In response to:

The Complex Truth About the Second Amendment

Kenneth L. Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 7:19 AM
It's frustrating to read a young writer who leaps into the middle of a controversy with no historical context whatsoever. The first restriction of any kind is the machine gun law of 1934. No general restriction ever existed until after 1968. When I was young my friend and I carried a pistol across the campus of an Ivy League university to an indoor range to shoot. NOBODY thought this was in any way unusual. Kids were given rifles and shotguns for Christmas, ordered from the Sears catalog. Chapman is allowing himself to slip down the slippery slope with the likes of Feinstein and Obama. No attempt to "infringe" this right should be considered reasonable or, in fact, necessary. Laws against murder are sufficient.
rpapa Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 8:22 AM
Banning of any weapon does not solve the problem of people killing people. If one can't be trusted with an AR15 for example, how can we trust them with a 9mm handgun or a .38 revolver, regardless of how many cartridges it holds. That almost sounds like we're saying, "it's OK to kill people with a 6 shot revolver, because you won't kill as many as you would with an AR15". The crux of the problem is not guns, it is people. We have bred a society of malcontents who take offense to any little thing they wish and feel they can seek revenge. Until our society returns to the moral values expressed my Judeo-Christian doctrine this problem will never be solved. Like the Front Sight motto says "You are the weapon, the gun is only a tool."
Kenneth L. Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 8:42 AM
Exactly. The problem with Steve Chapman and his ilk, pontificating from a contemporary perspective, is that we drift inexorably left, left, left. NO infringement is necessary or effective, and ANY infringement is unconstitutional according to the plain meaning of the 2nd amendment. We tend to become desensitized as a population, over time, and come to accept the "new normal."
Also, I equate gun control with hate crime legislation. If guns are banned, what stops people from killing with a hammer? And why should the penalty be different? Is the victim any less dead? Murder is murder, and it's against the law in every state.

The debate on gun control lately has been going like this: Liberals propose various restrictions on allowable firearms, acceptable owners and approved ammunition. Conservatives exclaim, "Second Amendment!" And the debate, at least in the mind of the latter group, is over.

The Second Amendment, they believe, is not just one important provision of our basic government document. It's the first and last word on the subject of firearms.

Viewing the proposals offered since the Sandy Hook massacre, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., concludes the supporters intend "to completely GUT our Second Amendment rights." The Utah Sheriffs' Association warned President Barack...