http://theweek.com/article/index/263059/both-sides-are-wrong-on-the-gun-debate-heres-why#axzz34op8NNCl

 

The above article is a very interesting one that talks about the 2nd amendment and gun laws.  There is something in it for both conservatives and liberals to both love and hate. The part I found most interesting is the analysis of what the second amendment really means and it explains some of the words used in it and what their meaning was at the time the document was written.  It also takes a pragmatic look at the fact that there are so many guns in the US that Liberals would really never go for what would be needed to eradicate them all.  I think everyone that reads this will find it of interest.

Mostly common sense and definitely more pro-gun than the average American. I like the part about the militia clause. For years I've been of the opinion that it doesn't change the main statement at all. Madison could just as easily have said, "The crab cakes at Old Scallawag's, being free with any drink on Wednesdays, the right..." 

Liberals would really never go for what would be needed to eradicate them all.  I think everyone that reads this will find it of interest.

 

Might be wishful thinking there. Irrational thinking grows faster than most cancers. 

http://theweek.com/article/index/263059/both-sides-are-wrong-on-the-gun-debate-heres-why#axzz34op8NNCl

 

The above article is a very interesting one that talks about the 2nd amendment and gun laws.  There is something in it for both conservatives and liberals to both love and hate. The part I found most interesting is the analysis of what the second amendment really means and it explains some of the words used in it and what their meaning was at the time the document was written.  It also takes a pragmatic look at the fact that there are so many guns in the US that Liberals would really never go for what would be needed to eradicate them all.  I think everyone that reads this will find it of interest.

Prohibition effort didnt stop even when everyone knew that everyone and their dog was drinking.  It took corrupted police forces, uprise of bootlegger & mafia and countless deaths before it was repealed.  

 

In summary, I dont think we can underestimate stupidity of some people and lengths they go given the power.

 

... Imagine a situation more like Switzerland — the other rich country with widespread private gun ownership but where, because everyone is required to undergo regular training and secure their weapons and so on, gun violence is very low.

 

Right, right - it's strictly the regular training and securing of weapons that makes gun violence in Switzerland so low.  No cultural/economic factors at play there at all. /sarcasm.

 

 

...The vast, vast majority of law-abiding gun owners pose no danger to anyone.

 

Thank you Mr. Gobry.  The non-villification is refreshing.

 

 

...If you want to get rid of illegal guns in a neighborhood, given that a gun is a very small and easy-to-conceal item, there are no two ways to go about it effectively: you have to search very large amounts of people, in a systematic, sustained way. As John Podhoretz has argued, it is the very comprehensiveness of stop-and-frisk that makes it effective: it's once you know that your likelihood of being searched is very high that you don't dare venture out with an illegal gun

 

So your solution is stop-and-frisk policy implemented such that, what, you have a 50% chance of being S&F'd each day?  I'm very skeptical that you can implement that in a major metro area without severely impacting transportation and commerce, to say nothing of the civil liberties outrcy that would result.

 

Not impressed by the article, his assertions or his proposed solutions, however it's nice to not endure another literary tar and feathering of all gun owners for once.

Already posted in the 1st Amendment lounge.

 

A "Well Regulated" Article

.........

 

Agree, It was just a not so radical hack job.