[happyguy]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society...ors_picks=true

I haven't seen this posted. Maybe I missed it.

Regards,
Happyguy

[Sbh87]

Saw this on a different gun forum. I only read bits and pieces of it and didn't care for it too much. Most people on that forum found it to be somewhat neutral and people seemed pretty surprised about that.

[steveksux]

Well, the first pages seems neutral and balanced. Not sure how much more I feel like reading.

Randy

[eracer]

A decent - if superficial - compendium of recent gun law history. Focused a lot on North Carolina, but did mention some of the other, more recent State actions, and well as recent SCOTUS decisions.

Didn't really delve into the debate much, except to present the opinions of a few people on either side of the dabate.

Neither especially biased, nor especially interesting (at least to those who pay at least some attention to the subject.)

[unit1069]

The Monitor is a liberal publication but they do try to appear fair. The article is decidedly liberal and the choice of terminology indicates to me the writer has an anti-rights bias.

We should all remember that language plays a great part in forming opinions and a sure tip-off to one's anti-rights bias is the term "gun culture". Those of us who enjoy exercising our individual right perhaps might start using the term "collectivist culture" to describe people (like the writer) who deliberately misrepresent our rights in order to further their agendas. Or perhaps the author really doesn't know much about the constitution.

For example, the author states that the Second Amendment is granted by the constitution, whereas the Bill of Rights are inalienable, God-given rights that the constitution confirms, not confers. If the constitution confers a right that right can be denied. If the Second Amendment's individual right to keep and bear arms is denied what's to prevent a tyrant, oligarchy, or the mob majority denying the First Amendment?

If we use every opportunity that presents itself to use our own terminology with a clear understanding of the constitution it counters the collectivist culture that always paves the way for tyranny.

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by unit1069

For example, the author states that the Second Amendment is granted by the constitution, whereas the Bill of Rights are inalienable, God-given rights that the constitution confirms, not confers.

I'm old fashioned. I thought the Bill of Rights WAS the first 10 Amendments, 2nd Amendment included.

Randy

[unit1069]

Originally Posted by steveksux

I'm old fashioned. I thought the Bill of Rights WAS the first 10 Amendments, 2nd Amendment included.

You're correct; maybe what I wrote is confusing. What I hope is clear is that both the First and Second Amendments are preexisting God-given individual rights the constitution confirms.