Our founders couldn't predict assault weapons

Oct 07, 2017, 00:59
Our founders couldn't predict assault weapons

Amusing thing though, I have never heard of a Mexican terrorist.

I was surprised by the letter to the editor whereby the writer stated the flag is no more than cloth.

When shooting at people, "you can do everything right and still lose", the NRA warns in its insurance pitch, which is illustrated by an unsmiling spokeswoman brandishing an insurance card. But it happens far too often in this nation.

When will enough be enough? "That is not what our founders intended by the 'right to bear arms'".

Our slave-holding Founding Fathers were terrified by the wealth-accumulating economy they were engaged in: chattel slavery enforced by brutal terrorism.

Now, look, of course we're not likely to repeal the Second Amendment any time soon and I'm not even sure I'd support a serious attempt to do so if it had a chance.

Weapons in 1776 were archaic compared to the rifles on the civilian market today. Their weapons took time to fire and reload. At most, a shooter could fire off three rounds per minute, at a maximum accuracy range of about 50 yards.

This idea that the Founding Fathers were able to accurately judge how risky unabridged access to guns would be in the 21st century is ludicrous. The death toll doesn't even begin to describe the mass impact these shootings have.

Yet what's interesting about the inevitable recycling of this debate is that liberals aren't speaking up for the one measure that might actually change the country in a manner they'd like: repealing the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Thoughts and prayers are needed in times like these, but if we don't take action, we won't escape these times. We wake up to news of 20 counted dead, 200 injured.

"I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment", Stephens, who is also an MSNBC contributor, writes. In fact, the very idea of having to craft this argument makes me sick.

None of what I would be doing in that hypothetical scenario is protected by the First Amendment. Well, this is something we should politicize. But it needs to be talked about year-round; this isn't something that can be brought up only a tragedy like Orlando, Las Vegas, Sandy Hook or San Bernardino. If you accept that the law forbids the possession of fully automatic weapons in all but the most limited cases, then these products should also be illegal unless the purchaser already qualifies for ownership of a fully automatic weapons. First of all, I had long known that a semiautomatic rifle, including the AR-15 style models, could be illegally modified for full automatic operation if you knew how to do it.

Assuming you'll allow me to get in a word edgewise after making that statement, permit me to expand on my reasoning here.

During an interview earlier this week Fox News, anchor Martha McCallum asked Scalise if his opinion or support for the Second Amendment has changed after the massacre in Las Vegas and becoming a gun shot victim who almost died from injuries.

Democrats have a familiar response after every mass shooting: Expand background checks.

A civil society based on the rule of law with a professional military to protect its citizens from external threats; a police force to protect civilians from internal dangers; a criminal justice system to peacefully settle disputes between the state and its citizenry; and a civil court system to enable individuals to resolve conflicts nonviolently - these institutions have been the primary drivers in the dramatic decline of violence over the past several centuries, not an increasingly well-armed public.