Reminds me of attorney general Pam Bondi delaying an execution so she can go to a fund raising party for he reelection.http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-09-12/news/fl-death-penalty-delay-editorial-dv-20130912_1_marshall-lee-gore-robyn-novick-execution
This cartoon shows what the career politicians value most. The members of both parties will serve their donors well and after working long enough to enrich themselves through insider trading and the manipulation of donations to their campaigns, they will, in many cases, leave to work for those donors as lobbyists, consultants, or some other post. In addition, they will take the substantial benefits with which both parties have gifted themselves and never want for healthcare or a pension.^@ Masterkrain - I would beg to differ with you Masterkain, and I do so reluctantly as I find your posts to be ones with which I usually find much agreement. I have learned from you. However – One of the reason the A bomb was used in Japan instead an invasion was that the guns in that nation guaranteed casualties among invading forces near or above one million. One of the reasons that Switzerland was not attacked by Germany was the presence of so many citizens who could survive in the mountains and who had the skills of a sharpshooter. The second amendment not only protects Americans from the mostly fictional threat of a suddenly hostile American gov’t, but it also makes countries, like China, whose standing army nearly exceeds the population of our entire country, from even considering a conventional invasion.Guns do not make us strong, our people make us strong. When our people are civil, respectful, educated, and given a reason to believe in our nation, guns are not an issue.The threat we face is represented by the many extremists of every group who are so desperate to have their own way, they are willing to destroy everything in order to have their own little place be just the way they want it.Respectfully,C.
Actually, we don’t need to repeal the amendment, we need to interpret it sensibly. Most people ignore the beginning of it: “A well regulated Militia”. That means (1) they’re talking about needing a militia, not anybody who wants a gun and (2) it says “regulated”. That’s not my word, that’s in the second amendment.
What’s so bad about actually putting the repeal of the Second Amendment to the people to decide?Use the constitutional process for the repeal of an amendment, and let’s see if there is actually sufficient public support.Or is the NRA afraid it might actually LOSE that battle?I don’t think the support is there… yet. If the 2nd Amendment fundamentalists continue to oppose any attempt at reform, that will change. It will be ironic if the 2nd Amendment is repealed because of those who say they are defending it.
It’s not the guns…It’s the HATE, DIS-RESPECT, and SELF-INVOLVEMENT. This is a malady that has afflicted mankind since the beginning of Man. If you want to fix mankind you give them the Truth and the capacity to live up to it.
“Good for nothing laws which only get in the way of keeping everybody safe and secure; the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the fourth amendment… more to come, check back regularly.
A gross representative sampling of items which, due to their peril and the harm they bring to the citizens, shall be banned.
GunsTwinkiesCell phonesCarsPlanesBurgers
Protecting people, for their own good, whether they like it or not."-Someone is trying to ban all those things? Or any of them?
the Second Amendment is distinctly an “if-then” situation. The Articles of Confederation mandated that the STATES would retain, and control all the “arms”, and in the event of invasion or insurgency, dole them out to the militias. When the “corrected” the Articles with the Constitution, it was simply the LOGISTICS of the state warehouses being able to distribute those arms in time that was addressed in the “well-regulated militia” making those arms available to the folks in their homes.
Yes, the amendment doesn’t need to be changed, or amended, it just needs a truly rational review of it’s history, and an interpretation not written by the “NRA friendly” courts
Dtroutma over 10 years ago
La PIerre gets a million bucks a year, if that gives anyone a clue how much is in the bags.
rockngolfer over 10 years ago
Reminds me of attorney general Pam Bondi delaying an execution so she can go to a fund raising party for he reelection.http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-09-12/news/fl-death-penalty-delay-editorial-dv-20130912_1_marshall-lee-gore-robyn-novick-execution
Vermont Premium Member over 10 years ago
Ok. I’m good with that.
chazandru over 10 years ago
This cartoon shows what the career politicians value most. The members of both parties will serve their donors well and after working long enough to enrich themselves through insider trading and the manipulation of donations to their campaigns, they will, in many cases, leave to work for those donors as lobbyists, consultants, or some other post. In addition, they will take the substantial benefits with which both parties have gifted themselves and never want for healthcare or a pension.^@ Masterkrain - I would beg to differ with you Masterkain, and I do so reluctantly as I find your posts to be ones with which I usually find much agreement. I have learned from you. However – One of the reason the A bomb was used in Japan instead an invasion was that the guns in that nation guaranteed casualties among invading forces near or above one million. One of the reasons that Switzerland was not attacked by Germany was the presence of so many citizens who could survive in the mountains and who had the skills of a sharpshooter. The second amendment not only protects Americans from the mostly fictional threat of a suddenly hostile American gov’t, but it also makes countries, like China, whose standing army nearly exceeds the population of our entire country, from even considering a conventional invasion.Guns do not make us strong, our people make us strong. When our people are civil, respectful, educated, and given a reason to believe in our nation, guns are not an issue.The threat we face is represented by the many extremists of every group who are so desperate to have their own way, they are willing to destroy everything in order to have their own little place be just the way they want it.Respectfully,C.
echoraven over 10 years ago
“Maybe it’s time to repeal the Second Amendment…”.Great idea. Hitler didn’t have to contend with one and look at all he accomplished!
Lawrence Cohen over 10 years ago
Actually, we don’t need to repeal the amendment, we need to interpret it sensibly. Most people ignore the beginning of it: “A well regulated Militia”. That means (1) they’re talking about needing a militia, not anybody who wants a gun and (2) it says “regulated”. That’s not my word, that’s in the second amendment.
Uncle Joe Premium Member over 10 years ago
What’s so bad about actually putting the repeal of the Second Amendment to the people to decide?Use the constitutional process for the repeal of an amendment, and let’s see if there is actually sufficient public support.Or is the NRA afraid it might actually LOSE that battle?I don’t think the support is there… yet. If the 2nd Amendment fundamentalists continue to oppose any attempt at reform, that will change. It will be ironic if the 2nd Amendment is repealed because of those who say they are defending it.
dannysixpack over 10 years ago
^that democrat was your revered leader, Ronald Reagan. he turned all the crazies out on the street.
Jason Allen over 10 years ago
You forgot gays and minorities.
adherent#1 over 10 years ago
It’s not the guns…It’s the HATE, DIS-RESPECT, and SELF-INVOLVEMENT. This is a malady that has afflicted mankind since the beginning of Man. If you want to fix mankind you give them the Truth and the capacity to live up to it.
braindead Premium Member over 10 years ago
“Good for nothing laws which only get in the way of keeping everybody safe and secure; the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the fourth amendment… more to come, check back regularly.
A gross representative sampling of items which, due to their peril and the harm they bring to the citizens, shall be banned.
GunsTwinkiesCell phonesCarsPlanesBurgers
Protecting people, for their own good, whether they like it or not."-Someone is trying to ban all those things? Or any of them?
Dtroutma over 10 years ago
the Second Amendment is distinctly an “if-then” situation. The Articles of Confederation mandated that the STATES would retain, and control all the “arms”, and in the event of invasion or insurgency, dole them out to the militias. When the “corrected” the Articles with the Constitution, it was simply the LOGISTICS of the state warehouses being able to distribute those arms in time that was addressed in the “well-regulated militia” making those arms available to the folks in their homes.
Yes, the amendment doesn’t need to be changed, or amended, it just needs a truly rational review of it’s history, and an interpretation not written by the “NRA friendly” courts