Tom Toles by Tom Toles

Tom Toles

Comments (22) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Nos Nevets

    Nos Nevets said, over 3 years ago

    So are we ready to restrict the 1st amendment rights? Banning violent video games may save lives.
    If not, how about 4th amendment. Searches without warrants will find more bad guys and save lives.
    Let’s restrict the 5th: If we can coerce self-incrinination it will save lives.
    No? You’d sooner have freedom than safety?
    Why does the same not hold for 2nd amendment?

  2. 1effinday

    1effinday said, over 3 years ago

    @Nos Nevets

    When the Second Amendment was instituted on December 15, 1791, the only firearms available were black powder. I freely accept that all people everywhere are permitted to carry black powder firearms. But the founding fathers certainly couldn’t have predicted modern assault rifles, so, they’re unacceptable. Where do you draw the line? Should everyone be allowed to own MPS AA-12 Assault Combat Shotguns (aka the Sledgehammer)? Or C4ISTAR tanks?
    http://columbiaacs.blogspot.com/2007/11/right-to-bear-ye-olde-arms.html

  3. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, over 3 years ago

    @Nos Nevets

    Without the safety of you and your loved ones there is NO such a thing as freedom!!

    For instance, just how long do you think the US would have been able to be the Arsenal of Democracy (and win WWII against the dictators of both Germany and Japan) had we not been safely behind the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans!

    Safety and freedom are two sides of the same coin. Just how safe would you feel if you lived in a country with no rule of law such as Somalia?

    The other side of the coin being, do the people of Somalia actually feel truly free?

  4. sjc14850

    sjc14850 said, over 3 years ago

    We do restrict First Amendment rights: you can’t slander someone or threaten his life or cry “fire” in a crowded theater, for example. No rights are absolute.

    As 1effinday said, when the Second Amendment was written, the founders never dreamed of the weapons that are available today.

  5. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, over 3 years ago

    We do, and have for generations, limited what weapons the ordinary citizen may buy and possess. Try buying a case of hand grenades. No one wants to eliminate deadly weapons from every household. (“I’m sorry ma’am, we’ll have to take those steak knives.”) So the question is, where to draw the line. There is no easy answer to that one, folks. The line will always be arbitrary.

    Even the term “assault rifle”, coined by the gun makers to increase sales, is a term as hard to define as “pornography.” No one characteristic turns a rifle into an assault rifle.

    We have a failed school system, a failed social system, a failed mental health system, and as a result, a violent society. It is an enlarged concern for the welfare of our fellow citizens, and real action to make a better society that alone is going to reduce the violent crime rate (which has, I might add, been falling for the last couple decades), as well as identify and provide (or require) treatment for people like Adam Lanza.

    In the meantime, things like background checks (if done right and universally) may help.

    Personally I don’t care if “assault weapons” are banned or not. They aren’t the problem, but then again, nobody “needs” such a thing either. In fact, the only people I worry about are those who think that other kinds of gun don’t give them enough firepower, and that they NEED an AR15 to feel safe, or so they can do battle with the big, bad guvmint.

  6. saywhatwhat

    saywhatwhat said, over 3 years ago

    @sjc14850

    It’ not really relevant what weapons were available then and now, but the intent of the Founding Fathers is. They never intended to have a “right” for an armed mob to overthrow a government thought to be to over-reaching as some claim today. It really was about “a well regulated militia”. Anyone who thinks otherwise should read the history of the Whiskey Rebellion and George Washington’s reaction to it and early laws regarding the regulation and equipment of the militia in the late 1700’s. That the "right to bear arms is in fact limited was settled when fully automatic weapons and bazookas were restricted in the 1920’s. (or 30’s?).

  7. narrowminded

    narrowminded said, over 3 years ago

    The source of information for this news post came from Roger Hedgecock’s 1/17/13 radio show. Here’s the link. Fast forward to 21:13 for Roger’s comments.

    The five worst mass killings, where a firearm was used, have a common thread. Hint #1: They didn’t belong to the NRA. They don’t fit the stereotype of the “red-neck” gun owner.

    Check it out …

    Ft Hood: Registered Democrat/Muslim.

    Columbine: Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals.

    Virginia Tech: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff.

    Colorado Theater: Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; progressive liberal.

    Connecticut School Shooter: Registered Democrat; hated Christians.

    Common thread is that all of these shooters were progressive liberal Democrats.

    Also, of the worst killings in the last several decades, only one was a female, all the rest were boys, barely men. Their role models were rappers, action movies, comics and violent video games.

    Our problem isn’t weapons, it’s boys without boundaries who live in ‘progressive’ households.

  8. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 3 years ago

    imply

  9. Chillbilly

    Chillbilly said, over 3 years ago

    The Second Amendment is QUAINT. So was the amendment that made alcohol illegal. Things can change if people look at a situation and apply common sense.

  10. SusanCraig

    SusanCraig said, over 3 years ago

    so where’s it going to happen? In your church? Hospital? another shopping mall? The Senate has to untie the hands of the ATF so they can do their job.

  11. Mark

    Mark said, over 3 years ago

    It’s ‘bated’. Unless you’re trying to catch something.

  12. Rickapolis

    Rickapolis said, over 3 years ago

    I think of the NRA the same way I think of terrorists. Their personal beliefs are more important to them than human life. They shame America by their very existence.

  13. thebaldtexican

    thebaldtexican said, over 3 years ago

    And exactly how would any petty law stop one single mass shooting from happening?
    Quaint? God given rights never change… only the metamorphosis of free men into slavery… and we have plenty of slaves in America today, who do their slave masters bidding…

  14. M Ster

    M Ster said, over 3 years ago

    @narrowminded

    “The source of information for this news post came from Roger Hedgecock’s 1/17/13 radio show.”
    *
    I wonder why the 26 people killed at Sandy Hook didn’t make his list. Gee, do you think it is possible that he just might have selected data to support his pre-conceived position? No, a radio talkshow host would never do that!

  15. M Ster

    M Ster said, over 3 years ago

    @M Ster

    From Hedgecocks’s own website: “Roger Hedgecock’s popularity has long made him a media favorite well beyond his Southern California base. Prior to being nationally syndicated, Roger served as the #1 guest host for Rush Limbaugh for almost 10 years.”
    *
    No, he would never let an opinion ruin an objective study!

  16. Load the rest of the comments (7).