Thursday, January 17, 2013

Former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper on the 2nd Amendment

Local news reports

The Chief rightly points out that removing the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is not the same as eliminating all guns. Its removal would simply make it easier to enact and enforce sensible gun laws.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.


  1. I'll give him this much--he at least has enough respect for the Constitution to propose an amendment to it rather than simply saying that the Second Amendment is an anachronism and can be ignored.

    That being said, there is a strong argument, based on writings from the times, that the Bill of Rights was passed to acknowledge preexisting rights that were considered fundamental, and that an amendment stating that one of them no longer existed or was recognized would be of no effect.

    Before you jump down my throat, imagine an Amendment stating that while we still had some freedom of religion, Congress could now abridge it in some ways such as outlawing the practice of religions deemed harmful to the public--e.g. labeling Scientology a ponzi scheme like in Germany or stating that Islam was illegal for being harmful to the US as some people would like to do.

    This is not a matter of the rights being equivalent in benefit or danger, it is a matter of setting a precedent. If the Second is eliminated by amendment, any of the others could be so long as enough people could be convinced or manipulated to vote for the new amendment.

  2. So he carried a gun every day for three decades, but we're not worthy? As Tennesseean said, though, at least this guy's trying an honest approach. That would lose, which is why gun control freaks go for deceptive and tricky tactics that violate the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

    By the way, shame on the reporter for showing a full-auto weapon being fired without acknowledging the strict licensing and other bureaucratic bullshit required to own such a gun legally.

  3. Once something becomes a privilege granted by the state, it can be regulated to the point of practical nonexistence. His argument, I believe, reflects a view of government that ignores its tendency to exert ever increasing control over citizens.

    1. Is that how it went with cars, RT? have they been "regulated to the point of practical nonexistence."

    2. That is because the banning types drive cars themselves.

    3. But don't be surprised to see calls to ban internal combustion engines when enough of you ban lovers are driving electric cars. They love to call for bans on stuff that doesn't affect them.

    4. They'll just push for a ban on automobiles that you drive yourself. After all, doesn't just about everyone already ride in a limousine on the way to dropping off the kids at a school with armed security?

  4. Nice try, but inconsistent with both what I said and with history as it pertains to gun control. Please note, I said "can" not "will". Since there is a history, at least among the leaders (though I realize they don't speak for everyone in the movement) of the gun control movement, to refer to a goal of ever increasing regulation with the end goal of bans of not only the falsely named assault weapons but also of handguns, I stand by my statement.