Vanity Fair: Second Amendment "Must Be Removed from the Constitution"

Bloomberg, Schumer, Eichenwald, Feinstein, Lautenberg, Blumenthal, Lieberman....it looks like the guest list for a Bar Mitzvah!

For those of you who don't believe there's a very disproportionate amount of support for gun control amongst Jews, just check out this article by America's leading Jewish magazine, The Jewish Daily Forward.



After Newtown, Jews Lead Renewed Push on Guns
Lawmakers and Community Play Key Role in Debate

By Nathan Guttman

[link to forward.com]


interesting snippets:

"A Jewish community strongly supportive of gun control plus Jewish lawmakers eager to enact new gun control laws may bring Jews into a lead role as the nation debates federal measures to rein in mass murders at its malls and schools."


"On Capitol Hill, the effort to introduce legislation limiting access to weapons has been led by several Jewish lawmakers, all Democrats (though one now uses the Independent label). California Senator Dianne Feinstein, a longtime leader on the issue, intends to introduce legislation for renewing the ban on the sale and possession of assault weapons, which expired in 2004."



'Rabbi Eric Yoffie, former head of the Reform movement, listed in a recent Haaretz article several reasons for Jews siding with supporters of gun control: the community’s affiliation with the Democratic Party; the fact that Jews are urban people and detached from the culture of hunting or gun ownership, and suspicion toward the NRA, which is “associated in the minds of many Jews with extremist positions that frighten Jews and from which they instinctively recoil.” '

The federal government shouldn't even be regulating anything.

All members are suppose to be state reps for the reason of their own state.The federal government isnt even a real entity .Washington dc is a place for the 50 states to send their reps, for the betterment and union ship/commerce of each state.

The second amended says:

The state has the obligation for a well regulated militia for the purpose of each states security shall not be infringed.

The people have the right to keep and bare arms for reason of self defense shall not be infringed.

The founders just put it all into one line.Thus the federal government or an entity other then the state should have the say/regulation over a states own military.

Last Edited by <x> on 01/05/2013 08:10 PM

They think we're idiots. Case in point: I just saw a commericial for the movie about the fake Bin Laden assassination. "Witness the greatest [bullshiat] of all time - Zero Dark Thirty."

This group - the ones who lie to us day in and day out - is NOT who you want making new rules about guns.

Sad, but true.

When you trade freedom for security you have more security and less freedom, duh. So yeh, his definition of freedom is the one that sounds chained to me. I agree, a disarmed socialist nanny state is NOT freedom.

Sadly, it looks like we're following Canada, not the other way around.

I hope there is a revolution, but not a war. I hope everyone comes together and makes a stand, in some way that gets through to them that the government works for the people and the people overwhelmingly say we won't allow a dictatorship.

Maybe that's idealistic, I don't know.

I know! That's just so messed up!

Wait, what? It's not talking about building a gun. It's saying that all of the amendments are given to everyone. They don't alienate anyone.

Well so far Fox has been all over it and is the only mainstream news station speaking against gun control.

O'Reilly laid into Geraldo over the issue. It was funny.

Criminals can get their guns satraight from the Mexican black market... the exact same way that they get pounds of weed and kilos of cocaine.

NOTHING will stop criminals from getting guns, that is why the rest of us have the right to protect ourselves from them.

Whatever you are reading that prestends to give yu some kind of excuse for gun control is false, and lacks common sense.

So, apply that to the 1st Amendment then. Did you mine the gold used in the circuit traces of the boards in your computer? Did you mold the plastic or mix the polymers? Did you mix and pour the ink for the newspaper or magazine you recently read? Did you develop a television signal, build a station, employ a staff, and assign reporters? The 1st Amendment requires a huge collective effort, so the right to free speech should not be considered an inalienable right?

4th Amendment requires a collective effort to enforce, as well. The entirety of the efforts of the judicial branch, from the local courts and judges, to the police, etc. all contribute to follow the "rules" for searchs, so does that make this the same? Same with the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments.

And to top all of this off, 9th and 10th Amendments state that the people or the States retain anything not specifically spelled out as being the prevue of the Feds.

wow

they don't even try to hide the fact they're spearheading this movement

Here's an interesting piece on gun ownership in Israel, btw

[link to www.tabletmag.com]

Looks like anyone who can claim they live in a dangerous area or has any kind of dealings with one, or with valuable merchandise, or feels unsafe, or has been or is actively in the military or reserves, can get one no questions asked

The US declared war in 1812, not due to any invasion but for a number of grievances against the British and the desire to annex Canada. You didn't repel us, we repelled you.

Yeah, things may be a tad more expensive here, but a least if a Canadian needs surgery, they don't have to mortgage their home to pay for it. Nor do we have underfunded state hospitals for the poor and good hospitals for people with money and or insurance. All of our hospitals are paid for through taxation. Nor does any HMO tell us which doctor or which hospital we can go to, even if it means going to a US hospital, if that's where the appropriate treatment can be found. We also have better access to medication, because that is also subsidized for those who need it i.e. pensioners, people on welfare etc.

We also provide equal funding to all schools, so the public school system in all neighborhoods, rich or poor, is the same. It is not dependent on tax base. We also subsidize our Universities. Not that it is cheap to attend a Canadian University, but it's not as expensive as in the US.

Oh, our society is far from perfect. We have poverty, but our poorest people are not as poor as your poorest people. Also, we survived the Global Credit Crisis better than most of the world, including the US, because we have much stricter banking regulations(what you may call nanny regulations) both in the qualification for mortgages and in what investments our banking institutions are permitted. Of course it was the lax regulation of the US banking system that precipated the Global Credit Crisis and the world is now paying for it.

We also have a much lower per capita murder rate - yours is almost four times higher and that's not homicide by guns, just homicide period. Yes, guns are not the cause of homicide, but access to them makes it so much easier. It's a bit harder to stab someone to death or bludgeon them with a baseball bat. There is no such thing as a drive by stabbing. People can't go postal and kill all their co-workers with a knife. Of course people here do have guns - mostly rifles, some WWII revolvers. Handguns are restricted, but our gangbangers get smuggled weapons from the US. Since gangbanging was imported from the US our homicide rate has increased. Ironically they even imported the gang names. Kids are so impressionable.

I agree there is moral decay everywhere. Stopping the decay is everyone's problem. IMO people have to stop living a shallow consumer driven lifestyle and start actually caring about each other. Stop worshipping the almighty dollar. Then maybe the number of guns in society will be irrelevant.

Gee, thanks for the enlightenment. Are you still in 6th grade?

Last Edited by s. d. butler on 01/06/2013 10:54 PM

Clearly I was being a bit simplistic. You have the whole huge poverty issue to contend with, which invites criminal behaviors. The only real solution to that is to ensure that there is economic equity in society. Otherwise, you will never be armed enough.

Why are there constitutions ?

It's to make clear that these laws are basic and are not to be touched if that particular nation is to survive. It is to be expected that, once in a while, some party will raise its head and demand this or that will be changed.

Of course, this also raises questions about those amendments to the US constitution (in any thinking person anyway).

P.S. Lots of characters cropping up while typing which I didn't type, don't know what's happening at this computer here. Weird OS called "Windows XP Sweet 5.1", always this kind of weird problems. If I missed erasing some, don't hold it against me. Thanks.

Lots of info about the US Constitution, the first amendment and who wrote it, and how the amendments were written.

[link to civilliberty.about.com]

No, it's a sign that the young usa nation, which is still like a young oaf, now really starts to growing up and maybe become an adult nation.

But you as dumb brute will never get that.

I'm not sure where you got that from, but that really isn't true. What is your definition of secure? An example of mine would be like if a man walks into my house with a gun, intending to kill my family, I have gun to 'disarm' him with.

Do you think that criminals, the people that will actually go out and shoot someone, will turn in their guns? Taking away guns wouldn't have changed Sandy Hook, but I'm pretty sure that a teacher with a gun would have.

What's even more obvious, just about EVERY SINGLE ONE of the recent shootings has been in a gun free zone. When was the last tragic shooting that happened in a place where people have guns? The best deterrent against a person with a gun, is another gun. If I don't have a gun, the person may have a slight bit more confidence In shooting me, though.