Las Vegas Review-Journal
EDITORIAL: Democrats under the gun

Changing tune on the Second Amendment



Republicans seized control of Congress in November 1994 in part by harping on the perception that the Democratic Party had abandoned gun owners and that the party's lawmakers were poised to enact a series of new restrictions on firearms possession, including a federal requirement to obtain a license before purchasing a gun, or a scheme to register all handguns currently in private hands.

Notwithstanding the political backlash such a trampling of the Bill of Rights had spawned, similar proposals were echoed by Al Gore and Bill Bradley in the 2000 presidential campaign. And yet, as post-election polls revealed, Mr. Gore hemorrhaged support from Democrats in state after state throughout the nation's heartland, because voters feared a Gore administration would conduct house-to-house searches of gun owners, seizing firearms from law-abiding citizens.

This time, those vying to challenge George W. Bush in November have at least paid heed to public opinion -- not to mention the Constitution -- and eased their zeal to violate the rights of gun owners. The advocacy group Americans for Gun Safety surveyed the presidential hopefuls on a range of firearms-related issues, including their views on the Second Amendment. With the exception of the Rev. Al Sharpton, every Democrat responded; President Bush said he would provide his answers during the general campaign.

All the Democrats cited various measures they'd take to restrict the rights of innocent Americans. But what's interesting here is the Democrats' unanimity when they were asked whether the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own guns ... or whether it simply states the "collective" right of state militias to be armed. All of them said the Second Amendment -- within limits they'd never allow to be placed on other freedoms within the Bill of Rights, to be sure -- protects the rights of individuals to possess firearms.

This is a stunning turnabout, considering the outright hostility the Bush administration faced from liberal activists in 2001. In briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, Attorney General John Ashcroft then stated that as a matter of policy, gun ownership is an individual right. Anti-gun groups such as the Violence Policy Center and Handgun-Free America went bonkers, claiming Mr. Ashcroft was "taking the law into his own hands" and was promoting an "extreme ideology."

A couple of years later, Democratic candidates are falling all over themselves, embracing a similar position -- on paper, anyway. After being routed in closely contested states filled with rural and suburban voters who own firearms and aren't ashamed to say so, Democrats no longer consider this view to be such a "radical departure" from Second Amendment jurisprudence.

So long as a person is licensed with said gun they should have every right to use it. However if they're running around with guns WITHOUT a license they should be arrested for utter stupidity. At least with a license you know the person knows how to use it and has taken the basic safety classes..

Anywho yay. And stuff.



I love you sixgun. You make me hot and heavy down under.

Notice my lack of care about the 2nd freaking amendment.

I didn't realize that the 2nd Amendment and my caring as to the basic fact that it allows people to have weapons that can allow them to murder large quantities of people in a short amount of time is stupid mattered in terms of my "liking mass murder".

Guns should be regulated, licenses should be given and anyone who owns a gun without at least a license should be fined and have their gun removed.

The constitution was created when people were far more civilized and intelligent when it pertained to their usage of the weapons that they had, not to mention when said weapons were far less effective as well as difficult to use against other people.

The amendment was not done last year, it was done a while ago. If it was done last year it would not have been done in the same way. Advancements in weaponry such as pistols has become increasingly worrisome, especially since people can acquire weapons that are able to kill over 10 people and said weapon is able to be placed in a coat pocket.

A musket was capable of killing people not as readily in comparison to bullets of today.
Muskets required a bit of time to reload, as well as a kit just for reloading and then a bullet container so you can put the bullets in the gun.

As for people "kill each other over insults" well yeah...but people nowadays kill each other over:
Insults
Race
Sexual Preference
Money
House
Car
Basic items
Psychotic tendencies

And due to the larger amount of people nowadays, as well as the greater degree of ...oh..what's that term for a larger amount of people in one area? I always have trouble remembering these things..but anywho overall there's a far more tendency for a gun to be used to kill someone now, not to mention a large amount of people, than in the past. Even during the "old west" people who used guns didn't go around sporadically murdering each other save when they were robbing someone. Of course back then people lived further apart and so didn't run across each other as often, thus lessening the chances of some great spurt of anger which would make them unleash a bullet that had a low chance of killing.

Wait.
People who have guns will more quickly kill someone(ease to kill increases) and due to the lack of a license or regulation it makes it easier to conceal the fact that it was a gun you had is better for America?

It won't lower the crime rate. It'll increase it, as well as increase the amount of overall abuses of said weapons.

Regulation of the weapons as well as making it so people need to be licensed not only makes it so if a bullet is fired it can be easily recognized and the owner of the gun that fired it can be quickly picked out, but it'd also help deal with anything such as homicidal maniacs getting ahold of weapons.

I'd like to point out that I live near a city, and most of the murders that occur are due to guns that are either illegally acquired or in the hands of someone who doesn't have a license to even carry said weapon. However they happen, and the amount of murders each year is increasing.

Guns were made to make killing easier. Guns have been enhanced heavily since the days of long ago, and so have made killing extremely easy. People have also increased in numbers and so more crimes are committed each year. The amount of people who die via guns is also increasing because guns are not that difficult to gain. Hell, you can go over to Wal-Mart and just steal one if you want to go on a shooting spree. Guns are far too dangerous to just leave like they are.

Even cars, a "weapon" in a way requires a license to use, and has multiple laws that police will enforce to try and keep people from harming others with the cars. Yet guns, a far more dangerous weapon, are mostly unrestricted.

Density! That's it! Oh..sorry..anywho.

Were you going to make some points that help support your thoughts about why we should have unlicensed and unregistered weapons allowed to people who have no training with said weapons and probably will end up shooting themselves in the foot if they even pick up the gun?

You do realize there's no logic to that?

...that's like saying more cars = less accidents
Less cars = more accidents

Yeah...really logical kid

How do they back you up? You do realize a few things..
1. The amount of people is fluctuating constantly
2. The amount of crimes done via no guns is changing often
3. The amount of crimes done via guns is changing often
4. The amount of people who have guns is always altering
5. The amount of crimes done via guns that aren't known to the public is often altering
6. The attitudes of people are often changing

You can not give facts and be completely precise about these things.

You pretty much want to give every person in America a gun. This is not an intelligent thing to do. You think this will some how lower crime rates..perhaps it will. But that lower in a crime rate will be from people being murdered who would normally be able to commit a crime. Ends justify the means is an attitude fit for a barbarian, not a civilized man.

You do realize concealed carry is a form of license wherein you're taught safety pertaining to the gun, on top of how to the use the gun?

However, you do not want guns to have to be licensed. So concealed carry(which you are touting as a good thing) would actually be against what you want.

No, you don't, however as you have said concealed carry has helped deal with the amount of murders.
And it's a type of license.

So think about what good other types of licensing as well as registration would do.


In comparison to how you think everyone should be able to get a gun without anything even relating to a license or need to register.

Mm..
So you really don't understand how illogical you are being.
You have supported my statements and still think that you are "winning" in this "debate" which is nothing more than me trying to explain something simplistic to a wall(you) who sits there being harrassive, tiresome, sardonic and ignorant.

That's a state matter, different for every state. The training-required states have no significant difference in firearms accidents.

Demonstrably false.

It's possible your heart is in the right place in this matter, but you are woefully short on facts. I can recommend books.

Criminals with guns cause crime, sure. Law abiding citizens with guns lower crime. Hence, it's not guns per se but who has them. Second, gun control takes guns from the law abiding but not criminals, hence gun control raises crime.

The utter failure in logic is in your part.

A better analogy would be:

more guns = more gun accidents.

THAT would be true. Accidents are a statistical by product spread out through all product ownership.

Crime is completely different. Crime is not an accident, but a purposeful activity, committed by criminals. They are highly motivated to acquire guns, the tools of their trade. Hence gun control does not affect them.

Two points:

1. Not all crime is committed with guns, so immediately your gun->crime connection is weak.

2. A fair amount of crime is STOPPED by guns, in the hands of the law abiding. Remember that gun control takes guns away from the law abiding, hence lowers the crime-stopping activity, hence raises crime. Until you account for that half of the equation, you can not be taken seriously. Sorry to be blunt, but those are the facts.