Repeal the Second Amendment

[Cameron]

February 25, 2013 The Editors

Each year in the United States, approximately 30,000 people, or 80 per day, die from gun violence. True, guns do not kill people; people kill people. In the United States, however, people kill people by using guns. The murder rate in America is 15 times higher than in other first-world countries; the majority of these murders are committed with guns.

As for the notion that guns are necessary in order to defend oneself from an intruder with a gun: One study of three U.S. cities revealed that injuries involving guns kept at home almost always resulted from accidental firings, criminal assaults, homicides and suicides by the residents, not self-defense scenarios. In October the American Academy of Pediatrics reminded us, “The safest home for children and teens is one without guns.” . . .

We acknowledge the gravity of our proposal. The Bill of Rights enumerates our most cherished freedoms. Any proposal to change the nation’s fundamental law is a very serious matter. We do not propose this course of action in a desultory manner, nor for light or transient reasons. We also acknowledge that repeal faces serious, substantial political obstacles and will prove deeply unpopular with many Americans. Nevertheless, we believe that repeal is necessary and that it is worthy of serious consideration. . .

http://americamagazine.org/issue/rep...cond-amendment

[flyboy56]

The Top 5 Causes of Accidental Home Injury Deaths—and How to Prevent Them

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/...o-prevent-them

Guns didn't make the top 5 causes. We should concern ourselves with making homes safer by working on the top 5 causes of home injury deaths.

[Cameron]

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/...o-prevent-them

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

You appear to be saying that since people can die in many ways, it's okay to shoot them, too.

[cprenegade]

Never going to happen. First of all, it's political suicide and neither party is about to do that. Second, repeal of an amendment requires ratification by 38 states. The deep south and midwest would never go along. The second amendment is here to stay. Now, stretching the meanings and finding ways to limit it are always in play.

[Terry K]

http://americamagazine.org/issue/rep...cond-amendment

Whoever wrote the article proposing repeal of the 2nd amendment is a moron. If repealed, only criminals would have guns.

If we trust members of the Muslim brotherhood with F-16 s, and conduct more thorough background checks on prospective gun owners than we do our Presidents, what is the problem?

[Cameron]

Whoever wrote the article proposing repeal of the 2nd amendment is a moron. If repealed, only criminals would have guns.

The editorial is the opinion of the editors of The Catholic Review.

If we trust members of the Muslim brotherhood with F-16 s, and conduct more thorough background checks on prospective gun owners than we do our Presidents, what is the problem?

Are you suggesting that members of particular religions should not be allowed to own guns?

[ms maggie]

http://americamagazine.org/issue/rep...cond-amendment

Oh now you've done it!

[flyboy56]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

You appear to be saying that since people can die in many ways, it's okay to shoot them, too.

Priorities my boy, priorities. Let's work on fixing those issues that aren't protected by the constitution and are further up the worrisome chain than gun accidents.

[flyboy56]

Whoever wrote the article proposing repeal of the 2nd amendment is a moron. If repealed, only criminals would have guns.

If we trust members of the Muslim brotherhood with F-16 s, and conduct more thorough background checks on prospective gun owners than we do our Presidents, what is the problem?

Crystal clear reasoning.

[Smokey 1]

And historically how many people died in countries after the citizens were disarmed?

[flyboy56]

The editorial is the opinion of the editors of The Catholic Review.


Are you suggesting that members of particular religions should not be allowed to own guns?

Some want to remove guns from all law abiding US citizens while our government is arming the Muslim Brotherhood. And we have nothing to fear from our government? Our founding fathers knew something about not trusting governments.

“The Islamic ummah,” [the book] says, referring to the supranational community of Muslims, “can regain its power and be liberated and assume its rightful position which was intended by Allah, as the most exalted nation among men, as the leaders of humanity.”

Elsewhere, it exhorts Muslims, “Know your status, and believe firmly that you are the masters of the world, even if your enemies desire your degradation.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011...est-caliphate/

[Terry K]

The editorial is the opinion of the editors of The Catholic Review.


Are you suggesting that members of particular religions should not be allowed to own guns?

a)Thank you......now I know the Editors of the American Catholic Review are morons. It is interesting to note that "America" is a Jesuit publication. Jesuits are the group that started the Inquisition

b)I'm suggesting that radical terrorist political organizations, so identified by the FBI, should not be provided weapons by the USA. The Muslim Brotherhood is not a religious organization. If you think otherwise, I have a bridge to sell you.

[Grindelwald]

Repealing the 2nd Amendment wouldn't be a very good idea.

[Cameron]

Some want to remove guns from all law abiding US citizens

Why do you think that only "law abiding" citizens should be able to defend their lives?

Since the Second protects our individual right to self-sefense, how does somebody get forced to be a lifelong target for the George Zimmermans of the country just because he committed a crime some time in his life?

while our government is arming the Muslim Brotherhood. And we have nothing to fear from our government? Our founding fathers knew something about not trusting governments.

“The Islamic ummah,” [the book] says, referring to the supranational community of Muslims, “can regain its power and be liberated and assume its rightful position which was intended by Allah, as the most exalted nation among men, as the leaders of humanity.”

Elsewhere, it exhorts Muslims, “Know your status, and believe firmly that you are the masters of the world, even if your enemies desire your degradation.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011...est-caliphate/

The Muslim Brotherhood are conservatives.

As a Liberal, I have little in common with them.

[Cameron]

a)Thank you......now I know the Editors of the American Catholic Review are morons. It is interesting to note that "America" is a Jesuit publication. Jesuits are the group that started the Inquisition

Beware the Jesuits!

b)I'm suggesting that radical terrorist political organizations, so identified by the FBI, should not be provided weapons by the USA. The Muslim Brotherhood is not a religious organization. If you think otherwise, I have a bridge to sell you.

Can provide a link from the FBI supporting your claim that the Muslim Brotherhood is a radical terrorist organization?

[Smokey 1]

Why do you think that only "law abiding" citizens should be able to defend their lives?

Since the Second protects our individual right to self-sefense, how does somebody get forced to be a lifelong target for the George Zimmermans of the country just because he committed a crime some time in his life?

You are basing your argument on a flawed premise. The primary reason for the 2nd amendment is not to protect our individual right to self defense.

[Cameron]

You are basing your argument on a flawed premise. The primary reason for the 2nd amendment is not to protect our individual right to self defense.

Have you read Heller, McDonald?

[Smokey 1]

Have you read Heller, McDonald?

Have you read Hamilton, Madison?

[Cameron]

Have you read Hamilton, Madison?

Are you saying that the Second does NOT protect our individual right to self-defense?

[Smokey 1]

Are you saying that the Second does NOT protect our individual right to self-defense?

No, just that it is not the primary reason for the amendment.