Opposing Views: Issues, Experts, Answers

OPINION: Politics of Gun Prevention Shifting to the Middle

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

Comments(4) | (0)

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

You are seeing 4 Comments. See all 18 Comments on this Article.

Regarding Comment

Interesting

Correction.

Reading over my previous post, I see that I wrote "I must violently agree with your assertion that the Second Amendment..." I meant to say disagree. In fact, that whole sentence got messed up at some point. Here's what it should say.

I must violently disagree with your assertion that the Second Amendment only protects the right of the States to keep a militia.

- richardsonkr January 21, 2009 8:40PM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Dis
  
  I actually "saw" the word as being disagree... probably through context. Weird, huh. You write it wrong and I read it wrong. Or rather, I read it correctly even though it was written incorrectly.
  
  "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."
  
  Let's not belittle the writer's with such nonsense as to say those are two separate rights. It's clear... crystal.. that the right to keep and bear arms belonging to the militia cannot be infringed by the Federal government. This doesn't mean that if you weren't in the militia that you couldn't keep and bear arms - only that you are not protected against measures of control and prevention. The militia cannot have their guns removed or restricted, but the ordinary citizen does not have that protection. Take a look at that without your preconceived notions about guns and your (assumed) life-long influences. Really read it without being coloured by your preconceptions. It's written that way for a Reason. If the right to keep and bear arms that could not be infringed belonged to any Joe Plumber (sorry, I had to) then there need not be any mention of the state militia at all. If it were simply the state militia that was being protected it's naturally assumed that a militia will have arms, and there need be no mention of arms. By the way it's written, it's clear that the protection against infringement belongs solely to militias.
  
  And, mind you, if we actually had state militias that were not laughable we would probably be in a better position all around. Protection of the state first and the federal matters second... the centrification of government for such things as printing money (which has been given away), creating a Navy, etc. are all fine and well... but we're not called the United STATES of America because it looks cool to have USA on things.
  
  But I digress.
  
  I think the 2nd solely protects the state militia's right to keep and bear arms, not yours or mine.
  
  - SocialistBetty January 23, 2009 12:47AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - 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.
    
    - richardsonkr January 23, 2009 7:40AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - 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.
      
      - SocialistBetty January 23, 2009 9:10AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.