Wisdom from the Web: A confused editorial board?
Vail CO, Colorado
Our editorial “”Our confusing Second Amendment” about the Supreme Court ruling that a handgun ban violates the Second Amendment prompted a flurry of web comments on http://www.vaildaily.com. The editorial, while acknowledging that the Supreme Court’s ruling was consistent with constitutional law, question the relevance of the current Second Amendment language in modern society. One commenter saw our point:
The ink was scarcely dry on the Bill of Rights when Alexander Hamilton was slain by Aaron Burr, in a duel, in Weehauken, New Jersey. Oddly enough, such duels were illegal, be they by pistol or sword. It seems that even the Founding Fathers couldn’t obey the laws involving fire-arms, eh?
I offer this: if the First Amendment is inviolate, why then isn’t the Second? Many claim that technology and tradition are outpacing the former, and that some of its provisions are obsolete.
But most questioned our understanding of the Second Amendment, and our intelligence:
Au contraire, Thursday’s ruling allows good people to defend themselves from bad people, in spite of your liberal boards desire to see good people become victims. Thank God I don’t depend on you folks to defend me! Why are you all so illogical?
The conversation on our Web site moved on to discuss the effectiveness of gun bans and the concept of individual gun ownership.Ironically, or perhaps not ironically, the conversation mirrored the one the editorial board had when discussing which way we would go in our editorial. (For the record: our editorial board’s positions aren’t always unanimous and that certainly was the case with the Second Amendment editorial.) The overwhelming majority of those commenting on our site disagreed with the stance our editorial ultimately took.
Your argument that the framers of the Constitution didn’t envision the kinds of weapons available now doesn’t hold any water. I’m certain they didn’t envision the internet or satellite TV when they guaranteed the freedom of speech in the 1st amendment, either, but that doesn’t mean we should repeal or modify it.
Support Local Journalism
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User