Friday, December 21, 2012

Is It Necessary to Repeal the 2nd Amendment?

BDN Opinion by Robert Klose
Not long ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the so-called “right to bear arms” amendment to the Constitution is in fact a guarantee of the individual’s right to arm himself. My first reaction to this ruling was that the justices shared a common malady: the inability to read and interpret dependent clauses; in this case, the first part of the Second Amendment, which reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”

How on Earth the leap was ever made from a collective right — the militia — to an individual’s right — the culprit in the recent grade school shooting in Connecticut — is, at first blush, mystifying. But when one considers that domestic policy regarding firearms is directed by the National Rifle Association, rather than Congress, everything becomes clear: The ghost of the late, addled Charlton Heston, aka Moses, is running the show.

School shootings having become almost as reminiscent of America as apple pie, and considering the inability of the citizenry — and the justices — to understand the meaning of the Second Amendment, the time has come to directly address the source of the controversy.

Why be coy? The Second Amendment should be repealed. Once it is gone, meaningful firearms legislation will finally be possible — converting gun possession from a right to a privilege, like a drivers license — and the NRA will be relegated to background noise, a hysterical mob with no constitutional basis for its oblique philosophy that the more firearms the better.

For an insight into what the Second Amendment really intended, it is instructive to refer to the Constitution’s predecessor — the short-lived Articles of Confederation. Take a look at the sixth amendment of that document, which, in part, reads:

“Every state shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores … a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage.”
Mr. Klose is not alone in the way he interprets the 2nd Amendment. Many constitutional scholars as well as the ACLU agree. But my question is wouldn't it be possible to simply clarify the true and proper interpretation of the Amendment?  For me, that would mean relegating it to the scrap heap of irrelevance long with the 3rd. It is obviously obsolete and anachronistic, meaningless to modern times.

What happened over the last five or six decades is the bastardization of the 2nd Amendment. Is it actually necessary to repeal it in order to overcome this movement?

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.


  1. The problem isn't merely limited to the Second Amendment. America, relishing in it's military omnipotence, has such a powerful world presence that it fails to realize that the real enemy is within. There have been so many restriction that have been erroneously placed on State interests that the current system has created a State grossly incapable of defending the most fundamental human right: life.

    The United States Constitution implicitly prohibits all Federal action, and then proceeds to establish exceptions (commonly known as "Enumerated Powers") to enable the Federal Government to carry out limited duties which exceed the authority of the individual State. The power of the States which comprise the union, are limited by the (typically negative) "rights" found in their native constitutions, or more recently, the provisions of the Federal Constitution which have been deemed to apply to such.

    The current system illustrates the backwards notion that individuals (as opposed to the collective State) are (somehow) endowed with "rights" (such as the right to hate, the right to evade law enforcement, the right to own killing machines, and the like) and that, upon the formation of a collective society, and a State to rule over such, subjects grant necessary power to the State in order for such to fulfill specific duties.

    Such a concept is ridiculous, in addition to being inherently dangerous, as the common subject has no rights in a civilized society. When a government is formed, all rights previously retained by individuals are collectivized, and left to the discretion of the State.

    We need to rethink our concept of "crime" before such "crime" consumes us all. Therefore the role of the State's legal codes ought to be re-evaluated to allow certain actions, as opposed to prohibiting certain actions.

    Government ought to tell the people what they can lawfully do, instead of what they can't.

    1. Subsequently all individual "rights" are to be considered obsolete, and should be hastily repealed. Replace such "rights" with a "Bill" of duties and obligations, such as the right to police protection, the right to food, the right to keep a home free of unlawful substances and activity, the right to a decent education (the way you write, dictates that you Americas are in desperate need of such). Provide that these duties be enforced, and that no Constitutional provision or legal precedent be construed to infringe on such Rights.

    2. Jesus Christ you really are a statist.

      Dude, if you're into authoritarianism, there's plenty of places you can go to find that. Please report back to us how it's going over there.

    3. I can make the most impact in "the Land of the Free".

      Other nations already have owners. As they are not up for sale, I try to find my own.

    4. Repeal all individual rights? Not possible. Human beings are born with those rights. The government, when it's legitimate, serves to protect rights, but it does not give them.

      But E.N., do broadcast your program as widely in this country as you can. Let me know when you do that. Watching fools get smacked around is a pleasure when they so richly deserve it.

  2. If we repeal the second why dont we just throw them all out then

    1. Read my comments. For reasons which I explain, I am "all for that".

    2. So you rather give up not only your freedom but every one ellses just because it will take guns out of law abiding peoples hands and put more in criminal hands there for getting more people killed?Do i got that right? If you really think we should throw them all out stop using your first amendment right.And prove you stand behind what you say.

    3. You have no rights. States have rights, individuals do not.

      Actually, I value freedom. Freedom is a precious commodity. I value it so highly in fact, that I insist that it be reserved to myself.

      Why does your side take afright at the concept of ordered liberty and the right to exist peacefully in ones community? The policies that you associate with a "totalitarian" State, ensure life, liberty, and property against infringement by one's fellow citizen. here exists no more devious a means to degenerate a society, than to speak of "freedom" and "individual liberty", but show wanton disregard for fundamental rights such as the right to a safe and orderly community.

      There can be no liberty without subjugation, and the individual submission to the whim of the collective authority, for the benefit of all mankind.

    4. Anonymous, I don't want to see all the Amendments repealed, In fact, I'm not convinced that the 2nd should be. But one thing you mistake is that repealing, or adjusting our understanding of the 2A is tantamount to taking everyone's guns away. The idea is it would make it possible to enact proper gun control laws which would do exactly the opposite of what you said. Law abiding citizens would continue to have guns and fewer criminals would be able to get them.

    5. Mikeb, you keep claiming that your proposals would allow good gun owners to keep their guns, but the total effect of everything you want would amount to a de facto ban. Look at D.C. and Chicago. That's what you want nationwide. The rules are ridiculous. They have nothing to do with keeping the communities safe and everything to do with keeping people who follow the law disarmed.

      But let's use your principles for a moment. You hardly ever comment on E.N.'s remarks. Does that mean you support them? You've accused me and others on my side of bad thoughts and evil intentions because we didn't rush in to condemn someone. Since you aren't here telling E.N. that he's wrong, I can only conclude that you support him--again, following your reasoning.

    6. E.N., freedom is precious--so much so that I want mine. I refuse to surrender it to you. What's your next move?

      Here's a suggestion. Until you can justify your speaking, stop doing it. You have no authority to comment, beyond the right of every individual to speak.

  3. Mr. Klose is not a law scholar; he is a biology professor. Definitely nothing wrong with being a scientist, but it's apparent to me he didn't actually read the Heller decision.

    First and foremost to address the Articles of Confederation; the 6th Article defines overall conduct that each state in the Confederation must adhere to; to call it an "Amendment" and not point out it is at least several paragraphs long is dishonest. Second, the 6th Article requires the creation of state militias as no standing body of war can be assembled in peacetime under the original articles; something permitted under the current Constitution. The requirement of states to form a militia is not something that survived into the actual Constitution itself; this is reflected in Article I Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 of the Constitution. The "militia clause" turns over the reigns of what were state militias in the 6th Article to the Federal Government under the Constitution.

    If such controls over militia were already established by the Constitution proper; why would the Bill of Rights need to have a redundant clause regarding our allowance to a militia? The Militia Clause made all state militias subordinate to federal power; so unless another right seemed to be conferred in the Second Amendment (addressed by a preframatory clause), it seems implausible that such an amendment would need to exist. The only other possibility is that new rights are being conferred to the people; either to a militia or to bear arms. Yet how could one disconnect popular militias from the public having arms? How could a non-state or federal militia function unless some sort of means of citizens acquiring arms could exist. The point of this paragraph is not that I necessarily believe the 2nd Amendment just gives people the right to a militia; it's that the 2nd Amendment cannot mean granting state militias since such militias are defined earlier in the Constitution as being under federal control, with the states solely acting to organize them.

    The Heller decision upheld the Right to Bear Arms for several reasons:

    1) Original drafts of the 2nd Amendment and other various proposed Constitutional Amendments were much more explicit about the right guaranteed: "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." A second version is more blunt that the people are "the militia" and that if the militia has the right to bear arms it is inseparable from the Right of the People, "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

    2) The justification that the dissent in Heller offered for the presence of the term "right of the people to keep and bear arms" was a term of art; a fancification. Yet such a term was uncommon, if non-existant at the time. The dissent offered no other satisfactory explanation for the presence of such a clause, nor have I heard any other gun control advocate do so. Though the reasoning is that the only "militia has the right to keep and bear arms", this contradicts the following term "the people" unless the people can be rectified as the militia. Earlier versions of the Amendment seem to confirm this intent of the militia to be seen as universally composed in this case.

    3) The English Bill of Rights, a precursory to the US Bill of Rights, also contained the provision for the right to bear arms. It is important as the Supreme Court has acknowledged previously the importance of the English Bill of Rights in the creation and formation of analogous US rights.

    1. Look below for my reply to your comment.

    2. Jack, thanks for your comment, or should I call it a scholarly treatise?

      While trying to follow along with what you wrote, since I'm not a lawyer either, it seemed to me that you were supporting my idea that the 2A is anachronistic. Any talk of militias and when they ceased to be relevant seems to support my, and not only mine, theory that the 2A is obsolete and meaningless today.

    3. No, the fundamental idea was that "militia" was not supposed to be a specific entity. The militia is broad and universal by the definition of the 2nd Amendment. The "people", as in, everybody are said militia. It is unlike the "militia" defined by the Militia Clause or 6th Article of the Articles of Confederation; that is an organization or entity.

      The relevance of the 2nd Amendment has largely shifted away from national defense. Though I've heard an oft cited example of Admiral Yamamoto's alleged quote about why you can't invade the United States because "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass", said quote is fabricated. Though there are better examples of countries requiring privately owned firearms for national defense, the more practical modern purpose of the 2nd Amendment is one acknowledged by the Founding Fathers. Unlike one other interpretation for modern relevance I've heard (overthrow of tyrannical US government, which only ant-Federalist Founding Fathers seem to support), the purpose of self-defense seems to be universally supported by the founding fathers.

      "Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offence."
      -John Adams

      "The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, ... or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press."
      -Thomas Jefferson

      Self-defense will, for the determinate future, be the fundamental reason for the 2nd Amendment.

    4. Justice Scalia's majority opinion on District of Columbia v. Heller vacated his usual originalist viewpoint, and instead interpreted "rights" guaranteed by the Second Amendment in (what he perceived as) the context of the modern day. This was a largely politically (as opposed to historically) motivated decision.

      1. You are incorrect with regards to the legal precedent which existed at prior, to and in the decades after ratification of the Constitution and the "Bill of Rights" The strong worded versions of what was to become the Second Amendment where rejected for the very reason that they endowed mere citizens with the right to possess arms. As not to infringe on the power of the States (and the Federal Government if need be) to regulate arms, the Constitution only refers to those arms used for Militia service, and therefore was intended to protect State actors from Federally mandated disarmament.

      Many States at that time did not guarantee any individually applicable right to possess small arms. Cases such as Nunn v. State of Georgia, which ruled in favor of an individual "right to keep and bear Arms" achieved such a ruling by erroneously applying the Federal "right to keep and bear Arms" to apply to State activity, long before Palko v. Connecticut, before the advent of the 14th Amendment, and in total contradiction of Barron v. Baltimore

      2. It must be noted that "the people" is a Very collective term.

      3. The (rater defunct) English Bill of Rights which grants "That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defense suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.". This was, again tied to compulsorily service in the armed forces, as it was intended to discriminate based on class, (as subjects where only allowed to possess arms suitable to their condition) and this allowed commoners to own a bow or pike (for military usage as long-bowman or pike-men ) and members of the aristocracy to possess swords and pistols (for service as officers). It may be noted that such a "right" did not treat all equally, and hence the disarmament of Catholics subsequent to its ratification.

      There is no substantial legal precedent that supports the bizarre notion of such a "right". The Constitution however does state that Government bears the duty to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare", which may be interpreted as a right to civilian disarmament.

    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    6. 1. Given that you seem to be disagreeing immensely with the notion that anyone seems to have individual rights in the United States and that the Bill of Rights ought to be repealed because it grants "mere citizens" too many rights, I'm not sure how you can consider yourself to be better at judging the mindset of the United States' Founding Fathers. They apparently created a lot of rights you don't agree with. Evidently they saw fit to endow "mere citizens" with arms, since the revisions aren't nearly drastic enough to prohibit civilian ownership of firearms. They also seemed to favor civilian ownership, since the Second Militia Act of 1792 required every man between 18 and 45 to "provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder".

      Note that the act says "provide himself", not "provide the militia"? Every "mere citizen" was required by law to acquire a personal firearm.

      2. Of course its a collective term, but it reflects itself individually in numerous other rights. Amendment 4 says "the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects". Amendment 9 also says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Which, by the way, again contradicts your idea of using the Preamble to justify confiscation of property

      3. The English Bill of Rights limited commoners to military weapons for service in the armed forces? You mean the same armed forces the English Bill of Rights prohibits in peacetime literally one line above? It's a wonder how they'd ever manage to serve in a non-existent armed forces.

      No sir, the English Bill of Rights gave everyone, even "mere citizens", the right to arms in self-defense. William Blackstone outlined it best in his commentaries on the English Bill of Rights: "The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

      English Common Law allowed for even "subjects" to possess weapons suitable for self-defense, not just bows and pikes. Also, you have your military history wrong, the use of bows in warfare entirely ceased in the first half of the 17th century, several decades before the English Bill of Rights. I'm not sure where you're even getting this from anymore.

      (Previous comment deleted to make grammatical edits)

    7. Jack, you're new here, but if you stick around, you'll see that E.N. denies the concept of individual rights. In his view, we're all the property of the state.

  4. It should be interesting to note that Justice Scalia's majority opinion on District of Columbia v. Heller vacated his usual originalist viewpoint, and instead interpreted "rights" guaranteed by the Second Amendment in (what he perceived as) the context of the modern day. This was a largely politically (as opposed to historically) motivated decision.

    As the opinion given in District of Columbia v. Heller is strictly a contextual interpretation of United States v. Miller, I believe that Miller can be interpreted to endow a collective State "Militia" with all arms within U.S. borders, (although it has been chosen to interpret this section to bear a different context) and therefore sanction all weapons on U.S. soil as some form of State property, to be appropriated for official use by non-individual entities.

    You have absolutely no right to control or proliferate any form of weapon. However the State, bears the compelling duty to disarm it's subjects, and such persons who are subject to the rule of law do however implicitly possess a right to be disarmed. The fundamental Right to Civilian Disarmament can be derived fro the language in the preamble (of the U.S. Constitution) sanctioning as the duty of Government to "ensure domestic tranquility", "promote the general welfare", "provide for the common defense". As there exists such a Right to Disarmament of the mere citizen as expressed by the constitution, congress bears the responsibility to adopt prohibitive statutes concerning the proliferation and possession by mere civilians, who do not convey public authority, are not entrusted with the safety of the populace, and not endowed with coercive power (therefore requiring the use of arms) over other subjects.

    Any lower (State) court cases in which the majority espouses to your deranged notion of "individual freedom" through the mass armament of the populace, that you may cite are generally a moot point, as many States at that time did not guarantee any individually applicable right to possess small arms. Cases such as Nunn v. State of Georgia, which ruled in favor of an individual "right to keep and bear Arms" achieved such a ruling by erroneously applying the Federal "right to keep and bear Arms" to apply to State activity, long before Palko v. Connecticut, before the advent of the 14th Amendment, and in total contradiction of Barron v. Baltimore.

    1. You've posted this one before, and I must say you must be the most dire form of Statist if you think people lack individual liberties, or if the state somehow is the owner of all firearms. The state "bears the compelling duty to disarm it's [sic] subjects"? Where in the Constitution is the state compelled to disarm its citizens? If you think the passages you're citing establish such a duty by arguing guns compromise "domestic tranquility", "general welfare", or somehow even "common defense", I can redirect you to some nice publications about how the lowest estimates available indicate that firearms are used 10 times more frequently in self-defense than in homicide.

      And second, I think the Miller Case itself would disagree with you. The Miller ruling claims that the militia were expected to "bear[] arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time" Note the operative phrase "SUPPLIED BY THEMSELVES". However, Miller does not rule that the 2nd Amendment is for militias; it solely finds that shortened weapons fall out of a standard necessary for militia use, NOT that the 2nd Amendment is for militia use.

      Even still, Scalia's findings differ from the original findings of Miller, on the grounds above. If the Second Amendment referred to a militia and weapons to be procured for militia duty, and militiamen were expected to be in possession of guns in "common use", the National Firearms Act's restriction on machine guns would need to be struck down. The Miller ruling didn't exclusively define the 2nd Amendment as firearms solely intended for a militia; it merely used the original context of militia service as a prism to examine the necessity of weapons. Miller did not rule on the interpretation or create a precedent of weapons being exclusive or inexclusive to a militia; Heller did. Weapons are NOT exclusive to a militia, nor would perverting the Miller verdict help your case. It would take a bizarre use of phrasing to use the ruling in Miller to somehow make every weapon at the behest of the US government, since it in fact sets the opposite precedent. The Miller decision found personal weapons are expected to be used for militia service; not state-owned firearms.

      The second problem with "disarmament" is that not all guns in private possession are known to the state. Federal Firearms License holders are not required to give over their Form 4473s to the ATF until after the end of the license; by which point the firearm may have potentially shifted hands through a private purchase or been rendered inoperable due to mechanical malfunction or general attrition. In order to institute disarmament, literally every home in the country would have to be searched, include those without firearms. Does the 4th Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures" have any meaning to you? Or since they're "mere citizens", they have no rights relative to the state?

      And have you read the 5th Amendment? It totally defeats your invented cause for disarmament. Note that under said Amendment, property will not be taken "without due process of law". Given that the current precedent set is NOT that the militia has rights to weapons, nor does any court case agree with the verdict; it would require due process of law to confiscate every weapon. The personal right to arms has been upheld by the court, taking weapons means violating rights.

      Also, if you're going to argue Scalia used no history to construct his opinion in DC v Heller, I believe you're ignoring the part where Scalia cites the English Bill of Rights. Among other things.

    2. About the 1689 English Bill of Rights......

      (Ignore this if you have read the entirety of my other post in response to your original post)

      ........... The (rater defunct) English Bill of Rights which grants "That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defense suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.". This was, again tied to compulsorily service in the armed forces, as it was intended to discriminate based on class, (as subjects where only allowed to possess arms suitable to their condition) and this allowed commoners to own a bow or pike (for military usage as long-bowman or pike-men ) and members of the aristocracy to possess swords and pistols (for service as officers). It may be noted that such a "right" did not treat all equally, and hence the disarmament of Catholics subsequent to its ratification.

  5. Mike,

    A more modern rendering of the 2nd Amendment would be, "Because a well organized and trained militia is necessary for the defense of a free state, the right of the people to possess and utilize weapons for service in such a militia shall not be infringed."

    This is not a new interpretation invented by the Heller court. The Miller case, which upheld the National Firearms Act, did so on the basis of such an interpretation. It stated that because the banned weapons (short barreled aka "sawed-of" shotguns, machine guns, silencers, etc.) were not weapons commonly used in warfare (at that time), they were not suitable for militia service. Therefore, the court held that the 2nd amendment did not cover them. By implication, it would have covered the M-1 Garand, 1903 Springfield, and Colt 1911 (and perhaps a couple others we don't need to list for this discussion).

    The court writing the Miller opinion based its reasoning on the idea that the 2nd Amendment protected the rights of individuals to own weapons that were suitable for them to utilize in militia service should the unorganized militia need to be called up. They then defined these protected weapons as those that were in common military use at the time.

    If you doubt this, there is a good summary of the Miller case and decision at:

    Or if you prefer to look at the text of the case for yourself, that wikipedia page has a link to the full text at FindLaw at the bottom of it.

    For the sake of space and time, I'm not going to go back any further at this time. I'll just note that this interpretation of the 2nd amendment has more history than just Heller and the modern NRA. Therefore, if we are going to ban assault weapons or magazines over 10 rounds (or 3 as some suggest), much less begin the licensing scheme Klose suggests, we would at least have to repeal the 2nd amendment.

    Of course, this might not even be enough as modern jurisprudence offers other avenues by which gun owners would likely file appeals. E.g. a non-enumerated right to self defense with at least some sort of weapon; arguing that a right, once enjoyed, cannot be rescinded; etc. Even if you don't agree with these arguments, and even if they fail, they would keep the Courts tied up for years, and if one of them succeeded, you'd be back at square one with at least some type of weapon.

  6. People like E.N. illustrate the need not to repeal amendments, but to add new ones that strengthen the protections of individual rights. Mikeb, if your side goes tampering and manages to remove the Second, how long will it be before people on the right push to remove Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections, at least for suspects deemed undesirable? How long until Islam is made an exception to the First Amendment?

    1. That doesn't follow. The 2A is obsolete, the others are not, except for the 3rd.

    2. Your calling it obsolete doesn't make it so. You desperately want it to be obsolete because you want no right to own and carry guns, but we haven't give those up and won't.

      I can see why you don't criticize E.N. You want your whims to become law, regardless of how they'll violate the rights of citizens.

  7. Mike,

    I'd argue that the 2nd and 3rd are not obsolete, just not utilized as much in the original manner.

    On the 3rd: Thankfully the government has never tried, and is unlikely to try, quartering people with us as a back door to spying on us, but some future government could try it or something similar enough...say, embedded DHS agents in Muslim homes to watch for terrorists. Is it unlikely, yes. But if it happened, this amendment would protect us--hence unused but not obsolete.

    The same is true for the second. We don't utilize the militia system, but it could be revived, e.g. as a way to enact Massive defense spending cuts and reduce hawkish interventionism. Not likely to be done any time soon, but if the fiscal mess continues, the idea might become more attractive.

  8. Interpretation? What in the hell needs interpretation. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution aren't meant to be mind twisters.
    Interpret this: See Spot run. Ferchrissakes, a 4th-grader can read the 2nd and tell you what it means. SHEESH!!!!!

    orlin sellers

  9. E.N.please, shut up. Go live in guadalawhothehellcares and don't you ever, and I do mean ever, think of yourself as an american, or come back. From what I read of your writings you're all for a dictatorship. Sorry, this is AMERICA! Go live in a dictatorship if that'll make you happy, but please, forget your lube so they can give it to you right. The day any "leaders" of this country move towards dictatorship, terrible things are gonna happen, guns or no guns. People like yourself make me wish it was possible to beat the stupid out of someone, but you'd take a whole year of beating.

    Mikeb, I echo statements made earlier. If you agree with this guy, say so, don't hide it. Let us all know how stupid you are. You stupid gun control advocates want guns banned? Fine, but don't raise my taxes to pay for the criminals you're going to create to be housed and watched over. That honor should be written into law as "The stupid dumbasses that demanded this law shall provide 90% of their total yearly income to pay for the hiring and training of peace officers to enforce this stupid law, and the prisons and workers to contain the criminals this law created." That way, the right people pay for it, not those of us who didn't want to be punished.

    1. Anonymous, give yourself a name so we can identify you from the other Anons.

      I speak for myself and I've made my views abundantly clear.