Abolish the 2nd
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Tuesday, Aug. 13, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Abolish the 2nd
The George Zimmerman issue shows there are a lot of irresponsible “cop wannabes” who pack concealed weapons, then hide behind their Second Amendment rights for justification when unintended consequences ensue.
Aligned with them are the so-called “strict constructionists” in the courts, who will defend the principle of the immutability of the Bill of Rights to the death, presumably on grounds of its venerability. But in our own Revolutionary era, Thomas Paine, echoing Thomas Jefferson, stated famously: “Any attempt by one generation to bind the next — to rule from the grave — was the moral and political equivalent of despotism.”
Technology has made the armaments of today very deadly. The late-18th-century drafters of the Second Amendment, having had only muzzle-loading, smooth-bore muskets in mind, surely did not mean to cause the havoc this amendment has wreaked on future generations.
This will be unpopular with Trib readership, but I believe the Second Amendment is obsolete and should be abolished.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Obama & Reaganomics I
- Putin’s actions I
- Obstacles to hiring
- Obama & Reaganomics II
- Math in common?
- Putin’s actions II
- Our nation’s testing obsession
- Funding priorities questioned
- Beneficial, irreplaceable