Throughout history, change has taken place. It is inevitable; absolutely nothing ever stays the same, from the tiniest microscopic atom to the universe.
Look into the mirror, or at your child, and marvel at the changes time has influenced — the evidence is very compelling.
Change not only impacts the physical, but also ideas and philosophical beliefs.
The Constitution of the United States is over 240 years old. When the framers crafted this document the world and the United States were different places altogether.
This nation was in survival mode from tyranny. Hence the creation of the Second Amendment.
There is no denying that during that space in time the applicability and force of its intent was logical and on solid ground.
That is not the case today.
The Second Amendment must be repealed because it is harming the citizens it swore to protect — the weak and defenseless.
If we subscribe to the fact that humans are vulnerable and subject to mistakes, logic dictates that changes must be made.
Our Founding Fathers were no different. They made laws for the times because they did not have a crystal ball to look into the future.
And while their intentions were admirable at the time, they had no forethought of the creation of killing machines such as an AR-15, automatic firearms, silencers and the like, nor the mental instability of individuals.
Therefore, the burden to carry out their true mission on keeping this nation safe falls on our shoulders, whether we like it or not.
Our forefathers had no idea that someday, based on a person’s “right” to own a firearm, an individual without cause or justification would walk into a school and murder defenseless men, women and children. They had no thoughts of a sniper from a vantage point would murder people enjoying a concert, or a disturbed person gun down innocent people at work for a media station, nor shoot those praying in a church, or more recently at a gaming event in Florida, and just a few days ago the Walmart in El Paso and Ohio murders.
These scenarios continue year after year and decade after decade, yet we do absolutely nothing to stop them except talk.
Annually 2.6 million Americans die for a variety of reasons: Heart disease, cancer and respiratory problems being the top 3. Also, between 40,000 and 35,000 people die on our roadways. In all of these cases, society and government has spent millions if not billions of dollars towards safety and prevention.
Yet no such effort is forthcoming regarding the use of firearms. In 2015 approximately 37,000 people in the U.S. died by firearms, of that number firearms was used in over 8,000 murders. There are more firearms murders in the U.S. in one day than in one year in Great Britain.
Why is that? It’s because Great Britain has strict gun laws. This common-sense approach is something we should emulate, and we can start by repealing the Second Amendment.
Do not let the National Rifle Association fool you into thinking that more guns are better in reducing violence. They are not. Less guns, stricter laws and enforcement are the answers to gun violence, and the sooner we understand that simple concept the better.
The sooner our politicians get out from under the stronghold of the NRA the better. And the sooner the American Civil Liberties Union takes a strong position against gun violence irrespective of the Bill of Rights, the safer America will be.
The Second Amendment must be repealed today, for the sake of future generations and to save yet-to-be victims of senseless gun violence.
“Be the change you want to see” by contacting you senator and/or representative. Be proactive and demand that the Second Amendment be repealed.
We cannot and must not wait any longer.
•••
Darryl D. Perry is a Lihue resident and retired chief of the Kauai Police Department.
Those who say our Founding Fathers wanted every citizen to own a firearm of his choice for nothing more than self defense should re-read the Second Amendment where it says the weapons are needed under a well regulated militia.
On the contrary, it is you and the author who don’t understand what is and was meant by a well regulated militia.
The latest gun control hysteria being stoked by the press has revealed an enormous amount of confusion about the role of the Second Amendment as a guarantee of liberty in our constitutional system.
That role is alternately embraced in rather simplistic form or dismissed as an absurdity: how could ragtag bands of rednecks with AR-15s ever hope to take on the U.S. military, with its full panoply of tanks, helicopters, and elite troops? The same people who say this will also insist that any American military action overseas is a mistake, because the U.S. military, with its full panoply of tanks, helicopters, and elite troops, can never hope to defeat ragtag bands of insurgents with AK-47s. But don’t look for consistency in partisan politics, and don’t be surprised when a Democratic politician wanders off script and suggests that if President Trump were to “ignore the courts,” then “this is where the Second Amendment comes in, quite frankly.”
Some declare flatly that this would never even be necessary, because “in a democracy, the government is the people’s government.” That begs a very big question. I wish I could be so complacent that it can’t happen here.
The Founding Fathers didn’t ask why it was necessary to provide the people the means to resist a tyrannical central government. It was a problem they had very recently encountered in real life, in the form of thousands of Redcoats sent across the Atlantic by a distant central government to suspend civil rights and enforce oppressive laws. So when they drafted their own system of central government and provided it sufficient military force to repel or deter foreign threats, they were profoundly concerned that this new national government would not be able to turn its power back against its own citizens.
Their solution was to make sure that the government drew its military power from the citizens themselves. That is the meaning of the much misinterpreted preamble to the Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” The idea was to rely for our defense primarily on an armed citizenry that can be called up as a militia. If the people themselves are the military power of the state, then that power cannot be used against the people. That’s what they meant when they called this system “necessary to the security of a free state.”
None of this is obsolete, despite advances in weapons, training, tactics, and the professionalization of the military. We still adhere to this system, both in letter and in spirit, in three ways: an armed citizenry, a military of citizen soldiers, and the National Guard.
Developing Citizen Soldiers
Let’s start with an armed citizenry. Throughout the twentieth century, for example, the U.S. government operated or supported the Civilian Marksmanship Program, which sponsored shooting competitions at rifle ranges and offered participants steeply discounted semi-automatic military surplus rifles. That these were military rifles wasn’t an accident. The program began as a way of encouraging civilians who were used to bolt-action rifles to train with the new semi-automatic rifles adopted by the military. It continued as a way of developing a reserve of trained marksmen among the civilian population. The point was that in time of war, when the military recruits thousands or millions of new soldiers, they want as large a supply as possible of men who can put ten rounds into the black at 400 yards with iron sights.
This naturally feeds into an army of citizen soldiers. Throughout history, and still in many places today, the military has been treated as a special or exclusive caste, with its own culture, institutions, privileges, and interests. The ancient Greek hoplites, for example, were heavily armed foot soldiers often drawn exclusively from a city’s ruling class.
The extreme case was the Spartans, who were an elite of professional soldiers drawn from a restricted class of citizens, ruling over a vastly larger number of oppressed helots. America, by contrast, has a tradition of drawing its soldiers from a cross-section of the civilian population, to which most of them return after a stint of four or six years. One of the implications is that in addition to having an armed population, we also have a large population of trained and experienced veterans with a close connection and kinship to those currently serving.
Again, the point is to have as small a gap as possible between the government and the people. An army of citizen soldiers drawn from the general public and reflecting its values is not likely to blindly follow orders to oppress their fellow citizens.
Dispersing Military Power Among the People
Finally, the military power in the United States is not concentrated solely at the federal level. The modern successor to the state militias is the National Guard. Not only are these part-time warriors who return to their normal jobs when not training or actively deployed, but their units are run by and under the command of the governors of the various states until they are called into active duty. This means that the military power of the federal government is partly distributed among the states rather than being centralized in the capital. For that reason, this is the only military power normally deployed domestically to keep the peace (as in the 1992 Los Angeles riots).
The same applies to an even greater extent to the non-military use of force. Despite a worrying expansion of federal law enforcement in recent decades, the vast majority of police power remains where it always has: on the state and local level. If you remember the recent fake outrage when Attorney General Jeff Sessions referred to our “Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement,” you might recall that he was specifically talking about the uniquely Anglo-American office of the sheriff, the point of which is to vest law-enforcement authority in a local official answerable to local constituents. The Constitution didn’t supersede this kind of local police power with a federalized police force, because the whole point was to preserve and respect the legitimacy of the state and local governments from which the Union was formed.
We all know—at least, those of us who have bothered to study the Constitution—about the importance of separation of powers between the various branches of the federal government. Our system tries to prevent the abuse of power by dividing it between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. But our system also includes a division of powers by scale, in which government power is distributed at different levels: federal, state, and local. The animating idea behind this system is to prevent the concentration of coercive power in a single institution, class, or capitol.
Or to put it in less legalistic and more philosophical terms, the division and dispersal of the coercive power of government embodies the idea that government authority is dependent on the consent of the governed.
To my knowledge, the closest that the Founding Fathers got to discussing all of this in detail was in The Federalist, No. 46, where the Father of the Constitution himself, James Madison, addresses the role of the state governments as counterbalances to the federal government. As a last resort, he contemplates the prospect of a tyrannical federal government using the army to impose its will on the states.
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the state governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
Let’s update Madison’s numbers. A federal army at 1 percent of the population today would be an army of 3 million troops. Our regular armed forces are currently less than half that, about 1.3 million. Against that, the National Guard and reserves—those under the command of the states or dispersed among the civilian population—are about 850,000. Then there are about 22 million veterans among the civilian population, and while the World War II and Korea vets might seem a bit too elderly to be threatening—though I wouldn’t exactly count them out, if I were you—about 7 million veterans served from the Gulf War on.
That’s a very large population with military experience and training. The civilian population as a whole owns somewhere around 300 million guns, of which roughly half are probably owned by 3 percent of the population. If that seems like a small number, reflect that this means there are nine to ten million heavily armed people out there, and it’s likely that there is a significant overlap between Americans who own multiple guns and those who have served in the military. So the dispersal of coercive power through the American population today is considerable and makes the imposition of tyranny from above impossible to contemplate.
The Goal Is Preventing Civil Unrest
The point of The Federalist No. 46 was not to game out the details of this kind of conflict between a federal army and state militias allied with an armed citizenry. Madison’s point was to demonstrate how the whole constitutional system was designed to prevent such a conflict. The point was to set up a system where a revolution would never be needed in the first place, by ensuring that there is as little distance as possible between the coercive power of government and the people it governs. An armed citizenry and state militias, along with a military of citizen soldiers, are all part of that system.
This system is built to prevent tyranny, but it cannot prevent all conflict. It certainly did not keep Americans from shooting each other over slavery. Notice in that case, though, that the regular army was as divided as the rest of the country, to the point where top Union officers—including Gen. Robert E. Lee, who was originally offered the Union command—defected to the Confederate cause. If the purpose of the division and dispersal of coercive power is to ensure there is no separation between the military and the people, that doesn’t help when the people themselves are truly divided.
Despite the overdramatization among the chattering classes, we are fortunately very far from reaching that breaking point today. We should not tempt fate, though, by blithely dismissing or tearing down any part of the system that keeps us from getting there by shortening the distance between the government and the governed.
Very well written!!
This is a most eloquent response and well said. I would add to it in that our Polynesian writer points out that this is a different world and that the Constitution is an outdated document. While technologically we have advance, the lust for power and weath has never been greater. Our government has never been more covertly and deeply corrupt as it is today. Murder and crime go back to the beginning of time. My point is that mankind has not changed over the course of the past 240 years, if anything he has become more devious than ever. I believe the founding fathers did see the future and included the 2nd Ammendment for exactly our day. Why do you think our Federal Government is pushing so hard to take this Constitutional right? Look at the cities with the toughest gun control, they have the greatest amount of crimes committed with firearms. Let me propose a final though for those trying to take away our rights. What laws could be enacted that could possibly keep the criminals from acquiring guns and committing murdes and crimes? What laws would compell criminals to give up their guns? These mass shootings, which are probably instigated by the dark government, have been sensationalized in order to scare people into giving up their rights. In the 70’s a few cities pasted city ordinances requiring all homeowners to have a firearm, any kind, handgun, rifle or shotgun. Amazingly home invasions dropped by over 65% while neighboring cities increased by more than 35%. This past weekend a young man entered a Walmart armed with over 100 rounds of ammo and wearing body armor. He was stopped by an armed civilian before he could fire a single shot. We need more armed citizens today than at any time in history.
Please explain all of that to the victims who were murdered senselessly, and while you’re at it, tell that to their families, especially the parents of the children who massacred at Sandy Hook. I’m sure they’ll understand.
Unfortunately, SOME people just don’t get it and never will.
So Darryl are you gonna practice what you preach and give up your gun and carry permit rights under LEOSA?
Fact more guns there is less crime there is. So if there was more jobs for protection and honor for what was and is our great Constitution. You and you, you, get a gun.
It has always been a theory that there was a consensus in the constitutional Convention when the 2nd amendment was ratified. While it is certainly true that it still has the authority of the supremacy clause the other delegates didn’t read its fine print. The 2nd amendment was a literary sleight of hand by design. It was meant from day one to be final legacy. It is a testimony to the genius of Benjamin Franklin who was an extremely clever wordsmith. On December 2 2015 it was discovered that it could be read objectively to such an extent that no interpretation was required.
The 2nd IS written in the form of a literal algebraic equation. It can be read explicitly with only the bias of a dictionary. The right to bear Arms never existed because yes the wiser of the framers knew that guns killed people. A gun control amendment was an impossible sell to 18th century society however the societal conditions have changed as the framers anticipated that they would. The narrative I have just shared was derived form in excess of 1000 historical letters. In order to provide the empirical evidence of this one sentences actual language or as James Madison stated “the legitimate meaning of the instrumet it was ciphered and hidden in plain site as well. This research has not yet been escalated at this time due to simple incredulity.
I’m a software architect with over 20 years experience but also a Canadian. It was my opinion that many Americas would be rather interested in what was going on in the convention because this constitutional right belongs to them.
You have now been provided with a context for the following passage….
“History may distort truth, and will distort it for a time, by the superior efforts at justification of those who are conscious of needing it most. Nor will the opening scenes of our present government be seen in their true aspect, until the letters of the day, now held in private hoards, shall be broken up and laid open to public view. What a treasure will be found in General Washington’s cabinet, when it shall pass into the hands of as candid a friend to truth as he was himself!”
Thomas Jefferson, To Justice William Johnson, June 12, 1823
In Federalist 84 the “declaration” that Alexander Hamilton is referring to is ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” as declared in the language of the second amendment.
It is no coincidence of English that this paragraph begins with “to the second”. This essay comes from the rebound edition that James Madison felt compelled to “correct and modify” in 1801 AFTER the Bill of Rights was ratified to 10 amendments from its originally intended 12 articles..
“To the second that is, to the pretended establishment of the common and state law by the Constitution, I answer, that they are expressly made subject “to such alterations and provisions as the legislature shall from time to time make concerning the same.” They are therefore at any moment liable to repeal by the ordinary legislative power, and of course have no constitutional sanction. The only use of the declaration was to recognize the ancient law and to remove doubts which might have been occasioned by the Revolution. This consequently can be considered as no part of a declaration of rights, which under our constitutions must be intended as limitations of the power of the government itself.”
I have a three year lead in this research and have been conducting it full time. This is Franklin Cryptography which is now extremely well documented and conclusively proves that SCOTUS has been ruling on a figment of their imaginations irrespective of political ideology. They theorized that James Madison did not know how to construct a sentence. I theorized that he did and tried to see if I could make it actually behave like a sentence and much to my own astonishment and horror I succeeded.
Wow, I have to say that that was an enthralling read. I feel better informed about the intent behind the second amendment, and am proud to be an inheritor of such a well constructed country. I fell like I am better equipped to help keep it that way after reading this.
VERY well said
There is hope left in the world
A little bit of history … remember … the Gatling Gun was invented during the Civil War.
“A hand-driven machine gun, the Gatling gun was the first firearm to solve the problems of loading, reliability, and the firing of sustained bursts. It was invented by Richard J. Gatling during the American Civil War, and later used in the Spanish-American War, but was supplanted by advanced weaponry soon after.”. It seems some individuals have forgotten this little piece of history.
Well “Ginger Doll” the NRA is the most well regulated Militia in history. You got your wish! It’s multiple millions of members thank you for bringing this up!
Its amazing how ginger doll leaves out the part about the right of the people, and they go straight to the part about militias. Please take time to visit the library of Congress and read Thomas Jefferson’s , Hamilton’s, notes while they drafted the US Constitution. They clearly intended for individuals to have the right to keep and bear arms.
Someone DOESN’T know the 2nd Amendment.
Hardly Anyone owns a fully automatic weapon. It is VERY well regulated by ATF so when You say “automatic firearms, silencers and the like” You certainly have no idea and are just talking out of the side of Your big mouth. So far NO automatic weapon was used in those mass shootings. Lets lay blame where blame should be, at the feet of the crazy idiots who shoot people. Someone could bring in a different gun and do so much more damage and a AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle! An assult rifle is IMPOSSIBLE for a civilian to get!
And by *well regulated, you do understand what that meant back then, right? It meant well armed, well trained and ready. Militia also meant every military aged male….generally 16 – 45 years old. Sounds like a plan to me.
Yeaah He certainly wants to take that right away from the people doesn’t He? Lets take away His 1st amendment right and tell Him to shut up because that right is taken away from HIM!
Those that seek to nullify the 2nd amendment, in my humble opinion, are traitorous assclowns.
Unlike most of you, I’ve had to use a gun to defend my family. Fun fact, I didn’t fire it, and everybody actually made it home in one piece. Not everyone that owns a gun is a murderous monster.
I love. This comment ! Any law with that attitude should not be a cop
Virtually all gun owners are not murderous monsters.
You are 100% WRONG. Apparently YOU did not read the Supreme Court decision in Heller VS DC. The 2nd Amendment has TWO PARTS.. A Prefatory clause and an Operative Clause. The operative clause is the Militia clause which is NOT connected to the Operative clause – our INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to bear arms. Next time you may want to actually KNOW something about which you are commenting upon.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, [COMMA], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Those who continue to pretend like they grasp the concept of English in the 1700’s and how the world works should pickup an English and history books.
In the 1700s, “well regulated” meant well equipped. “Militia” was literally every able bodied mar over the age of 18.
To Those of you who think we need to rewrite the amendments to the constitution, I’m fine with that. We can start with the 1st. Background checks and waiting periods to post opinions online. Background checks and licenses required to start a media outlet. Background checks and permits, along with training required for every publication. Sounds reasonable to me.
The 2nd amendment has been in place for her 240 years, and it’ll continue in its current, original form for hundreds more to come. Mark my words.
Great comment.
Proposing background checks and permits for the 1st Amendment is the perfect rebuttal to those who would propose the same for the 2nd Amendment.
Further, our fore fathers could never have invisioned the Internet and mass communication by all to all.
So while we’re at 1st Amendment control, let’s also ban automatic and semi-automatic communication.
No one needs anything more than snail mail (letters) and landlines.
Bearing a phone in public should be against the law.
Writing online comments that can be read by more than 10 people should be banned.
No… it says the citizens can form a militia AND bear arms. If what you were saying was true, why didn’t they round up weapons following the completion of the Constitution or the decades after?
It also says the right of the people
That’s because every citizen was considered to have an obligation to protect the state/nation and was therefore a militia member. Also, if you read the Federalist carefully you will see that one of the essential reasons for ALL people to possess arms was to keep a check on tyrannical government! Exactly what the dim-wit Perry represents.
RG DeSoto
1 regulated in this context meaning, equiped, outfitted.
2 it doesn’t state weapons are needed for a militia, it says a well regulated (equiped) militia is needed for a free nation.
3 per the guys that wrote the amendment, the militia is every American citizen of fighting age.
So, in plain, modern text, “a well armed citizenry being being necessary to a secure state, the citizens right to bear arms shall not be infringed.”
You know so little of the Constitution of United States this is not a democracy it’s a republic based on a constitution granting individual freedoms which one of those is the Second Amendment and you have no clue and that’s being honest all legal citizens can have firearms to protect their life families property in this country and the well-regulated militia besides the federal military in a state military two states could still have a auxiliary militia. You can’t legislate it tonight restricted or anyting. The only ones that want that or lovers of Marxism whether socialist or communist that want Power a control until they get rid of firearms it will never happen. If you don’t like it you can always leave you could say I’m being mean but that’s the truth enough said have a happy day
What he said! Historically accurate and intelligently written.
Mr Perry, along with Joe Biden and the rest of the Democrats also make the assumption that ALL members of the military will willingly turn on their family and friends. But that is how tyrants think.
That’s not what it says at all Ginger.
There are two distinct rights being given in the second. The first is the right to keep and bear arms. The second is the right to form a militia.
I get it that the left pushes something else, but all documents from the creation of this country clearly speak to it being the way I mention.
So, if you want to take away all gun ownership, you need to repeal the second, and that isn’t going to happen any time soon.
The prefatory clause is not a restriction.
It’s a JUSTIFICATION for the government NOT to infringe.
Some people need to brush up on their High School English.
The dependent clause (militia clause) does NOT restrict the independent clause (the RKBA).
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution does not establish the right to bear arms. It protects it. The right to bear arms supersedes the DOI as well as the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights is set up to protect us from the government and from others who would do us harm both friend and foe.
We are still fighting tyranny to this day. When the government takes away the 2nd amendment the 1st will be next.
The 2nd Amendment says the right of the people. It does not say the right of the militia. Moreover, there is nothing about the sentence that is the 2nd Amendment which requires, even implies, that one must be a member of the militia to have the right.
Only a fool can’t see that our own government isn’t capable of applying tyranny to us commoners. That’s the purpose of the second amendment to PREVENT that tyranny.
The repeal recommendation of the 2nd amendment concerning the right to bear arms, by Mr. Perry fails, through his weak arguments. He cites times have changed from when the constitution was written. But what has not changed is the fact that man’s heart remains the same from the beginning of history, it is evil. The first murderer recorded used a rock. Should rocks be banned? Cars, knives, forks etc, have been used to kill a human being. Should the above mentioned, also, be banned? It’s easy to sound logical, when he owns a firearm. What qualifies Mr. Perry to posses a firearm above his fellow law abiding citizen? That’s easy to figure out, he’s apart of the establishment. Should the 2nd amendment be repealed, and buy back of firearms encouraged, will Mr. Perry be the first in line with his weapons? No. The problem lies with our lawmakers who have breached the trust of the citizens, who have voted them into office, to uphold the constitution of the united states and make laws that protect law abiding citizens. The legislative bodies at the local, state and federal levels have failed the citizens. Lawlessness is rampant, criminals know it, because the laws are not a deterrent to crime. Mr. Perry will not defend you, try placing a call to his home in time of emergency. He won’t rush over with his firearm to defend you and your property. Every government in history that took the guns away from their citizens, ended up turning against them. “What man never learns from history, is he never learns.”
You pledged to protect the Constitution but in reality your nothing more than wolf in sheep’s clothing. If you think Great Britain has stopped violence just Google “knife attacks London”, guns protect way more people than they hurt, if you don’t believe this then why carry a gun to work all those years? Do what the Brit’s do and beg and plead for criminals to give up and drop their weapons, try Googling that also! You think the idea could work here, well it would be funny to see 15 Kauai cops running in circles telling someone to drop the stick!!!
Get a grip Darryl, violence is down year after year, just look at the FBI stats it’s so obvious. You’re letting 24/7 news get to you.
So, the answer to preventing cancer must be……more cancer!
Great point! Radiation is used to treat cancer… which by its self is know to cause it. Welcome to the world of knowledge! And America!
EXACTLY! Thank you
Mr Perry, thank you for your thoughtful letter. I am in TOTAL agreement! Now, wait for the screams to come
from the usual suspects.
Ginger,
The militia is and always was all of the able bodied people. It doesn’t modify the operative clause or the individual right. The intent was not merely self defense, but deterrence of tyranny.
Nevertheless, feel free to do what is necessary to Amend the Constitution. Then all you have to do is find and take them. Easy Peasy, right?
Simply move to a country that supports your beliefs. Leave this country to those of us that like it the way it was designed by our forefathers. We believe it’s not the fact that we have a rght to own arms, but, the lack of parenting in your communities that cause the madness. Get off your social media and teach your children the true value of life and how to respect others.
Collectively, as U.S. citizens, we have become too insane to have anything less that ultra-strict firearm regulation and laws. Too many or our countrymen have lost touch with how to manage their anger. They see the world only from inside their own heads, and any ideology that challenges that narcissistic view has them loading guns. They have forgotten that killing people doesn’t change people’s minds, doesn’t alter the color of their skin, and doesn’t solve the problems of a shattered ego.
Sir: Apparently you didn’t pay attention in your American History class.
I might suggest that Darryl D. Perry focus on more immediate and realistic solutions to gun violence than the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. In order to amend the U.S. Constitution, 2/3rds of the House of Representatives and 2/3rds of the U.S. Senate must propose the Amendment and submit the Amendment to all 50 states of witch 3/4 of the states must ratify the Amendment. The alternative is a sort of Constitutional Convention that has not been convened since the orginal in 1781. Maybe, a better understanding of the Constitution might help in formulating solutions to the problem.
While I agree with the basic sentiment, good luck “repealing” the 2nd amendment. The better course is to constitutionally restrict the 2nd amendment. Courts have shown much more willingness to take this route. For example, even gun nuts wouldn’t argue that citizens don’t have the right to own RPG’s or anti-aircraft missile systems. Even fully automatic weapons have been banned without much of a fight from the NRA. Reasonable restrictions have a much more likely chance of success and can also move toward reducing gun violence.
Sir,
You are 100% in ERROR. Fully Automatic Weapons are NOT banned or outlawed sir, not by any means. All the 1986 Firearms act did was stop citizens from getting any NEWLY manufactured machine guns. All those machine guns that were made BEFORE the 1986 FFA are LEGALLY allowed to be owned. All we have to do is get a special background check, pay a $200 tax stamp.. and if you have the MONEY to buy one.. its yours. M60 Machine Guns? I can buy one for over $20,000… M16 – Fully Automatic? About $10k..
Next time learn the subject about which you are posting sir.
This gun nut does believe citizens shoukd have Rocket propelled grenades and anti aircraft missiles. The whole point of the second amendment is so citizens can keep the government in check. Well regulated militia still means a private militia, and we’ll regulated does not mean government regulation. Restrictions do nothing but harm innocents.
Retired corrupt Kauai police chief? Doesn’t get any better than This!
Leave the Constitution alone, it’s fine. How about going after the “PEOPLE” Doing the killing? Guns are a tool!! Even if you remove them it will not stop the mental ill from going bozo on people. Also good luck! We the people will not agree. Find an intelligent answer for a change, that’s what we pay you for.
Completely disagree. What a backward world we live in where a police chief can think a person doesn’t have a God given right to reasonably defend their life and property. What a misrepresentation of facts and figures. Let’s punish the law abiding for the actions of the few law breakers.
Mr. Perry, I am a U.S. Constitution Originalist and disagree with your position on the 2nd Amendment. The United States continues to exist and prosper with our individual freedoms and the foundation is the 2nd Amendment. There truly are other issues to resolve to control the illegal use of weapons to hurt fellow Americans, let’s find and enact them.
Chief, I hope your statement, “irrespective of the Bill of Rights” does not come back to haunt you the next time you decide to run for elected office! The first 10 amendments were named The Bill of Rights, because they all predate the formation of our “constitutional republic”….they cannot be “granted” by any government, because they are inalienable…as are life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. So repealing the second amendment is an impossibility…I mean, we could not even get the Equal Rights Amendment, which grants women the same legal status as men, ratified…and what could be more commonsense than that? In spite of the Second amendment, this country is planted thick with gun laws at the state level, some even maintain a “gun registry”:California, Hawaii, Maryland, New York and the District of Columbia. In fact under Federal law a national gun registry is illegal. I do not encourage a federal government registry of guns…PERIOD! Yes, Great Britain has onerous gun ownership laws, but guess what? SO does Mexico, so that blows up that analogy. Since the NICS has been passed, they have had over 230 million checks, leading to 1.3 million denials. Perhaps states should take Illinois lead, and institute a FOIA, which is much more “granular”, and may stand a better chance of bringing up those “red flags” many people talk about. They are murders armed with guns, and in most cases, family, and people around could have pointed out these red flags to the appropriate authorities….many DID, and were ignored by those same authorities. And how about the lives ended by untrained law enforecment individuals, that appear to be shielded from criminal prosecution for their actions caught in real time? No, I do not think “repealing” the second amendment of the Bill of Rights is an answer to anything, even if it was possible, which is is not. Full disclosure: am am NOT a gun owner, nor an NRA or any other special interest group apologist that consistently “purchases” legislation from many of the 535 legislators in DC. I just think we have to change how we think about how these murders are being facilitated, and vote in our respective states to have the laws modified in accordance with the voters.
The second amendment should not be repealed, read it and I hope you truly understand it. “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.” It is to protect us as Americans from an overeaching government when said tyrannical government tries and takes away our rights as free citizens of this great nation. If the second is repealed I hope that this country stands up and has a revolution against that tyranny!
Beat it… F.O.A.D.P.A
“The Second Amendment must be repealed because it is harming the citizens it swore to protect — the weak and defenseless.”
Sorry Darryl, this sentence epitomizes your entire rant…irrational, shallow, historically inaccurate, contradictory, and, I might add, idiotic. The weak and defenseless are EXACTLY the people that need to be armed. God or Natural Law (take your pick) gave us the right and obligation to defend our lives, the lives of our families and loved ones, and our property.
Now the self-appointed almighty, Darryl Perry, has decided that he knows better? So this wanna-be tyrant has decreed that rights are given by government and that they should be taken away by such? People’s feelings are hurt by what other people say, some commit suicide as a result, Darryl. Shouldn’t you, while you’re at it, declare the 1st Amendment something to be repealed as well? The US long ago declared certain drugs/substances as banned & illegal…how’s that worked?
As someone that has the benefit of being able to carry a weapon, your stance regarding the rest of us and our rights, as you’ve scribbled in your piece, is abjectly hypocritical and does not comport with actual crime statistics compiled by the FBI.
RG DeSoto
The headline alone is ridiculous.
At what point as a country do we take responsibility for our actions as Americans and parents? We refuse to teach our children to be responsible and teach them coping mechanisms rather than blame video games or music. It’s ok to set boundaries tell them to accept that there are bad people in the world and anything can be used to assault someone. Stop listening to news and propeganda
Absolutely! The second amendment is not sensible in this day and age. I believe most people would agree not to completely outlaw every gun, just have much stricter laws and enforcement. Ban all assault and semi-automatic guns.
90% of guns are semi automatic. Most Americans don’t want any type of guns banned and don’t want strict gun laws.
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
What kind of idiotic statement is this? Almost every gun is semiautomatic. Insane people that never owned a gun trying to tell people that do own them that they shouldn’t. Honk honk.
You just contradicted yourself and don’t even realize it. You can’t say the second amendment is outdated and then claim you just want more regulations on it.
Define Assault weapon. A person can be killed with a rock or baseball bat. Are they assault weapons? Just because an AR 15 looks like a military weapon doesn’t mean it operates like one. You are in a grey area. You might have a hunting rifle in 30-06 which is certainly more powerful than an AR,but we don’t hear about those. The left wants to ban ALL guns but as a piecemeal pace.
Mr. honorable retired police chief: I think you’ve got your American History a bit confused.
Our forefathers were quite astute and aware that things and people would change over time. That is precisely why the second amendment was added as one of the “Bill of Rights” in 1791.
It is NOT the Second Amendment that is “harming the citizens it swore to protect”, it IS the government itself that has failed to enforce our laws and therefor, through its incompetence, has failed to protect it’s citizens, which is precisely the reason for that amendment.
The fact that “humans are vulnerable and subject to mistakes”, is exactly why it was mandated that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.
“Killing machines such as the AR-15, and automatic firearms” were developed for our nations military for fighting wars. In wars, it’s all about “killing”. It is the fault of our government, and the afore mentioned incompetence, that those types of weapons have fallen into the hands of the criminal element of the general public.
You assume that “Our forefathers had no idea that someday, based on a person’s “right” to own a firearm, an individual without cause or justification would walk into a school and murder defenseless men, women and children……”
I am sure that they were quite aware of that possibility and therefore realized that the citizenry would forever maintain the “RIGHT” to protect himself and others against such evil.
The “RIGHT”, as all “Rights”, are granted to each and every American citizen, by the “Bill of Rights” as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America”.
There are also laws that provide for the removal of those “rights”. The failure of law enforcement and our incompetent, politically motivated judicial system is the primary reason why so many criminals, who’s rights should have been permanently revoked, are free to commit these hideous crimes.
I am not against strict background checks and required training.
I am not against completely banning fully automatic weapons, but also from law enforcement.
But, until you, and our astute political leaders can truly guaranty the safety of my family, I shall maintain my “constitutional RIGHT” to “keep and bear arms”
Put it on the ballot
Thank you, Darryl Perry. I’m happy to see your common sense article that I hope more people will take note, especially from our excellent former Chief of Police. As a former student of the US Constitution, I totally agree..
There was no common sense in this article at all nor in the speech.
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
Nice speech, but not accurate. Herr Goebbels would be impressed.
Yes, all things are in motion and change in that respect, but some things have not i.e the human psyche. Pretty much unchanged for millennia.
Some things have remained fairly constant, love, honor, respect, sunshine, rain, wind, the myth of someone else providing safety.
Individual safety? There is no guarantee of it. Not from the government, nor society, nor the Police (especially not in a police-state).
Humans (recently) have lived in relative safety because of the rule of law, and that most people were willing to follow those laws.
There have always been, and will always be, predators who victimize others that they decide are prey, and as the old saying goes, “when seconds count, the Police are only minutes away”.
One must protect oneself, and the Second Amendment is the only assurance we have that we the people will have equal tools available to prevent those criminals or tyrants from doing as they wish.
Why would a law enforcement officer be so naïve? So you use Great Britain as your main example of how gun control should work. Don’t mention that London passed New York last year in the amount of murders! But wait! You disarm the citizens and then only the crooks and murderers have them, or use knives. Yes the majority of murders were done by KNIVES! Pretty soon using this so called “Law Officer” logic, we will need to outlaw rocks! The second Amendment shall not be abridged! Time and people do indeed change Mr. Perry, but the best way to run a country DOES NOT!
why was my comment not printed? I abided by the ‘rules of conduct’!
Right… let’s take guns away from every good law abiding citizen and keep them in the hands of the people who do wanna do harm to others. Do you really think the bad guy’s gonna give up his firearms? Where’s your common sense. Make it law to conceal carry and that bad guy’s gonna think twice before he pulls a gun out in public to take innocent lives. He’d be staring down a barrel pointed back at him. Taking God out of schools and calling disciplining abuse is where this country has gone wrong.
How ironic. The police chief making an argument for repealing our most important amendment. Didn’t this Daryl character use a gun his entire career to protect himself? What a hypocrite.
You want security, use the 2nd Amendment. ARM THE PEOPLE.
You notice we started having issues with we started disarming the people because evil will always look for a soft target.
It’s why these mass shooters with 1 mag never go into a police station but a walmart. I mean come on, where would you go?
If you wanna do evil where will you go a church or a strip club? Seriously. This is common sense kind of stuff.
ARM THE PEOPLE, if you want strong security. Thinking the government can protect you is like saying police can stop crime. (how’s that working out?)
Santa Ana tried to take away the Texacan’s guns. And you know how that turned out.
It turned out well lol
As it will again
It’s laughable the logic antigun people like you have, “Ban all assault and semi-automatic guns.”, that’s pretty much every gun already in American homes and includes pistols. I think we can give up the 2A as soon as we can repeal the 1A as well, no way the founding fathers would have known that so much offensive speech could be used to fully or semi assult people on social media platform’s as happens today.
If law abiding citizens are banned from keeping and bearing arms to protect themselves, and family, loved ones the criminal element will still have guns either by stealing guns or buying them on the black market, so no mr Perry, I don’t agree with your. “Solution”
Sorry you are wrong. It’s about the comma. The comma puts an and in it. So it’s about a militia And the RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS!!!! Read the federalist papers to understand the constitution!!!!!! Educate yourself
No screams, Ruthann.
Feel free to Amend the Constitution. Then come and take them.
Yes, things do change but truth does not. Just as the truth of the 1st amendment has not changed or the 3rd through the 10th. The founding fathers wrote the bill if rights based on the truths of moral truths such as do not murder. What has changed is our approach in this American society to lessen the value if life. We have also become unwilling to place responsibility on those who commit such heinous crimes as mass killings. Until we return to the universal moral truths that governed the writers of the constitution and the bill of rights, people will continue to kill enmasse with what ever tool they can find.
In the great American fashion this attacks the symptom, not the problem.
For more than 200 years the second amendment was interpreted without ignoring its preface, which unambiguously lays out that the people on whom it is bestowing the right to bear arms be a well regulated militia.
In fact, in 1939, in their decision in United States v Miller,” the Court explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.
It was only in 2008, in District of Columbia v Heller, that the NRA’s persistent efforts to buy legislative influence finally paid off and squeezed a 5-4 decision out of the Supreme Court to interpret individual rights into the 2nd Amendment.
2nd amendment does not necessarily have to be repealed, it just needs to be interpreted logically instead of at the whim of powerful lobbyists.
We have mental illness problem, and a society that is unwilling to address it. In the most obvious of cases, there are parents in groups like “parents of children with special needs” on Facebook and elsewhere constantly telling stories about how they are afraid of what their children might do, that they have been attacked, that their child has killed pets, and no agency will provide assistance. Yet, somehow we are to believe that the millions of lawful, peaceful gun owners are the problem. This is shallow, tyrannical thinking. It’s also just backwards. It’s kind of like saying, we don’t like nuclear weapons so we should give them up. To which the rogue states would react with glee. We have a right to defense from bad actors on the street, in our homes from people and the government.
Oh look. The left wants to take the guns. Despite years of saying ‘nonono’. Imagine my shock.
The first amendment was created several hundred years ago. So was the 3rd and 4rth. Your logic is flawed and this article is dookie.
! ! News Flash ! !
More deaths were the result of Hammer Attacks than Rifles of any type as shown on FBI database. 0
I have spent 20 years defending our country and our rights and even in my career I’ve carried to protect my family. Ive seen the evil of humans and what they have done to people by their own hands, the death of kids and adults by stabbings and yes being shot and the thought is that if we ban guns then we take evil away. It’s not the gun that we need to look at it’s the person themselves which is why we have state and federal regulations in order to purchase guns. As far as I know there is no fully automatic gun available to the public so I don’t understand why there is such a determination to have the AR15 banned and confiscated when it is just a rifle and if the magazines are a scare then ban the large magazines, I’ve seen magazines of sizes from 5 rounds to 30 so t.
I’d like to use an analogy that has been used for many years, if a drunk individual driving kills a person then shouldn’t we ban vehicles? People please look at what the real problem is. One more thing even if we were to ban guns don’t forget that if a person wanted one then there are numerous ways they can get them through black markets etc.
I agree Justin. But I think that what most don’t understand is what it says. The first is the right of the people That is us, all of us. The second and most important is SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The only one of the Bill of Rights that has that wording. Shall not be infringed, period.
After the Sandy Hook sadness, there was a call to ban assault weapons and repeal the second amendment.
Eric Holder, AG under President Obama, quoted this:
“The government can no more interfere with Second Amendment rights than it can infringe upon any other rights. If this were not so, then no liberty – speech, press, religion, association, self-defense, privacy, travel, property ownership – would be safe from the reach of a fearful majority.”
That’s why we have a Constitution.
He also explained that the first 10 amendments of our Constitution are part of a second very powerful document called the Bill of Rights.
” Lawmakers know this, but are trying to appease their constituents that don’t seem to understand”
The problem here is this mentality is based on lies and miss information. Ten times more people die from cars than guns. Murder is just murder and if the weaker of the citizens were armed, they would be able to defend themselves from an attacker no matter the weapon being attacked with.
To say the framers had no idea of machine guns is also false. In 1718 the puckle gun was patented and in 1722 it was first referred to as a machine gun. So our framers knew this. The people pushing these lies need to have their freedom of speech restricted for wielding it so thoughtlessly at the uneducated using it against the other law abiding citizens.
Attacking the second amendment because the weak and helpless have been harmed by a maniac with a gun ..?
Why ? so subjects will remain week and helpless, so government may more easily control you.. NO, Impower Americans.. stand up, protect yourself and your family by any means.. Government will not save you, they are not your Friends, and could care less about you.
All they care about is power, control and votes to remain in power..
It’s up to you , you are alone when safety is compromised..
Don’t allow government officials to take your ability to defend your family and your rights..
‘member the time the US government, with the help of local police forces, put all the Japanese is internment camps and seized their assets?
Pepperidge Farms Remembers
Next, we will tackle the first amendment. Scott A Bleyle R N
The first Ten Amendments are inalienable rights. These first Ten Amendments cannot be amended or overturned.
The Second Amendment ends by stating “Shall not be infringed”
Reasonable… you mean the standard that law enforcement gets to use, when the can legally end your life. The standard no US citizen or national gets. The standard applied to us is necessary.
And the second amendment remains necessary, to these United States.
I find it curious, as police chief of the most gun controlled US state / commonwealth / territory (outside of The Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam and Puerto Rico) you advocate for more. You are retired police, a special carve out, cut out class that cries and whines when your badge is rendered worthless when you retire, but want the perks of the job (LEOSA and other laws that grant retired and former LEO gun privileges) but want gun rights receded or removed.
You sir, are what’s wrong with America.
But I submit to you, a former island nation thousands of miles from the mainland, was never America at all.
Your point that the founders never envisioned someone shooting up a school is I’ll informed…The earliest known United States shooting to happen on school property was the Pontiac’s Rebellion school massacre on July 26, 1764, where four Lenape American Indian entered the schoolhouse near present-day Greencastle, Pennsylvania, shot and killed schoolmaster Enoch Brown, and killed nine or ten children (reports vary). Only two children survived. Ben Franklin said Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security. The answer will never be to disarm law abiding citizens
Wow this is at the top of my list of the most idiomatic, moronic things I have ever heard of!!!
Twitter and Facebook have done a great deal of harm to this country. The Founding Fathers could not have conceived of them when they wrote the First Amendment. Should it be repealed as well?
BTW, more people in the U.S. die from hammers and clubs than firearms.
Do you want a Revolution? Because that’s how you start a Revolution in America! Ha
Why Gun Confiscation May be Good for You
Let’s take a look at the silver lining in the cloud that is gun confiscation. Try to remember: nothing is all bad.
Economics is a big consideration. Black market guns will likely be cheaper than they were at the gun shop or sporting goods store. And no more serial numbers on guns or any of that silly paperwork to fill out.
There will be a market-driven “trickle-down” effect on the end user’s price. To your benefit.
Doncha see? There are at least 65 million gun owners in America today. That’s probably as large a percent of the nation as ignored alcohol Prohibition. 65 million potential customers for black market guns is an awfully attractive business opportunity. And used-to-be gun owners will be seriously motivated buyers. Having someone disarm you is a little edgier than being told you can’t have a beer. Well … that may be stretching it. But you get my point.
Since the Federal Government won’t be able to license or tax illicit guns (just like they don’t tax crack cocaine, or pot, or trailer park meth) guns will be cheaper right off the bat! Presently, gun makers have to pay a ten percent excise tax on every gun they manufacture. Not on every gun they sell … on everyone they make. That cost gets passed on to you. Not so with a black market.
Remember that in 2000 a London newspaper (Jan. 16th Sunday Times of London, JPFO alert) reported that black market Berretta submachine guns (not simple semi-autos) were available on the cheery British streets for a paltry $320 U.S. dollars! That same firearm, legally purchased with a Class III permit, would have cost you thousands of dollars. And that’s if you could even obtain the gun under prior law (no post-1986 machine guns). That should make a Libertarian out of anyone!
Also, remember that your state and county won’t be taxing the illicit gun you buy. So what you’ve got is a product that has been unburdened of even more hidden and unhidden costs. So take at least $50 off that stuffy old pre-ban gun store counter price!
The lower day-to-day overhead of the black market gun seller also means cheaper guns to you. Have you ever owned or operated a retail store? Just opening the doors can cost a legitimate store owner hundreds of dollars a day. What with rent, insurance, utilities, a staff of salespeople (and unemployment insurance for them), property taxes on inventory and fixtures, and small details like Federal Income Tax? Hey, it’s tough to make an honest living. Every single firearm in his store has to pay its way to keep his doors open.
Working out of an old Econoline van in a back alley is much, much cheaper. So you, the eager buyer, won’t have a whole added set of costs passed along to you. Let’s take at least an additional $50 off that pre-ban store counter price! (Yeah, I know you can’t put it on your credit card. There will be a few drawbacks.)
But now look at this! Since all guns have been confiscated, and are illegal to own, crime has plummeted in American cities! Rodney King’s plea has come true. We CAN all just get along! So look at the silver lining in this cloud, Mister or Madam Taxpayer. You won’t have to pay for so many police officers. The guns have now been “taken out of the hands of criminals”. Why wasn’t this done earlier? If just one life had been saved it would have been worth it.
What? You say that you really don’t think it will be like that? You think there will actually have to be MORE police on the streets? Oh … to … to apprehend the illegal gun dealers? Instead of the gang bangers who don’t kill anybody anymore? Okay, okay. I got it. Because guns have been “taken out of the hands of criminals”. But could maybe, possibly get back “into the hands of criminals”. Unless there are more cops.
So more cops is still a good thing. So maybe a career in Law Enforcement would be a good idea if you are a young person coming out of high school. So, you mothers and fathers out there, gun confiscation is good because it opens up another potential career for Jenny or Johnny. Especially at the Federal level. Yes, as BATFE agents! And frankly, Johnny isn’t doing so well in that computer class is he? And Jenny isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer, is she? (Well, at least her teeth are straight.)
Another career that will certainly benefit from gun confiscation is being a politician! Times are getting a bit testy, aren’t they? The common folk is getting angry with politicians. All this silly “Socialism” talk. If I was a politician I’d sure feel safer knowing that guns won’t get “into the hands of citizens”… uh, I mean criminals.
I have to watch myself. Citizens aren’t criminals unless they have guns. And criminals, we must remind ourselves (unless they are illegal aliens), are still citizens and deserve the protection of the Constitution. Right? No? Illegal aliens also deserve the protection of the Constitution? Well … okay. I guess. Aw, heck. Can’t you see I’m with you in spirit here? I’m getting all warm and fuzzy. This is becoming as clear as Obamanomics!
And now look at the potential for extra sources of income for cops, BATFE Agents (doncha love ‘em?), FBI snipers, and all those underpaid politicians. Bribes, my fellow Americans! Bribes! Since the black market in banned firearms will be so lucrative, every cop on the block, every BATFE Agent in his Darth Vader duds, every pencil-necked geek politician will have lots of expendable cash to pump back into the economy.
Bribes will be good for America! No longer will BATFE agents have to rely on phony testing to entrap people to move up the ladder (watch the “Gang Movie” Trailer – purchase the DVD). Instead, they can become very wealthy by simply looking the other way.
For the new financial elite, the “Bang Bang Billionaires” to make big bucks, they must, at the same time, grease the palms of the GovCrims and the appointed lackeys we’ve empowered with our confiscated taxes. Double-dipping politicians will love gun prohibition.
This won’t be like booze Prohibition. BATFE agents aren’t pure of heart “Untouchables” of Elliot Ness days. These goons (who brought you government-sponsored murder at Ruby Ridge and Waco) are already corrupt beyond redemption. Any black marketeer worth his salt should be able to come to a very comfortable “understanding” with his local BATFE agent.
Hey, I forgot about the car dealers! Just like all those Cadillac Escalades sold to ghetto drug dealers, black market gun sellers will soon be looking to upgrade from that ratty old Econoline van. Gun confiscation will save the American auto industry!
And how about the Third World? Oops, I mean “developing nations”. Everyone everywhere can make a half-decent AK-47. Give the Chinese a break, will ya! Sales of bootleg DVDs are dropping off. Third World nations need another source of revenue. Chinese AKs, Pakistani AKs, Cuban AKs (with a free box of cigars?), and even Somali AKs can be a terrific source of income for those beleaguered folks. Or how about an RPG to keep in your closet? Hey, in for a dime, in for a dollar, right?
Now don’t get me wrong. Those Third World folks can make ‘em, but they can’t own ‘em. That would be wrong. The United Nations wants everyone who is not a soldier or a cop disarmed. So one of the ways we can keep the poor of the world disarmed … and not quite so poor … is to have every gun they make be bought by black marketeers here in America. And then bought by Americans desperate to ease that strange discomfort of being defenseless.
Man, why the common folks just can’t trust their governments is a mystery to me. Aren’t Gunless People happy people? Well, I guess we could quibble about that. (watch the “Innocents Betrayed ” Trailer – purchase the DVD)
Hey! Here’s a great idea! The government buys (at pre-ban market value) all the illegal guns off the Americans who buy them on the black market. And then gives the purchasers of the illicit weapons amnesty from being punished for breaking the law. (If they can do it for illegal aliens, they can do it for illicit gun purchasers, can’t they?)
That will sure keep the wheels of commerce going, won’t it? It will also help us “all get along”. And maybe we’ll have a huge wave of prosperity, like that which brought us the “dot.commers”. I’m telling you, it will work! Ban, buyback, ban, buyback. Like paying farmers to not plant crops, right?
So don’t fear firearms confiscation. Embrace it. Let’s embrace “change” just like our illustrious Irish-American President asks us to. (Hey, does anyone know where I can get some .38 ammo? Fast Eddy is back-ordered, and Micky The Fish is sold out and doesn’t know when the next freighter is coming in.)
I am the Militia
You are correct about one thing, the second Amendent is about 240 years old. After that, you are expressing an opinion and desire to repeal the 2nd Amendment thanks based on some very well logic and research.
Thomas Jefferson said he would rather “live in tumultuous freedom than in quiet servitude” and I agree with TJ.
The Bill of Rights are inalienable. They were not granted by the Government and cannot be given or taken away. That is what inalienable means.
Even if you repeal the 2nd Amendment (simple math shows it is impossible—-there are more guns than people in the USA) the right to bear arms will still exist.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. “
I am reading comments and am astounded by the total lack of REAL KNOWLEDGE as far as the 2nd Amendment is concerned.
The Supreme Court decision in Heller VS DC UPHOLD’S an Individual CITIZEN’s right to keep and bear arm. The 2nd Amendment has TWO PARTS.. A Prefatory clause and an Operative Clause. The operative clause is the Militia clause which is NOT connected to the Operative clause – our INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to bear arms. Next time you may want to actually KNOW something about which you are commenting upon.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, [COMMA], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
You think the weak and defenseless are being harmed now, wait until they have no way to defend themselves from thugs who will be the only ones with guns.
Are you telling me that if it was unlawful to have a gun then no one will get shot? Guns are illegal anyway. My uncle is doing 20 in the joint right now for a punk a@# gun. If guns become unconstitutional people still gonna shoot people because of accessibility. More tax money bring spent on prisoners!!!
Well now that you have poked the hornet nest…. hope you don’t get stung to bad, Mr. Perry!
If this is how you feel, then let’s get another Constitutional Convention going… just remember while you’re trying to amend it, it may not go your way… and may be amended in other ways.
Total and complete bull crap. Is this a litmus test to see how many competely ignorant and clueless people will blindly agree with you? Shame on you for your outright deception at the cost of so many innocent lives. The right to self defense is God given, not government given.
If the point of the 2nd Amendment was ever more evident, it is now!
I just have one thing to say.
You can have my weapons when you pry them from my cold dead hands commie!!!
There is a real error in thinking “times are different thus logic dictates change must be made” and that it’s the 2nd Amendment that needs to go, so government can have full control over the people to insure their “security”. This is logically and historically … stupid. To think that any government would not become tyrannical with full power over it’s people is unquestionable naive and this from a retired police officer? *really?*
No, LOGIC would dictate, the people should USE the 2nd amendment as the people will always be the first line of defense against evil. It was the case when the 2nd amendment was enacted and it’s that way today.
Besides, the 2nd amendment is a RIGHT based on natural law. The government has no authority or power to remove it or infringe upon it. Because, the forefathers looked upon nature, and the natural law is a right to defend one self. This is not “granted” by the government, so it has no power over it or to take it away. It’s actually the governments job to defend the 2nd amendment at all costs and is in fact an absolute threat to national security to say you’d like to remove it.
It’s a right, it’s like saying, “well times have changed, time for blacks to sit in the middle or the back of the bus again since buses are nicer now” It’s that silly of a statement to say times are different now, so 2a needs to go. No, evil is still evil, yes, the forefathers saw evil in their days, why do you think they were all about gun ownership? Because they didn’t see evil? What a ignorant statement.
YOU want to solve mass shootings, it’s simple. ARM THE PEOPLE!
If you have a room of people, then one evil man enters with a gun, he controls the whole room.
If you have a room full of armed citizens, then one evil person comes in with a gun, he has NO POWER over that room.
Our nation works exactly like this!
You want security? ARM THE PEOPLE. The better they are armed, the more security you will have.
History and LOGIC back this up. Period.
This is a case of Darryl and his other brother Darryl have been smoking too much Maoi wowee… are you phu-king that brain washed from the Communist News Network…?
i agree, but first lets do away with the first ammendment, that way we no longer need the second amendment
Human rights don’t have expiration dates (it’s quite evident that the author has no understanding of rights, and their moral and rational basis).
The Founders may not have forseen technological advances. That’s why they used the term “arms.”
The ill-informed and idiotic Chief should go back to where he came from. In this case Hawaii. And stay there. What amendment will they say is no longer compatible with modern life next?
“The Second Amendment must be repealed because it is harming the citizens it swore to protect — the weak and defenseless.”
Read that. Then read it again.
“…the weak and defenseless.”
And your solution is to REPEAL the RIGHT those folks have to defend their lives???
Jesus H. Christ on a skateboard.
This moronic chief and alleged police officer needs to go back to where he came from. In this case go back to Hawaii and stay there and keep his idiotic opinions to himself. I wonder what amendment will become obsolete next. Without the second they all fall
“The nation was in survival mode from tyranny”. We still are. A government agent, especially former law enforcement wouldnt think so, because they are that tyranny
First thing tyrants do is take away the peoples methods of defense and make them think it was their idea. Anyone follow 1930-40s history of Europe?
The entire point of the Constitution and the Amendments was that it was a fluid document that could change with the times. We, as a nation, at one point said that alcohol should be prohibited and then turned about face on that in less than a decade. We, as a nation, had to add to our constitution amendments that let people be free, and allowed women to vote. We, as a nation should not be so resilient to change. Guns inherently are not evil, but people inherently are self centered creatures (including myself). Changing a document that is meant to be changed is necessary regardless of how it affects the individual. All rights given to us by the bill of rights are only justifiable if they don’t infringe on someone elses rights, and someone else’s right to life is more important than your right to own a gun. Which I might add is not a given right, the second amendment states you may own and bear arms to defend the state as part of the militia, not oooooo I want it because it is shiny and makes a lot of noise. Change is necessary for continued existence, call it evolution. We, AS A NATION, can no longer sit back and wait for this to fix itself.
You’re a fool. Without my RIGHT to own weapons, what will protect my RIGHT to life, and indeed rights in general?
The guy who wrote this article needs to consider the fact that, yes, we do have more gun crimes than Great Britain, because cause Great Britain has very harsh gun laws, but did he look at the rise in knife crimes? Dose he realize that knife crimes have gotten so bad that the British government is actually considering banning pocket knives? Bad people are going to do bad things regardless of their weapon of choice. The second amendment is not the problem. The problem is that there are idiots like the one writing this BS who not only have no idea how a gun (much less politics) actually work. He points to the AR-15 as the culprit rather than considering the person who was actually pulling the trigger. Rather than blaming a parent or who ever raised these animals who do these despicable things, they blame the government because they ‘allowed this to happen”. What a waste of time and energy. This man does not deserve to call himself a journalist and whoever is paying him to write this crap should just take Daryl’s paychek and burn it in front of him every week.
He also fails to take into account the states. He takes the murder rate of blue states and the gun-ownership rates of red states, and then pretends that the latter causes the former.
What part of “shall not be infringed” do you fail to understand?
Mr. Perry you, sir are the very reason why the Second Amendment must never be overturned. It was not written to empower sportsmen, hunters or target shooters bur rather to provide a forceful deterrent and if required, a lethal response to any who would imperil our rights and freedom.
All of this being said by someone who by the fact they are police/retired police would still be allowed to own a weapon. If this gentleman spent a little time researching history he would know that at the time of the writing of the constitution there was repeating firearms not just single shots. They were just very expensive and rare so they were not used by standing armies. There was also snipers and long distance marksmen. As well as mentally unstable people. As for the founding fathers not being able to foresee individuals walking into schools and killing defenseless people. They fought a war against one of those individuals so we wouldn’t have to live under that person’s tyranny. You are so fixated on the technology you can’t see that there have always been and always will be tyrannical people. The rest of us have a natural right to defend ourselves. The police will never be able to be were they are needed for everyone. I don’t know about you but I refuse to outsource the protecting of my family to someone else.
Love a good article filled with misleading information in order to push a control agenda.
20 years as a police officer
Please give up your weapons
You’re control will be easier
Too many hits on the head from all those bike crashes he has sustained. Why is the GI even giving this guy attention? He does not live on the island anymore and he was one of the worse Police Chiefs in KPD history. He has run the department into the ground before he left, him and his flunky Contrades.
Self defense is a NATURAL right of every human, where spelled out in a Constitution or not. The Bill of Rights aren’t an allowance of what citizens are or are not allowed to do by permission of their government. ALL of them from first to last we’re to protect the rights of the people FROM their government. Murder by firearm is already illegal. A quick look will show almost every mass shooter illegally obtained their weapon anyhow. Oh and Democrats. How inconvenient.
Don’t be fooled. The Communist shit-for-brains who wrote this article isn’t opposed to firearms. His kind would gladly put a bullet in the back of your head if you oppose his/her ultimate agenda. Just ask the Cossacks.
You are missing the point my friend. Guns are inanimate. They do not act on their own. They do not grow or invade. The cancer here is the misuse of guns. The individuals who misuse guns won’t be stopped by new laws restricting guns. Only the law abiding would actually follow those laws. Oddly, one of the few things that definitely and effectively stops those who misuse guns is a gun.
The supreme Court of the United States district of Columbia vs. Heller decision disagrees with you. The Heller decision extends the right of gun ownership to individual citizens and explicitly States that ownership has nothing to do with a militia membership. the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is plain and simple language even you retarded left-wingers can understand
“The Second Amendment must be repealed because it is harming the citizens it swore to protect — the weak and defenseless.”
Per the CDC’s 2014 report to the (Obama) White House, there are between 500,000 and 3,500,000 DGUs (Defensive Gun Uses) annually, where armed people PREVENTED a crime from being committed because they were armed.
This (cough) author, who can be armed because he’s ex-police wants to create at least 500,000 new victims of criminals.
Whose side is he really on ?
To those of you who were unaware that the NRA has an organized social media response network, I hope you’ve gathered in that realization by now!
In 1978, gun ownership in the USA was at 51%. Today it is 30%. The gun sales have mostly gone to the 66% of the 30% who are multiple gun owners. THESE PEOPLE (yes, that’s deliberate) are a minority. It is a very partisan minority by the way. I don’t have to tell you which side. I say, it’s time to treat THESE PEOPLE in the same way most of them treat, or would like to treat, other minorities. That treatment would include, but not be limited to, taking away certain basic rights and taking away, or causing the loss of, some of what they hold most dear. This may even be educational to some of the less extreme of THESE PEOPLE!
If you gun control people actually wanted to do something about gun violence, you would be talking about fixing the sad state of our educational systems.
To say our founding fathers had 0 insight into the fact that technology would advance in the future is to call them complete idiots.
Then again, maybe they were just as stupid as the people who think that restricting firearms will solve any problems with gun violence. Tyranny happened then and can easily happen again, much easier without an armed public BTW.
Future weapons that are not firearms will not be affected by firearm regulations but can potentially kill far more people than guns.
There are 0 regulations on laser cannons, magnetic rail guns, or high pressure air guns. These experimental future weapons are far more dangerous than our current firearms so what exactly do you intend to solve by rolling back our natural rights as humans to do anything which does not cause harm to another human?
You can’t fix anything by taking away people’s freedoms, those you oppress will eventually fight to the death for their freedom. Want to stop violence, educate the public and get rid of the federal reserve banking system.
Why get rid of the fed? A currency free from manipulation is necessary to ensure that the publics labor is not stolen to fill the bank accounts of the extremely wealthy. This theft of labor makes it very difficult to survive without constantly working which causes depression, family issues, mental health issues and can these factors compound into mass murders.
I love the “Our forefathers had no idea” Really, you can read the minds of dead people.
They also had no idea that children would use something like the internet to bully other children into killing themselves or being traumatized for life.
Look at a constitution like Vermont’s from 1777. They believed that in times of piece, the army should be disarmed and that ONLY the people should possess weapons.
And like every other liberal, you overestimate the NRA. They are irrelevant. The millions of people that own guns and vote are what makes gun control unattainable.
It would be great to read over 100 suggestions on how to address the current epidemic of mass shootings, along with the ongoing shooting deaths of all types. Hopefully, those 100 suggestions would include how to fund any suggested measures.
The only ones who agree with Perry are some crazy chicks lol..
Congrats, you’ve increased the huge total of false statements by one!
From Judge Andrew Napolitano: (Especially for you…Pete Antonson)
When tragedy strikes, as it did in two mass killings earlier this month, there is always the urge to pressure the government do something. Governments are animated by the belief that doing something — any demonstrable overt behavior — will show that they are in control. I understand the natural fears that good folks have that an El Paso or a Dayton episode might happen again, but doing something for the sake of appearance can be dangerous to personal liberty.
When the Constitution was written, the idea of owning arms and keeping them in the home was widespread. The colonists had just defeated the armies of King George III. The colonial weapon of choice was the Kentucky long rifle, while British soldiers used their army-issued version of Brown Bessies. Each rifle had its advantages, but the Kentucky (it was actually a German design, perfected and manufactured in Pennsylvania) was able to strike a British soldier at 200 yards, a startlingly long distance at the time. The Bessies were good for only about 80 yards.
Put aside the advantages we had of the passionate defense of freedom and homeland, to say nothing of superior leadership, it doesn’t take any advanced understanding of mathematics or ballistics to appreciate why we won the Revolution.
It is a matter of historical fact that the colonists won the war largely by superior firepower.
Six years after the war was over, delegates met in Philadelphia in secret and drafted what was to become the Constitution. The document, largely written in James Madison’s hand, was then submitted to Congress and to the states, which began the process of ratification.
By then, Americans had already formed two basic political parties. The Federalists wanted a muscular central government and the Anti-Federalists wanted a loose confederation of states. Yet the memory of a Parliament that behaved as if it could write any law, tax any event and impair any liberty, coupled with the fear that the new government here might drift toward tyranny, gave birth to the first 10 amendments to the Constitution — the Bill of Rights.
The debate over the Bill of Rights was not about rights; that debate had been resolved in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence declared our basic human rights to be inalienable. The Bill of Rights debates were about whether the federal government needed restraints imposed upon it in the Constitution itself.
The Federalists thought the Bill of Rights was superfluous because they argued that no American government would knowingly restrict freedom. The Anti-Federalists thought constitutional restraints were vital to the preservation of personal liberty because no government can be trusted to preserve personal liberty.
Second among the personal liberties preserved in the Bill of Rights from impairment by the government was the right to self-defense. Thomas Jefferson called that the right to self-preservation.
Fast-forward to today, and we see the widespread and decidedly un-American reaction to the tragedies of El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. Even though both mass murders were animated by hatred and planned by madness, because both were carried out using weapons that look like those issued by the military, Democrats have called for the outright confiscation of these weapons.
Where is the constitutional authority for that? In a word: nowhere.
The government’s job is to preserve personal liberty. Does it do its job when it weakens personal liberty instead? Stated differently, how does confiscating weapons from the law-abiding conceivably reduce their access to madmen? When did madmen begin obeying gun laws?
These arguments against confiscation have largely resonated with Republicans. Yet — because they feel they must do something — they have fallen for the concept of limited confiscation, known by the euphemism of “red flag” laws.
The concept of a “red flag” law — which permits the confiscation of lawfully owned weapons from a person because of what the person might do — violates both the presumption of innocence and the due process requirement of proof of criminal behavior before liberty can be infringed.
The presumption of innocence puts the burden for proving a case on the government. Because the case to be proven — might the gun owner be dangerous? — if proven, will result in the loss of a fundamental liberty, the presumption of innocence also mandates that the case be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Republican proposal lowers the standard of proof to a preponderance of the evidence — “a more likely than not” standard. That was done because it is impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an event might happen. This is exactly why the might happen standard is unconstitutional and alien to our jurisprudence.
In 2008, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the Supreme Court that the right to keep and bear arms in the home is an individual pre-political right. Due process demands that this level of right — we are not talking about the privilege of a driving a car on a government street — can only be taken away after a jury conviction or a guilty plea to a felony.
The “might happen” standard of “red flag” laws violates this basic principle. The same Supreme Court case also reflects the Kentucky long gun lesson. The people are entitled to own and possess the same arms as the government; for the same reason as the colonists did — to fight off tyrants should they seize liberty or property.
If the government can impair Second Amendment-protected liberties on the basis of what a person might do, as opposed to what a person actually did do, to show that it is doing something in response to a public clamor, then no liberty in America is safe.
Which liberty will the government infringe upon next?
You’ve missed my point RG. Let me make it again more directly. You are in a 30% minority. Conservatives have never let the Constitution, or local laws, or Judge “I spin junk for FOX” keep them from taking away from minorities their basic rights or all they hold dear! It’s what you mean spirited goof balls spend your time doing. The playbook is out there. We’re gonna use it on your minority! You have some time, so take aside those compensations for under endowment, clean them, oil them and kiss them goodbye!
You are so backwards on history and logic; you are legally certifiable.
You bailed on Kauai, but yet here you are?
Anyhoo…
Don’t threaten my right to protect my family. I will at all cost. No matter what. A meth’ed out crazed idiot comes in my home. I’m going to protect my family. You want to take that from me because some idiot breaks the law ahead of me?? NOPE isn’t gonna happen. I’m not the threat going out in public. It affects us as well as THEM, you have to think about US the law abiding citizens with the right to CARRY. SO stay over on Big Island riding your bicycle. BYE FELICIA!
white people, white people, please calm down. many here would want all of you to stop yap yap yapping …trying to out yap each other with your white talk, and white rules, when the jury is still out…as many believe we are not a part of the United States, and we are not Americans. Take your white rules, white opinions, 2nd amendment, and your guns, back the the state you came from. post your white talkie talkie there. Aloha…also means Goodbye.
We’re assume we’re all white, making YOU the racist.
where are one of your voices defending that beautiful young lady just out of Kamehameha High School, killed on her homeland streets. Radio Silent there. is it because he is one of your own, and she is kanaka. tell me how are all your yap yap yapping and guns going to protect her, from the likes of you and your thinking….go yap yap yap on that issues you know it all white people, Hawaii would care to know…how to… and coo coo nut wireless where does the Meth come from…who brings it to Hawaii. White people. go deal with your issues guns and meth with the white people that bring this here. its not like the kanaka are cooking it in a stew pot. your peeps bring it. you want many guns to protect your self from your self. but…aim at any person of color not like yours …you are the guilty party here.
News Flash; she was killed in a “gun free zone”.
especially you coo coo nut wires less. you need to defend your self from a meth person coming to your home. You know that the Hawaiians are not cooking meth up in a pot. they use the pots for make stew. its the white people, the foreigner bringing it in. not the kanaka bringing it in. behind every illegal drug brought here ….brought in is the key word. there is a greedy white person cooking and blending the white mans medicine….and sending it to Hawaii…..go get your gun, go protect your self from your own people the real reason you need a gun. number one , any kanaka or any local person, or person of color ….he is the boogeymen man to you. when you think gun protection, you think if anyone had a reason to hurt you it would be the kanaka, for you and the white man and all your talk, have lied, robbed, and stolen from the kanaka. am i correct. what about all the Kanaka that have died from what the white man have brought into Hawaii. all the guns in the world would not stop you from coming with your white man ways. you want to protect yourself, and I would bet my last wires less penny you are picturing a person of color, out of guilt for what the whites have done to people of color, and continue to do. What has the chief taken away from you. personally . what what…really chief jealousy it is then.he has gotten an education better then you have yak yak yak…and he is what…of kanaka decent. that is your issue. He was the Chief, you will never be. and it scares you because of your whiteness , and you are not in charge. amen relax you have a white man on the chair now…go bark up that tree. woof woof
We all are the militia. We cannot depend on the local,state and national forces to provide security for us. When seconds count they may be minutes away. we are the only ones that can protect ourselves against criminal elements,they don’t abide by any laws anyway. Its main reason for existence is to keep government in check because it time for it to exist and rule it must disarm us. Remember what Britain tried to do to us? Or what Cuba did to its citizens? Russia,China? Germany?
‘shall not be infringed’. Ever wonder why this is the only amendment with that wording? or why it is even the second amendment? Because they knew that after the 1st amendment this was the 2nd most important in preserving what they had just fought for.
Goodness. Enough of this! The second amendment is in place and untouchable. It really doesn’t matter. If you’re a human on this planet you’re born with the right to protect yourself and you’re family by any means required. We don’t need a politician trying to make is believe the birthright came be taken away. I don’t care what state, country, or even planet you’re from. As we say in Texas to anyone wanting our weaponry: Come and take it!