Skip to content

Even if We Had No Second Amendment. . .

March 24, 2011
Laurence M. Vance

The Irrelevance of the Second Amendment

The killing of six people on January 8, 2011, in Tucson, Arizona, and attempted assassination of a “public servant” and her staff members has brought forth a predictable response from the left and gun-control groups: We need stricter gun-control laws to prevent tragedies like the Tucson shooting.

But calls for banning extended-capacity magazines, instituting gun-free zones, more thorough background checks, longer waiting periods for gun purchases, limits on gun purchases, stricter licensing of gun dealers, comprehensive databases of gun owners, repealing concealed-carry laws, gun registration and licensing, and outright gun bans will not prevent gun violence any more than drug-prohibition laws stop people from using drugs.

If someone is willing to commit murder, he is unlikely to be deterred by anygun-control regulations or laws. Would-be murderers aren’t the least bit concerned about gun-free zones, bans on certain types of guns and ammunition, restrictions on concealed weapons, trigger lock requirements, and gun bans. And they will either reluctantly comply with waiting periods and background checks or circumvent them by purchasing a gun from an individual or on the black market.

It is those who use guns responsibly, whether for hunting, sporting, or recreation, and those who desire to own a gun for self-defense, collecting, or peace of mind, that overwhelmingly bear the brunt of the inconvenience, hassle, expense, and loss of liberty that results from the myriad of federal gun rules and regulations regarding the purchase, sale, manufacture, transport, storage, and use of firearms.

And now… the rest of the story. …..

14 Comments leave one →
  1. sam cain permalink
    September 13, 2012 2:41 pm

    they are wanting to take the second amendment out of the amendments

  2. Anonymous permalink
    September 12, 2012 11:07 am

    According to the “anti-gun” groups gun violence is the result of easy access to guns, not the people wielding them. Maybe we should apply this logic to other crimes.
    Rape can now be blamed on the male organ rather than the man attached to it. So we just have to figure out how to restrict access to the male genitalia and we will have no more rape. We’ll replace zippers with locks, the key will be kept in a fanny pack which will be opened with a 6 digit code which you will receive by calling 1-800-tak-alik. And there you go, 3 steps to access your pants and the rape problem in this country is solved.

  3. August 31, 2012 2:31 pm

    URGENT!!! Everyone read this and pass it on to as many folks as possible.

  4. Anonymous permalink
    July 23, 2012 10:37 am

    as much as gun owners wish that it did, the second amendment never states the “right” for people to carry firearms, it referes to the miltia.

    • buff24seven permalink
      August 17, 2012 2:07 am

      then I guess we better tell the police they cant carry firearms…….your a idiot go crawl back in your hole.

    • buff24seven permalink
      August 17, 2012 2:11 am

      _I_AM_ARMED_I am armed because I say I shall be armed.
      I am armed because it is my right.

      It is my right because _I_ will enforce it.

      I didn’t ask ANYBODY first, I notified NOBODY, and no-one will ever tell me ‘No’. Got it?

      Not YOU, not Congress, not The President, not The not my neighbors, not even my own mother.

      I know what you are up to. I know the depths of your perjury, and I know what you would do with my defenselessness. NO MATTER what argument you present, you will not be given an inch. Ever.

      • sam cain permalink
        September 13, 2012 2:42 pm

        you got that right

  5. Anonymous permalink
    March 15, 2012 12:10 am

    Anonymous need not label people pro-gun or anti-gun. Law abiding citizens who buy guns have the tool to protect their self, family, friends or strangers if needed. Unarmed citizens are easy targets for criminals who will commit murders or massacres with or without any laws in place. I dont think background checks even deter hardcore criminal because they could probably buy guns illegally. What really matters is not the gun but the person holding the gun. Guns for law abiding citizens only help level the field against criminals.

    Cars for example could be in the hands of a responsible driver versus a drunk driver. Should they ban cars because they kill people? Knives can be used for chopping vegetables versus stabbing people. Should they ban knives? Fatty foods kills people probably more than anything else. Should they make it against the law to eat anything with cholesterol?

  6. Kitty permalink
    December 25, 2011 5:22 am

    Waiting periods can cost you your life when there is stalker waiting for you or a burglar robbing the home you come back to without your new gun in hand to defend yourself, or when the rapist waiting in the parking lot has that last chance to take what he wants with no waiting period while you wait for the ability to defend yourself against him with a firearm because someone else with no skin the game felt the need to infringe on your “right” to keep and bear arms.

  7. FlyingSpaghettiMonster permalink
    November 17, 2011 5:27 pm

    @anonymous- Actually waiting periods have hurt law abiding citizens and removal of waiting periods has saved lives. There’s probably a little bar that says “Google” in the top right corner of your screen. Learn to use it.

    “Waiting periods extend a potential victim’s “period of vulnerability,” sometimes with tragic consequences. For example, in 1991 Wisconsin resident Bonnie Elmasri, seeking to purchase a firearm for protection from a husband who had repeatedly threatened to kill her, was told she would have to wait 48 hours to obtain the weapon. Unfortunately, 48 hours was too long to wait; the abusive husband killed Bonnie and her two children the next day.”

    “Terry Jackson of Albany, Georgia, fearing for her life, swore out arrest warrants for an abusive former boyfriend who had stalked and assaulted her. Finding little comfort in relying on the warrants, the mother of five purchased a pistol from a pawnshop. Less than 12 hours later, she shot and killed the ex-boyfriend as he tried to break into her home. The shooting was ruled a clear-cut case of self-defense.”

    “Similarly, Marine Cpl. Rayna Ross purchased a gun as a result of threats and previous assaults from a fellow Marine under orders to stay away from her. Just three days after purchasing the weapon, Cpl. Ross fatally shot the man after he broke through a door and rushed into her bedroom brandishing a bayonet. Had Cpl. Ross been subject to a waiting period, she might not be alive today.”

    • solo2 permalink
      July 25, 2012 8:33 pm

      2:Flyingspaghetti. There are ways to protect yourself against people who have made treats to your life. Those are very simple, you get away from that person, you can contact the police, in the case of that lady from wisconsin she should have done that. It’s common sense. You see a car coming towards you may want to get out of it’s way. just saying. A person with a gun can still get killed by another with a gun, or knife or hammer, etc. You are right about murderes if they want to kill they will but with a gun control that only allows people to have small guns, well the casualties will be less unlike colombine and aurora co.

  8. Anonymous permalink
    September 24, 2011 1:15 am

    There`s no way to know that by making someone wait for a firearm background check has ever deterred a killing from happening.How would you ever get a statistic on something like that,of course pro-gun people are gonna say it dont help,because they want to believe that way whether they know it`s true or not. Some people were turned down from getting a gun,which more than makes up for the waitng of everyone else. But waiting for a background check isnt going to hurt a law a biding citizen, we do know that.

    • sam cain permalink
      September 13, 2012 2:48 pm

      i think that the people should have a background check but i dont think hey should take there time i think they should hurry and get it done because some people need a gun. i mean people like to break into houses and thats a scary thought of someone coming in my home while im there alone and cant defend myself i would need a GUN i think people should be able to get a gun an less that have a charge that involves a gun

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: