Comments on: Common sense and the right to bear arms

By: StR....Really

StR....Really — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 00:02:13 +0000

Dear this comment offers no useful information.

By: rlw895

rlw895 — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 22:19:10 +0000

I disagree with much of what Mr. Davis wrote, but I agree with his general idea that people don’t understand gun rights, and we really can’t have a useful discussion without finding some common understanding. I don’t see how Article V (regarding the process for amending the Constitution) supports the idea that the Framers intended to create a “living document.” That term is usually used to refer to constitutional interpretation, not the possibility of amendment. While the right to bear arms may not be “sacrosanct and inviolable,” it’s in the Constitution, and we have to deal with that one way or another. It’s true that many people believe in “God-given rights,” and include in that the right to self-defense and therefore the right to bear arms. But the counter argument to that is not that that particular right is not “God-given,” but rather that no rights are “God-given,” or even if they are, that’s not an argument we can use in a secular society governed by a secular constitution. I assume Mr. Davis’s digression on the “moral duty and civic responsibility” of gun ownership can be summarized as “putting more faith in the gun in your closet than in the Constitution.” Certainly there are a lot of good reasons to own guns, but NOT among those is to protect yourself and others from the government. That is best done by defending the Constitution, politically protecting the rights of others, and generally becoming educated about our government and participating in it. Mr. Davis tells us that we should not follow the Framers’ intentions today due to changed conditions, but he doesn’t tell us what he thinks the Framers’ intentions were. I think the intent of the Second Amendment was both for self-protection and to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. But there are other, better ways to defend the Constitution today, 230 years later. In fact, it is probably futile to try to defend the Constitution as a private citizen with arms. We now have a standing military to provide for national defense and well-tried institutions to defend the Constitution domestically. So the right to bear arms today is much more about self-defense, and those who cling to other arguments are denying history and the present reality. When it comes to self-defense, we are much better off putting our faith in communal protection, through laws and regulations, than that gun in our closet.

By: rlw895

rlw895 — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 21:32:52 +0000

LSHGC: You need more oxygen. Get out of your bubble and breath a little.

By: Check out

Check out — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 03:14:36 +0000

wwwrealityzonecom

By: I am being Censored Again

I am being Censored Again — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 03:05:31 +0000

The “system” is only letting me post selected items.

By: Dumb Time or Stupid Stuff

Dumb Time or Stupid Stuff — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 03:01:55 +0000

This comment (above) was not by StR or The Mister

By: CD Brooks

CD Brooks — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 02:32:36 +0000

Dumb time.

By: The SugarJar

The SugarJar — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 02:11:00 +0000

what time is it when people start talking about “kenyan” president and getting “locked and loaded”?

By: Little Stephen hasn't got a clue.

Little Stephen hasn't got a clue. — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 01:47:15 +0000

A Individual’s right to bear arms is also protection against a Tyrannical Government..
When our Kenyan President starts talking about changing our Constitution by Executive privilege…It’s time to get Locked and Loaded!

By: The shootings are a Psyops

The shootings are a Psyops — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:29:49 +0000

Google……..Staged mind control shootings

By: pornac

pornac — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:20:11 +0000

did you hear about the 2 gun nuts carrying assault rifles in a mall in portland? scared the hell out of a lot off people. they are the problem. they were legal. But cops had to respond because people don’t know who the bad guys are.

By: The Mister

The Mister — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:51:48 +0000

Obviously, Stephen, you are more part of the problem than part of the solution.