"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."
— Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
If the pen truly is mightier than the sword, then certainly the ballot is greater than the gun. After yet another mass killing involving guns, this time the shooting at U.C. Santa Barbara, it is time for the people to use their democratic remedies to rescind the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.
When the founders of this infant nation passed that amendment, muskets were the arms of the day. The nation, mostly rural, had a tenuous hold on security and was subject to potential attacks from stronger European nations. A national army was very much distrusted and the subject of intense debate. The Second Amendment was intended as a right of the people to arm themselves as a militia in the case of a foreign invasion or the rise of a domestic despot.
The nation will turn 238 years old on July 4, and such concerns are no longer relevant. The rise of technology and the invention of machines capable of carrying multiple rounds of ammunition make the entire concept of a militia overthrowing our government preposterous. The instruments of weaponry now threaten the right of citizens to be safe in their homes, schools, houses of worship and in general public.
It is therefore necessary that we the people, in concert with our democratic institutions of governance, change laws that are antiquated and abhorrent. We must begin the process of repealing the Second Amendment.
I have created a petition for this purpose. It reads as follows:
“The 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution is an obsolete 18th century right that has no utility in a 21st century modern democratic republic. It needs to be repealed to allow the states the capacity to reduce mass violence which has become all to common with the invention of mass produced weaponry never conceived or anticipated by our founders. The archaic notion that a militia is necessary and the right of the people to keep and Bear Arms, shall not be infringed is antithetical to a free society where the rule of law and the rights of citizens are firmly established.
“Most importantly without repeal of the 2nd amendment mass gun violence will continue to plague America and the right of people to be secure in their homes, schools, places of worship and public gatherings shall perish from our nation.
“Therefore, with this petition we ask Congress, the States and the American people to join in the next great cause of liberty by establishing a new inalienable and fundamental right to be free from violence and the threat of violence for our posterity and ourselves.
“Change will not come easy, as there are still powerful interests in this country who will not accede to even basic, common sense restrictions on firearms. They also have a myopic minority of people who have been radicalized with propaganda.
“But the ballot is the mightiest tool we have in a democracy. Used wisely it can overcome any special interest and our people have had enough. Let us reassert our right to a secure a peaceful existence and remove the last vestiges of a 200-year-old concept that is antithetical to a free society in the 21st century.”
>When the founders of this infant nation passed that amendment, muskets were the arms of the day.
I suppose you also support the original meaning of “commerce among the several states”, i.e. Congress may only regulate transactions that cross state lines. Therefore, you must view almost every act of Congress as unconstitutional, as the Commerce Clause forms the constitutional basis for almost every statute.
Assault weapons should be banned, but DC v. Heller was rightly decided and the Second Amendment deserves strict scrutiny. It’s a bit ironic for someone who is pro-gun control to take a textualist approach.
Ok Rich, while you’re at it:
“When the founders of this infant nation passed that amendment, they wrote on parchment paper with feather quill pens, messages were carried by men on horseback, and if you wanted to voice your opinion, you stood on a soapbox in the town square.”
and then came Al Gore…..
There isn’t a single viable reason why “assault weapons” should be banned. Certain types of media aren’t banned despite them allowing mass proliferation of murderous ideas.
Everyone, please – let’s cut the guy some slack. He’s a lawyer from California. That pretty much explains all we will ever need to know about the man.
Tyler King, if possible I would reach though this screen and shake your hand. Bravo.
And what am i suppose to do when someone runs up in my house threating me and my family. THEY just want to leave us helpless.
agreed . I am not a gun guy but I have purchased a Gun for home protection . With what this Mayor and Council have done to Public Safety , it is on me to defend my family . Criminals , do not care how many gun laws are passed . They know that it only handicaps the law abiding citizen , and that favors the criminal
Clearly this attorney does not understand that the Constitution wasn’t written for the convenience of the day, it was written as eternal principle for the purpose that people could guard the rest of their liberties. The only special interest to be worried about here is Michael Bloomberg’s upcoming interest group dedicated to restricting firearms from those who observe the law. We have a right to be safe, and that right is only threatened by criminals, not by guns
Does this mean that Santa Clara County Sheriff incumbent Smith share Robinsons views on the Constitution because that is her Political Consultant! Answer the question?
Absolutely it does! He is her campaign manager! Anything and everything he is doing right now is an attempt to promote her.
> The Second Amendment was intended as a right of the people to arm themselves as a militia in the case of a foreign invasion or the rise of a domestic despot.
Yes, Rich. Protection against “the rise of a domestic despot’.
It’s not “an obsolete 18th century right that has no utility in a 21st century modern democratic republic”.
Can you think of any despotic acts of our “modern democratic” regime? Oh, say spying in citizens, or taking their property without due process for a lawful “public purpose”, or collaborating with foreign governments to facilitate invasion across our borders?
Anything like that going on Rich?
And, by the way, we are not a “democratic republic”, modern or primitive. We are a Constitutional Republic.
In a “democracy”, the foragers “vote” to eat the flocks of the herders and the crops of the farmers.
The herders and farmers need guns and understand that they are necessary for civilization.
The foragers think guns are an “obsolete right” and that civilization gets in the way of an easy meal.
Wake up we’re. We’re clinging to our guns and religion hope your ready
So your method to “reduce gun violence” is to encourage a civil war? Wow you havent got a clue ! But for cultural marxists thats really nothing new. MOLON LABE’!
I disagree. You will never get guns out of the bad guy’s hand. I think there needs to be tougher laws, and longer waiting periods, but I don’t agree that decent people should be left defenseless when it comes to protecting their homes, and themselves~
Another mass killing ??? 3 people killed with knife…. What does that have to do with guns. Are we banning knifes?
Yes in fact you are because its Illegal in California to have a Buck knife in your pocket or on your belt. The UK is big on “Knife control” now too. Interesting that citizen disarmament advocates like to point to the UK in their arguments when their overall violent crime rate is far higher than our own , especially being a far smaller country. Home invasion robberies went thru the roof after their citizens were disarmed… If you want to ban sharp pointy things? Dont expect us to be rubes too. :)
“Yes in fact you are because its Illegal in California to have a Buck knife in your pocket or on your belt.”
Are you sure about that? When I think of “Buck knife”, I think of a folding locker like my Buck 110 or 505. I’m not familiar with any CA law that prohibits carrying such a thing in my pocket or on my belt – as long as I stay out of certain prohibited places (schools, courthouses, etc.).
Aye Aye Sir the 110 would be a no go due to blade length if I remember it right.. The other if smaller may be ok. Id confirm with your local L.E. for certain.. Where I live concealed carry in most circumstances of otherwise lawfull conduct is a 3rd class misdomenor. And hardly even an issue. :-) Also your vehicle is an extention of the home loaded firearms in vehicle is lawfull. Like I said mighty polite place…. Our LEOs tend to agree. Take care.
I’m aware that several jurisdictions within CA (e.g. City of Los Angeles) have (or had) blade length restrictions. However, I’m not aware of any such restrictions in state law, regarding non-switchblade knives.
Everything I’ve found in a Google search for “California knife laws” (including a YouTube video created by a defense attorney / former L.A. County Deputy D.A.) indicates that a folding knife that requires force to open (like a Buck 110) is legal, with no blade length restriction. (Again, I’m referring to state law only.)
Go Rich go!
Quite agree . Go Rich Go! Preferably out of the country or straight to hell. Either works for this old veteran!
People who believe the second amendment should be repealed should move to Mexico and see how well that situation worked out.
Or they can just go ahead and give repeal a shot. When they fail to a) get their new amendment proposed by either 34 states or 2/3 of each house of Congress and b) get 38 states to subsequently ratify it, they can agree to remain silent on the matter. And they undoubtedly will fail.
It’s conceivable that the anti-2A folks could achieve a 2/3 supermajority in both houses of Congress. That would let them propose an amendment. Getting 3/4 (38) of the states to ratify it? Not a chance. It’s not difficult to come up with 13 states that definitely would not agree.
When a cartel kidnaps them for ransom with a gun? Im sure explaining to them that their gun is illegal will be a huge help! Talk about a potential national security threat, Mexico that which should be their crown jewel of “leadersgip by example ” Well it is NOT!
Oh and you jokers cant even hold down California with a wingnut on every corner. :) Not when the majority of your states counties want to seperate and form their own state! So what in Gods green creation makes you think you will run roughshod over states around you? How well do you think the good people of most of Oregon and Washington outside of their little Berkeley like urban areas will recieve you? Throw in allmost every state all the way to the east coast . And support for such change in terms of votes isnt going to happen either.. He(( the brady bunch cant even keep the lights on for crying out loud without money from Bloomberg or Soros. So in essence what this diatribe against the second amendment is, is just more pathetic globalist anti freedom noise. And with the history of murder by government after “civillian disarmaments” in the 20th century , it does beg the question exactly what people the author has in mind? The only other logical explanation is that he slept thru history classes.
You miss the point. Mr. Robinson is suggesting that each state be free to choose it’s own constitutional position on personal possession of deadly weaponry–and not be hamstrung by the current federal interpretation of “militia” provision well over two centuries old. You’re quite welcome to advocate that position at the state level–or give live in a state that shares it. Far be it from me to insist you live in a California with sane gun laws if you’d rather not.
Suddenly Mr. Robinson is a states rights advocate?
So it would seem. And a believer that communities can chart their own destinies free of either dictatorship from above or the tyranny of an anti-social “right” to individual possession of dangerous weapons that would supersede the community’s choice otherwise.
I missed nothing, he called for the repeal of the second amendment as a blanket statement. And sane ? Thats why free states around you have far less violent crime per capita right? How you can define a politically correct police state as sane is beyond this old soldier. Had that narcissistic piece of garbage tried such a shooting in my area ? I can allmost guarantee he would have recieved several bullets for his troubles from several directions. Because we still believe in personal responsibility for our own safety as well as that of our families.. Seems like most of us carry here and unlike your state this is the safest and most polite place Ive ever lived. And you can bet your last dollar we would/will fight to keep it so! Just as some in your state will. In short I have zero respect for any who advocate personal disarmament and take no personal responsibility. Most Military and Police despise such I can assure you as well.. After all the “dont resist ,your life is too valuable” mantra from the left in this nation makes one thing abundantly clear to us, and that is that to such people the Soldier or Cops life is only worth their salary& little more.. No play times over … Our entire Bill of Rights is under attack and your idea as well as the authors is to strip the right of defense as well as the means? Looks like the label Cultural Marxist fits well as usual. I dont even recognize either of you as American at this point.
James Anthony: what is SSJ that you are the chair of?
So, now we have a man who truly believes he knows better than our Founding Fathers as to what is best for our country !
How many times must we be told by those who are far better informed than the rest of us as to what – how – why – etc should be the National Law on guns ?
I am angry and frustrated by the likes of this man who tells me what is best for all of us, who own guns, and that we should no longer embrace the 2nd amendment ! Does he really believe he has “better knowledge” than the writers of the Constitution ?
Please, remember what happened in Germany when it was determined that only the police and military should be allowed to possess weapons ! A nation that is not free to own guns is a nation that is in deep danger of becoming a nation that is no longer FREE !
Better that we enforce the laws we have, and to prosecute to the fullest, those who violate those laws and kill others with their weapons ! All weapons that are used to kill others are inherently dangerous – – in the hands of mentally disturbed people. Let’s concentrate on law enforcement, strict measure that do their best to prevent guns in the hands of the mentally disturbed BUT let’s not go the radical route of the author who wants to change the Constitution !
No comment can adequately explain how removed this guy is from the normal world and it’s citizens view points. No matter what weapons you outlaw, criminals will always find a way to be armed, whether if knifes or guns. Such a stupid suggestion on your part only removes what protection modern day citizens have from criminals. Especially in a city like San Jose who’s police force is almost crippled.
To use an anology, your the same type of parent who blames their child for getting fat on the unhealthy food he/she eats and tries to ban the food. When instead you should take responsibility and teach your child and people around you common sense on how to eat healthy.
Don’t fix a symptom, solve the problem. There is no quick easy fix and like every entitled American these days you’re looking for one. This problem requires rolled up sleeves and a lot of elbow grease to keep people with mental health problems and other ailments away from weapons of any kind.
Whoa, another person that thinks things would be better. You don’t live in the real world Mr. Robinson. All I have to say is; 1. Some folks live over an hour away from police protection, as in myself and many others in our county. Over 70 miles from the sheriffs office which means even if he drives 70mph, it will be one hour before he gets here. Do the math, do we call 911 or pull out the .357 ? 2. Are the extra gun laws in the Chicago area a good example of what you might want the U.S. to copy? Then if so, you haven’t seen the reports from the FBI as to number of shootings and therefor are totally missing the point; extra gun laws don’t make citizens safer. 3. Like Thom Paine said before me; (look for a 3am post on 5/31) has civilian disarmaments in the past worked out for the good for the people? NO. Millions have been killed. Pol Pot, Hitler, what’s his name in Uganda, and I can’t even remember other’s now, unfortunately, I’m dealing with a headache and my memory is shot. So, NO again, it doesn’t work. It is just another form of control. You want to disarm the American populace so that you can CONTROL us. 4. You are afraid of an American uprising because you live in the land of “dut da do”. (Think of how Carlos Mencia makes that sound.) Your land is a land of make-believe, just like the Hollywood elite. They are hypocrites but they have their own bodyguards. They are hypocrites because no matter the fact that most hate guns, they will take a job in a movie and play the part of a police detective or such just for the money. They don’t have the cojones to say NO to those big bucks they’d get starring in a movie with guns, they will only speak badly of them when they are in the make believe world. Total hypocrites. As for you sir, you probably have a bodyguard and police protection less than 10 minutes away.
And before the “disciples of Saul Alinsky” pipe in ? I could care less what color you are ,or who you prefer to sleep with. But if you seek to take the teeth out of equality? Then you are a clear and present danger to it. Good luck hope you wake up before its too late.
“…before the “disciples of Saul Alinsky” pipe in ? …” Too late they already have… :-(
Quite correct thank you. Supposed to read “before the disciples of Alinsky chime in farther”. Ironic that you should mention hammer control! The UK is now working on “Knife control” with the goal of no pointy objects! Somebody better tell Mother Nature because where I live everything has fang,claws or spines! And yes we have spines too thank G-d! And it would seem that the “neo liberal” with a gun is whats dangerous as allmost every mass shooter has been either a rabid Obama supporter or a registered Democrat going back all the way to John Wilks Booth! One thing they mostly seem to share in common is a rabidly left wing view..The statistics dont lie ,but the statists certainly do. The one thing much to their regret that none of the shooters have been on the other hand is NRA members. And they have the temerity to accuse US of breeding a “anti social ” society? Good grief their hypocrisy piles up fast. We dont have many self entitled narcissistic sociopathic mass shooters in my neck of the woods , so who is responsible for them exactly? And if the author gets his wish ? Real assault weapons and worse will become their replacement via Mexico! Citizen disarmament is really working out there I can tell you.
While the citizens are being disarmed in Mexico our Justice Department was arming the cartels and getting our agents murdered via “fast and furious” … Daryl Davis (see below) hits the nail on the head when he says the three yokels have more innocent blood on their hands than all the mass murderers…”
Lets not forget the current yokel and his foot soldiers…
“no give up!”
Hey Rich, While you are at abolishing the Second Amendment to the Constitution and part of the Bill of Rights why not start here closer to home — There was an attack last week on an child in San Jose by a woman with a crowbar – I know it wasn’t the crowbar’s fault – apparently (according to the attacker) it was the child’s race but lets outlaw crowbars just to be safe – or at least outlaw possession by mentally ill persons .
Oh hey, there was another attack on a child by a woman who used a hammer – up in Oakland I think… what gives here? Hammers are dangerous but could women possibly also be dangerous…or maybe mentally ill women? Maybe a law outlawing possession of hammers by mentally ill women is in order…
“right to be free from violence and the threat of violence”
Operationally, what is this supposed to mean? Initiation of violence & threat of violence are already criminal. It is only the government – the same organ whose scope is limited by the constitution – that can lawfully initiate violence. So, as imagined against people, such a “right” is already redundant; as imagined against government, it is self-contradictory.
That is pretty much the problem. “Our government” has pretty much abandoned being , ” constrained” by our constitution.. In as much Id say trust is earned and at the moment they dont have much.
Nearly every mass shooting incident in the last twenty years, and multiple other instances of suicide and isolated shootings all share one thing in common, and that is ALL of the perpetrators were either actively taking powerful psychotropic drugs or had been at some point in the immediate past before they committed their crimes.
Get a CLUE Rich.
Not that thats an inroad to civillian disarmament that is statistically of value . Not when the majority by huge numbers that take “meds” never harm anything or anyone. The issue here is whether the individual poses a threat to self or others obviously. And with full due process. These jokers want to push that line hard. Big Pharma and a booming gun industry funding into a super pac certainly seem to be appropriate.. :)
This is the untellable newspeak from the off the fringes left these days. “Therefore, with this petition we ask Congress, the States and the American people to join in the next great cause of liberty by establishing a new unalienable and fundamental right to be free from violence and the threat of violence for our posterity and ourselves.”
Give up your freedom to become more free! Defend the collective with ‘rights’ no human can possibly grant or even explain. What does the ‘right to be free from violence’ mean?
Let me give you a hint, if someone has to provide with something, its not a right. You are free, sort of kind of, in California to defend your life, liberty and property by exercising your right (an actual right) to self determination and self defense via the Second Amendment.
A friend of mine just recently used a firearm to stop a rape in progress that he stumbled upon. I guess Rich Robinson and Sheriff Laurie Smith would rather have that woman stay defenseless in such a time of need.
She would have then been able to hold the moral high ground of the “victim”.
Who is Rich Robinson? “He is a renowned political consultant who has worked with such luminaries as President Bill Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, the late Senator Ted Kennedy and many others.” Clinton, Biden, Kennedy–these three yokels each has more innocent blood on his hands than than all the mass (non-government) killers could have hoped for in their most twisted dreams.
Statists don’t like guns unless the government has them all, in which case they like them very much indeed.
I would welcome an attempt to repeal the 2A. Antis claim that a large percentage of the public supports stronger gun control measures. Maybe it’s time for them to put up or shut up; what better way than eliminating the biggest obstacle to their endeavors?
Good luck, though, getting 38 state legislatures to ratify your new amendment.
“Therefore, with this petition we ask Congress, the States and the American people to join in the next great cause of liberty by establishing a new unalienable and fundamental right to be free from violence and the threat of violence for our posterity and ourselves.”
We already have a fundamental right to be free from violence, it’s written in another document that will turn 238 years old this 4th of July… Those that threaten that right are criminals, and criminals will always threaten that right whether you have the right to appropriately defend yourself or not.
Your standing on the graves of those slain in Isla Vista in a veiled attempt to further Smith’s political campaign is both obvious & offensive. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Those who believe that there is an effective way to predict, let alone stop, random acts of gun violence by whack jobs should have their heads examined. Richard, you should be first in line.
Chicago has the highest rate of gun violence in the USA, despite having the toughest gun laws in the USA.
The most dangerous enemy of American freedom at this point is our own NSA. What will be our response as a nation when they come knocking at out doors–hit them with a pillow??
Robinson says the 2nd Amendment is out of date–that it was written at a time when “muskets were the arms of the day” and our nation was “mostly rural.”
Att’y Rich Robinson, may I introduce you to something I like to call the “Supreme Court of the United States” (SCOTUS). Their legal decisions contain a veritable wealth of information on the Constitution of the United States, from which I offer the following:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
Justice Scalia
United States Supreme Court
District of Columbia v. Heller – 07-290 (2008)
Right cause TX, AK, AZ, WY, MT, ID, MI, TN etc etc. will just GO ALONG WITH THAT.
I think you are seriously confused sir. At least 50% of this country would go to war over their gun rights. It isn’t just “going away”.
In 7 days he’s garnered 11 supporters. Methinks the 2nd Amendment is safe from this demagogues cognitive dissonance and (poor) knowledge of constitutional history, and logic.
Mr. Robinson: better check your petition again before you submit it. It has several spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors. Oh, that’s on top of the fact that it is a truly moronic suggestion, worthy only of a liberal who thinks taking guns away from law abiding citizens will not put them at greater risk from the non-law abiding citizens who will continue to obtain and use guns.
“The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose’. This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” – U.S. v. Cruikshank, 1875
Translation: You’re SOL, Rich.
Settled issue.
ridiculous..
this person should hang a gun free sign on their home……….
So we can ignore the 2A with the rest of the federal governments laws because we don’t like them?
Commerce Clause
Draft
Minimum Wage.
EPA
ATF
DEA
On and on….
If so, Sign me up!!!
Mr. Robinson, you’re quite welcome to amend the Constitution. In fact, the instructions to do that very thing are written right in the document. Read the instructions and let us know how it works out for you. Good luck.
Unfortunately for you, online petitions on change.org aren’t part of the process.
And one the author does away with the 2nd Amendment, how does he plan to keep my family safe? You can’t take the most efficient means of self-defense away from the people and then provide them with a better or at least an equal choice for them to employ against those that decide that to obey the laws. This Liberal wet dream of disarming the People is hopefully, and will always be, just a dream. God help us if the Liberal Anti-gun crowd ever gets its wish.
Yep. Banning guns will unquestionably remove them from society. Worked with drugs and booze and subsequently caused no adverse consequences whatsoever.
Repeal it if you want……I will still carry………………
Sheriff Laurie Smith and Kevin Jensen sat down with the Mercury News last week. In this interview, Smith attacks Kevin for being ultra conservative and explains over and over how she believes in people’s rights of choice. I guess the right to bear arms did not fall under that category. In case anyone missed the interview, here it is: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVt5FJECxA
Shakespeare was Correct all those years ago…
All:
God save your majesty!
Cade:
I thank you, good people—there shall be no money; all shall eat
and drink on my score, and I will apparel them all in one livery,
that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.
Dick:
The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.
Cade:
Nay, that I mean to do.
Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71–78
Have you noticed a theme?
First of all, there’s a solid anti-government/far right libertarian overtone to the comments. I guess if you don’t believe the government ought to exist, then you probably don’t want it regulating your guns or heck maybe even getting involved at all when you shoot someone.
Actually what we want, or rather demand is that government operate within the constraints of the law. Which it has not for a long time. Something I suppose you cant be bothered with if your criminal is in charge. Civil Rights is what the so called left has allways spouted. That and how the Republicans are evil war mongers. Not so much these days! Oh and the murder of veterans while the funding goes to “other” redistribution programs! And you think its all a right wing libertarian conspiracy?? Are you kidding or just off your meds?
The effort to repeal is underway. Join us at http://www.PeacefulCommunities.org
Then go to China,North Korea, or even Canada if you dont like it here. Maybe they can reattatch your nuts too. No wonder Drill Instructors were on the cases of neutered sad sacks as hard as they were in my day, and still are from current reports…. (Thank G-d! Disgracefull . You should suffer the consequences not for your protected speech , but for the hell on earth you would create.
Have fun with that. You need the legislatures of (or conventions in) 38 states to ratify your “Repeal Amendment”.
Let’s see… AK, AL, AZ, ID, KS, KY, LA, MO, ND, NM, NV, OK, SD, TX, UT, VT, WV, WY. Presuming you can get **every other state**, do you really think you can get 6 of those 18 listed to repeal the 2A? If you can’t get all of the other 32, you need more than 6 of those 18. Good luck.
This guy is spot on. Get rid of of the 2A now. When was the last time a fascist regime seized power and then summarily disarmed and “cleansed” it’s populace of socially or ethnically undesirable citizens? Well, according to my Grandfather it wasn’t all that long ago. I’m really sorry that some of you seem to be incapable or unwilling to protect yourself or your families from the evils of this world but frankly that’s your problem. If you want to bend the knee to your City, State and Federal Government and beg for protection that’s your prerogative and I truly hope that you never find out just how alone in your time of need that will leave you. When a life or death situation happens their is no time to yell “stop I’m dialing 911”. Police clean up crime scenes they rarely prevent them. Unfortunately I speak from experience on this matter. I am here today because I carry. I am a husband, a father and a contributing member to this society. It is my duty to protect myself and my family. My rights as a human being are mine from birth, they were not granted to me by man or by government and they are not subject to the whims of politicians or their weak willed constituency. Anyone who would try and deny or encroach upon these rights that we are all born with is most assuredly an enemy of the free man.
There are many sentences in the Constitution and Amendments that are written vaguely, this one stands out as one of the best examples. Does it mean to protect militias, or an individual’s right to a gun?. Just depends on your interpretation. There are no notes in the convention about individual gun ownership and for over 200 years the Supreme Court sided with the militia interpretation. Only since the recent “Heller” case (5 to 4 vote) did it switch to individual owner’s rights. In the end, the Supreme Court is simply another political institution shaped in the long term by public opinion and political machines. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t need to be repealed, which is nearly an impossible task, but simply re-interpreted again. All rights, including constitutional rights, are not absolute. They all have limits and can be regulated to some degree. That should include gun ownership. By what degree? Well, that’s called politics. Tomorrow’s Tuesday, lets’ vote.
“for over 200 years the Supreme Court sided with the militia interpretation”
[citation needed]
Definitely need a cite. Even in the Miller case, the court seemed to infer that if they’d had “judicial notice” that a short-barreled shotgun had any military purpose, the 2A would’ve protected Miller’s right to possess it.
Wow!. Now we need citations in this Blog. I’m impressed. I didn’t know most of the people reading this Blog knew what that was? Show me one in this thread? OK, I’m being rude. I can off hand site indirect ones, but probably the best one is the “Heller” case itself. Until then, the Court allowed states to regulated gun ownership on the whole. At any time they could have stepped in and clarified what the 2nd really meant. It did not. So by being silent they allowed the States to regulate what the Constitution doesn’t state, which is what is suppose to happen. I personally support ‘arms’ ownership, but I also support some level of regulation of ‘arms’ ownership. This is not black and white.
You anal retentive progressives and your [citation needed]s.
This isn’t freakin’ Wikipedia. This is an open, freewheeling discussion. Lighten up with your rules, your closemindedness, and just listen to what real people think.
It won’t kill you.
Not sure who you are referring to, but I like your spite! Blogs are free wheeling. We need something to compensate for the ‘commercial targeted’ corporate media we have today. They are almost all about selling commercials. And there are fewer and fewer real independent voices to be heard. This is a really difficult question that many people really truly are torn about. Important to have honest discussions without demonizing people. We need to focus on what is a real problem and try to solve it. The real problem seems to be to keep guns out of hands of those that should not be able to carry them. That will not solve all violence in the land, but it will make people feel safer. Yes, that is important You name your list. Felons of course.. but the list can include a lot more. That is called government regulation. NRA supports this. Just depends on the defined list. Good place to start a discussion. On home defense issue, I prefer a Remington Pump Action Model 870 Express Pistol Grip because I’m lazy and don’t practice a lot on the range.
Good. Yes, I’ve always felt that these comment sections are the perfect medium for just sort of saying what’s on your mind whether it’s serious and considered or to just blurt something out. It’s not as if we need to conserve cyberspace. And then these scolds come along and smugly point out that you’re off the topic of the “thread” or they give a high browed, scholarly “[citation needed] before slinking away.
Anyway, I’m not so sure that the real problem is to keep the guns out of the hands of people who should not be able to carry them, as you say. More generally the real problem might be that we have created a society that produces such specimens in the first place.
But the more immediate topic is Mr. Robinson’s article which displays a mindset that has become all too prevalent, and that is a casualness and even eagerness about giving away our personal freedoms. I understand the need sometimes but at least recognize and lament the loss when it happens. But there’s just such a strong “it takes a village” groundswell out there of people who actually seem to revel in having the government tell them they can’t do this or they must do that. Seems like a real contempt for the principles upon which this country was founded and completely at odds with what I think this country is supposed to be about.
Yes “scary people with guunnnzzz! :-) I cite Heller and 350 Million guns.. Done here now. :-)
Nice try ;)
May I suggest a little Sun Tzu in your future. This was just sad to watch.
Rich, that was really dumb. Do you REALLY think that if the 2nd amendment was rescinded that that would get rid of the guns? The criminals would still have them and the “good people” would be the ones left without a way to defend their homes and their families. Is that what you REALLY want? I don’t think you thought about this too well. Can you imagine how bold the criminals would feel if the “good people” were helpless?? Since when has ANY law or right stopped a criminal from doing ANYTHING??????????
Nice try? Hardly , we will win one way or the other. And speaking of war I have served in several. So Sun Tzu is in my past, as well as my future, or so it would appear. 25 million Vets and350 million guns in the Conus is checkmate whether you wish to admit it or not.
If guns are outlawed…only outlaws will have guns.
PS My Mom 80 this year lost many of her relatives in the death camps of WW2. Besides Never again? She too says Molon Labe’!…. Good G-d I love that woman! If your curious check out the JPFO , or Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership! There you can see many holocaust survivors who will say the same thing..
A local Sheriff’s Deputy who is a friend I shoot with has put it best. When they dial 911 what the hell do they think IM BRINGING on my BELT? Theodore Roosevelt had much to say about the coward.. He was quite correct in his observation. The enemy doesnt want “gun control” they want obedient slaves… History says much on how this works out in well armed cultures with a warrior tradition much less culture…
So many people are confusing repealing the second amendment with making all guns illegal. We have no constitutional amendment protecting the right to own cars, yet millions of people own cars. Lacking the second amendment will not make all guns illegal. It would make it easier to pass laws that implement licensing and/or registration that will allow responsible people to own guns while making it more difficult for those who can’t handle guns to obtain them. Obviously no system is perfect and no law will prevent all dangerous people from getting guns, but we can definitely make it a lot harder for them while protecting the safety of our citizens and the ability of responsible people to own guns.
Stated just as a birkenstock bolshevik would. We are “confused” about nothing. Especially who the enemy is.
And if you are fool enough to believe that passing laws will do any good? Then you are beyond deluded. We have laws our own government violates daily do you actually think MORE laws is the solution? Spare me because the reality is that with such selective enforcement most see any attempt at such as pathetic. Next democrat narcissistic shooter that goes on a rampage I suggest YOU provide him with a copy of the law…. I prefer a .45 ACP 230 gr. Winchester Ranger Talon SXT !
For those who wish to repeal the 2nd amendment, or any other amendment, I encourage you to commit all your energy and resources into doing so. If it means that much to you, every last cent of your own personal money. Mortgage yourself to the hilt. Forget your other commitments, or your job and your family, put 100% of your efforts into trying to repeal the 2nd amendment. Let’s see how far you get..
> So, now we have a man who truly believes he knows better than our Founding Fathers as to what is best for our country !
Hmmmm. Let me think.
James Madison? Or, Rich Robinson?
WASHINGTON — Nearly two weeks after a mass shooting left seven people dead in Isla Vista, a trio of California’s Democratic lawmakers introduced federal legislation intended to keep guns out of the hands of people who poses a risk of committing violence.
The Pause for Safety Act, sponsored by Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein with Rep. Lois Capps of Santa Barbara, would enable family members and others to seek a court order to stop a dangerous person from purchasing or possessing a firearm.
“We must do everything in our power to keep firearms out of the hands of those who pose a serious risk of harm to themselves or to others,” Feinstein said.
On May 23, 22-year-old Elliot Rodger killed six people, then himself, in a rampage near the University of California at Santa Barbara. Rodger was undergoing treatment for mental illness and family members worried he might hurt himself or others. But law enforcement officers didn’t see any red flags when they interviewed him before the shooting spree.
“It is haunting to me that the family of the gunman was desperate to prevent an act of violence and alerted police, but they were still unable to stop this tragedy,” Boxer said.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/06/05/6462105/california-trio-introduces-gun.html#storylink=cpy
PJTV: Isla Vista Shooter–No Self Control…Also Watch Zo’s Moving Story of his Own Teen Rejection
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reolc1wCBzc&list=UUWq53_f3zgMcWuE-XFKSpyQ
Look Like I posted, the Vid here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reolc1wCBzc
bravo to Rick Robinson for calling for repeal of the second amendment. We have been held hostage by gun nuts far to long. These extremist views espoused above do nothing but encourage the daily proliferation of violence and death that plagues our society. Read your news paper people! Everty day, every city. Man shoots daughter and child. Child shoots students in cafeteria. Over and over and over.
Every community in America should have the right to protect its citizens in a manner that works best for the community. Stop the insanity! Repeal the second amendment and protect your family from harm.
Assault weapon ban…What is the definition of an assault weapon first? I mean, what is an assault weapon? Is it a revolver. or maybe a pump action, or a rifle that can be shot over and over again? Please educate me?