Category | Op Ed

List of Similar Posts

• Freedom of speech vs. the right to bear arms: A different point of view
• National Freedom of Speech week deserves recognition
• Ruling correct in protecting Web site’s free speech rights
• Who cares about nunchucks?
• Why SCOTUS critics have it wrong
• Refuse, reform, and repeal
• Protesting on campus: what do you think? From the environment:
• Should non-U.S. citizens have Constitutional rights?
• Obama sets the stage for success in the U.S.
• Gay rights advocates wonder what Prop. 8 victory foreshadow

Responses to "Freedom of speech vs. the right to bear arms"

• Justin Hayes made a comment on October 6, 2009:

  First of all, why should one Amendment in the bill of rights have primacy over another? Should we allow the 1st Amendment to have priority over the 4th Amendment. Are you okay with people coming into your home without a search warrant, as long as we have freedom of speech? I think every Amendment in the Bill of Rights should be upheld with equal seriousness.

  Do you think they left out anything about “hate speech” because they realized that all prohibition of speech is bad. I’m sure there was plenty of what you called “hate speech” back then. Oh, but those close-minded founding fathers just weren’t as open as we are today.

  You obviously do not understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. It wasn’t just to show those “red-coats” whose boss. They realized that the 2nd Amendment was vital to a free society because it protected the people from a tyrannical government. They feared not only the British government, but the future growth of their own government. The second amendment is a vital check on the power of government.

  Not only that, but the founders also realized the importance of self defense. John Locke wrote about how defending oneself from harm was a natural right that all humans have. The founding fathers realized how important it was for people to have the right to bear arms not only to protect them from others but from government.

  Okay, this is a really misguided argument. The second amendment does not protect the right to murder, but the right to defend yourself. If someone uses a gun to kill another person or commit homicide (not in self-defense), then of course, that is an illegal act.

  The Second Amendment does not just protect our right to keep militias, but the right of individuals to bear arms. Have you seen the Supreme Court decision regarding the DC gun ban?

  And I really hate to say this, bud, but the second amendment hasn’t killed anyone. People kill people. Our right to self defense has not killed on single person. Do you think that without the right to bear arms, we would have no murder or shootings? Guess again. There’s a thing called the black market. The second amendment at least allows law abiding citizens to protect themselves from maniacs. Without this vital protection, we would all be at risk.

• Patriot made a comment on October 6, 2009:

  I’d like to know how you came to this conclusion. I think you are a little bit off in your information.

  Liberals are very pro free speech (so long as it benefits them).

  Conservatives are simply pro-Constitution/Bill of Rights. There is no single Amendment that stands out above the others.

  When it may appear that the 2nd Amendment is the topic of choice that is probably only because of some gun control bill that has been proposed.

  I concur with Justin Hayes; the 2nd Amendment does not kill people - people kill people. Perhaps you should research the number of gun related crimes that happen in gun-free zones compared to anywhere else.

  If you disarm law abiding citizens, the only people left with guns have them illegally. It is the ones who have them illegally that you should be worried about.

  Thank you for the biased, misinformational article; it was amusing.

• Alan Leventhal made a comment on October 6, 2009:

  What a load of bollox. I couldn’t even read this after your line that South Park is a right-wing program. The writer clearly isn’t living in the real world. The so-called conservatives since Reagan have clearly demonstrated that they don’t have the ability to govern period. Unfortunately, many too many democrats in Congress aren’t much better. Perhaps things will improve with Maestro Obama.

• J C made a comment on October 9, 2009:

  Mr. Swift,

  Your thesis statement is a non sequitur that presents a false dichotomy. Not only is there no need to choose one of these rights over the other, and such a choice is not implied by the fact that both are “regularly contested.”

  You cannot seem to make up your mind about whether you are merely saying that the First Amendment is more important than the Second Amendment, or that the Second Amendment should be repealed. If you believe that a right does not or should not exist, your opinion on its relative importance loses all meaning to those who believe that it does or should exist. The majority of Americans believe that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms.

  You are willing to blame objects for what people do with them, and you are willing to blame rights for people’s abuse of those rights, but you are unwilling to blame bad ideas for people acting in accordance with those ideas. This is logically inconsistent.

  Finally, and more trivially, your assertion that South Park is something that “conservatives have” is ridiculous. Using the attitudes toward freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms that you mentioned in your article, South Park is better suited to “liberals.” It is an exercise of freedom of speech that criticizes censorship far more than gun control and uses languages and themes that many self-identified “conservatives” would find offensive, including fairly harsh criticism of the previous president.

• Justin Hayes made a comment on October 10, 2009:

  J C is absolutely right…

  Except for the thing about South Park. The creators of south park actually self-identified libertarians. You can see that they make fun of liberals and their hypocrisy (hybrid car episode) just as much as conservatives and their dangerous nationalistic tendencies (they took our jobs!).

  Besides that, he’s right.

• J C made a comment on October 10, 2009:

  Justin,

  I’m actually aware that South Park’s creators identify as libertarians. I was attempting to apply Mr. Swift’s ideas from the article and to avoid creating confusion by bringing up the question of whether libertarianism is more “conservative” (I don’t necessarily think that it is).

• Matthew Cole made a comment on October 10, 2009:

  I think you have the left-right dynamic totally wrong with regards to these two amendments. The left is definitely not a bastion of free speech. Obama recently created the new position of Chief Diversity Officer for the FCC, and filled that position with Mark Llyod, a radical proponent of political censorship who wants to impose new taxes on private broadcasters in order to fund public broadcasting. This is a guy who believes that private broadcasting constitutes a civil rights threat. It also seems to only be those on the left who want to reimpose the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” on private broadcasters.

  As for the example you gave about Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and his misapplied analogy about shouting “fire” in a theater, keep in mind the context of that case. Schenck v. United States was a case in which Charles Schenck was imprisoned for encouraging people to assert their constitutional right not to be drafted. This was before the United States even entered WW1, so there was hardly any “clear and present danger” here. The progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson was not big on civil liberties, including the right to free speech, and this decision was just another example of the anti-1st Amendment hysteria that swept the nation, which was instigated and aggravated by progressives.

  Charles Schenck wasn’t the only victim of Woodrow Wilson’s obsession with war. Robert Goldstein made a patriotic movie about the Revolutionary War called “Spirit of ‘76″. While the movie was made before the US declared war on Germany, it premiered a month after the US entered the war. It depicted British atrocities in the colonies. The Wilson Justice Department demanded that Goldstein be prosecuted, since it made our British allies look bad. Even though Wilson had previously praised the very anti-American “Birth of a Nation”, which glorified the Confederacy, he still insisted that Goldstein’s patriotic movie was treasonous, even if it was about the Revolutionary War. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison, but released after serving 3 years.

  Even FDR routinely misused the Office of Censorship in order to cover up evidence of his bad health.

  Those on the right have consistently opposed “hate speech” legislation, which has only seemed to find support among those on the left.

• Justin M. made a comment on October 12, 2009:

  This is quite possibly one of the most absurd articles I have ever read from a Sentinel columnist. I am aware that KSU is not the most academic and intellectual of universities in our nation or even our state, but articles like this really do a great disservice to people who enjoy factual analysis of issues. Even if you’re anti-self-defense (or for “gun control”) articles like these should be laughed at.

• Patrick Curtis made a comment on October 12, 2009:

  James, are you serious bud. LOL. You are so poorly informed and misguided. The second amendment is for us law abiding citizens to protect ourselves. It gives no protection for thieves and murderers. You want to make guns illegal, go ahead and we will end up just like the UK and Australia. They banned guns and what happened…. gun crime sky rocketed. What you fail to grasp is that criminals will always have their guns. The bill of rights just helps the honest good people level the playing field. You are a college student, i would expect a little more common sense from you.

• ProConstitution made a comment on October 12, 2009:

  So how much pot HAVE you smoked “dude”??

  This is more typical liberal hyperbole. If it wasn’t for the Second Amendment, you wouldn’t HAVE the first amendment.

  Do you think that perhaps if the citizens at Tian’anmen square were armed things might have turned out a little differently? How about if all those Jews were armed during WWII.

  Freedom comes with responsibility and being held accountable for your own actions, neither of which it seems is fashionable in todays society. It’s so much easier to pin the blame on inanimate objects…

  How has the absence of guns (from the law abiding anyway) worked out in the UK or Australia? Crime and murder climbing at an unprecedated rate, that’s how.

  But it will be different HERE. I’ll bet you voted for mr. “hope and change” too. That seems to be working out well so far isn’t it? Everything will be perfect once the government has control of everything because they know what is best for us. We don’t need guns because the government will protect us.

  Have you READ any history? I’d suggest you pick up a book or two and see how most dictatorships/totalitarian regimes are formed and the first steps taken to ensure they remain in power. Oh yeah, they use any excuse to radicalize any group that disagrees with them, and then they disarm the people. Sound like a familiar strategy?

• Jim made a comment on October 12, 2009:

  “did the National Socialists order the Jews into the corrals with polite, open minded discourse? Did Stalin cajole millions into the gulags with the promise of an open press? Forced mandates, I assure you, are almost always a boon to the firearms industry. Well, that, and the domestic coffin manufacturers.”
  Let me ask you this Mr. Swift: Could the National Socialists have forced the Jews into corrals and later ovens, if those same Jews had the means to fight back effectively? Could Stalin have led over half the worlds population into servitude if someone could have stood up to him?
  You can assure people all you want, but anyone who has read more than “The Childrens book of History” knows anytime you disarm law abiding citizens, someone moves in to prey on them. Germany, Russia, Cambodia, Somalia, China, East Timor, Rwanda, Kosovo, the list goes on. Why don’t you look at the crime that goes on in Rio, or even London. The banning of Firearms doesn’t do anything more than stop people who follow the law from protecting themselves.

  If there were a magic spell that made all the guns go away tomorrow, would that solve anything? Or would the strong prey on the weak with impunity? People like to talk about equality. The Modern firearm has done more for equality than any other invention in the history of man. With a firearm a 5′2″ 115lb woman is the equal to a 6′1″ 210lb Rapist.
  Sigmund Freud had a saying about hoplophobes that proves it’s truth every day.

• Justin Cyder made a comment on October 12, 2009:

  Dear Mr. Swift,

  Today was a very miserable day in Atlanta. It all started out this morning when it was raining and I had trouble getting out of bed (why is it so hard to wake up when it’s raining?). Then I went about my daily business, eventually going to work around 4. Work was very slow, and the poor weather caused me to stay tired. But then I read your article, and it was as if the clouds had parted and the sun was shining right onto me. I felt invigorated… happy… alive! Your masterpiece of journalism made me forget about what a horrible day it was. I even contemplated changing majors to Journalism to hopefully follow it your footsteps. Thank you for inspiring me!

  -Justin Cyder

  Nah man, I’m just kidding. This is a horrible article. You should be ashamed… In fact, I didn’t even read it entirely. It’s just that bad. You should quit while you’re behind.

• highjr made a comment on October 12, 2009:

  “[D]id the National Socialists order the Jews into the corrals with polite, open minded discourse?”

  You are quite right, sir. So wouldn’t it have suited the Jews better to have access to arms to defend themselves against such undue oppression?

  Someone that leaves a body in a canal with “93 gunshot wounds” has already broken a dozen or more gun laws, no doubt. So how did those laws work for stopping such a criminal intent on killing? Wouldn’t the hypothetical law-abiding victim be better off with the right to defend himself since said gun laws did NOT protect him?

  Think.

• Schweisshund made a comment on October 13, 2009:

  You know …. you have a point …. hmmmm. Free speech will protect you in the event an intruder breaks into your home to kill you. You have the sole right, granted by the provisions of the First Amendment of United States Constitution, to scream as loud as you want right before getting killed. Or wait, maybe the intruder can be halted by use of the deadly form of free speech - persuasive speech. You can use hypnosis and make them fall asleep. Yeah, that’s the ticket …

  No thanks - I will exercise my rights to protect myself and my family and my property and even people like you with the provisions granted in the 2nd Amendment as our founding fathers intended.

• Did you pass the Regents exam? made a comment on October 16, 2009:

  Ever hear of inciting a riot?

  I suppose I’ll just focus on your Nazi paragraph about bad men with guns having their way with citizens…

  from the findings of Stephen P. Halbrook, PhD., J.D. “Nazi Repression of Firearms Owners”

  “The Night of the Broken Glass (Kristallnacht),the infamous Nazi rampage against Germany’s Jews, took place in November 1938. It was preceded by the confiscation of firearms from the Jewish victims. On Nov. 8, The New York Times reported from Berlin, “Berlin Police Head Announces ‘Disarming’ of Jews,” explaining: “The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been ‘disarmed’ with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment.”

  Translated Ordinance Concerning the Possession of Arms and Radio Transmitters in the Occupied Territories

  1) All firearms and all sorts of munitions, hand grenades, explosives and other war materials must be surrendered immediately.
  Delivery must take place within 24 hours to the closest Kommandantur [German commander's office] unless other arrangements have been made. Mayors will be held strictly responsible for the execution of this order. The [German] troop commanders may allow exceptions.
  2) Anyone found in possession of firearms, munitions, hand grenades or other war materials will be sentenced to death or forced labor or in lesser cases prison.
  3) Anyone in possession of a radio or a radio transmitter must surrender it to the closest German military authority.
  4) All those who would disobey this order or would commit any act of violence in the occupied lands against the German army or against any of its troops will be condemned to death.

  The Commander in Chief
  of the Army
  —-
  On your style: Extensive use of a thesaurus and complex writing does not result in the most effectively communicate ideas. In fact, it can severely disconnect you from your audience. Enroll in Speech 101 and apply that knowledge to editorial writing.

• J. Swift made a comment on October 19, 2009:

  If you’re naïve enough to believe that the Jews could’ve fought off their Nazi oppressors with the help of semi-automatic weaponry, then congratulations, you are a candidate for immediate state-funded sterilization.

  I never really knew that so many people still lived in the whole John Wayne / John Rambo mythology that we, as Americans, can solve all of our problems by means of shooting it.

  What troubles me most is the mindset of all of these gun lobbyists. Apparently, you claim to need firearms for “self-defense”. You never make it clear exactly what you need “self-defense” from, so the gun-proponent is by nature, addled by semi-delusional bouts of paranoia. Or hell, maybe they DO know what they are arming themselves against; which of course, is just a euphemism for “people that aren’t in the same class stature / color as the people brandishing the weaponry”. If there’s one thing I want overt-suspicious bigoted elitists carrying en masse, I’m sure that said item is hot lead.

  Yes, the Second Amendment allows you the right to lug armaments, but at the same time, think about this: the Bill of Rights were written at a time in which the President of the United States still had to use an outhouse. The fact of the matter is, America circa 1776 and America circa 2010 are NOT the same entities. The conditions of the nation at that epoch and now are drastically different; sure, when written, the United States military WAS rather weak and disjointed, and the threat of imminent attack by the British was wholly feasible. Therefore, AT THE TIME, allowing citizens to arm themselves and form militias to aid in national defense made a considerable amount of sense.

  Flash forward about 300 years, and I would say that the United States military is kind of capable of handling international matters sans the accompaniment of militiamen Billy Bob and Clem. Some knucklehead in here posted that we, as citizens, “needed” firearms to confront a potentially “oppressive” governmental system. Really? You think if you and your fire range buddies got together with a cadre of guns and duked it out with the federals, you’d walk away as anything OTHER than a pile of cinders? I seem to remember a militia taking on the United States government in the early 90s. Hey, just out of curiosity, how successful were the utilized “Second Amendment Rights” of the Branch Davidians out in Waco?

  If a gun gives you a faux sense of security, then go ahead, why not. If you and your yahoo buddies want to get together on the weekends and pour pilsner down your gullets and shoot at sounds, then sure, go ahead and do that, too. What really concerns me is the pervasive attitudes the gun enthusiast fosters; people that live in a constant state of societal apprehension, of materialistic entitlement and ESPECIALLY the physically aggressive, jingoistic mentalities that the totality of the fringe cherishes.

  I figured this debate out a long time ago. GUNS = FALSE SENSE OF MACHISMO. Judging from the high percentage of firearm lobbyists in the vicinity, it appears as if a large cross section of the male populace feels the necessity to compensate for some, ahem, XY shortcomings, via gun ownership.

• vacillator made a comment on October 27, 2009:

  I wasn’t going to comment becuase many people have already covered the errors in this article. Unfortunately, it seems you are not reading and researching the information in those comments or even your own. Case in point:

  “If you’re naïve enough to believe that the Jews could’ve fought off their Nazi oppressors with the help of semi-automatic weaponry, then congratulations, you are a candidate for immediate state-funded sterilization.”

  Please read up on this subject and I think you’ll find it interesting. Pockets of Jews did in fact resist their would-be murders. German Jews did not have that option since their government had banned them from having guns before the bad stuff starting happening. Don’t think that could happen here? Well, the first step seems to be disarming the public. Hold tightly to the 2nd amendment, it is the first defense against tyranny.

  I understand there is a lot of nonsense on both sides of this argument. I only ask that you attempt to fully understand what you write about. In my opinion, abuse of the 1st amendment through this type of inaccurate literature is as bad as abuse of the 2nd in any form.

• Jeff Wilson made a comment on October 28, 2009:

  I know people that love (read obsessed) NASCAR and are liberals. Also you would have been better suited using Stephen Colbert instead of Jon Stewart. Also the use of South Park was what i call an epic failure.

• Matthew Cole made a comment on October 28, 2009:

  “I figured this debate out a long time ago. GUNS = FALSE SENSE OF MACHISMO. Judging from the high percentage of firearm lobbyists in the vicinity, it appears as if a large cross section of the male populace feels the necessity to compensate for some, ahem, XY shortcomings, via gun ownership.”

  If we want to get into the psychology of gun ownership, then Sigmund Freud would say that a fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.

• Bill Rightworthy made a comment on October 29, 2009:

  I completely agree with what Matthew Cole has said here.

  Props also to Vacillator and Regent’s, they really did their homework. Bravo!

  Swiftless,

  The Founding Fathers weren’t just some dumb clucks who couldn’t invent a toilet. They very carefully weighed and debated all of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, including the necessity for its inclusion at all.

  The fact that both the First and Second Amendments are so brief is partly because they are placed in terms so simple and basic that they command assent.

  If the Right to Bear Arms were repealed, or if all firearms were to magically disappear, the simple truth is that PREDATORS will still prey on the weak with any tools that are available. Simple as that. As another contributor mentioned, Guns are simply an equalizer between the weak and the strong.
  Clearly the framers of the Constitution understood that fact, but you do not. How infantile can you be?
  Do you truly think that you would be able to ward off an attacker merely with the power of your intellect and sharp wit? I truly hope you never need to find out.

  Do us all a favor: Go back to History 1101. Or better yet, take Judge Chesbro’s Poli-Sci 1101 class. Perhaps after you begin to understand the issue, you’ll become a more mature being, and earn the ability to have an opinion worth reading on the subject.

  In the meantime, good luck at opening your mind. I’ll lend you a can opener if you need one, just wash it before you give it back.

• J. Swift made a comment on October 30, 2009:

  You mean the same founding fathers that decided that black people only count as 0.6 a person?

  You know, your last post really opened my mind about gun control. I had no idea that people wanted the lawful right to bring loaded firearms into theaters because of an immense PREDATOR threat. I had no idea those dreadlocked crab aliens from the movies were such a nuisance. Then again, they have nuclear bomb wrist watches, so I kind of doubt a Smith and Wesson would peg one of them.

• Matthew Cole made a comment on November 1, 2009:

  The Founders didn’t come to the 3/5 compromise arbitrarily. It was just that - a “compromise”. The South wanted to count slaves for electoral purposes, even though slaves couldn’t vote. The North thought that only free people should be counted when determining representation in the House of Representatives. Both sides had to come to some sort of temporary resolution on that issue, or the Constitution would never have been created.

  Before you knock the founders, consider the unprecedented act that they accomplished. Throughout history, nations have been built upon the might of the sword, the fear of the church, or a common ethnicity. America was the second republic in history to be founded on secular and rational ideals. The first was the Commonwealth of Virginia.

  In order to found this country on these ideals, the Founders studied government from a scientific perspective. The Federalist Papers demonstrate the logical reasoning behind our system of government.

• J. Swift made a comment on November 2, 2009:

  “Before you knock the founders, consider the unprecedented act that they accomplished. Throughout history, nations have been built upon the might of the sword, the fear of the church, or a common ethnicity. America was the second republic in history to be founded on secular and rational ideals. The first was the Commonwealth of Virginia.

  In order to found this country on these ideals, the Founders studied government from a scientific perspective. The Federalist Papers demonstrate the logical reasoning behind our system of government.”

  …Hmm, you seemed to have left out the part about slaughtering an entire continent of indigenous people in order to prop up a nation built upon such ideological principles. That’s kind of a big oversight, amigo.

• Matthew Cole made a comment on November 2, 2009:

  So are you saying that support for genocide is included in the fundamental principles on which our nation was founded? I don’t recall reading in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence any line resembling “let’s commit genocide”.

  The first campaign by the US government to remove Native Americans from their land (excluding tribes allied with Great Britain during the Revolutionary War) didn’t occur until Andrew Jackson’s presidency, which was far removed from the time of the Philadelphia Convention in terms of both time and political ideology.

• Josh Bowlick made a comment on November 6, 2009:

  I’m curious which english classes the dear author has taken. it seems quite obvious that this was an assigned project and he was issued a list of vocabular words to find a use for.

  As for the content of this piece of garbage, i can’t really contribute beyond what others have already posted.

  The second ammendment insures that the people will be able to keep arms. The 27 words of this ammendment help to protect the people from the rise of a tyrannical government and protect them from those among them that may seek to do them harm. Hopefully, the author will never be in a position where someone is attempting to break into his home but i’m sure that at that time, when seconds count the police will only be minutes away.

  remember. if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

• Matthew made a comment on November 11, 2009:

  Hennard, a man upset with his water bill, drove his truck into the window of Luby’s in Texas. He took a gun and shot everyone he could before killing himself. Why did he pick that place? It was a gun free zone. Gun Free Zones guarantee that a crazy man with a desire to be famous has a real chance of racking up points.

  Luby’s - 42/22 people that may not have had to die.

  Virginia Tech - Gun Free Zone - 33 people that did not have to die.

  Littleton Colorado - GFZ - 22 kids that didn’t have to die.

  Fort Worth TX - GFZ - 12 that could have lived.

  Nickle Mines - GFZ - five girls that did not have to die.

  Fort Hood Texas - Gun Free Zone - well trained soldiers die from being disarmed.

  I could go on, and on, and on. But in each of these cases, and the ones that the author cited, the common factor was that the killer wanted to make a statement and went to a place where guns were banned to do it. He made sure that no one with a weapon would stop him.

  But what about the others? The hundreds every day that die because of gun bans? The murders in Gun Free Chicago? The murders in Gun Free DC? The bold and violent criminals that know that no matter what house they choose to rob, no one will oppose them. The easy pickings in Chicago where the police are afraid of the criminals and homeowners don’t are afraid to call a robbery in because of the criminal gets angry and comes back, they are simply targets. Lumps of defenseless corpses that the criminals treat badly before they terminate them to get rid of witnesses.

  You talk about how many guns kill people. I counter by saying that the Brady Campaign and the anti-gun laws have killed more people that could be counted - and far more than anyone would ever guess.

  So, while you say the 2nd amendment kills, I say that the 2nd amendment saves lives every day, lowers crime rates, lowers taxes, provides safer streets, and prevents mass shootings. The presence of even ONE man with an openly displayed gun can stop a killing, bank robbery, carjacking, rape or murder without that man ever having to unsnap his holster.

  While the Brady Campaign, in an act of good intentions, have created a river of blood and death in our country.

• J. Swift made a comment on November 12, 2009:

  So you’re saying the INCREASED presence of potential murder aides in mass society HELPS decrease instances of violent acts?

  Hmm, let me try my hand at YOUR logistic rationale:

  Gun Lobbyist A: “Boy Clem, there sure are a lot of grasshoppers eatin’ up all our produce this harvest. You know what I think we should do?”

  Gun Lobbyist B: “What’s that, Junior?”

  Gun Lobbyist A:”We should go and get some MORE grasshoppers!”

  Gun Lobbyist B: “Now that’s some grade A thinkin’, Jr!”

  …

  …

  …so yeah, I decided that your opinion doesn’t count. Ever, at anything.

• Anonymous made a comment on November 12, 2009:

  Swift,

  Your “rationale” on Matt’s “rationale” assumes that anyone with a gun will use that weapon in a violent crime.

  He has presented you with empirical evidence and sound reasoning, yet you refuse to listen to his argument because you believe in non-reason.

  You believe that we do not own our lives. You believe that government owns the right to our life without due process only to achieve those purposes which satisfy the public need.

  To you, guns always equal death. They never represent the preservation of life to you. By that same reasoning, water can only lead to drowning and food to choking.

  Do not claim a moral high ground on someone’s logic or rationale when you believe in non-logic or in non-rationale.

• Matthew made a comment on November 12, 2009:

  Hello J. Swift.

  How about a different scenario.

  Criminal A: “Boy Clem, I sure ain’t got enough money to go and buy some crack. You know what I think we should do?”

  Criminal B: “What’s that, Junior?”

  Criminal A:”We should go and rob a house and sell the stuff and go buy some crack.”

  (In Washington DC, where a homeowner does not have a right to defend themselves, then the reply is)

  Criminal B: “Now that’s some grade A thinkin’, Jr!”

  (In Kentucky, where in rural areas almost everyone is armed, his reply is)

  Criminal B: You stupid? I’m not getting shot!

  So, while grasshoppers don’t kill nor do they defend anyone, guns do defend people from criminals that would kill you if you were not strong enough to defend yourself.

  My advice, is to try to understand a criminal. The don’t care about you. They don’t care if they hurt you. They don’t care if they kill you. They will look you in the eye as they rape your children, and laugh at your reaction afterwards. They will rob your house, steal your car, and kill you without a second thought. They don’t care if you hurt, it amuses them. They are not civilized, and they take advantage of everyone… their family, their mothers, their children.

  Criminals know the law better than most lawyers, and they know how fast it will take for the police to get to your house. They know what they can take and what they can do in that time. I can tell that you have never felt hopeless fear at knowing that the man with the gun pointed at you plans to kill you if he thinks it will better benefit him.

  I’m glad you don’t think my opinion counts. I really don’t care. I was trained to be a soldier, and that training tells me that the world is not the safe place you think it is. I’m glad you feel so safe, I really am, it would be nice to be so innocent again.

  Soldiers know that if the enemy has weapons, and you have none, you are dead. It really is that simple.

  If you own a home, and are brave enough to marry and pledge to protect your wife and family, and are unwilling to take up arms to meet threat with threat, then you are simply dead the first time it is necessary to defend your hearth and home.

  Criminals do not want hard battles. Criminals are cowards. They want nice, easy targets that allow them to stay out of jail while still buying x-boxes with the money gotten from your things. The reason that there is so much crime in Washington DC, is that the government has made everyone a safe target. So to finish your scenario…

  Criminal A: Lets pick a nice middle class house, good stuff, easy to pawn, and they won’t have the money to buy no gun permit.

  I hope you remain innocent, but that is really not up to me, or you.

• Matthew Cole made a comment on November 13, 2009:

  The world’s a dangerous place. The best way to protect innocent people is to make them dangerous as well.

• Bill Miner made a comment on November 13, 2009:

  Mr Swift
  One of your arguments supporting the 1st over the second amendment is a great illustration of your ignorance.

  I quote from your discourse:
  “did the National Socialists order the Jews into the corrals with polite, open minded discourse? Did Stalin cajole millions into the gulags with the promise of an open press?” Both of these mass atrocities were preceded by the disarmament of the people by the government.

  History will repeat itself for those who do not know it.

• Charlie Sheahan made a comment on November 14, 2009:

  There is no conflict between the first and second amendment.

  The writers attempt to pervert the intention of the constitution by artificially creating a conflict between the first and second amendment to push his douche bag liberal agenda is as foolish as it is transparent.

• Junior made a comment on November 14, 2009:

  We should ban the free speech of people who come up with bogus crap like this before trying to take down the second amendment

• J. Swift made a comment on November 16, 2009:

  Actually, only the Jewish citizens in Germanic occupied territory were de-armed during the National Socialist regime. Purported “of Aryan descent” Germanic citizens were still allowed possession of firearms. . . which they didn’t use to overthrow the evil regimes that also had guns. So, governmental element “a” has guns, and civic element “b” has guns and 12 million people were murdered regardless of the inherent “societal safety” of all of those armed folks.

  There are more false dichotomies in this thread than there are in a Stormfront recruiting pamphlet. Go ahead, begin at the top of this thing and scroll down. Watch the 20-on-one mugging I receive, the spam messages posted by people that do not only NOT attend the school, but are simple worker-bees shoveling their feces upon someone else’s antithetical viewpoint to mask their own singular disappointment as humans.

  So anyway, the aggregate gun-nut is pretty much painted in a vivid portrait here; incredibly centralized, prone to excessive spin (whether or not such is, you know, factual, is merely an afterthought), and perhaps most distressingly, in a state of bizarre, apprehensive paranoia. Honestly, do you really live every waking moment of your life in fear of these enigmatic “criminals”, these faceless, nameless, emotionless concoctions that make you want to pass legislature to cart weapons into public avenues, just because you have some delusional social phobia? The gun is a fetish, you have (most likely, childhood-stemming) delusions about collective culture, and dear heavens, are you more than willing to twist and contort the ugly misshaping of your cerebral dread into extensive politicking. In other words, congrats on fostering, promoting and encouraging an inert “hive mind” mentality…which is several times more disheartening and disturbing than the notion of all of those mysterious, formless “Criminals” (translated: non-white people) that you yahoos have such a disdain and fear for.

• D. Owens made a comment on November 16, 2009:

  “formless “Criminals” (translated: non-white people) that you yahoos have such a disdain and fear for”

  How on earth did this become about race? I, first, don’t understand how a 1st Amendment v. 2nd Amendment article became a Left v. Right debate, and, second, how in the wide-wide-world of sports did it become black vs. white? I believe in both my freedom of speech and my right to bear arms…and I DON’T appreciate being called a racist for believing firmly in my right to defend myself, my family, and/or my property.

  We apparently live in different worlds. In my world bad people DO exist(of all backgrounds), and it is naive to think by disarming the law-abiding the law-breaking will throw in the towel. God-forbid the situation ever does arise that my life or the life of someone close to me is in jeopardy; Ill take my right to bear arms…good look using your thesaurus to get you out of the situation.

• Kevin made a comment on November 16, 2009:

  How about Rwanda? One million dead Tutsis and not a firearm in site. No wonder there are so few liberal engineers - problems with cause-effect relationships.

• Matthew Cole made a comment on November 16, 2009:

  If you were a Jew being rounded up by SS troops, which would you rather have to try to defend yourself with: the persuasive power of your words or a gun?

• Matthew made a comment on November 18, 2009:

  First, as a former military white middle aged flannel shirt wearing pickup truck driving NRA supporting redneck, I do not appreciate the racist comment about me. If you want to make racist comments, then you should go to a hate group or find some anti-former military white middle aged flannel shirt wearing pickup truck driving NRA supporting redneck group to join and plan attacks or some stupid crap like that.

  Next, Suzanna Hupp Had a gun, and a man that was casually flipping over tables and killing people, but the law (Yeah, the former military white middle aged flannel shirt wearing pickup truck driving NRA supporting redneck hicks tend to obey the laws) said that she could not carry in the restaurant. as a result of her obedience, she was privileged to watch as her parents were shot in front of her, and then she herself was shot.

  Her gun was in her white middle aged flannel shirt wearing NRA supporting redneck truck, in the parking lot, in the glove box, securely encased, trigger locked, serial numbered ammo-ed, and ready to be used as a club or something to throw at the bad guy because people like you prevented her from using it to protect the 42 people that were shot that day.

  If you look at every case in the US where a man or woman has been legally disarmed, and needed the gun to defend himself or herself against a criminal set on mass murder - or just a mugging, robbery, or street killing - then you get the idea of how many people you have KILLED. That’s right, I’m calling you a murderer. If you had been with the criminal at the convenient store shooting - you would have been the one to take the victims gun so the other criminal could take the victims money, then life. You as good as pulled the trigger yourself. The blood is on your hands.

  So keep disarming former military white middle aged flannel shirt wearing pickup truck driving NRA supporting rednecks, and eventually we will find a way to start to prosecute you for the people you disarm and kill.

  Susanna Hupp, she carried her weapon wherever she goes. She has that right. The constitution did NOT grant that right, the constitution (bill of rights, 2nd amendment) prevents the federal government from taking that right away.

  So you oppose the victim, the constitution, the bill of rights, and support the criminals, murderers, and drug runners. Nice side you’ve taken.

  I hope one day you get the prison sentence you deserve for the people you’ve killed.

• Ralph made a comment on November 19, 2009:

  History is is full of examples of mans inhumanity to man. From the first recorded incident of Cain murdering his brother Able to governments mass murder of millions of their own citizens. Disarming the law abiding results in not only the government being able to do what they please, but criminals are able to rape, rob, and murder unhindered as well. In other words, a disarmed society becomes hell on earth for the law abiding who are easy pickings for their government and for criminals.

  James Swift foolishly does what all good liberals do, and blames everything but the criminal for violence committed with an inanimate object. In this case, Swift chooses to blame it on We The People having too much freedom. Like all good liberals, he vilifies the second amendment and firearms by focusing on the the deaths and not on the perpetrators. Like all good liberals, he feels that blaming criminals for the violence is too judgmental, so they blame the gun and and the second amendment because they don’t have feelings. Like all good liberals, since Swift has no use for firearms, he feels they should be banned. But when you address the murders by criminals with other objects they have used to commit violence on their victims, they seem to ignore those examples and attempt to divert our attention by saying that guns are a more efficient way of killing.

  Since James Swift seems to make appearances from time to time and do what all good liberals do by claiming to be a victim of a barrage of comments, I will address James Swift directly. The United States is the only country that has the second amendment, and was put in place for citizens to protect our country from foreign invasion, protect us from a rogue government, and protect our right as individuals to self defense. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting or target shooting. It is intended for the 100 lb woman to defend herself against a 200 rapist. It is intended for the 75 year old man to protect himself against an attack of the stronger 20 year old robber, and it’s intended for you James Swift and I to protect ourselves and our families against an otherwise overwhelming attack by criminals who choose to commit unprovoked violence against us and our families without warning. Police cannot be everywhere, and the courts have said that the police have no duty to protect us individually. So James Swift, what is your solution to slowing violence down? You’ve told us how evil the second amendment is, tell me what you would do about crime if you could. Would you make more laws? Would you restrict my rights even more because of another persons criminal behavior? Or would you use more tax payer money to set up another program so that we can understand the criminals motivations?

  As a police officer in California, I saw a lot of people victimized by criminals who’s only motivation was to take what didn’t belong to them anyway they could. They have no respect for your right to possess things that you have bought with your hard earned money. They choose to be violent because it is in their nature to be violent. It’s just that simple. And those of us who are the law abiding have a right to defend ourselves against that kind of evil. Even you James swift have the right to bear arms to defend yourself against evil that may someday invade your life unannounced. How you choose to meet that evil is up to you.

  I applaud anyone who is willing to take the initiative to defend themselves and not rely on others. And it would appear that there a lot of people who have responded to you that are willing to do just that. Instead of being the good liberal and resorting to name calling, maybe you could take a moment and actually read what the people took their time to write. You view them as attacks, I view them as people frustrated with another line of antigun rhetoric from someone that hasn’t done his homework. Instead of just regurgitating disinformation you have been indoctrinated with by your fellow liberals, actually do some real research. The results will be a real eye opener.

• M-K made a comment on November 19, 2009:

  Charges of racism are the last refuge of the defeated liberal. I just love the way you folks fall into the group stereotypes that you deplore in others.

  You really should look up the word “erstwhile”; you’ve completely misused it.

  Before tackling this topic again you might want to do a little research. Places to start include John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime” and the civilian gun defense blog, which logs newspaper accounts of armed citizens defending themselves:

  http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

  Oh, and you completely misunderstand the Second Amendment as well. You see, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms existed under British, Colonial, and Natural law before the Constitution or the Bill of Rights were drafted, and had nothing to do with the militia. In order to promote the citizen militia, the Second Amendment protects this preexisting right against infringement.

• J. Swift made a comment on November 20, 2009:

  One fight at a time, fellas. Give me a little time off to do battle with the potheads (http://ksusentinel.com/op-ed/actually-don%E2%80%99t-legalize-it/), and then we’ll continue our quarreling, OK?

  Enjoy your respective Thanksgivings, by the way. Just be careful while carving your turkeys this Thursday; knowing you folks, you might end up shooting a bystander in the face for being “too foreigner-looking” in the process.

• Ralph made a comment on November 20, 2009:

  What a pathetic attempt at humor.

• Stan made a comment on November 20, 2009:

  The biggest problem is the fact that the NRA only lobbies and defends one amendment of the Bill of Rights and the ACLU lobbies and defends all BUT the second amendment. There is no primacy of one amendment over the other. The powers that be love to see the people having this argument, because it’s one more way to gradually strip all of our rights.

  Frankly, until an organization can defend all civil liberties equally, no one group is doing a good enough job. Until then, maybe people should joing the ACLU AND then NRA. They don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

• Ralph made a comment on November 20, 2009:

  Actually Stan you statement isn’t entirely accurate. The NRA is also under fire because of the so called “fairness doctrine” that is trying to stifle conservative speech. Everyone should listen to NRA news for at least two weeks to see the diversity of subjects that Cam Edwards touches on. The web address is http://www.nranews.com

• Adam made a comment on November 24, 2009:

  Mr. Swift,
  Why must you resort to childish name calling in all of your writtings? I am not going to comment on the subject matter, only on your apparent need to verbally abuse your readers.
  You have hurled the following insults:

  “you are a candidate for immediate state-funded sterilization.”

  “overt-suspicious bigoted elitists…”

  “sans the accompaniment of militiamen Billy Bob and Clem. Some knucklehead in here posted that… ”

  “you and your yahoo buddies…”

  “it appears as if a large cross section of the male populace feels the necessity to compensate for some, ahem, XY shortcomings,”

  “…so yeah, I decided that your opinion doesn’t count. Ever, at anything.”

  “but are simple worker-bees shoveling their feces upon someone else’s antithetical viewpoint..”

  Furthermore, although you havent used the exact word, you have abundantly indicated that your believe your readers are racist.

  I question your need to insult in order to bolster your position.

  I ask for no appology; I’m sure that would be viewed as an affront to your freedom of speech.

  I ask only that you consider the importance and influence of a civil discussion.

• Dustin made a comment on November 24, 2009:

  Mr.not so Swift, you are a disgrace to all free American people(white,black,red,ect.) You are so one sided and refuse to see the logic in my fellow “redneck”,nascar loving brothers have to offer.I think we would all be better off if you would take your sorry butt and move to a country that has no guns and then you can be happy there when some thug breaks in your home and rapes your wife and kids right in front of you. I hope you have so good words to use to chnage this thugs mind to save your family. I work in a prison and see these thugs every day. They will cut your throat and go to Arby’s for lunch with the money he took from you and never feel a damn thing for what he or she just did to you. Look at this, you and I were in a fast food place and walked out at the same time. An armed man stops you and your wife(if you can find any woman useless enough to be with you)and pulls a gun and starts beating you and trying to take your wife. I walk out with my leagle S&W 38spl. Would you rather me shoot the bastard to protect you all or just walk away???? think about that cause that can happen to you or anyone at any time. Knowing your one sidded mind you would rather your wife be taken than a redneck leagle gun owner to help you. Do us all a favor and get the hell out of our free country and go to a place that supports your ideas!!!

• Barry Soetoro made a comment on November 25, 2009:

  Are you (the author) taking it as if someone was shooting another person because that person was raping a little girl, are you calling that murder? The actual murders would have happened irregardless of if there was a second ammendment or not.

• Carl Mayfield made a comment on November 25, 2009:

  Mr James Smith,
  Your rhetoric is amusing I can only assume you are trying to be funny. The only problem is that the liberal base believes what you are saying is true. My guess it that you may even believe it. Any thinking American knows it is no more true to say the second amendment and law abiding gun owners have killed anyone, or to think gun control will stop gun related violent crime than it is to say that making drugs illegal has stopped the drug related criminal activity. Use the laws you already have to punish criminals and stop treating law-abiding citizens as criminals. The entire constitution is equally important. Anyone willing to trade one liberty for another should sit back a bit and contemplate what Freedom really means. You might want to rethink your thoughts on the first amendment also.
  Thank you for the entertainment Mr. Funny Man.

• Barry Soetoro made a comment on November 25, 2009:

  Hmmm. No comment james swift?

• Joe made a comment on November 26, 2009:

  Let’s do some math. I own an AR-15 (brady bunches scary gun) just like the one I toted in the Army. Each magizine holds 30 rounds. I keep 28 to pro-long spring life (learned that lesson the “hard way”). I have 5 magizines, that’s 140 rounds.

  I also have a USP tactical (special forces scary pistol). Each magizine holds 12 rounds. I own 2 magizines (the darn things are $50 apiece). that’s 24 rounds

  Lastly I own a Kimber 1911 style pistol. 2 magizines of 8 rounds and 1 of 7 rounds… that’s 23 more rounds.

  In total that’s 187 rounds without reloading a magizine or 48 rounds switching guns (the preffered method of crazied gunmen).

  Number of crimes commeted. Zero.
  If guns cause crime mine must be defective.

• Matt Zublic made a comment on November 26, 2009:

  Mr Swift,

  Since you do not feel threatened in this current environment (as you’ve stated many times over), then you don’t need any legislation passed to ban them.

  Please, refute that.

• Hmm. made a comment on November 26, 2009:

  Why’s The Sentinel keeping this guy? Terrible writer.

• Mack made a comment on November 29, 2009:

  I don’t keep a gun becouse I am paranoid and afraid there is a bad guy hiding around every corner, I carry a gun in the event some bad guy decides to do my self or someone that is special to me harm at the same time I would come to your aid or the aid of someone you conceder special, I don’t keep a fire extinguisher loaded becouse I fear a fire will erupt, I keep fire extinuisher in the event one does brake out, I choose to be prepared and to take care of my self and the ones I love.
  I am proud to live in a country that afords me the legal right to defend my self and those around me, and feel sorry for the peaple that are so afraid to defend them selfs that thay feel they should prevent every one that right just to justify them selfs to curl up in the fetal position while being victimized, just to stand up after the fact and say what was I supposed to do they hade a gun.
  If you want to take the cowerds way out and not be able to defend your self and your loved ones then thats your choice but dont force it on every one else.
  I have carried a gun for well over 20yrs and have never needed it, I have been fortunate while others have never carried and now lay dead due to there choice and that turned out to be a choice they couldn’t live with.

• Ray Casares made a comment on November 30, 2009:

  J Swift, I am Latino and a new libertarian. I wanted to tell you guns issues have nothing to do with race issues. Guns do not discriminate on their owners. African Americans and Latinos can just as easily purchase weapons for their own protection just the same as any Caucasian can. Guns aren’t something only white males can buy. In fact, I would say it makes more sense for law-abiding African Americans and Latinos to purchase guns for self-defense than Caucasians as they are more frequently the victims of violent crime.

  Regarding your rhetoric: using terms like “Billy Bob” and “Clem” does not prove to others that you are not a racist - they confirm it. I don’t appreciate any racial slurs even if they are not hurled at me. Furthermore, heaping insult upon insult does not strengthen your argument - they weaken it.

  I believe your heart is in the right place sir - you don’t want to see innocent people die. Neither do I. But, I think you should question why you believe what you believe and the ramifications of supporting strict gun control. Taking a gun away from me limits the ability of me to protect my family. Criminals that break into my home are not going to stand patiently by while I finish my call to 911. I also don’t think I should expect a fair fight from someone (or more than one) that wants to do me and my family harm; therefore, your machismo comment does not address the reality we face everyday. I’m sure you are nice and safe where you live, but spend some time in my shoes and see if you don’t change your mind when you dial 911 and you hear a busy signal on Friday night.

• IamWhoIam made a comment on December 1, 2009:

  Obviously this guy has never heard of shootings that have started over an aurgument. That would be a First Amendment killing by gun.

  The sewer guy with 93 shots in him sounds to me like ‘a hit ‘ or a drug kill!

  This guy sounds like a one-sided liberal and shouldn’t be allowed to write columns on anything of importance for he doesn’t see what is and what isn’t the first thing to start it - words!

  Words starts wars, Words start aurguments, Either can get you shot, knifed, beat up, bludgeoned or etc.

  Words kill. YES this is a First Amendment issue before it is a Second Am. issue!

• The Gerb Report made a comment on December 2, 2009:

  Have an opinion about the First Amendment or the Second Amendment?

  Want to debate these issues on the radio?

  Call in from 7-9 p.m. on Thursday night at 678-797-2665.

  Tune in at http://ksuradio.com

  Enjoy!

  The Gerb Report

• J. Swift made a comment on December 2, 2009:

  All right, all right, calling me a junior Stalinist and baby murderer is one thing, but NOBODY plugs outside ventures on my articles BUT ME!

  That being said, Gerby, send me an e-mail: I have some promotional propositions of my own that you may be interested in. VERY interested in.

• jdean made a comment on December 2, 2009:

  Please Gerb, don’t have him on your show. I’ll have to stop listening.

• Veteran made a comment on December 2, 2009:

  Freedom of speech vs. the right to bear arms is an op-ed and as such is one citizens opinion, e.g. Freedon of Speech.
  The following is a link to a interactive learning aid.
  http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
  It is the law of the land. There is NO debate.

• AK made a comment on December 2, 2009:

  Adam, you are spot-on. When the left runs out of arguments, they resort to ad hominem. Seems Mr Swift ran out of gas early on….fumes are all he has to keep his wheels turning.

  Too damn bad, because there is lots of common ground on which we can all agree, and elsewise, civilly, stay out of each other’s way….

  Billy bob…Clem…yahoos…well, how about this…jswift the du-uude with his earrings, little anarchist chin whiskers, and equadorian stocking cap, weak round shoulders hunched over his laptop (Macbook of course) in the Burning Flag alternative coffee shop , an organic chai next to the remains of his lunch of organic free-trade haricot beans…

  Have a nice day, hater…..

• AK made a comment on December 2, 2009:

  ..oops, sorry about the beans….that would be ‘fair-trade…’ free trade would undoubtedly erupt quickly out of your exploitation-sensitive innards….

• J. Swift made a comment on December 2, 2009:

  So basically, what you’re saying is that being an educated, passive altruist with steadfast individualistic morals is somehow WORSE than being an unlearned, paranoid belligerent with hypocritical social values, right?

• AK made a comment on December 2, 2009:

  Nope, Bunky, that’s what YOU said…..got that thee-saurus workin’ overtime, btw?

  “Altruist with…steadfast … morals..?” My…just how many mirrors DO we have in Moms basement in which to admire ourselves while awaiting the next maternal Twinkie
  delivery…?

  The paranoia,if any does exist, is well-shared, there ‘j’.

  And since we’re talkin’ eddication, Mr. Jernalist, I’ll put my 24 years commissioned active military service, BA (VMI, 1976); MBA (U of Missouri, 1980) and MPA (U of Colorado, est. completion, June 2011)) against … whatever it is … you bring to the table. You can keep self-cloaking in some kind of mantle of assumed superiority, but all it does is to highlight to the disinterested onlooker your own ignorance and intolerance.

  You….Limbaugh…Malkin….Kos….Beck….Huffington….
  Olbermann….all name-calling, rabble rousing microbes cut from the same Petri dish…

  Me..out….

• William made a comment on December 2, 2009:

  I am sitting in class, taking the time out of my education to read the stupid idiotic opinions of this writer. Why the paper or website even keeps this guy on is above me. Although everyone including me that responds to this idiot is just giving him what he wants. He is racist he has proven that in this writing. I as well was in the military and since he brought up the freedom of speech, enjoy that freedom there are thousands of gun toting individuals out there dying to give you that freedom. So let me say you are welcome, even though I bet you will or have ever said thank you. To end I have never seen a gun jump off the shelf and shoot someone, have you? If so be sure to send me that article. Put the thesaurus down it doesnt make you smarter for using big words just shows ignorance on your part.

• William made a comment on December 2, 2009:

  Just to add one more thing as a civilian now I am still a gun toter every day. I appreciate Colorado’s law for concealed carry and am a permit holder. Never though have I comitted a crime with any of my weapons, hmmm is that weird to you? Also riddle me this you are driving with your family and while stopped at a traffic light you get car jacked. The individual car jacking you is going to give you the time to get your wife and children out of the car right? That would be a nice warm and fuzzy feeling down deep inside wouldnt it. I myself would rather stand up for my family and protect them than let them be driven off with a maniac inside the car. Trust me I would not hesitate to drop the hammer on anyone that threatens me or my family. Well known saying better to be judged by twelve than carried by six….

• CB made a comment on December 3, 2009:

  After all the ideas and arguments are made there is one ultimately left. The Second Amendment is the only guarantee of all the rights we enjoy. The Constitution guarantees nothing! The Bill of Right guarantees nothing! If push comes to shove, firearms are the final and only choice to guarantee our freedoms and stop tyranny.

• Rick Reno made a comment on December 6, 2009:

  Ray Casares comments crystalized the argument for preserving the second amendment. I have close family members whose lives and property were saved merely by the presence of a firearm, without anyone being injured. As a 16 year military veteran, and a board certified pediatrician, I have learned that common sense is the bottom line. Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

• Furious Fat Man made a comment on December 8, 2009:

  J: “You mean the same founding fathers that decided that black people only count as 0.6 a person? ”

  it’s called the 3/5ths compromise for a reason… they had to “compromise” in order to reach an agreement in order to ratify the constitution. most states wanted to end slavery before the constitution was even signed. George Washington understood the hypocricy of the declaration and constitution if it didnt include blacks as “free men”.

  the liberal lie of calling our founding fathers “rich, white, slave owners” is a played out load of crap. the majority of them didnt have slaves and were openly against slavery, period.

  J: “…Hmm, you seemed to have left out the part about slaughtering an entire continent of indigenous people in order to prop up a nation built upon such ideological principles.”

  once again, liberal spew! quite a few of the new england and great lakes tribes joined the french army or were conscripted during the 7 years war, well before america existed. the same thing happened during the revolutionary war and the spanish american war and o i could go on and on. the tribes that were decimated were savage, war-like tribes that picked the wrong side in a conflict. i bet you feel sorry for what happened to germany and japan in WW2 as well.

  here’s a tid bit for you that you “conveinently” ignored everytime you’ve read the declaration;

  “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions”

  yes, those peace loving indians who did nothing but get exterminated for their land and resources (resources that we arent even allowed to collect, mind you) yea, they kinda had a thing for murdering children and pretty much anything that wasnt them. there’s a reason they were called “savages”

  that’s about all the domination of an “educated” person i can stand. i definately know where my daughter is NOT going to college. i’d prefer her to know basic history instead of spoon-fed, liberal bullshit.

  -FFM

• AK made a comment on December 9, 2009:

  Anyone who screams ‘gun control’ on the basis of lives lost is a transparent hypocrite. Worried about body counts? Then advocate the reinstatement of the 18th Amendment, y’know, Prohibition. A conservative estimate I read *20 years ago* was 100,000 directly attributable-to-alcohol deaths and $1 billion indirect costs. Wanna go there, j? Thought not. Thus, the basis for gun control is pseudo-intellectual arrogance and consequent assumed superiority, not concern for the preservation of human life, one sees that with the writer of this article. Yes…yay-hoos, Bubbas, and rednecks indeed….

• J. Swift made a comment on December 9, 2009:

  Actually, I AM in favor of prohibition.

• AK made a comment on December 9, 2009:

  And why am I not surprised. The political left in all venues from the French Revolution to, well, anywhere today, has always been for the idealistic, but sociologically unworkable - indeed, impossible - solution. You know, the one that sounds moral and good, but ends up being imposed by force, punishing the many for the acts of the minority, birthing disobedience, corruption, crime, misery, and inevitably, it’s own demise.

  You can try to force change for which society is neither ready nor wants, from a legislature. You’ll simply fail. You want to change people so they’ll be ‘better?’ To where they have guns, but don’t shoot each other? Or have alcohol, but use it responsibly? Then start with the way in which you deal with your opposition. Treat them with respect, as smart folks - like you - who have a thoroughly rational belief set though it may differ from yours. S**t-can the name calling and intellectual arrogance.

  Or not. Your choice.

• J. Swift made a comment on December 10, 2009:

  Name-calling? Actually, it’s “linguistic self-defense”, and my RIGHT and OBLIGATION as an American citizen to PROTECT myself and my (non-existent, hypothetical) family vis-a-vis upholding the merits of the First Amendment. By attacking my expressed views, by circular proxy, that makes you an opponent of the First Amendment, and by criticizing one aspect of the Bill of Rights, you are structurally criticizing the totality of it. Therefore, by your own reasoning, the entire basis of our American infrastructure is fundamentally flawed on a base level. Thus, you are attempting to abridge the entire United States system of constitutional freedom, which leads to only one inquiry I may ask of you:

  JUST HOW LONG HAVE YOU HATED AMERICA, GOOD SIR?!?

• Matt zublic made a comment on December 10, 2009:

  Mr Swift,

  You are, for the lack of a better word, dumb. You may have formal education, but you are dumb. I’ve read your retorts and that is the only conclusion I can come to (yes, I deliberately ended that sentence in a preposition). People have tried to engage you in an intellectual dialogue (including myself) and yet you contradict yourself and resort to belittling the person and their thoughts without ever addressing the issues. I am not mocking you by calling you dumb, just pointing out my observation of your situation. Don’t worry, I’m sure there’s a disability for your inability to debate logically. It’s not your fault (now that is mocking).

• AK made a comment on December 10, 2009:

  Hmm….’your right and obligation’ to name call….’ OK…everyone else out there reading this the way as do I? I make a good faith attempt to inject civility into the debate…and you respond as you did.

  How long have I hated America…must have started some time before the 24 years I spent in a uniform. How much time did you spend offering to defend with your life the country you by inference purport to love?

  Thought so.

  By the way…before I permanently sign off this increasingly Dali-esque exchange, I have to ask if you got that there ‘circular proxy’ conceit from the courtroom scene in ‘Animal House?’ I read Edmund Burke for cultural and political inspiration…you watch John Belushi. You have a great future ahead of you…maybe you could be Michael Moore’s screenwriter.

  I rather suspect you’re not in Kansas anymore, Dotty.

  Enjoy the Twinkies. I hear they’re pretty good deep-fried.

• AK made a comment on December 10, 2009:

  By the way….’freedom’ is not Constitutional..it is natural - God-given, as it were, simply affirmed by the Constitution - at least according to those Enlightenment-era white guyz in wigs….whose wisdom most of us vastly prefer to…

  …..ummm…your offerings……

  Outta here..the floor is yours….

• Furious Fat Man made a comment on December 10, 2009:

  im sorry i ever fed the troll. thats all this J guy is, a dirty, dirty troll.

  notice how he never responds to those that back up what they believe in w/ data? he only retaliates against “name calling”, but the sad part is, he’s the one initiating the name calling.

  and i love how angry he gets when he “defends his family w/ the 1st amendment!”, yet doesnt even comprehend that the rights he’s taking advantage of, he would deny to another, but only if it’s involving guns and a different amendment. does that mean i dont have to observer the 13th? how bout the 18th?

  this guy is just like the ala-cart religious nuts out there. you cant pick and chose the parts of the constitution that you want to believe in, it’s all or nothing bub.

  same bullshit, different liberal.

• J. Swift made a comment on December 10, 2009:

  My great-great-great-great-great-great-Grandfather Johnathan must be smiling down from the heavens right now: 400 years later, and people still haven’t “figured out” satire.

• Matthew Cole made a comment on December 10, 2009:

  “By attacking my expressed views, by circular proxy, that makes you an opponent of the First Amendment”

  This may be the dumbest thing you have ever written on here. Suppose for a moment that I am an opponent of the 1st Amendment (I am actually not). Now further suppose that you support it and were debating me on the merits of the 1st Amendment. If you attack my belief that the 1st Amendment is bad, are you not also becoming an opponent of the 1st Amendment? Common sense would say no, but that bit of illogic quoted above would say yes.

• DJ Matusiak made a comment on December 11, 2009:

  “Go ahead, begin at the top of this thing and scroll down. Watch the 20-on-one mugging I receive, the spam messages posted by people that do not only NOT attend the school, but are simple worker-bees shoveling their feces upon someone else’s antithetical viewpoint to mask their own singular disappointment as humans.”

  If we had of known how sensitive you were, then we wouldn’t have any need to worry about your views, but rather just wait until you needed the help for defense that you will invariably need in the future.

  As it is, however, you chose a subject in which you know very little, yet very many do.

  See as how you are still a child, it’s easy to see why you are confused. You have been brainwashed by your own government into believing that only they can protect you.

  The problems that you see in gun rights are glaring I’m sure. You believe that just the presence of said tool is the sole creator of the problem.

  In the U.K. right now, since they have banned guns, citizens have been preyed upon like lambs to slaughter. Also, since then, criminals who are not as resourceful, are switching to another familiar weapon: the knife. Knife crimes there have soared. Now the government has been toying with the idea of banning knifes as well. They have already passed a law in which the only way to buy one is to be over the age of 18. I’m sure that once they ban that too, they will have to ban sticks, bricks, and crowbars.

  The problem is that people on their most basic level of wants and need, resort to cruel ways of obtaining what they want.

  Banning guns will make law-abiding people victims. Your hands will be red with their blood, just as the politicians in the UK’s if you succeed in getting your communist views through.

  The only difference between America now, and America in 1776, is that all people knew that without guns, we would still be a British colony succumbing the tyrannical rule of an out of control empire. Oh, and technology.

  Just so you know, technology has been an on-going process for as long as people have been around. Just because you now have the ability to spew your ideologically unsound views to the far reaches of the globe with a single click, doesn’t make you any less wrong about what they were right about. Nor does it mean you are better than they! You are probably worse off now for it, as you are corrupting the minds of others who may (God help them) look up to and want to follow you.

  From now on, leave the big boy subjects to the big boys, and go play with your toys, fool.

• Bill Carpenter made a comment on December 11, 2009:

  I have read every comment. I cant help but feel that Mr. Swifts only real communication with ppl is right here.

  INTERESTING STATISTIC
  >
  > Regardless of where you stand on the issue of the U.S.
  > involvement in Iraq , here’s a sobering statistic:
  >
  > There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops
  > in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months,
  > and a total of 2,112 deaths. That gives a firearm death rate of
  > 60 per 100,000 soldiers.
  >
  > The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6
  > per 100,000 persons for the same period.
  > That means that you are about 25% more likely to
  > be shot and killed in the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq.
  >
  > Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington

• Bill NRA life mmbr Carpenter made a comment on December 11, 2009:

  A) The number of physicians

  in the U.S. is 700,000.

  (B) Accidental deaths caused by

  Physicians per year are 120,000.

  (C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

  * Statistics courtesy of U.S.

  Dept of Health Human Services.

• Bill NRA life mmbr Carpenter made a comment on December 11, 2009:

  Now think about this:

  Guns:

  (A) The number of gun owners in the U.S.

  is 80,000,000.
  (Yes, that’s 80 million)

  (B) The number of accidental gun deaths

  per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

  (C) The number of accidental deaths

  per gun owner is 0.000188.

  * Statistics courtesy of FBI

• Bill NRA life mmbr Carpenter made a comment on December 11, 2009:

  So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times

  more dangerous than gun owners.

  Remember, “Guns don’t kill people,

  doctors do.”

  FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE

  HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

  Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.
  We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand

• Bill NRA life mmbr Carpenter made a comment on December 11, 2009:

  Regardless of where you stand on the issue of the U.S.
  > involvement in Iraq , here’s a sobering statistic:
  >
  > There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops
  > in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months,
  > and a total of 2,112 deaths. That gives a firearm death rate of
  > 60 per 100,000 soldiers.
  >
  > The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6
  > per 100,000 persons for the same period.
  > That means that you are about 25% more likely to
  > be shot and killed in the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq.
  >
  > Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington

• Bill NRA life mmbr Carpenter made a comment on December 11, 2009:

  That last stat was atleast 2 years old

• michael made a comment on December 18, 2009:

  I am sorry i didn’t find this thread earlier. I may be whipping a dead horse by now but i would like to interject with a few thoughts that were either not spoken or addressed.

  There is no sarcasam meant or implied here, just a few simple facts and opinion.

  1. Fact: The first engagement of the Revolutionry War (Concord Bridge) happened due to the Red Coats raiding villages and confiscating all powder, shot and firearms. There was no distincion between a military or a hunting rifle a man used to feed his family.

  1A: Fact: I cannot quote the number of the ammendment but the British also evicted families from thier homes or forced the colonists to house and feed them. The bill of rights forbids this. Forgive me, i don’t have a copy of the Constition handy.

  2. Fact: All of our servicemen swear an oath to uphold the Constituion including to protect our country from all enemies, foriegn AND domestic.

  3. Oppinion: The domestic threat was not seen as simple thugs and criminals, it was intended to protect our citizens from the same abuses the British had inflicted upon us prior to the war. Only this threat was the tyranny of our own government in the years to come.

  4. Opinion: An armed society is a POLITE society. I would prefer to see every law abiding citizen to carry a gun and be trained to use it.

  5. Opinion: So long as roughly 50% of our population is armed, the govenment will always be reluctant to impose martial law at any time, for any reason

  6. Opinion: I would agree with you that the 1st ammendment is the first of equals but would also argue with you that without the 2nd, no one would be willing to write a negative opinion piece or make a controversial statement against any of our politicians. The 2nd ammendment is perhaps more important because without the 2nd, you wouldn’t have the 1st. Britian did impose censorship in the colonies, our founders learned from that lesson.

  I most humbly accept any feedback anyone might have to offer even if it is just to agree to disagree with any or all of this.

  be safe, all of you,
  michael

• Bryan Porter made a comment on December 20, 2009:

  So, Swift, what do you say about Vermont? They have the loosest gun control laws out there. You can carry a concealed weapon with out a license. And, HEY, guess what? They also have the third lowest crime rate in this country. Hrm, coincidence? I think not. If someone doesn’t know if you’re carrying, they’re less likely to stick a gun in your face and demand your wallet. Yeah, go ahead and try your poor rhetoric on him if you want.

• Carl Gilliam made a comment on December 21, 2009:

  @ James Swift you have a got to be about the dumbest educated idiot of them all. I am not well educated book wise but i am educated well in street smarts and survival.

  Quote James Swift “I utilize my First Amendment rights on a daily basis,”

  Yes you do. We are just waiting for you to utilize your First Amendment Right Intelligently. The article above shows any one with a little common sense your an educated idiot.

  Quote James Swift “did the National Socialists order the Jews into the corrals with polite, open minded discourse?”
  No Sir they did not. If the Jews would have been armed and properly trained to use those arms. Those “National Socialists” would not have been able to murder all those people.

  See this is why we have the Second Amendment. We can defend ourselves from aggressors foreign and domestic.

  Besides, have you ever thought about this? With out the Second Amendment how do you plan on keeping the First Amendment?

  Idiots like you make criminals stronger. They don’t care about the laws that are made. They are going to get there guns some way some how regardless what laws are put into place. That is why they are criminals they don’t care about law.
  When you disarm the law abiding citizen who uses there weapon for self defense and sport. You just made the criminals happier because they know they still have there guns.

  There should only be 3 rules to owning a firearm of any kind.
  1. No felons should be permitted to own or have in there possession any type of firearm.
  2. No one who has been declared mentally unstable by a qualified doctor should be permitted to own or have in there possession any type of firearm.
  3. Anyone who owns or possesses(with owners permission) a firearm should be required to take a good safety course on the safe practices in the handling of firearms.

  Other then the above 3 there should be no other restrictions to owning or possessing a firearm.

• william mcniff made a comment on December 22, 2009:

  James Swift is correct that there were many gun related deaths in the U.S. But they were not perpretrated by the government. That is because we have the second amendment. Let’ look at the result elsewhere where the citizens do not have the right to bear arms. Iran perhaps, where dissenters were tried and executed for their lack of guns and free speech. Or maybe in China where the Mongolians & Tibetans were slaughtered. Iraq and Afghanistan do not have a second amendment and look what happened there. Our second amendment guarantees a basic right of self defense against individuals and against government.

• J Who? made a comment on December 26, 2009:

  Please hire AK to write for this newspaper and let him be the father of my spawn/spawns.

• Kevin made a comment on December 29, 2009:

  I live in New York which has one of the strictest gun control policies in the country when it comes to who can obtain a CCW. Not only is it an extraordinarily long process it has also not been successful in reducing violence caused by a person carrying a weapon (gun, knife, etc.). What I can tell you is that in the city I live in there are murders committed every single night of people with a weapon against people who are unarmed. Now due to the extensive application process that is required to obtain a CCW, these murderers did NOT use a legally purchased firearm. They used one purchased out of the trunk of a car. And don’t try to make the argument that the seller was probably someone who had a legally obtained CCW because anyone who has gone through the process is more than likely not going to commit a federal felony that is so easily traceable.

  My point is that creating a tighter restriction on gun control will not lower the amount of gun related deaths because the people who intend to hurt others will probably not purchase a firearm legally. A person who is motivated to rob, steal rape or what have will find a way to do it outside of the confines of the law. Disarming citizens who are purchasing a firearm to protect themselves from intended harm from another is only putting all of the power into the hands of that criminal.

  That being said, should a background a mental health check be used before obtaining a CCW? Absolutely. But removing a persons right to defend themself is not a responsible thing to do.

• AK made a comment on December 30, 2009:

  J Who? - Oh thank you for the boost in sacred self-esteem, the Mother’s Milk of the political left…..I was feeling passing inadequate since my grandsires, rather than being fame-smeared Anglo-historical satirists, were simply Slovenian serfs or Cypriot goatherds…

  A Happy New Year to you!

• Mike made a comment on December 30, 2009:

  I particularly like the Colt SAA in Cal.45. To me it represents the America I love. Rugged, tough and free. It is a symbol that embodies the individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

  For my liberal friends the Colt is a symbol too, representing for them the same as it represents for me. However, my liberal friends hate liberty and thus any symbol representing it. I suspect this is why they feel so good when seeing a burning American flag.

  The basic difference between liberals and most of us is found in the saying, “live and let live.” Liberals cannot live by this saying; they seem compelled to instruct the rest of us on how to live our lives. They call these instructions; Change. Just think of all the change they want and how it would affect your liberty.

  It would prove difficult for them to implement all of the change they want given an armed citizenry. However, if we were unarmed, change could be effected quickly. It is therefore not gun control they want, rather is is people control they seek.

  In this regard, the second amendment is enough to keep them a bay. People sometimes ask, “why do citizens need guns?” The answer is clear: To protect life, Liberty, and Property. In a free society this is the same reason the people allow the police and the military access to weapons.

  George Washington said,”firearms are the American Peoples cornerstone of freedom.” How long do you think Americans, or any one in the world, would remain free once the American Citizens are disarmed?

• AK made a comment on December 30, 2009:

  Oh by the way, to JSwift also, whether or not you want it or return the wishes..and to all other posters here.

• Dennis made a comment on January 4, 2010:

  James, your article can be summed up in one word:
  “idiot.” Might I suggest your rambling substantiates… You have no clue what real life is all about. You need to get off campus sometime, maybe graduate.

• Gilmer Smith made a comment on January 5, 2010:

  Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness… how can one have life without the means and right to defend it?

• J. Swift made a comment on January 5, 2010:

  I hate to break kayfabe for a moment, but just out of curiosity, how did you people find my article? It’s just that I’m intrigued by the notion that an op ed piece written for a school in Georgia has somehow garnered critiques from people in California and Colorado. There has to be more to it than a simple “Googling”, right?

• Boss Saint Tony made a comment on January 6, 2010:

  In the Los Angeles suburbs where I live, the houses and businesses are much too close together to allow every yay-hoo out there to carry a concealed firearm in public. Even small bullets from short-barreled handguns just have way too much penetration for dense “urban fringe” areas like my home town. And look around: people around here can hardly drive their cars sanely most of the time. I don’t think putting a firearm under the belt of every hothead out there would lead to a “polite” and rosy-colored utopia.

  That being said, today at the local trap and skeet range, where people walk around with shotguns slung over their shoulders and piles of shells stuffed in their pockets, my Caucasian friend and I shook hands with and were very cordial to the Middle Eastern gentlemen who spoke back and forth to each other in Arabic. We nodded in respect to the three Chinese nationals who nodded back at us stone-faced from behind mirrored sunglasses. We had the utmost respect for the carmel-skinned tandoori beauty whose father stood by and watched with pride as she swung those huge double barrels and smashed to bits the flying clay targets she was presented. (Do you hear the words to “It’s a Small Word After All…” being sung by all the children in the background?) So maybe guns do facilitate a kind of “don’t do unto me what you wouldn’t want done unto you” equilibrium among the cultures/races/peoples of Earth.

  I will always side with the man or woman who chooses to arm themself. This is a very difficult decision to make. A person who decides to carry a concealed firearm takes on a huge responsibility. In Los Angeles County, where it is extremely rare to be granted a permit for concealed carry, it is all the more critical that a person who chooses to carry, does so truly CONCEALED. This means no one but the gun carrier knows about the weapon… ever. You don’t tell your friends, you don’t tell your coworkers, not even your husband/wife.

  The SoCal masses have spoken, and they have said they want VERY FEW people carrying guns around. Basically, only trained professionals, if them even. There was an article a few months back in the local paper about a city police department somewhere in L.A. County that was denying permits to retired police officers. (Which, in my opinion is just sad. A guy spends 20+ years sending angry criminals off to jail, some day somebody’s gonna recognize him in the parking lot of Costco… Come on, give the old man a fighting chance!)

  I saw a bumper sticker in Colorado recently that said “The Second Amendment Is My Concealed Carry Permit” — which pretty much sums up my personal opinion.

  God forbid you find yourself in a situation where you feel the need to draw and reveal your dark secret. STOP! Before you ever pull that weapon out, before the hammer is cocked back, ask yourself if you can justify THIS PARTICULAR SHOOTING to a jury of 12. In Southern California, those peers of yours may just let you off with a slap on the wrist for “concealed carry” if your reasons for drawing and firing are justifiable. Or they may (more likely) just label you as “another crazy gun nut” for having a weapon on you in the first place. They may throw the book at you. Are you prepared to pay the consequences of carrying? Or are the consequences of NOT carrying worse? These are life and death decisions people have to weigh carefully.

  I mean that’s all we can do, right? Do what we feel is right. Hope the justice system works. Believe in the right-mindedness of others. Trust our fellow humans. Live life to its fullest in this beautifully multicultural world, and hope we never have to defend ourselves or our loved ones with a firearm.

  That’s my two cents
  boss-saint-tony.com

  P.S. Swiftcakes, I believe the NRA tagged/promoted your article because a famous gun personality/writer had commented on it a few weeks back.

• AK made a comment on January 6, 2010:

  My…the King of Satiric Condescension is trolling for what he undoubtedly already knows. Trying to suck in ‘nother ignerant gun-totin’ Yah-hoo…

  You’re a smart guy…having rebuffed my importunate (I too love my Thesaurus….;) attempts at injecting civility into this debate, I simply say, you figger it out. Perhaps you could channel your great(4) grandpa for info…..

  And yes….I’m ba-aaack…..

• XMK2CATX1 made a comment on January 8, 2010:

  Humm where to start… Having served Honorably in the Military on Active Duty and now in the NG, I can tell you that you look at a person in regards to how they behave/how they perform in thier duties. You J. Swift behave like a uninformed Left Wing Liberal. Have performed your duties as a writer in a slipshod manor, aka, your racist slurs towards people commenting on your Article. I maybe one of those Rednecks that not only carries a handgun everyday, but I normally carry a rifle around as I help out on my fathers small ranch. Why cause I might need to shoot a varmit prowling around the cows, and I’m sure the Mountainlions around here would be stopped by bullets before my wits and tongue would be in it’s stomach. As stated above your value of importance on the 1st vs. 2nd ammendments has no bases, they are equally important, they had to be put down on a piece of paper in some order so they could be kept seperate so they could be understood. I am also a direct line decendant of one of those “HACKS” that got it wrong and didn’t know how to make indoor plumging. I had to deal with in Iraq of “Repatriating Bad Guys”, yes those guys into people who were supposed to protect thier people. Many people there in and around Bahgdad live in fear of them, why, cause they cann’t defend themselves. I helped train IPs on two tours, you would get some who truely wanted to help people, the main problem was, that alot were of the above element and trying to weed them out while they were supposed to be enforcing thier laws is hard work, and can only be completed with support from your COC (Chain of Command). Here in the U.S. we don’t have many of these problems, but having seen them on a daily baises in another Country enforces how much the 2nd Ammendment protects us all. Now here in the U.S. uninformed People are trying to remove thier means of Self Determination, After the Civil War “Jim Crow Laws” were instated to take rights away from the “Blacks” of the South, the Government responded with the 14th Ammendment. Oh and Mr. Swift what is the Job of the Police in your area you live in? I can tell you that it’s not your protection. As a Military Policeman, that has worked alot with Civilian Law Enforcement, I can tell you that it is the Collection of Evidence/protection of said evidence to bring a subject before a Judge for Prosecution to determin a person Innocence or Guilt. If you were to call 911, how long does it take for the Police to arrive? Having the above exsperience tells me that unless I’m lucky most of the time this is messured in minutes, with a criminal armed with say a hammer or a knife that is intent on leaving no witnesses to his crime how long do you have to live? If you choose to you don’t want to use your 2nd Right that is ok, just don’t try and force the rest of the Lawabiding people to not use thier’s. I can be honest with you, when I was younger and more NIEVE, I liked the GFZ that marked the Military bases I was on, but I grew to despise them as I gained more knowledge and hopefully wisdom. I was stationed at Ft. Hood for over 5 yrs as an MP, and because of the fact that it was a GFZ, I choose to live Of Post. Why is this you ask? Even though there are bad parts to every town, the area I lived in(Keep in mind I was on Active Duty with a Family of 5, as a Non-Commissioned Officer) had a lower crime rate than where I worked. Three of my next door neighbors were Cops in the local Communities, and I know that at least two of them always carried when Off Duty, for thier Protection/thier Families. The Major at Ft. Hood only reenforces what we have already seen as stated in other posts, GFZ only show Criminals and people who want to do horrible deeds were thier targets are. The saftey of People is helped by the ones that do carry, but it is to keep OUR PUBLIC SERVANTS from becoming OUR MASTERS which is why the 2ND AMMENDMENT exists at all. “Our Governments like Diapers need to be changed regulaly and often for the same reasons” quote from only our first President George Washington who declined to be named “KING” of the U.S.

• XMK2CATX1 made a comment on January 9, 2010:

  Oh AK, I do wonder if our little friend here will ever figure it out. I may not be the brightest of Lightbulbs ( I just hope mine would provide decent light in a room) but for him to post this this late in the game here he has to really perplexed. J. if you were to ever face an exsperience were your life were in true and imminent danger, were you remember every detail, time almost stands still for you when you remember everything, you might understand were alot of us are coming from. Since by what I’ve read, alot of us on this page are Veterans for our Nation. We are probably more qualified by our exsperiences in this matter than your quibling little butt ever will be. Please ask your momy for another cookie while she rubs your back and tells you that the bad guy from the movie won’t get you, cause she’s there to protect you. Oh wait that’s right this is the real world were bad things happen to good people commited by bad people. Or as in my case, maybe a wild animal might do a person in if they are not being practical/aware of thier situation. The thing is you never know, that’s why those of who want to maintain our rights are very adamant about them. Hopefully you practice this as well, maybe try and park in a well lit area at the store, asvoid areas were you could be attacked or killed, whether you’d be safe there by day but the bad people come out at night. If not the people in your area you live in will read about you in an obituary. Predators always attack the weak first, by being aware you increase your chances, by CC you maybe able to affect a bad situation and turn it to a slightly better ending, nothing ever turns out perfect. I can tell you from personal exsperience killing a person stays with you for the rest of your life, not a day goes by I don’t think about it, but when it comes down to it, if it’s your friend, buddy, comrade in arms or family member, or even yourself. The guy who went to prey on someone who he/she thought was a target, it’s better that they are best case forced to surrender or made to run away, or that you take thier life, is always the last resort. Go through any and I mean any Law Enforcement training, or through and acredited CCW Class and they will always tell you that pulling the trigger is a last resort, and only when it is that last resort to protect life & Limb.

• Matt Z made a comment on January 10, 2010:

  James,

  We found out about your article because the truly educated search out not only facts and truth, but also those who speak against them. For one to sit idly by is to accept the actions of another. We’re here to point out your God-given right to open your mouth and put your foot in it. You’re entitle to you opinion, but opinions based on lies and deceit need to be corrected. If this were a college course, you would have earned an ‘A’ for knowing where the thesaurus is, a ‘D’ for knowing how to use it and a 0 for research and factual information.

  Get a refund.
  -Matt

• Matthew Cole made a comment on January 15, 2010:

  We know you weren’t high on pot when writing this column, so that’s one less excuse you have available to justify the incredibly bad logic used in this article.

• Ken Kieth made a comment on January 15, 2010:

  I hear a bunch of limp wristed Liberals screaming about how they have 1st Amendment Rights, but seem to forget about the rest of the Bill of Rights, except for the 2nd Amendment, which makes and keeps the other rights possible.
  Incidently, firearms only rank 4th in instruments used in homicides. How about outlawing baseball bats, golf clubs, and kitchen knives instead?
  While we are at it, how about making the laws draconian concerning drunk drivers that kill people with their driving. To my notion, Teddy Kennedy should have spent 25-55 years in prison for the 5 felonies he committed at Chappaquidick, instead of a paltry year suspension of his drivers licence. Fact is, Teddy Kennedy killed more people with his Oldsmobile than Dick Cheney did with his shotgun. The difference is that Teddy Kennedy was already violating several laws when he drove off the bridge. Dick Cheney shooting the fellow in the face was an honest accident on Mr Cheneys part and total stupidity and carelessness on the part of the fellow that wound up with a face full of buckshot.
  Is it because we have so many lawyers, politicians, media types, and others that are rums and habitually drive around intoxicated that we cant get any stricter laws about driving intoxicated?
  If you are so certain you want to throw someone in jail for something, then make it for the commission of a real crime, not because people choose to utilise their Constitutional Rights.

• john made a comment on January 18, 2010:

  the first and second amendment are for NON law abiding citizens as well as law abiding citizens. you have the potential to protect yourself personally, and you can say whatever you want. both amendments are concepts, like time they exist as an idea.if you shoot a person it may or may not be a legal act and if you say somthing you may also be accountable for what it causes to another person and that outcome.thats why shooting a tree or yelling at it is legal. society or court systems will determine if you unjustly caused someone harm. the gray area is that you wouldnt arm small children for example because they dont grasp the concept of guns death etc., so how then do we determine what adults are competent or capable. i am all for second amend but what if we armed everyone even small children? absurd right?then what of challenged adults?

• A Harman made a comment on January 18, 2010:

  Maybe Mr. Swift you need an intervention in the form of one of many instances such as an attempted robbery of you or your home or an attempt on your life or someone that you love or care for or maybe someone to your side needing help from an attack? Maybe one of these instances will help you realize the many benefits the Second Amendment affords you? Some people (no matter how educated or not) need to live exemplified. Nevermind that crap about Liberals or Conservatives, South Park or Sean Penn etc, etc…. when it comes down to protecting oneself - You/We/I have the right to do so. Maybe my words in this comment will fall upon your def ears? Maybe you were born/raised/grew up or currently live in a bubble and are not used to the “Real” world around You/Us but I do hope when you get out of college and step into the real world you will understand what awaits us all!
  I wish you Peace and no harm but for you to educate yourself about the world we live in and how the U.S. was built and why the laws were written back then and how they continue to serve us now.
  Oh - as far as freedom of speech…. Yeah they wrote that just above the Second Amendment!

• J C made a comment on January 19, 2010:

  Ken, I’m not sure if your comment was helpful in this discussion. Starting off with “limp wristed Liberals” makes your post unlikely to persuade anybody; you’re essentially attacking anybody who disagrees with you.

  Regarding firearms ranking 4th as a weapon used in homicides, the FBI seems to disagree: “Of those incidents in which the murder weapon was specified, 70.3 percent of the homicides that occurred in 2004 were committed with firearms” (source: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html ). Note that I don’t think this should affect the legal status of firearms; I just think we need to make sure that we use the right facts for the current situation in the US.

  In any case, I strongly believe that people have the right to defend themselves and others, and that gun rights and low crime are compatible, as demonstrated by several US states with both low crime and permissive gun laws.

• Jeff made a comment on January 20, 2010:

  Swift, I like how you claim that people that may want to cause harm to you don’t exist… This is ironic as my own father was bludgeoned to death with a brick during a mugging while he was walking home, it was not even completely dark outside when it happened… Perhaps if he had been armed with a pistol he might still be alive today. I can still recall the exact image of his hideously disfigured face which I witnessed while identifying his body, the muggers were not kind enough to allow us an open casket funeral, if only you were kind enough to believe my father had a right to defend himself with a firearm, then I would not be sitting here reading your patently flawed opinions on the subject… You should consider your own argument, if people were not putting bodies in canals with 93 gunshot wounds then maybe not so many people would feel the need to have a way to defend themselves, we do not live in a perfect world where everyone is safe, sometimes you must take your life in your own hands, and not leave its protection in someone elses.

• XMK2CATX1 made a comment on January 25, 2010:

  It’s not in the Constitution anywhere that you have the RIGHT to drive a car, but thousands more people are killed by Drunk Drivers each year than Firearms, in the U.S. If one want’s to see what happens to a people once thier will to secure thier own freedoms are removed, just look at the U.K. or Mexico. In the U.K. people there are being charged with Felonies when they defend thier families from an Intruder, these intruders have become very aggresive since Firearms were outlawed by the government years ago. There now if a U.K. resident beats up an Intruder with his cricket bat, since that’s probably his best bet since he has no right to a firearm, he will be charged with aggravated assualt with a deadly weapon and sent to jail. This situation is getting so bad there that the BOBBIES are starting to stop charging the residents there. But they are still open to lawsuits from the fellons. Now riddle me this? If 1. a person decides to break into a house if he get’s injured in the precess of committing a crime should the owner be responsible for this? 2. If, I, the Owner of such place catches him in the act and defend myself from attack, (say for instance with a crickett bat), should I be charged for doing so? It is common knowledge that the intruders have become aggressive. Now look at the Mexican situation, the people there are disarmed, the Police and Military have weapons, but the police are corrupt so that the druglords won’t kill thier families. Why is this? Cause they are not allowed to have any weapons other than thier issued weapons. If you want a corrupt polcing force have one that lives in fear of thier families being killed cause they don’t go along with the bad guys. This breeds more fear of the corruption and the bad guys. I sincerly hope that if you are ever in a situation where you or one of your loved ones are threatened, Swift, that someone like me is there to protect you from being killed or severly injured through your own choice, (notice I said choice) not to prepare for something that hopefully will never happen. What is that old saying, ” An once of Prevention is worth a pound of cure?” Instead of creating lawsuits for people who might be able to protect someone else we should enact common sensed “Good Simaritan Laws”, throughout the U.S. As Ken Kieth made note of, Former Senator Kennedy threatened more lives with his Drunk Driving than a CCP Holder does in a lifetime, and actually apparently killed someone there as well. My wife and I even try not to be driving on payday weekends when there is a larger chance of crossing paths with a DD. We plan on it, we both know that there is a larger chance of being kiled or inured by one than be having one of us to have to use a firearm to defend ourselves. Swift maybe one of your next articles should be on more major causes of homicide in the U.S. Traffic Fatalities way outnumber firearms related deaths in here. Maybe we should outlaw the use of the automobile, since it causes so many deaths in the U.S. every year. Or make everyone take a test and make sure they know how to opperate one and know the laws, oh wait they do. Why by golly we should just outlaw them there cars and trucks since noone knows how to drive them. Especially since they’re not constitutionally protected, we could saved over 40, 000 lives a year, and how many thousand others from being injured. In the last 15 years( correct me if I’m wrong here but I am sure my numbers are close) there have been approximately 70-80 million firearms purchased in this country. That’s almost 1/3 of the population, not counting all the ones owned previously, but in areas where CCP are allowed the FBI stated to Congress that those areas noticed a drop in violent crime. If one were to go by figures alone, then people as a rule are much more dangerous when they point a loaded/running car at you then by any number of fireamrs in the U.S. I think that Nancy Polosi’s next propsal to the Senate should be the one that outlaws the ownership of vehicles by all Non-Government Agency, heck, it’d saved the environment as well, why not, think all the smog would be saved from happening in California? Everyone can learn to ride a horse again, or drive a carraige, be good for the environment. Even though I know it wouldn’t happen, I’d much rather give up my families vehicles than our firearms, even though just one cost more than all of this families firearms together cost. I can ride a horse, and can get by without vehicles for the most part. I think that’s what we should do, the next time an uminformed person goes to tell us how deadly firearms are, inform them of the above general facts.

• ralpherus made a comment on January 28, 2010:

  If a person is not free to defend himself, he is only free to be murdered, no matter how much he wants to talk about it. The obfuscationist author takes paragraphs and paragraphs to try to confuse the very simply stated, yet voluminous in the information it imparts, second amendment. To paraphrase it in easily understood terms: Freedom depends upon Armed Americans, do NOT infringe our rrights to keep and bear arms. And, after fifty years of such crap, we are truly on the edge of - well, here it complicates. IF a traitor, the abyss. If an American, Bliss, for surely, push one more time and we snap.

• Gary Krietsch made a comment on January 29, 2010:

  Colleagues, friends and loyal opposition,

  Over the years I have developed a deeper understanding of the “right to bear arms”, and like all rights it has responsibilities associated with it. The “right” is not a license to kill, or do harm in any way. The responsibility associated with our “right”, requires prudent and safe use of arms.

  However, please remember, without the second amendment, there is no first amendment, and all the rest of the nations laws become meaningless.

• Andrew Connors made a comment on February 4, 2010:

  My the authors argument if someone exercised there 1st Amendment right of free speech to tell someone else to shoot someone, and that in fact happens, then the 1st amendment was responsible for the killing…. So by that scoring mechanism you might find the 1st amendment scores higher than the 2nd.

  But of course your argument and this are in fact exactly what they appear to be - ridiculous - the right to bear arms does not result in murder. Someone taking a weapon and choosing to kill someone with it is nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.

• Roberto made a comment on February 7, 2010:

  Sure… When some guy shows up wielding a gun and threatens to blow your head off unless you hand over your wallet, you go ahead and use your first amendment rights and shout him down. You must have a surreal gift of gab to believe in your ability to talk a maniac with a handgun out of his predisposition. I’m not advocating a return to the ‘wild west’ of yesteryear, but if all you have are words because you have foregone the right to keep a weapon, your odds shrink faster than your testicles will when you’re staring down the barrel of his .38. Just sayin’…

• Mel Winegardner made a comment on February 15, 2010:

  The rights stated in the Bill of Rights go together! The second amendment guarantees the first. Think about the context of the times in which our Constitution was written. You also need to look up the definition of “Constitution.” It is not just a piece of paper. It is the basis for our society and form of government. It’s what makes us what we are!

Leave a Reply

THE SENTINEL encourages on-topic, civil discussion on its articles posted online. It is our policy not to screen comments before they are posted or edit them after they are posted. However, we reserve the right to remove comments that are off-topic, malicious, libelous or include excessive foul language. THE SENTINEL also reserves the right to turn off all comments on any story it deems necessary.

Comments violating copyright law will also be removed.

Users accept the Vistor Agreement.

KSU Student Media staff accept the KSU Media Staff Agreement & Ethics Form.

Users who repeatedly violate this policy will be banned from commenting.

If you have any questions on our comment policy or wish to report a comment that you feel violates these standards, please e-mail a link to the article to the Editor in Chief at eic@ksusentinel.com.

Use your Facebook login or enter in your information below:

Name (required)

Email Address (required)

Website