Sunday, August 20, 2006

Question Of The Week, 8/20/06

Good morning. Picking a subject for this weeks question was not easy. There were several things to choose from. Did John Mark Karr really kill JonBenet Ramsey? Everything I've seen about this leaves me with more questions than answers. Are we more likely to be attacked by terrorist now that U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor has issued a ruling that says warrantless wiretapping is an unconstitutional infringement on our rights to privacy and free speech? A couple of e-mails I received this week have caused me to put those questions on the back burner for now. The first one came from the pro-Second Amendment organization, Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership. It tells about a Seattle woman that is calling for more gun control after being injured during a shooting at the Jewish Federation offices last month. The second one, a Townhall.com column by Cam Edwards, An end to the 2nd Amendment?, tells about a Camden, New Jersey English teacher that feels there is no longer a need for the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. So, this weeks Question Of The Week is. Has the time come to scrap the Second Amendment, turn in all legally owned firearms and count on law enforcement officers to keep us safe? I'll post my answer in the Comment Section Monday night.

God Bless America, God Save The Republic.

8 Comments:

Blogger Always On Watch said...

Scrap the Second Amendment? NO!

Law enforcement can't be everywhere. And the few times I've called 911, I've experienced at least a 30-minute wait. Thank God those times didn't involve a personal threat.

3:58 AM  
Anonymous Jake Porter said...

Has the time come to scrap the Second Amendment, turn in all legally owned firearms and count on law enforcement officers to keep us safe? I'll post my answer in the Comment Section Monday night.

No. I have a few reasons why.

1. Always on watch is correct. Law enforcement can't be everywhere.

2. The second amendment was not designed to protect deer hunters, and actually not even crime, but to protect the people from the government. Imagine no guns and Janet Reno as President. The 1993 attacks at Waco, Texas were bad enough.

3. If the U.S. was ever attacked and our so called leaders had the military protecting some foreign country instead of us, the American people would have to defend ourselves with guns.

4. Give guns to certain people on planes. This would stop the need for all this security nonsense.

4:43 AM  
Anonymous Traven said...

Never. It is the one of the small guarantees we have against tyranny and for our safety, personally and politcally.

"Law enforcement"? Nothing more than the "strong arm" branch of whatever current administration is in power.

The Waco tragedy was under two (one "conservative", one "liberal") regimes. We can dig further into history for many other examples, such as the "Palmer Raids", one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American government. Some of us have long memories.

6:34 AM  
Anonymous And Another Thing said...

David:

NO. I wrote a piece a while back if you remember....I compared the calls for gun control with what I experienced in Ireland.

Irish law is everything gun control advocates dream of. Their cops are no dummies and are very professional.

Yet why, with all the restrictions, did the IRA and the UVF manage to obtain all the arms and explosive? Because those who are going to ignore a law could care less about legal restrictions.

9:51 PM  
Blogger The Sovereign Editor said...

I saw a bumper-sticker that sums up the realities of the situation nicely:

ENGLAND -- Fewer Guns, More Crime.

1:10 AM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

No, absolutely not. I have no personal interest in guns, but we all have the right to defend ourselves with whatever it takes.

I think there was a court ruling that the police are not obligated to protect an individual; they're only required to maintain the general order. The way I heard it, a person was severely beaten by a mob while the police just stood by and watched. The victim sued and the judge ruled that the police weren't at fault as long as there wasn't a riot or anything; they didn't have to protect that one individual.

In any case, no. We need the second amendment.

1:24 AM  
Blogger David Schantz said...

STUBMDFirst I want to thank everyone for stopping by to answer this weeks question. All of you made some great points.I'm late again. I was in serious need of a shower when I got home from work Monday night, but I made it. Everyone of you have touched upon some of my reasons for answering NO! to this weeks question. We had to make a 911 call a few years ago. A family member was out of town, someone called to tell us it looked to them like his house had been broken into. When I checked it out I found that most of his firearms were missing. The theif even knew where the key to his safe was kept. It took over an hour and two calls to get the police there. The stolen weapons were never found (or returned). There is no way law enforcement could be everywhere they are needed at all times. If there is a police officer close enough to protect you at all times there is something you need to change. You are being watched. The attacks at Waco and Ruby Ridge are two of the best reasons for citizens to be armed. A government gone mad is one of the biggest threats we face. My Monday post was on Ruby Ridge. Monday was the anniversary of Ruby Ridge and my 19th wedding anniversary. One should always be armed to protect their home and family from thugs and thieves, they will always be able to find a way to get firearms.During World War II Japan had second thoughts about attacking the United States mainland because they thought there was a firearm and someone that knew how to use it in every home. Tom Harper is right, the police are not obligated to protect us. Since he is not interested in firearms I'm REALLY happy to hear that he supports the Second Amendment. A lot of people that are not interested in or do not like firearms would like to have everyone else give theirs up. As long as we have the Second Amendment for all thugs and thieves know Tom might be armed, that might stop him from being mugged someday if it hasn't already. The bad guys fear facing an armed citizen much more than they fear being arrested.

God Bless America, God Save The Republic.

12:34 AM  
Blogger David Schantz said...

Sorry, mistake."STUBMD" should have been in Word Verification.

God Bless America, God Save The Republic

12:39 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home