appealing to Europe when it comes to freedom and liberty is the wrong way to go. Europe should be looking to us. Especially after they put Gert Wilders in confinement for what should have been protected free speech... especially from the political opposition... here is why our founders enshrined our rights to protect our liberty from govt... http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452368/bret-stephens-guns-columnist-does-not-understand ... Stephens is not a stupid man, and nor is he unaware of the reach that tyrannies have enjoyed. On the contrary, his is often a welcome voice in the fight for the liberty of all people. This being so, it is remarkable how blithely he elects to invoke Madison as a friend to his cause, and how readily he subordinates the right to bear arms to expediency. In truth, the Second Amendment was not an “amendment” at all, for, unlike some of the subsequent alterations to the charter, it represented neither a change in policy nor a remedy for an error. Rather, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights it was the product of a disagreement as to how to best protect freedoms that were generally considered unalienable. For reasons outlined in The Federalist Papers, Madison believed that the power of the federal government would be constrained by its structure; if the central state had only a handful of carefully enumerated powers, he contended, it would not be able to exceed them. Others, the “Anti-Federalists,” disagreed, demanding a belt to add to the suspenders. The debate that followed was strictly structural — not a fight over speech or due process or arms, but over how best to ensure the maintenance of ancient liberty. Madison acknowledged this when introducing the Bill of Rights in Congress. The rights he had included, he made clear to his peers, were those “against which I believe no serious objection has been made by any class of our constituents.” In encoding the right to bear arms among the set, neither Madison nor his opponents were innovating. Instead, they were channeling Justinian, Locke, and Blackstone, and ensuring that the people of the new country would enjoy a robust right to self-defense, and the auxiliary protections that enabled it. Powered by They were also responding to the lessons of history. Stephens seems convinced that the Second Amendment is contingent; that is, that its meaning and relevance rely upon the continuing prevalence of redcoats. Surely, Stephens insists, if Madison could see the modern world he would change his mind. I must venture that the very opposite is true. Were he to pick up a history book today, Madison would be shocked indeed. But his surprise would be at the sheer scale and disgrace of the tyrannies that have scarred us since he died. The American Revolution was a beautiful and necessary thing, and yet if one were to have read the litany of complaints to a man in the Warsaw Ghetto, or in Dachau, or in the Gulag, or in the Laogai, or, yes, in the Reconstruction-deprived post-bellum South, he would have laughed in your face. The colonists were that upset over . . . that? Well, yes. They were. And they should have been. But let us not pretend that their anguish was equivalent to what came next — in Germany, in Cuba, in Russia, in China, in Mississippi. And let us not pretend that there was more need for safeguards against George III and the Declaratory Act than against the blood-soaked 20th century. Certainly, Madison could not have imagined the future. But that, in truth, is to say that he could not have imagined how right he would prove to be. Power, ambition, human nature — these are constants, not variables. And it is for that reason above all else that our enduring Constitution must be cherished. There is rarely a good reason to kick over Chesterton’s fence, even when it is chipped and knotted around the edges, and the villagers are scratching their chins. Apostasy or no apostasy, Bret Stephens has made no progress today in convincing anyone otherwise. As you were, America. As you were. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452368/bret-stephens-guns-columnist-does-not-understand
I respect the Second Amendment but judges can and have ruled the Constitution means any damn thing they say it means. Our political branches have consistently lacked the spine to confront the judiciary, and the cowards who currently represent us would not lift a finger if the courts ruled there was no private right to own firearms. We are on our own here and the sooner we recognize that, the better.
J Burton@JBurtonXP 4h4 hours ago An infographic that will HOPEFULLY allow you right wing gun nuts to understand
Comparing Attack With Daily Gun Deaths in the U.S. By LARRY BUCHANAN, TROY GRIGGS, JASMINE C. LEE and KAREN YOURISH Fifty-eight people were killed in the Las Vegas massacre. The same number were killed by gun violence in 28 days in Chicago. Handguns and high lethality long guns must be banned. Shockingly logical.
I have to wonder though if crime rates in Brazil could have grown because of weakness in your economy, stock markets, and ineffective government. I have to wonder why a city hosting the Olympics ( and all that associated cost ) has badly polluted waterways and huge shantytowns on the hills. Perhaps the role of gangs in Brazil needs to be studied closely. I don't know, it just seems there is far more to be looked at then the attempt at gun control. The US is a rich country that should have one of the lowest crime rates on the planet given the resources for the people and the money spent on police and number of people in jail already.
If you have a broken leg you need a crutch. Many in the US have a broken psyche and need guns to back up their prejudices and allay their fears. Fears of who you may ask. Of each other ? The over competitive system may be the cause. Live in harmony guys. Trump likes chaos he says. It's ok at the top but not at the bottom. Perhaps in the education of budding politicians they should spend a week living rough at the bottom. It would teach them some humility and caring.
well, we saw the result of that in Vegas. he lived his life the way he wished. he also took away that same right from those who died. conflict of interest. so the wishes from one person can kill (literally) the same wishes of many others. maybe not such a good suggestion you made.
the correct idea would be:Lets ban Guns, Cocaine and Human Trafficking. not to replace guns by other things and delete the guns in the proposal. about Brazil: corruption makes application of laws impossible. Brazil is so corrupted that laws have no value. laws in a civilized country work well.
you miss the essential part: force people to obey the law. making laws is very easy. apply them is more difficult.
Laws are broken Day in an Day out. You are the one that is missing the essential part. Murder is against the law and it happens. I am not against banning or not banning. I am against people saying that that is the solution in and of itself. There is more than that...trafficking large quantities Of cocaine is banned in the USA and it still flows like a river into our country...the demand is there. The demand for inner city guns is there and it's the biggest portion of the murders that happen each year...lower that demand and then you might be heading in the right direction. Just sayiing hey let's ban guns won't quench the demand for guns in the hood...why ? Because they be slinging papa. And that's a lot of money...so they will get guns just like they get coke illegally.