Target Marketing

You will be automatically redirected to targetmarketingmag in 20 seconds.
Skip this advertisement.

Advertisement
Advertisement
 
 

Guns and Words

Empowerment is a Good Thing The April 12, 2007 issue of this e-zine was titled, “PREPARE TO BE MUSHROOMED: What a Corporate Buyout Can Mean to You.” In it, I described the buyout of the Tribune Company by Chicago real estate mogul Sam Zell and

April 2007 By Denny Hatch
36

In the News

Despite tragedy, Congress cautious about gun laws
WASHINGTON—Congress has typically reacted to the horror of mass shootings with much anguish and little action. Will the Virginia Tech tragedy alter that trend? In the days just after student Cho Seung-Hui killed 32 people and himself in the deadliest shooting rampage in recent U.S. history, lawmakers responded cautiously when asked about fresh legislation or strengthening existing gun laws. Leaders among the Democrats— historically a party favoring gun control—were noncommittal.
—Steve Goldstein, Philadelphia Inquirer, Washington bureau, April 22, 2007
This past weekend, my friend David Ehrlich, a world-class violinist and teacher, came through Philadelphia to rehearse for a string quartet performance outside Boston next week and he stayed with us, as he always does.

David is the Outreach Fellow in Fine Arts at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Va. When the massacre happened last week, my thoughts were very much with him and his wife, Teresa, a superb pianist. But I decided not to call or e-mail; I figured they had enough going on without one more intrusion.

While he was here, we talked some about the horrific event and the aftermath and then went on to other things.

But during the past two weeks and Ehrlich’s visit, I thought long and hard about my right to keep and bear arms—and about my right to send these words out over the Internet.

I despise guns and love words.

As a citizen—and writer—I am pleased and honored that I have the right to both guns and words.

An Afternoon with Justice Scalia
A number of years ago, I had as clients Richard Rossi and Barbara Harris, brilliant founders of an extraordinary company called Envision. Its mission: to plunge high-achieving high school students directly into the inner workings of their chosen profession—medicine, law, diplomacy.

For example, kids who want to be doctors can pay a fair pinch of change to spend 10 days in one of America’s leading hospitals. They change into scrubs and follow world-renowned physicians and surgeons on their rounds, witness operations, and attend seminars on all facets of modern medicine from health issues to the management of a medical practice.

The experience costs a lot of money, but those kids see the medical profession unvarnished from deep inside. Most find the experience truly inspiring and come away all fired up to spend a lifetime in medicine. Occasionally, a student will decide that this is the wrong career path; these kids will have saved themselves and their parents grief later on, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in wasted tuition and living expenses.

One day, I was consulting at Envision’s Washington, D.C. offices when Rossi announced that following our meeting, a car and driver would take us to the Supreme Court, where Justice Antonin Scalia would be fielding questions from several hundred of Envision’s high schoolers who wanted to be lawyers.

Takeaway Points to Consider:

* Since gun control will never happen, it is imperative that government comes down hard on those that abuse their right to keep and bear arms.

* In business and in life, don’t get your knickers in a twist trying change that which absolutely, positively cannot be changed. Live with it, work around it or get the hell out.

* Empowerment is a good thing.

* The founding fathers empowered the people, rather than trying to micromanage our lives. As a result, America became hugely successful.

* Warren Buffett buys companies, empowers management and keeps his distance. As a result, he is the second richest person in the world.

Web Sites Related to Today's Edition:

Envision
http://www.envisionemi.com/

David Ehrlich
http://tinyurl.com/ytlyz6

The United States Constitution
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
 
36

COMMENTS

Click here to leave a comment...
Comment *
Most Recent Comments:
Steve Solomon - Posted on May 11, 2007
I hate the idea of people carrying guns, but you made it clear to me why the "right" will not be taken away. So instead of barking about something that cannot be changed, let's focus on enforcing whatever laws there are.
Jim - Posted on May 01, 2007
This might be too straightforward for all of you gun lovers to comprehend, but in countries where there are strict gun control laws and few people own guns, very few people are killed by handguns. We have more firearm-caused deaths each day in the USA than many countries have in a year. Happy hunting!
Darren Somsen - Posted on April 27, 2007
Dear Denny - One of the most literate columns I have read regarding the U.S. Constitution. I truly appreciate the acknowledgement that legal firearm ownership is addressed in this document. Thank you.
Bill Gohde - Posted on April 25, 2007
Denny, Killers, thieves,crooks, gangsters, gang mambers,etc. do not register firarms. The malcontents, the thugs, the gangbangers, the maladjusted, the mentally sick, etc. - they are the ones we should be very concerned about. That, and the violence guns create. If anything, our society condons violence. Hollywood glorifies it, video games make it fun, and the news media hypes it without end. We are becoming desensatized to guns and to life. Everyone day our senses are assaulted. Horrific pictures become commmon place. We want to feel, but we're exhausted. I was once told by a police officer - when I was considering buying a handgun - that I should be prepared to use it. Then he added, "And be able to kill with it." A sobering thought. It all must change. And quickly. It's either that or the right to bear arms won't just be a constitutional right and priviledge - it will become a personal necessity.
M Seed, UK - Posted on April 25, 2007
I must say I am astounded at the anti-Constitutional tone of many correspondents here. The Constitution is there to protect fundamental rights of citizens from the vagaries?of despots, busy-bodies and passing fashion. The Allies set up the German constitution, along with the right to personal privacy and property. Good thing too, since the anti-gun fashionistas are trying to get the Constitution changed to accommodate their anti-minority views. Here in the UK we have no formal Constitution, hence personal privacy has been largely forgotten (?Privacy? why should you be so worried if you have done nothing wrong?? Rules here). We also have the highest CCTV density in the world, Corporate CCTV images are shared with the STATE (highly unconstitutional in Germany, and with their history one can see why). IN the UK the citizens? ownership and enjoyment of property is proscribed willy nilly (ie no Olympic or Commonwealth pistol target shooting allowed, in Germany you are allowed to keep and use your property even if someone subsequently bans it, also in Canada). Constitutions are the bedrock of liberty. As regards the 2nd amendment, look at the commas. The right to keep & bear arms is obviously NOT a qualification, but an addition as part of a list. The second sentence qualifies the first (the Militia), the third is an addition to the list, not a qualification. Anyway, be thankful you in the USA have a Constitution, some of us don't have that luxury. Keep it, cherish it. It was written by Giants to protect the citizen for all time. Don?t let intellectual pigmies water it down.
Greg - Posted on April 25, 2007
In an open and liberal society such as ours the idea of "controlling" anything is a fallacy. The best we can hope for is protecting oueselves from ourselves while at the same time protecting our constitutional rights that get us into these situations. The federal government needs to enforce the guns laws we now have on the books and cut off aid to renegade states and cities that do not enforce the federal code. Background checks, citizenship, waiting periods, medical records, drug testing just to name a few, should be part of a national screening process. No one should be allowed to purchase a gun of any kind without the same scrutiny one goes through in filling out something as basic as an employment application. There is no one answer solution but there can be interevntion if we have a better profile on those buying the weapons.
- Posted on April 30, 2007
Richard Armstrong - Posted on April 25, 2007
The "well-regulated militia" line is an inadvertent red herring that's been distracting people for 200 years. There's no doubt that the second amendment is designed to protect individual rights because of its LOCATION in the Constitution. It's in the Bill of Rights!!! Ten amendments written by the framers specifically to delineate individual rights that belong to the people and cannot be infringed
by the government. If it were all about "militias," it would be located elsewhere in the Constitution where it talks about government powers and armies, etc. Besides, a "militia" in those days was not a quasi-military unit, but more like a volunteer fire department, where the men in a village banded together to protect the settlement from Indian attacks. It's not an accurate reflection of the way we use the word militia today. Denny, I enjoyed your article, and I hold a somewhat similar opinion on the matter. I am a second amendment absolutist ... support the NRA every step of the way ... but would I allow one of those infernal things in my house? No way!
Pete Wailes - Posted on April 25, 2007
"TEN ARE DEAD IN A WEEKEND OF VIOLENCE
The slayings followed three forums Friday on how to stem the city?s problem. The year?s homicide count is 127.

Philadelphia has become America?s Baghdad."

Except that that yearly total would be daily in Baghdad...
Brent D. Gardner - Posted on April 25, 2007
I live in an affluent neighborhood. Two doors down, a gang of burglars tried to invade my neighbors home. He shot two of them, but missed the third, and unfortunately, only killed one. The other two are in prison, at enormous cost. If my neighbor did not have a gun, and know how to use it, he'd be dead, and his family deprived of the property he purchased through the sweat of his own brow. Anyone that wants to take away guns is complicit, knowingly or not, in the war against freedom and capitalism waged by communists, socialists, and those who promote material egalitarianism. These people do not deserve the freedom ensured by the right to keep and bear arms, but they benefit from it, despite their ignorance. Every study shows that more guns = less crime. The strictest guns laws are in Washington DC, and they have a higher murder rate than Baghdad. You won't hear a liberal mention this irrefutable fact.
Max Bendel - Posted on April 25, 2007
Bravo!
Lowell M - Posted on April 24, 2007
Scalia and Denny are the voice of Reason in this exchange. This is what the Founders practiced and intended. Reason. It was the Age of Reason. A Constitution is written and not to be changed for transient and passing things and therefore the difficulty in the amendment process.....now the bomb from a true American in every sense.....even were the 2nd Amendment to be revoked by the process demanded in the Constitution......it would no more obviate my Right to arms sufficient for my defense than a similar attack in the 1st Amendment would negate my Right to worship, write, or assemble as I chose.....these Rights, with a capital R...are not granted or allowed by ANY government ANYWHERE...they are the birthright of EVERYONE EVERYWHERE and come, as both the men who wrote our Constitution and the many others whom they studied like Locke and Rousseau believed came from the Law of Nature and Nature's God.... Inalienable Rights friends.... it doesn't matter if all but God are against them...they stand. I didn't make it up....but as an American I was born and raised to it on my Daddy's knee as he was before me back to 1640's or so when the white side of my kin showed up...a bit earlier I am sure for the red side.

Now for my superior feeling, but morally weaker friends in Asia, Europe and the former Commonwealth nations....you also bow to Kings and Queens..I do not. You elected Hitler and Mussolini, tolerared Stalin and Mao, and worship a God-Emperor...me and my kind did not...the character of America is what makes America....all of it..and that is why millions line up every day to get in....guns or not.

For the balance of my life, as my ancestors before me, I will live free and diehard in America. If you can't stomach it, the world is full of "gun controlled" utopias for you to move to...leave my little piece of Eden called America alone....or provide another for men like me to settle in. Otherwise, we just aren't going to get along.
Barrie Bedell - Posted on April 24, 2007
"Gun control" needs to be more precisely defined. For example, I saw a documentary a few years ago which made the point that a relative handful of gun dealers were sellers of a very high percentage of
"murder guns." Gun manufacturers love these guys, who sell to "legitimate" buyers, who in turn sell to thugs who DO NOT have the right to own guns. I believe the gov't even put out a CD naming the offending dealers. No crackdown, of course. IMO the NRA wears the disguise of defenders of "hunting" and "self protection" but is actually carrying water for the mfs. and "murder gun" dealers. ~ Barrie
Chris R - Posted on April 24, 2007
What verbal diarrhea. So the whole point of this diatribe is that it's futile to try to change this, so just give it up? Sorry, Denny - Go ahead and buy your pistol, I will up my donation to the Brady Campaign.
David Garfinkel - Posted on April 24, 2007
Sad but true, Denny. This is where we are right now in this country and you have made an eloquent and clear-headed assessment of the situation. I happen to agree with everything you say here, and I am not happy that I do, but the blinders are off (I think). I am not a gun owner but I have absolute zeal in allowing other people to own them, and carry resposibility for consequences of using them along with the guns themselves. I think the biggest fight of the future is to force the hand of those in power to treat the rest of us like adults -- and to behave that way themselves (in the noblest sense of the word "adult," of course!).
Donna - Posted on April 24, 2007
Thanks for the many thoughts presented on this issue. #1 - Linda made a choice - she doesn't like the "gun culture" - she moved! Absolutely the appropriate action. (Notice she did not move to the middle east where it is a bomb culture that includes children!) If you think gun control will stop another mass murder - I have a bridge I want to sell you. If you think you can identify a mass murderer based on what you have seen on TV this past week - I have a second bridge to sell you. If you want to continue to ammend Constitution(after all our forefathers couldn't foresee....), please, please move to another country that fits your sensibilities. I am begging every one of you to stop the insanity of wanting to ammend the Constitution for everything we personally find offensive. The Constitution upholds our rights - it does not "give" them to us! There are always other ways to resolve issues - don't like what a person said on the radio - tell the companies who pay dearly to advertise there! Don't like certain music - don't buy it and change the station! Bet we can figure a way to stop the murderous rampages in most cities today. Why, it might even start with legalizing drugs (creating a taxable source for them.) Did rational thinking end with our forefathers??
David N. Rosen - Posted on April 24, 2007
Denny ? Your columns on these more general, not specifically direct marketing-related topics merit much wider distribution. They?re far better than the majority of columns appearing in daily and weekly newspapers. This one is a case in point, notable for its realistic and reasoned approach to a subject that generates a lot of emotion -- but too little clear thinking. As for the desirability of repealing the 2nd Amendment or otherwise instituting a total ban on individual gun ownership: Aside from the moral issues of what constitutes reasonable self-defense in American society today, advocates of these measures exhibit a touching faith in the power of legal statutes and the ability of government to enforce them. Such an outright ban and criminalization is likely to be as effective in dealing with guns as it has proven to be with drugs -- and alcohol, in that earlier bright idea along similar lines known as Prohibition. A ban on firearms will create a huge business opportunity for criminal enterprises large and small, as it drives prices (and profits) from gun dealing to unnaturally higher levels. It would also be associated with new kinds and incidents of criminal violence, (which is the form that competition between dealers and seller-buyer disagreements can easily take in illegal markets, absent the usual types of legal recourse), as well as new opportunities for the corruption of law enforcement personnel, another typical outcome when criminals have outsized profits at their disposal. After America?s experience with Prohibition and today?s ?War on Drugs,? enacting a ban on gun ownership would be like stepping on a rake the wrong way? for the third time.
Rhonda - Posted on April 24, 2007
Interesting
Chris Altwegg - Posted on April 25, 2007
Respectfully, I must disagree with Scalia's opinion that the first part of the 2nd Amendment doesn't alter the second part. The Amendment reads: 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 first part sets the conditions for the second part. I am more than happy to support a system like Switzerland for manadatory miltia involvement and associated gun ownership. But I find it pretty hard to believe that Cho acquired his guns as a part of a well-regulated militia, that he was trained in their use, and that he was approved to carry weapons. (Note the term "well-regulated" also.) I will happily support some limits on guns, and I won't worry about my 2nd Amendment rights. (I'm much more worried about the current administration's abrogation of other, more treasured Constitutional rights.)
Joe Barcia - Posted on April 24, 2007
Denny, perhaps it would help us all to think about the kinds of firearms that were in play at the time our founding fathers wrote that right to "keep and bear arms" clause into the constitution. Except for cannons, both the average citizen and the military had pretty much the same weapons. In fact, the militia which fought the British was, for the most part, made up of citizen-soldiers. Our founding fathers could not have even imagined the kind of sophisicated automatic weaponry and mass killing power that was to come. If they could, I'm almost certain they would have restricted such fire power to the military, alone. The only constitutional ammendment that may be necessary is one that would afford congeress the power to ajust the constitution to allow for the technologically "unforeseen"--so that it would remain meaningful in the context of ever-changing technology. This would apply not only to gun control, but to any issue for which scentific advancement might impact our lives (the internet and biotechnology are two such areas that come to mind).
martin moskof - Posted on April 24, 2007


> Denny-
>
> It's painful to read someone who is so
> cocksure and absolutist about what
> things will happen and what can/will
> never happen.
>
> You are the personification of a living
> breathing roadblock mired in a mental
> place that borders on the immovable.
>
> Assitionally, I think that using your association
> with David Ehlich is a slippery piece
> of journalism to segue into promoting your ideas
> about guns and the constitution.
>
> Sincerely
> Martin Moskof
John Friesen - Posted on April 25, 2007
The saddest commentary I can make on the Virginia Tech slaughter is that the death toll that day is just one-tenth of one per cent of the annual number of gun-related homicides in the US.
CRG - Posted on April 24, 2007
There are two very important points being missed once again by all the anti-gun zealots out there. The first is that no matter what type of "gun control" you want, you will never keep guns out of the hands of the people who don't buy their guns in gun shops legally as we concealed weapon carriers do. I guess the guy who blew away those people at VA Tech was not told that the school was a "gun free zone". There are statistics that prove that where right to carry areas are in this country, that hand gun crime is a fraction of other "gun control" areas. The other very important point that is being ignored and to the idiot who thought Justice Scalia missed the boat, the 2nd Ammendment was written to also protect we the people from our own government. If the only people in the country with firearms are the ones making the laws and rules, then it is only a mater of time before the government exercises their control over a population of unarmed and vulnerable. The 2nd Ammendment is there to protect us from each other and our goverment and the Supreme Court Justices are on the bench to interpret the Constitution not to legislate like the liberals in this country want them to do.
Brian - Posted on April 24, 2007
I'm glad that it's so hard to enact an amendment. If it was easier, then 80% of the politicians would make changes that would harm our freedoms in the quest for votes.

I think it goes without saying that we are all saddened when an individual abuses the freedoms that we have and this is why we have laws to punish those who do. The truth is that almost anything can be used to harm another person. A woman drove a car onto a sidewalk and killed several people but we wouldn't want to outlaw cars would we?
Frank L - Posted on April 24, 2007
Denny, nice piece, appreciate your point of view and the interesting surprise ending that you do own a gun. To the Australians and Canadians, glad you're happy. You're still welcome to come here and risk your life anytime!
D.K. - Posted on April 24, 2007
Denny:Very balanced treatment of the topic.I am a concealed carry license holder. If someone like myself had been present,this killer would have been stopped or at least held at bay until the police arrived. "Gun free zones" are only gun-free for law-abiding citizens.
Rainer F. - Posted on April 24, 2007
As a Canadian who has travelled to the U.S. a lot and one who has several U.S. clients, I find it disheartening that there will never be the gun control that is really necessary to lessen the constant senseless violence that has taken over America. As much as I enjoy the people and sights when on vacation in the U.S., I always find it somewhat of a relief when I've crossed the border back into Canada. I can rest easy knowing that a minor traffic altercation will not turn into another tragedy because of easy (real easy) access to handguns.
- Posted on April 24, 2007
I'm not sure you can blame the casino lobby for the ban on online gaming, Denny. Most of the big American casino companies are very much in favor of legalization, because they're planning to jump into the business with both feet. And they'll succeed mightily when they do. Wouldn't your rather gamble at the Bellagio Online than at some offshore site in Costa Rica?
Todd B - Posted on April 24, 2007
"Since gun control will never happen..." It seems hard to say we don't have 'gun control' with thousands of federal, state, and local laws on the books regulating the manufactur, distribution, consumer sale, and use of firearms. Perhaps insert "A gun ban [and elimination of the millions in circulation] will never happen...".
Linda Loose - Posted on April 24, 2007
Denny, as always, pointed and well-considered. However this former American resident is eternally grateful that I now live in a country (Australia) where owning a gun isn't an inalienable right. Where America-like 'gun culture' insanity has never taken hold, let alone escalated to the point where folks like you and me even think about needing one. And where the response to a shocking (and thankfully isolated) mass shooting 10 years ago was prompt and publicly supported introduction of much stricter gun control. Bottom line - whatever the glories of the US Constitution, it's a bloody sight safer living here.
Bilou - Posted on April 24, 2007
When gun violence affects people who are deemed "important" (i.e., in a position of power/celebrity), that is when we will see real gun control laws created AND enforced in this country...not before.

This is as is was when Christopher Reeve, Michael J. Fox and Ronald Reagan came into the spotlight as being afflicted with various problems.

When Nancy Reagan beseeched Dumbya to rethink the value of stem cell research, due to the lives it could save, THAT woke some people up!

The same kind of catastrophe with "important" people will have to happen first...unfortunately.

Until then, the NRA will have a chokehold on Congressional coffers, and the unimportant will continue to be gunned down. Film at eleven.
rob - Posted on April 24, 2007
I believe it was Chris Rock who said "You don't need no gun control. You know what you need? Bullet control. I think all bullets should cost $5,000. If bullets cost $5000 there would be no innocent bystanders"
larry weeks - Posted on April 30, 2007
Denny, when I saw "guns" in your lead I thought, oh no, here we go again. I was pleasantly surprised when you passed along Judge Scalia's suscinct spelling out of the constitution. The 2nd Ammendment has come up more recently than 1980, the Federal district court that covers D.C. just ruled that it is indeed an individual right, making D.C.s prohibition a violation of the Constitution. With freedom comes responsibility. And, do take that class, even with your shotgun. You'll learn a lot.
Isabel Smith - Posted on April 24, 2007
The only reason I don't own a gun is because I would probably shoot myself in the foot, but I do relish the notion of having a shot gun (because I can't aim) for home protection. I've been more use to guns since I now live in the south, but even in New York, the general belief was criminals can always get guns: the gun laws just prevent the citizens from owning guns. I don't believe depriving citizens the right to arm themselves helps anything. Just what we need: more laws to keep the good guys in place -- makes sense to me (smirk) Thanks, Denny, for letting us express our opinions!
Erik - Posted on April 24, 2007
Justice Scalia's comments on the constitution are fascinating. He actually said the constitution does not change with the times? What an absurd thing to say. Of course it changes with the times, why else do Presidents salivate at the very thought of being able to nominate a justice. Those students must have been tremendously disappointed with justice Scalia.
nate - Posted on April 25, 2007
awesome article... I am pro-constitution as well
Click here to view archived comments...
Archived Comments:
Steve Solomon - Posted on May 11, 2007
I hate the idea of people carrying guns, but you made it clear to me why the "right" will not be taken away. So instead of barking about something that cannot be changed, let's focus on enforcing whatever laws there are.
Jim - Posted on May 01, 2007
This might be too straightforward for all of you gun lovers to comprehend, but in countries where there are strict gun control laws and few people own guns, very few people are killed by handguns. We have more firearm-caused deaths each day in the USA than many countries have in a year. Happy hunting!
Darren Somsen - Posted on April 27, 2007
Dear Denny - One of the most literate columns I have read regarding the U.S. Constitution. I truly appreciate the acknowledgement that legal firearm ownership is addressed in this document. Thank you.
Bill Gohde - Posted on April 25, 2007
Denny, Killers, thieves,crooks, gangsters, gang mambers,etc. do not register firarms. The malcontents, the thugs, the gangbangers, the maladjusted, the mentally sick, etc. - they are the ones we should be very concerned about. That, and the violence guns create. If anything, our society condons violence. Hollywood glorifies it, video games make it fun, and the news media hypes it without end. We are becoming desensatized to guns and to life. Everyone day our senses are assaulted. Horrific pictures become commmon place. We want to feel, but we're exhausted. I was once told by a police officer - when I was considering buying a handgun - that I should be prepared to use it. Then he added, "And be able to kill with it." A sobering thought. It all must change. And quickly. It's either that or the right to bear arms won't just be a constitutional right and priviledge - it will become a personal necessity.
M Seed, UK - Posted on April 25, 2007
I must say I am astounded at the anti-Constitutional tone of many correspondents here. The Constitution is there to protect fundamental rights of citizens from the vagaries?of despots, busy-bodies and passing fashion. The Allies set up the German constitution, along with the right to personal privacy and property. Good thing too, since the anti-gun fashionistas are trying to get the Constitution changed to accommodate their anti-minority views. Here in the UK we have no formal Constitution, hence personal privacy has been largely forgotten (?Privacy? why should you be so worried if you have done nothing wrong?? Rules here). We also have the highest CCTV density in the world, Corporate CCTV images are shared with the STATE (highly unconstitutional in Germany, and with their history one can see why). IN the UK the citizens? ownership and enjoyment of property is proscribed willy nilly (ie no Olympic or Commonwealth pistol target shooting allowed, in Germany you are allowed to keep and use your property even if someone subsequently bans it, also in Canada). Constitutions are the bedrock of liberty. As regards the 2nd amendment, look at the commas. The right to keep & bear arms is obviously NOT a qualification, but an addition as part of a list. The second sentence qualifies the first (the Militia), the third is an addition to the list, not a qualification. Anyway, be thankful you in the USA have a Constitution, some of us don't have that luxury. Keep it, cherish it. It was written by Giants to protect the citizen for all time. Don?t let intellectual pigmies water it down.
Greg - Posted on April 25, 2007
In an open and liberal society such as ours the idea of "controlling" anything is a fallacy. The best we can hope for is protecting oueselves from ourselves while at the same time protecting our constitutional rights that get us into these situations. The federal government needs to enforce the guns laws we now have on the books and cut off aid to renegade states and cities that do not enforce the federal code. Background checks, citizenship, waiting periods, medical records, drug testing just to name a few, should be part of a national screening process. No one should be allowed to purchase a gun of any kind without the same scrutiny one goes through in filling out something as basic as an employment application. There is no one answer solution but there can be interevntion if we have a better profile on those buying the weapons.
- Posted on April 30, 2007
Richard Armstrong - Posted on April 25, 2007
The "well-regulated militia" line is an inadvertent red herring that's been distracting people for 200 years. There's no doubt that the second amendment is designed to protect individual rights because of its LOCATION in the Constitution. It's in the Bill of Rights!!! Ten amendments written by the framers specifically to delineate individual rights that belong to the people and cannot be infringed
by the government. If it were all about "militias," it would be located elsewhere in the Constitution where it talks about government powers and armies, etc. Besides, a "militia" in those days was not a quasi-military unit, but more like a volunteer fire department, where the men in a village banded together to protect the settlement from Indian attacks. It's not an accurate reflection of the way we use the word militia today. Denny, I enjoyed your article, and I hold a somewhat similar opinion on the matter. I am a second amendment absolutist ... support the NRA every step of the way ... but would I allow one of those infernal things in my house? No way!
Pete Wailes - Posted on April 25, 2007
"TEN ARE DEAD IN A WEEKEND OF VIOLENCE
The slayings followed three forums Friday on how to stem the city?s problem. The year?s homicide count is 127.

Philadelphia has become America?s Baghdad."

Except that that yearly total would be daily in Baghdad...
Brent D. Gardner - Posted on April 25, 2007
I live in an affluent neighborhood. Two doors down, a gang of burglars tried to invade my neighbors home. He shot two of them, but missed the third, and unfortunately, only killed one. The other two are in prison, at enormous cost. If my neighbor did not have a gun, and know how to use it, he'd be dead, and his family deprived of the property he purchased through the sweat of his own brow. Anyone that wants to take away guns is complicit, knowingly or not, in the war against freedom and capitalism waged by communists, socialists, and those who promote material egalitarianism. These people do not deserve the freedom ensured by the right to keep and bear arms, but they benefit from it, despite their ignorance. Every study shows that more guns = less crime. The strictest guns laws are in Washington DC, and they have a higher murder rate than Baghdad. You won't hear a liberal mention this irrefutable fact.
Max Bendel - Posted on April 25, 2007
Bravo!
Lowell M - Posted on April 24, 2007
Scalia and Denny are the voice of Reason in this exchange. This is what the Founders practiced and intended. Reason. It was the Age of Reason. A Constitution is written and not to be changed for transient and passing things and therefore the difficulty in the amendment process.....now the bomb from a true American in every sense.....even were the 2nd Amendment to be revoked by the process demanded in the Constitution......it would no more obviate my Right to arms sufficient for my defense than a similar attack in the 1st Amendment would negate my Right to worship, write, or assemble as I chose.....these Rights, with a capital R...are not granted or allowed by ANY government ANYWHERE...they are the birthright of EVERYONE EVERYWHERE and come, as both the men who wrote our Constitution and the many others whom they studied like Locke and Rousseau believed came from the Law of Nature and Nature's God.... Inalienable Rights friends.... it doesn't matter if all but God are against them...they stand. I didn't make it up....but as an American I was born and raised to it on my Daddy's knee as he was before me back to 1640's or so when the white side of my kin showed up...a bit earlier I am sure for the red side.

Now for my superior feeling, but morally weaker friends in Asia, Europe and the former Commonwealth nations....you also bow to Kings and Queens..I do not. You elected Hitler and Mussolini, tolerared Stalin and Mao, and worship a God-Emperor...me and my kind did not...the character of America is what makes America....all of it..and that is why millions line up every day to get in....guns or not.

For the balance of my life, as my ancestors before me, I will live free and diehard in America. If you can't stomach it, the world is full of "gun controlled" utopias for you to move to...leave my little piece of Eden called America alone....or provide another for men like me to settle in. Otherwise, we just aren't going to get along.
Barrie Bedell - Posted on April 24, 2007
"Gun control" needs to be more precisely defined. For example, I saw a documentary a few years ago which made the point that a relative handful of gun dealers were sellers of a very high percentage of
"murder guns." Gun manufacturers love these guys, who sell to "legitimate" buyers, who in turn sell to thugs who DO NOT have the right to own guns. I believe the gov't even put out a CD naming the offending dealers. No crackdown, of course. IMO the NRA wears the disguise of defenders of "hunting" and "self protection" but is actually carrying water for the mfs. and "murder gun" dealers. ~ Barrie
Chris R - Posted on April 24, 2007
What verbal diarrhea. So the whole point of this diatribe is that it's futile to try to change this, so just give it up? Sorry, Denny - Go ahead and buy your pistol, I will up my donation to the Brady Campaign.
David Garfinkel - Posted on April 24, 2007
Sad but true, Denny. This is where we are right now in this country and you have made an eloquent and clear-headed assessment of the situation. I happen to agree with everything you say here, and I am not happy that I do, but the blinders are off (I think). I am not a gun owner but I have absolute zeal in allowing other people to own them, and carry resposibility for consequences of using them along with the guns themselves. I think the biggest fight of the future is to force the hand of those in power to treat the rest of us like adults -- and to behave that way themselves (in the noblest sense of the word "adult," of course!).
Donna - Posted on April 24, 2007
Thanks for the many thoughts presented on this issue. #1 - Linda made a choice - she doesn't like the "gun culture" - she moved! Absolutely the appropriate action. (Notice she did not move to the middle east where it is a bomb culture that includes children!) If you think gun control will stop another mass murder - I have a bridge I want to sell you. If you think you can identify a mass murderer based on what you have seen on TV this past week - I have a second bridge to sell you. If you want to continue to ammend Constitution(after all our forefathers couldn't foresee....), please, please move to another country that fits your sensibilities. I am begging every one of you to stop the insanity of wanting to ammend the Constitution for everything we personally find offensive. The Constitution upholds our rights - it does not "give" them to us! There are always other ways to resolve issues - don't like what a person said on the radio - tell the companies who pay dearly to advertise there! Don't like certain music - don't buy it and change the station! Bet we can figure a way to stop the murderous rampages in most cities today. Why, it might even start with legalizing drugs (creating a taxable source for them.) Did rational thinking end with our forefathers??
David N. Rosen - Posted on April 24, 2007
Denny ? Your columns on these more general, not specifically direct marketing-related topics merit much wider distribution. They?re far better than the majority of columns appearing in daily and weekly newspapers. This one is a case in point, notable for its realistic and reasoned approach to a subject that generates a lot of emotion -- but too little clear thinking. As for the desirability of repealing the 2nd Amendment or otherwise instituting a total ban on individual gun ownership: Aside from the moral issues of what constitutes reasonable self-defense in American society today, advocates of these measures exhibit a touching faith in the power of legal statutes and the ability of government to enforce them. Such an outright ban and criminalization is likely to be as effective in dealing with guns as it has proven to be with drugs -- and alcohol, in that earlier bright idea along similar lines known as Prohibition. A ban on firearms will create a huge business opportunity for criminal enterprises large and small, as it drives prices (and profits) from gun dealing to unnaturally higher levels. It would also be associated with new kinds and incidents of criminal violence, (which is the form that competition between dealers and seller-buyer disagreements can easily take in illegal markets, absent the usual types of legal recourse), as well as new opportunities for the corruption of law enforcement personnel, another typical outcome when criminals have outsized profits at their disposal. After America?s experience with Prohibition and today?s ?War on Drugs,? enacting a ban on gun ownership would be like stepping on a rake the wrong way? for the third time.
Rhonda - Posted on April 24, 2007
Interesting
Chris Altwegg - Posted on April 25, 2007
Respectfully, I must disagree with Scalia's opinion that the first part of the 2nd Amendment doesn't alter the second part. The Amendment reads: 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 first part sets the conditions for the second part. I am more than happy to support a system like Switzerland for manadatory miltia involvement and associated gun ownership. But I find it pretty hard to believe that Cho acquired his guns as a part of a well-regulated militia, that he was trained in their use, and that he was approved to carry weapons. (Note the term "well-regulated" also.) I will happily support some limits on guns, and I won't worry about my 2nd Amendment rights. (I'm much more worried about the current administration's abrogation of other, more treasured Constitutional rights.)
Joe Barcia - Posted on April 24, 2007
Denny, perhaps it would help us all to think about the kinds of firearms that were in play at the time our founding fathers wrote that right to "keep and bear arms" clause into the constitution. Except for cannons, both the average citizen and the military had pretty much the same weapons. In fact, the militia which fought the British was, for the most part, made up of citizen-soldiers. Our founding fathers could not have even imagined the kind of sophisicated automatic weaponry and mass killing power that was to come. If they could, I'm almost certain they would have restricted such fire power to the military, alone. The only constitutional ammendment that may be necessary is one that would afford congeress the power to ajust the constitution to allow for the technologically "unforeseen"--so that it would remain meaningful in the context of ever-changing technology. This would apply not only to gun control, but to any issue for which scentific advancement might impact our lives (the internet and biotechnology are two such areas that come to mind).
martin moskof - Posted on April 24, 2007


> Denny-
>
> It's painful to read someone who is so
> cocksure and absolutist about what
> things will happen and what can/will
> never happen.
>
> You are the personification of a living
> breathing roadblock mired in a mental
> place that borders on the immovable.
>
> Assitionally, I think that using your association
> with David Ehlich is a slippery piece
> of journalism to segue into promoting your ideas
> about guns and the constitution.
>
> Sincerely
> Martin Moskof
John Friesen - Posted on April 25, 2007
The saddest commentary I can make on the Virginia Tech slaughter is that the death toll that day is just one-tenth of one per cent of the annual number of gun-related homicides in the US.
CRG - Posted on April 24, 2007
There are two very important points being missed once again by all the anti-gun zealots out there. The first is that no matter what type of "gun control" you want, you will never keep guns out of the hands of the people who don't buy their guns in gun shops legally as we concealed weapon carriers do. I guess the guy who blew away those people at VA Tech was not told that the school was a "gun free zone". There are statistics that prove that where right to carry areas are in this country, that hand gun crime is a fraction of other "gun control" areas. The other very important point that is being ignored and to the idiot who thought Justice Scalia missed the boat, the 2nd Ammendment was written to also protect we the people from our own government. If the only people in the country with firearms are the ones making the laws and rules, then it is only a mater of time before the government exercises their control over a population of unarmed and vulnerable. The 2nd Ammendment is there to protect us from each other and our goverment and the Supreme Court Justices are on the bench to interpret the Constitution not to legislate like the liberals in this country want them to do.
Brian - Posted on April 24, 2007
I'm glad that it's so hard to enact an amendment. If it was easier, then 80% of the politicians would make changes that would harm our freedoms in the quest for votes.

I think it goes without saying that we are all saddened when an individual abuses the freedoms that we have and this is why we have laws to punish those who do. The truth is that almost anything can be used to harm another person. A woman drove a car onto a sidewalk and killed several people but we wouldn't want to outlaw cars would we?
Frank L - Posted on April 24, 2007
Denny, nice piece, appreciate your point of view and the interesting surprise ending that you do own a gun. To the Australians and Canadians, glad you're happy. You're still welcome to come here and risk your life anytime!
D.K. - Posted on April 24, 2007
Denny:Very balanced treatment of the topic.I am a concealed carry license holder. If someone like myself had been present,this killer would have been stopped or at least held at bay until the police arrived. "Gun free zones" are only gun-free for law-abiding citizens.
Rainer F. - Posted on April 24, 2007
As a Canadian who has travelled to the U.S. a lot and one who has several U.S. clients, I find it disheartening that there will never be the gun control that is really necessary to lessen the constant senseless violence that has taken over America. As much as I enjoy the people and sights when on vacation in the U.S., I always find it somewhat of a relief when I've crossed the border back into Canada. I can rest easy knowing that a minor traffic altercation will not turn into another tragedy because of easy (real easy) access to handguns.
- Posted on April 24, 2007
I'm not sure you can blame the casino lobby for the ban on online gaming, Denny. Most of the big American casino companies are very much in favor of legalization, because they're planning to jump into the business with both feet. And they'll succeed mightily when they do. Wouldn't your rather gamble at the Bellagio Online than at some offshore site in Costa Rica?
Todd B - Posted on April 24, 2007
"Since gun control will never happen..." It seems hard to say we don't have 'gun control' with thousands of federal, state, and local laws on the books regulating the manufactur, distribution, consumer sale, and use of firearms. Perhaps insert "A gun ban [and elimination of the millions in circulation] will never happen...".
Linda Loose - Posted on April 24, 2007
Denny, as always, pointed and well-considered. However this former American resident is eternally grateful that I now live in a country (Australia) where owning a gun isn't an inalienable right. Where America-like 'gun culture' insanity has never taken hold, let alone escalated to the point where folks like you and me even think about needing one. And where the response to a shocking (and thankfully isolated) mass shooting 10 years ago was prompt and publicly supported introduction of much stricter gun control. Bottom line - whatever the glories of the US Constitution, it's a bloody sight safer living here.
Bilou - Posted on April 24, 2007
When gun violence affects people who are deemed "important" (i.e., in a position of power/celebrity), that is when we will see real gun control laws created AND enforced in this country...not before.

This is as is was when Christopher Reeve, Michael J. Fox and Ronald Reagan came into the spotlight as being afflicted with various problems.

When Nancy Reagan beseeched Dumbya to rethink the value of stem cell research, due to the lives it could save, THAT woke some people up!

The same kind of catastrophe with "important" people will have to happen first...unfortunately.

Until then, the NRA will have a chokehold on Congressional coffers, and the unimportant will continue to be gunned down. Film at eleven.
rob - Posted on April 24, 2007
I believe it was Chris Rock who said "You don't need no gun control. You know what you need? Bullet control. I think all bullets should cost $5,000. If bullets cost $5000 there would be no innocent bystanders"
larry weeks - Posted on April 30, 2007
Denny, when I saw "guns" in your lead I thought, oh no, here we go again. I was pleasantly surprised when you passed along Judge Scalia's suscinct spelling out of the constitution. The 2nd Ammendment has come up more recently than 1980, the Federal district court that covers D.C. just ruled that it is indeed an individual right, making D.C.s prohibition a violation of the Constitution. With freedom comes responsibility. And, do take that class, even with your shotgun. You'll learn a lot.
Isabel Smith - Posted on April 24, 2007
The only reason I don't own a gun is because I would probably shoot myself in the foot, but I do relish the notion of having a shot gun (because I can't aim) for home protection. I've been more use to guns since I now live in the south, but even in New York, the general belief was criminals can always get guns: the gun laws just prevent the citizens from owning guns. I don't believe depriving citizens the right to arm themselves helps anything. Just what we need: more laws to keep the good guys in place -- makes sense to me (smirk) Thanks, Denny, for letting us express our opinions!
Erik - Posted on April 24, 2007
Justice Scalia's comments on the constitution are fascinating. He actually said the constitution does not change with the times? What an absurd thing to say. Of course it changes with the times, why else do Presidents salivate at the very thought of being able to nominate a justice. Those students must have been tremendously disappointed with justice Scalia.
nate - Posted on April 25, 2007
awesome article... I am pro-constitution as well