Comment left by MadPriest at SOME DISAGREE WITH MOM:

Free speech is like the right to bear arms. In the USA you can carry a gun but that doesn't mean you are not responsible for the carnage if you decide to fire it into a crowd of people.



  1. Okay. Here’s the Second Amendment:

    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.

    IMHO, the real problem in this country is that the right-wingers don’t understand the function of a dependent clause. (They typically just ignore the first half of the amendment.)

  2. This is a case in which the pertinent social conditions have changed. When the constitution was written, the
    “well regulated militia” was all male citizens aged 18 to 45, and these people were expected to keep a weapon in their homes to function as members of the militia. That is the basis for the legal (an political) position that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, an this has been accepted in many legal circles as the operative view. The US Supreme Court has ruled on this, and has supported the individual right approach. To make matters more complex, Justice Department figures indicate that as many crimes are prevented each year as crimes are committed, because the intended victims were armed or the assailants thought they were. The real problem here is that again, as at Virginia Tech, a mentally disturbed individual was able to buy a gun when he never should have been allowed to. The people who experienced his strangeness dd not notify others and so he fell through the cracks. Yes, he was nuts, most likely a result of schizophrenia, but no one in any authority knew he should have been bared from buying any weapon. But what do you do? To keep all mentally ill people from purchasing guns, you’d have to require every psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, etc., everyone who counsels people for mental issues, to turn over to Uncle Sam complete lists of all their patients – names and Social Security numbers – going back decades. How far do you think that will get? It would be great if this were simple, but changing the constitution is deliberately difficult because of the danger of doing damage to the whole to change a part. Add to that a complete lack of trust on both sides of the gun control issue, and you have a real mess and basically gridlock.