that may come as a surprise to some, I wanted to highlight the analysis of Rob Green, a principal at PSB, who evaluated the new political status of gun violence prevention after this election: "These findings suggest that sensible gun legislation ... Read the Full Article
Read More on: guns, society
This content is inappropriate

Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.

Explanation:


You are seeing 2 Comments. See all 18 Comments on this Article.
Regarding Comment
Dis
  • richardsonkr
    Are you sure you're a socialist?

    On our interpretations of the Second Amendment, we will apparently have to agree to disagree. You apparently think that it obviously does not include the people's right to bear arms, and I think that it obviously does. I would point to your own argument, in which you say, "If it were simply the state militia that was being protected in's naturally assumed that the militia will have arms, and there need be not mention of arms." I couldn't have said it better myself. They wouldn't have mentioned arms at all if they had only meant the militias. However, I doubt this will convince you, so I'm going to change Amendments. The Tenth Amendment, which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This Amendment very clearly states that even if a natural right is not specifically laid out by the Constitution, it is still a natural right, and therefore protected. The wording of it also has a parralel to the Second Amendment. They both mention the States and the People as seperate as similar. Almost suggesting that the rights of the States are also the rights of the People. The right to keep a militia is the right of the States to bear arms, and the right to keep as many firearms as I wish is the People's right to bear arms, protected by both the Second and Tenth Amendment.

    As for your last point, I have to question your username at this point. A belief in State's rights, to hold a respectable and not a token militia, the belief that the States should be in charge of most things, while the Feds print money and build boats, is one of the hallmarks of true conservatism. (As opposed to religious or compassionate conservative, of which Bush was a prime example) i agree with you wholeheartedly.

    - richardsonkrUS January 23, 2009 7:40AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • SocialistBetty
      Why's it have to be all or nothing with political affiliations?

      I like some aspects of socialism because there are some things that we should provide to ourselves and should be not be relied upon to be provided in an ethical or fair manner by private industry. I believe in socialised medicine, for instance. I also believe in public education... in fact, I'm a fan of state schools being free to any student with a 3.5 gpa... either straight from highschool or as a transfer. I like the idea of national mass transit.... I think trains are awesome. These are like, the main things Socialist are for. And it's the things that are most important to me, as well. Without a healthy, well educated nation we'll always be exactly what we are, and progression will occur slowly - if at all. Which is one reason why the National Socialist Movement pisses me off. As if THAT'S Socialism... fucking Nazi's.

      But back to this.

      If the right that is being protected is the right to a state militia, there would be no need to mention arms. I should have put ONLY. in there. But alas, things don't function well when you're tired, right? And that's what she said, but anyway.

      The reason that the state militia's right to keep and bear arms without infringement is obvious. It doesn't say that you can't keep and bear arms... and since you've mentioned it, that power's reserved to the state. Which - as Mr. Narcotics points out - the laws are different in different states.

      You're ignoring the point that if the right to bear arms without being subject to infringement belonged to anyone then there would be no need to mention militias at all...it would immaterial.
      It specifically says militia for a reason.

      Not that it matters. It's kind of like debating the abortion issue - kind of pointless, but still interesting.

      - SocialistBettyUS January 23, 2009 9:10AM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.