OPINION: Politics of Gun Prevention Shifting to the Middle

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

Comments(1) | (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 1 Comment. See all 18 Comments on this Article.
Regarding Comment
Are you sure you're a socialist?
  • 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.