Gun control and the 2nd amendment

By Eddie R. Dunlap | Published Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Share this page...

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The right of “We the People” to bear arms under the second amendment of the United States Constitution’s “Bill of Rights” makes no mention of a need of protection, nor need for procuring food. It does, however, state a necessity to secure a state, free of potential tyranny and oppressive governance.

Any faction of citizens, either liberal or conservative, must practice restraint as protection against undue reactive decisions. If a political desire is liberty and responsibility, then a prudent regard to their own well-being is that which is likewise good for the entire community.

An armed citizenry maintains an ability to express its consent, or not, to be governed. It is this independent character which lends a vital fiber to the cloth of all Americans. It is the difference between Europe and the United States of America.

As unintended as it may seem, we may harm the public good by the pursuit of our own interest – but we may harm our own interests at the same time. What good is a country or government that no longer respects the idea so inherent in its founding and history?

Eddie R. Dunlap

13 Responses to “Gun control and the 2nd amendment”

  1. Jim Popp says:

    Both the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and the shooting at the Portland Ore. mall earlier that same week were commited by people who had very obvious mental problems and who both had stolen the weapons they used to commit those horrific crimes from legal weapons owners. The Sandy Hook shooting was so terribly horrific because it involved so many innocent little children, that just thinking about it brings tears to any sane person. The fact still remains however that no amount of additional new gun control laws, regulations, or expanded background checks would have stopped either of those individuals because they STOLE their weapons they used from legal weapons owners who had passed an FBI background check.

    Let’s keep in mind too that the Virginia Tech shooter used 5 and 10 round magazines, so all this vilifying of 20/30 round magazines is pure nonsense.

    At the same time however, any attempt to penalize an entire population or infringe on their constitutional rights to own weapons or institute any unconstitutional laws that would infringe on their rights to own weapons, solely for political gain by those who have had an anti gun agenda for years now and do not agree with the Second Ammendment is sickening too. Any attempt to circumvent the Second Ammendment and the Congress by Executive Order from the POTUS regarding changes to the Second Ammendment is also unlawful because the Supreme Court has already ruled on The Second Ammendment and gun owners rights in past cases.

    Maybe it’s time we start seriously looking into the mental health reasons for such violent behavior and some of the things that feed those behavior patterns, other than wanting to, or trying to, penalize honest, good, weapons owning citizens. Starting with the violent video industry these young people are exposed to today would be a good place to start. I doubt seriously though that any meaningful discussions will take place in that regard because Hollywood and the video industry contributed too much money to the present Administration’s re-election campaign.

  2. Tracy Smith says:

    First of All, The SCOTUS ruling on the second amendment in our US Bill of Rights in 2008 gave a ruling that protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
    In addition, The second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. IN NO WAY DOES THAT RULING ALLOW AN UNBRIDLED FORM OF POSSESSION. What it does mean is that a current gun owner which currently possess arms won’t be hearing a knock on the door and take them from us either unless such weapons are or have been used in connection to a crime. So all the rhetoric of those clearing the shelves of any and all type of weaponry is just ridiculous. However, like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited and shouldn’t be. The second Amendment was not ruled as a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The SCOTUS ruling offer additional opinions that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Again, the majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, said , “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

    What the Gun Lobby has fought for and will not stop till they succeed is a complete lack of any control, Something that is obviously in direct contrast with even the Conservative Controlled Supreme court and it’s opinions on the second amendment limitations. Gun Lobby PACS are and have fought measures that would even stop the Homeland Security Checks on gun purchases against the Terrorist watch list. Are you really for that? Is anyone really okay with an unrestricted age on the purchase of any weaponry? Gun Lobby would also like to thwart and eliminate any sort of mental health checks as well.

    Joe Biden’s remarks are most certainly being swift boated. His comments have been cherry picked and when discussing it at a press conference after a meeting with victims of Mass Shootings, he was asked what was discussed He Responded in full context “WE HAVEN”T DECIDED what this is yet, but we’re compiling IT ALL with the help of the attorney general and all the rest of the Cabinet members.”
    Legislative action also is needed, Biden said.
    “I’m convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of Americans, and take thousands of people out of harm’s way, if we act responsibly,” he said.

    It would irresponsible for anyone to ignore anything or everything that within these constraints including executive orders to reinstate certain weapons bans or limit the amount a weapon can hold or the clips that can hold hundreds of rounds at a time without reloading. It would be irresponsible of any leaders when making such decisions to ignore statistics that show an extremely large amount of studies that show Two national random-digit-dial surveys directed by Harvard report that most gun use claimed to be self-defensive, in fact, represents likely illegal use of guns in escalating arguments and that guns used in the home are mostly used to intimidate spouses or relatives rather than to respond to crime. In addition, several further studies using data from surveys of detainees in prisons and interviews with prison physicians report that very few criminals are actually shot while committing crimes and that those criminals who are shot are typically shot as victims of crime themselves (in incidents unrelated to the crimes that lead to their incarceration) and not by law abiding citizens.

    It would also be irresponsible of leaders to not meet with differing views such as Victims of Gun Violence nor those gun lobbies that want absolutely no restrictions on gun ownership. O yeah, I forgot, he did do that. I guess our leaders are being very responsible.

  3. Rusty White says:

    Citizens should fear “any” government that fears it’s citizens being armed, it is a known fact political parasites prefer unarmed peasants !

    Our people have lost their backbone and common sense, a freedom or right taken from one “ no matter” how well meaning or self justified will be slowly taken from all! How many people have you heard say “ it doesn’t matter if they search you, if you have nothing to hide”? This has led to citizens being cavity searched on the side of the freeway, this has led to the forcibly taking of blood, this has led to the invasion of our homes without a warrant! This has led to our “supposed” public servants giving harsh sentences to those that demand their rights, in a disgusting terrorist act to scare any others from refusing to accept their demands and abuse of powers!

    So many are up at arms over gun control possibilities, “yet” refuse to accept responsibility for the erosion of many of our freedoms, rights and liberties! But it’s ok, it is for our own safety, right???


  4. Jim Popp says:


    My reference to the POTUS using an Executive Order to effect new weapons control measures and circumvent Congress came directly from Biden’s mouth in an interview a few days ago. I was only re-stating what your VP had already stated as a possibility. Truth being truth, Obama is VERY limited in what he can or cannot do by Executive Order regarding any changes to The Second Ammendment.

    As a result, Biden has now backed off of statements like that, talking now only about possibly closing the “gun show loophole” by implementing universal background checks and limiting the size of legal magazines that can be sold to mags under 30 rounds.

    It is Diane Feinstein’s new proposed Assault Weapons Ban Bill, that will be introduced in another week or so, that contains the true feelings of the ultra liberal anti gun folks. One of the major things in her proposed new ban bill is that if a person owns an AK or AR now, they can keep it, but they cannot sell it or pass it onto any family member. In fact, upon that owners death, their family will be required to contact gov’t authorities and turn that weapon in for destruction, or face felony charges. Thankfully, her new ban bill has extremely little chance of going anywhere. You can read the entire bill at her web site and it’s an eye opener into the antis and how they want to severely limit the Second Ammendment rights of folks.

    I am not, and neither are most folks I know, against background checks for weapons purchasers to insure that criminals and mentallly ill people can’t buy them. That’s just common sense! BUT, who are these “antis” to tell anyone that they can’t have a 30 round magazine for use in their shooting pleasure at the range, or for coyote or hog hunting? I’ve been told that they come in quite handy when ferrel hog hunting.

    I guess my point here is, who determines what is too high a capacity magazine and who are they to determine such a number? Remember now that the Virginia Tech shooter only used 5 and 10 round mags to facilitate the worst shooting/killing spree we’ve ever had, I believe.

  5. Tracy Smith says:

    As I said Jim, OUR Vice Presidents comments were Cherry Picked. In my above comment I gave a full context version and how he was brought to answer the question the way he did.

    We will never fully agree on everything 100% of the time, however, we are closer together in our views than what you might imagine. The only thing we can’t agree upon is the over”KILL” power that really seems unnecessary. 30 50 and 100 round clips IMHO are for bad shooters anyway. lol. I and Rusty will never be on the same page regarding gun issues. While his attitude is a no regulation stand that mirrors the gun lobbies, it is not in line with what most of Americans views are. Even most gun lobby members are for some measures on gun control.

    One instance of the Virginia Tech shooting still leaves 75% of the most recent history making military/video game/terrorist style mass shootings that were committed with large capacity clips in the mad man’s guns. That is really not a good stat I would use as a basis for an viable argument.

    Another thing that really concerns me is that many of the persons I have spoken to and debated with which are completely against any kind of gun control what so ever using the civil rights violation argument, and still believe it’s okay that they are required to remove their shoes from one failed shoe bomb that nobody was killed in and then forget that the gun lobby they argue for doesn’t want a gun ownership application to be checked against the Terrorist Watch List. This kind of thinking drives me absolutely insane.

    Currently, and in the past, even our enemies have united banning the over”KILL” affects such as Weapons which cause more injury than minimally required to incapacitate or bullets which cause excessive injury, especially those of an explosive or expanding nature such as hollow-points. So why can’t we as fellow Americans come to agreement to do the same to save innocent civilian lives many of which have been children.

  6. Rusty White says:


    REALLY??? Just so you don’t make assumptions as to how I believe, I’ll tell you what I believe. At a time when our public servants are being armed, outfitted and trained “exactly” like military attack squads with “unlimited powers and no accountability” every citizen should be concerned. Do you have any idea how many homes are being violated while innocent citizens from infants to the elderly are being terrorized, maimed and KILLED all across our country “daily”? I invite you and all those who care to google Drug War Victims by DrugWarRant. At a time when we the citizens are being forced to give up our freedoms, rights and liberties our supposed public servants are expanding their powers and control, are they not? Right here in Texas you have departments starting to use “drones” on our citizens, are you ok with that???

    While I am for background checks and any other common sense tools to try and stop these needless killing, I am also a realist. The “only” thing that stops a bad person with a gun IS a good person with a gun, do you dispute this truth??? Can you name “any” of these tragedies where an “illegal” weapon was used? We hear of “many” cases in China where insane people are killing kids in schools using knives and axes, so what should we make “illegal” here to stop this from happening in our country?

    We might want to invest some state funds in to caring for the mentally ill here in Texas, you do know we are “48” out of all states in this effort. The road to “hell” and a country full of subjugated peasants is paved with “supposed” good intentions for our own good!!!

    I don’t claim to know how to fix this problem, but IMHO disarming our citizens IS NOT the answer. We must be real careful in what we give up, first it starts with multi-round clips and assault style weapons next it will be weapons of such and such caliber and hand guns, where does it end? What is strange is I am even in this discussion , I don’t have or want any of these weapons? If it took me 20 or 30 rounds to kill something I think I would take up fishing instead!:) But there again my beliefs should not be used to deny anyone else from theirs, should they????

  7. Jim Popp says:


    First, I meant “your VP” in a generic type way, not in a political way although as you well know I didn’t, and wouldn’t, vote for Obama and him. Now that “full disclosure” is out of the way for others, let me address background checks for a minute. As I said, I am for background checks in order to keep fire arms out of the hands of the mentally ill and the criminal element. As a matter of fact, I saw a statistic the other day that 73% of NRA members feel the same way, for the same reason. You and I have no disagreement on that at all.

    We apparently disagree on the capacity of the magazines that you think people should be able to legally purchase and own. You made the satatement about other countries and what they have banned, even our enemies you said. To be honest Tracy, I don’t give a flip what other countries have done, certainly not our enemies. We have The Second Ammendment for the protection of our citizens and none of them do.

    I also believe it will be impossible for “us to come together” as you have stated and I mean “us” as a country, not you and me. I say that because there are MANY more factors involved in the problem of those children being killed at Sandy Hook, beyond the size of any ammunition magazine for any weapon used. The ultra liberal antis won’t SERIOUSLY address those other issues though and only want to use this terrible incident in an attempt to further their anti gun agenda. That’s the real disgrace here and not the size of any magazine. Like Raum Emanuel once said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste” and the liberal anti gun folks sure haven’t on this one.

    Biden with his Executive Order statements to circumvent the Second Ammendment because he and Obama realize it would never pass Congress, Feinstein with her idiotic, far reaching attempt at gun control in her new Assualt Weapons Ban bill and people like Gov. Cuomo in New York state screaming those statements like he did in his State of the State address the other day and talking about confiscation of ALL citizen’s weapons, only serve to reinforce the concerns of a great many gun owners about what the liberal left antis would/will try and do to take away their weapons. It certainly does me!

    You and I will never agree on the legal magazine size subject because your reasons make no sense to me at all, but we all have our opinions. To me, the size of, and number of, magazines I have is no one’s business but mine and should stay that way. It’s my right, in my opinion.

    Why just the other day I was on our county road and right out in front of me jumped what I can only describe as a creature looking a lot like BIGFOOT, dressed in a gray sweatsuit, wearing an black Elmer Fudd type hat. I didn’t panic though because I knew I had a loaded 30 round clip with me if I needed it! Thankfully, I didn’t!!It was friendly. LOL!!

  8. It is laws for the mentally ill in this country that need to be changed. Everyone needs to be more aware of people, especially family members, who are mentally ill. As it is now, they can on be committed 30 days against their will. The mother of the Sandy Hook killer hid what I am convinced she knew he was capable of and had guns in the house, one which he used to kill her. This is what is responsible for mass killings…mentally ill people who are known to be vicious or just plain weird..not guns. We need to open up the mental wards again, instead of filling up the jails with them and hiding them at home, or giving up on them to fend for themselves. Even if we lost our right to bear arms…there will always be people able to get a gun…whether for protection or mass killing. What is needed is a database on all gun and ammunition sales to track how much an individual is purchasing, so there would be a red flag for investigating what the heck the person is doing.

  9. Jim Popp says:


    I agree with most of what you stated, with the exception of your last sentence. There is no need what so ever for an ammunition purchase data base and as far as a database on all gun purchases, they already have one on new purchases via the federal form all LEGAL gun owners must fill out when purchasing a new weapon.

    Beyond that, it will be impossible to track any weapons sales. That would be a hightmare system to set up. Who would do the B/C checks regarding private sales from one citizen to another? I also do not feel that if I buy a gun for my son or grandchildren as a gift, or when I die and leave my weapons to my heirs, that those weapons should have to be re-registered anywhere or turned in as Diane Feinstein’s new Ban Bill states.

  10. Walt Partin says:

    Tracy Smith’s articulation, logic, and comprehension of the subject leaves all other commenters in a somewhat lesser universe.

  11. Rusty White says:


    I’ll have to admit the lady can write!:) I don’t think anybody has the answer to these sad killings, but I do know giving up any more of our Freedoms and Rigths “IS NOT” the answer. What happens “when” not if those armed in our schools has an accident and shoots a kid, or during a shoot out kills a kid? What happens when “they” take the next step and demand more control over our weapons?

    Like I said I don’t claim to know the answer to this problem, but common sense must be part of the solution, does it not?

  12. Jim Popp says:


    Your opinion is noted and you know what they say about opinions!

  13. Walt Partin says:

    Jim, I am aware of what people say about opinions and you have four on this string, how comfortable is that? 🙂 I am more interested in what an opinion says about it’s author.