Is The Second Amendment Worth Dying For?

[Fishrrman]

http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/19/second-amendment-worth-dying/

Is The Second Amendment Worth Dying For?
John Daniel Davidson
February 19, 2018

EXCERPT:
Are you ready for another monstrous thought experiment? What if we decided that a certain baseline vulnerability to mass shootings is part of the price of the American idea? In some ways, mass shootings are a more apt example of what Wallace was talking about than terrorism. After all, we can arguably do something about a worldwide ideological and religious movement that uses violence as a political weapon—and we have. Whether the aggregate cost in American blood and treasure has been worth it is another question, but it suffices to say that we can do much less about a random madman intent on killing innocents than we can about ISIS and al-Qaeda.

Set aside, for now, the facile arguments for gun control half-measures that wouldn’t have stopped the Parkland shooting—or Las Vegas, Virginia Tech, Newtown, or the others. Consider instead what the Left thinks it would really take to stop these kinds of shootings: a repeal of the Second Amendment, followed by mass confiscation of firearms and subsequent heavy regulation of private gun ownership, along the lines of policies in many European countries.

I’m not trying to be provocative. That’s really what it would take. Are we willing to consider it? Should we? What does it say about us that we can’t even acknowledge the trade-offs involved in keeping U.S. school children safe? The best we could manage last week were the worn-out, ritualized responses: outraged calls for anemic gun control measures from the Left and a naive insistence from the Right that tackling “mental health issues” will somehow solve the problem.

See URL above for full article...

[driftdiver]

Banning guns won't keep our schools safe.

[Fishrrman]

A long and thoughtful piece.

What I post next will be seen as a callous comment but I make no apologies:

If you truly embrace the Second Amendment, you must also be willing to acknowledge that deaths and injuries such as those in the Florida and Newtown school shootings are but one of "the high costs of freedom".

There are no unsinkable ships -- we still sail on them, even though some still go down.
We can't eliminate train wrecks -- yet folks still travel on trains.
There are no planes that can't fall from the sky -- we don't ban planes because some have died from plane crashes.

The "price" of free ownership of guns is that we must accept that some gun owners -- even those who acquired their weapons legally -- will at times run amok and kill innocents.
Whether we like that, or not.
I don't.
But... I accept "the cost".

Do you?

[andy58-in-nh]

Why not? The First Amendment, and the rest of the Constitution certainly was.

[ABX]

The purpose of the second amendment is so you don't have to die for all your rights. You have the right to defend your life, liberty, and property.

[dfwgator]

There will always be "bad seed" amongst us.  All the legislation in the world won't change that fact.

[LauraTXNM]

A long and thoughtful piece.

What I post next will be seen as a callous comment but I make no apologies:

If you truly embrace the Second Amendment, you must also be willing to acknowledge that deaths and injuries such as those in the Florida and Newtown school shootings are but one of "the high costs of freedom".

There are no unsinkable ships -- we still sail on them, even though some still go down.
We can't eliminate train wrecks -- yet folks still travel on trains.
There are no planes that can't fall from the sky -- we don't ban planes because some have died from plane crashes.

The "price" of free ownership of guns is that we must accept that some gun owners -- even those who acquired their weapons legally -- will at times run amok and kill innocents.
Whether we like that, or not.
I don't.
But... I accept "the cost".

Do you?

I agree with you.  But given that, it is our moral responsibility to reduce the number of innocent deaths as much as possible. 

[WingNot]

I agree with you.  But given that, it is our moral responsibility to reduce the number of innocent deaths as much as possible.

That is complete and utter bullshit.  It is our moral responsibility to give people the tools to protect themselves and others.  Not take away those tools.

[LauraTXNM]

That is complete and utter bullshit.  It is our moral responsibility to give people the tools to protect themselves and others.  Not take away those tools.

Agree to disagree.  There are obviously a small number of people who cannot have weapons.

[driftdiver]

I agree with you.  But given that, it is our moral responsibility to reduce the number of innocent deaths as much as possible.

@LauraTXNM
@Fishrrman
There is a cost of freedom but I'd argue what happened in that school is not one of them, at least not directly.

No what happened in that school is due to 1) the FBI not doing their job, 2) law enforcement being unable to take him off the street despite 39 calls, 3) a failure of the mental health treatment and most of all

4) inadequate security in our schools.   Everything else in this country is guarded by people with guns; our banks, our football games, our airports but not the place our children spend 30% of their time.

[driftdiver]

Agree to disagree.  There are obviously a small number of people who cannot have weapons.

@LauraTXNM
Then why are they on the street?  The people, we know weapons of many types will always be available to them.

[LauraTXNM]

@LauraTXNM
@Fishrrman
There is a cost of freedom but I'd argue what happened in that school is not one of them, at least not directly.

No what happened in that school is due to 1) the FBI not doing their job, 2) law enforcement being unable to take him off the street despite 39 calls, 3) a failure of the mental health treatment and most of all

4) inadequate security in our schools.   Everything else in this country is guarded by people with guns; our banks, our football games, our airports but not the place our children spend 30% of their time.

Heartily agree.

[skeeter]

I agree with you.  But given that, it is our moral responsibility to reduce the number of innocent deaths as much as possible.

Given the record of authoritarian states in the 20th century (and before) very compelling case can easily be made that sticking doggedly to the letter of the 2nd Amendment will ultimately save many, many more lives than would be saved if we acquiesced to the will of the State and agreed to their never ending demands for 'reasonable gun control' laws.

No, I do not believe that our own statists are any less lethal than those of any other country at any other time.

[driftdiver]

Given the record of authoritarian states in the 20th century (and before) very compelling case can easily be made that sticking doggedly to the letter of the 2nd Amendment will ultimately save many, many more lives than would be saved if we acquiesced to the will of the State and agreed to their never ending demands for 'reasonable gun control' laws.

No, I do not believe that our own statists are any less lethal than those of any other country at any other time.

@skeeter
We've heard statements from the Dems these last few years that would have made Mussolini blush.

[INVAR]

Liberty, by its very nature - incurs and requires risk and personal responsibility to mitigate risk to self and dependents.  That can extend to street, village, town, state and country when volunteered.

However, this people in this land DO NOT WANT liberty.

They want license and freedom to do what they want to do, without risk, without responsibility and therefore have traded or discarded essential liberty for the promise of safety and security.

As a result , your neighbors do not trust you with liberty - and will empower the government to protect them from you.

That means and requires empowering government to strip you of your liberty and your rights and classifying them government-granted privileges, so as to mitigate the threat and offense you pose to those who do not trust you with liberty and trust the state with everything.

A meddlesome tyranny that will be seen as the most vicious, relentless, egregious and all-encompassing that mankind has ever devised for itself.

[skeeter]

@skeeter
We've heard statements from the Dems these last few years that would have made Mussolini blush.

And our collective normalcy bias is only getting worse, thanks to the politicized news media.

Bad combination of factors brewing.

[Idiot]

It might be a good time to load up on ammo, in case this mess results in a short supply.

[driftdiver]

Liberty, by its very nature - incurs and requires risk and personal responsibility to mitigate risk to self and dependents.  That can extend to street, village, town, state and country when volunteered.

However, this people in this land DO NOT WANT liberty.

They want license and freedom to do what they want to do, without risk, without responsibility and therefore have traded or discarded essential liberty for the promise of safety and security.

As a result , your neighbors do not trust you with liberty - and will empower the government to protect them from you.

That means and requires empowering government to strip you of your liberty and your rights and classifying them government-granted privileges, so as to mitigate the threat and offense you pose to those who do not trust you with liberty and trust the state with everything.

A meddlesome tyranny that will be seen as the most vicious, relentless, egregious and all-encompassing that mankind has ever devised for itself.

@INVAR
You're correct I would not trust you with a firearm.

Most everyone else here would be welcome.

[INVAR]

@INVAR
You're correct I would not trust you with a firearm.

Most everyone else here would be welcome.

Thank you for making my point.

Liberty - something even "Conservatives" no longer believe in, except for themselves and a few people they want to rule us.

[LauraTXNM]

@LauraTXNM
Then why are they on the street?  The people, we know weapons of many types will always be available to them.

Because they haven't been charged with a crime yet.

[truth_seeker]

A long and thoughtful piece.

What I post next will be seen as a callous comment but I make no apologies:

If you truly embrace the Second Amendment, you must also be willing to acknowledge that deaths and injuries such as those in the Florida and Newtown school shootings are but one of "the high costs of freedom".

There are no unsinkable ships -- we still sail on them, even though some still go down.
We can't eliminate train wrecks -- yet folks still travel on trains.
There are no planes that can't fall from the sky -- we don't ban planes because some have died from plane crashes.

The "price" of free ownership of guns is that we must accept that some gun owners -- even those who acquired their weapons legally -- will at times run amok and kill innocents.
Whether we like that, or not.
I don't.
But... I accept "the cost".

Do you?

Common sense is not so common these days.

I would prefer law enforcement, which "hear something, do something" however.

Instead of law enforcement, educators, judiciaries and families/parents who are deluded AND DISARMED by political correctness.