For over year I’ve been complaining about the lack of debate in this country over multiple different issues. I even mentioned it last week on my radio show. It seems like all subjects have their liberal and conservative talking points. It really doesn’t matter what the subject is — immigration, health care, gun control, nuclear arms, North Korea, Social Security and tax cuts. There is a liberal position and there is a conservative position. Because of this, there’s no true debate instead the two sides are simply hollering at each other.

I have no problem with the Second Amendment, except it really needs to be clarified. As it currently reads –A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I find that first phrase somewhat confusing. What the heck is a well regulated militia? I think the Second Amendment needs to be corrected (I did not want to use the word amend again) to read — It is the right of the American people to keep and bear arms. No state shall infringe on this right. Congress has granted the authority to curtail this right and a two thirds vote, in both houses, in order to protect the public interest.

I have no problem with someone wanting to protect themselves or particular families. There is no question that guns are an effective means of protection. My problem is that gun violence in United States has become so common that the shooting of a nephrologist in his office does not make the national news. A friend of mine who graduated with me from medical school was leaving her office and she saw her patient in such an uncomfortable situation with her “significant other” that my friend thought she had to intervene. This physician was shot and killed for her kindness. That story also did not make the national news.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

This discussion is less polarized than most, but it still suffers from some of the same knee-jerk reactions.

I am a progressive, and a physician, who has become a “gun nut” over the years.

We suffer from our protected American viewpoint, both the unstable person who started this (Mr. Poplawski) and the “Liberals” who loudly proclaim the insanity of anyone who reserves the ability to defend themselves.

Both sides of my family were displaced by war in their native countries.

We all stood by as Americans while civilized, modern, educated Europeans butchered each other in the Balkans. African children are subject to genocide while we sit here and engage in what is essentially coffee-shop opinionating.

I am saddened by what happened in Pittsburgh. I feel a lot of fondness for western PA and I am sorry to hear this happened to the people of that fine city.

But, this is more a sign of the times and our collective social health than anything else.

Those who think that giving up 2nd amendment rights (which, for numerous reasons, includes individual military weapons like functional semi-auto rifles) is a cure for this sickness have little more credibility than those who think we should give up the 1st, 4th, 5th, or any other, or habeas corpus to return us to some utopia that never existed.

Heck, I wish I could keep half the people I see from driving. But the reality is I can’t. I don’t run this world. But I do wish to be able to defend myself from those who wish to do significant evil.

Respectfully,
David
currently of Seattle WA

I applaud you for pointing out the obvious. It was seen to me the only group of people who benefit from this are the gun manufacturers. They’re making tons of money.

I think that the gun folks would argue that there are no “reasonable” restrictions on gun ownership.

Thanks for your thoughts.

But you are still a nut. You wasted $4,000 on ammo to bury in case of what exactly? Obama’s secret plan to take us back to the bow and arrow days? An invasion by the Commies? Aliens trying to breed with humans? The day that zombies walk the earth?

And what makes you a nut is that you don’t even realize how irrational you are.

Reasonable gun laws are absolutely necessary to keep guns out of the hands of people like this shooter. They might not be perfect and they might not always work, but they are a no-brainer. If you have a problem with common-sense gun laws you are more irrational than you seem.

I don’t know a single person, including myself, that thinks guns should be taken away from responsible people. And that includes Obama. He never said he was going to do that. As a matter of fact, nobody in government will ever propose taking away guns. If you believe that, you need a reality check.

Seriously, you should get to a therapist and get checked out for paranoia. Seriously.

Please show me a link where the NRA argues for more funding for enforcement of existing laws.

You can’t, because they don’t.

Poplawski was a terrorist.

He used violence and the threat of it to achieve his ideological ends.

If he had been a muslim and had blown up those police officers, all the delusional 2nd amendment misinterpreters here would be claiming he was the first of a wave of attacks and that they should … buy guns and ammo.

If Poplawski was a muslim and had links to anti gun sites or the ACLU the pro gun commenters would scream left wing violent conspiracy.

ALSO: Please cite one example of a “left-wing” terrorist attacking or murdering an american in the last 25 years, the closest is eco-terrorism and animal rights, which is yet to claim a human life.

There is a 20 year campaign to protect a minority of gun sellers who sell the majority of crime guns in this country, and to enrich the gun manufacturers beyond reason.

This campaign has been escalated to a fever pitch since January.

THE ONLY GUN CONTROL BILL INTRODUCED IN THIS CONGRESS:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111q2dTIl:e1136:

The ‘tyrannous’ Blair Holt Licensing act.

Newsflash, Bush took away your 4th amendment rights, so why do you think it relevant to fight against national gun licensing? They don’t need a list, they can listen to your cellphone or monitor your email without a warrant, without a paper trail.

Responsible gun owners want responsible laws responsibly enforced, the NRA and its Fox media allies want only their own enrichment, regardless of the cost.

PS “well armed miltia” the reason for “tea parties” in the 18th century was to rebell against paying the tax caused by a war instigated by an inbred king fighting his relatives. THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS ANTI ARMY. And the founding fathers were right, if anyone tried to invade this country, if a foreign power took one step on our soil, the citizenry would turn out and fill them full of lead.

The American populace is the largest armed force in the world, so why do we need a land army?

What good did our tanks do us on 9/11?

I understand the want to have a handgun for your safety. But when people hoard all kinds of weapons and have massive amounts of ammunition and it gets stolen and then sold on the streets. Are you not empowering the people who you are afraid of?

AIIiB, I will do my best to answer this question because it is asked a lot.

“The most foolish mistake we would possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquers who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”

This reason, told by Hitler himself, AIIiB, is why one needs assault weapons.

In addition to this, see these examples:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

——————————

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

——————————

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

——————————

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

——————————

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

—- ————- ————-

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

——————————

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

—————————–

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

http://www.gunnewsdaily.com/rw807.html

I bet the drug cartels are getting their weapons from the mexican military, you know the one with 150000 desertions in the past 6 years!

“ASSAULT WEAPONS” ARE JUST SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES WITH A SCARY APPERANCE!!

THERES NO DIFFERNACE BETWEEN A SEMI-AUTOMATIC HUNTING RIFLE AND A SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLE THAT LOOKS LIKE AN ASSAULT RIFLE, EXCEPT THE HUNTING RIFLE WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE POWERFUL!!

Watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30

Part of the video it shows him take a Mini-14 with a wooden hunting-style stock, put a scary black plastic stock with a pistol grip and bipod on it. Nows it an assault weapon because it looks scary!