The View : Elisabeth vs. Rosie

[RoseAngel04]

BELOW IS TAKEN FROM NEWSBUSTERS.COM

Rosie O’Donnell: The Second Amendment is 'Not Really a Right'
Posted by Scott Whitlock on October 3, 2006 - 18:23.
Well known liberal Rosie O’Donnell used the shooting at an Amish school in Pennsylvania as a springboard to promote gun control. O’Donnell, who famously sparred with Tom Selleck (video), stated on Tuesday's edition of ABC's "The View" that the event should spur tighter restrictions:


O’Donnell: "I think the horror of imagining six to thirteen-year-old girls handcuffed together and shot execution style, one by one, is perhaps enough to awaken the nation that maybe we need some stricter gun control laws."

So...I knew some of you would find this interesting...so comments? I don't have the time to comment now...will later.

PS: Edited - copyrighted material.

 

[E B]

Gee...I wonder what side the author's on.

My opinion might not be a popular one, but I think human beings are too stupid and/or impulsive to have guns, period.

 

[codex57]

That may be true, but if they wanna ban guns, then they need to amend the Bill of Rights. I'm sure there are a lot more "rights" that Rosie is strongly in favor of that have a more tenuous grip on existence than gun ownership.

And frankly, I don't see what hunters have to do with anything. The text is: 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 talks about basically protecting yourself and the country. That's the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and why guns are not to be deprived. Not hunting.

 

[FireGoddess]

Date: 10/6/2006 7:00:29 PM
Author: EBree
Gee...I wonder what side the author''s on.

Ha - I was JUST about to write this myself.

I might be in the minority too...but I think that gun laws are fairly ridiculous, since criminals always seem to find a way to get their hands on guns anyway. Usually with filed off registration numbers.

I agree with Rosie.

Should teachers have guns? Cuz I can see some fairly obvious ''accidental'' scenarios stemming from that.

 

[E B]

Date: 10/6/2006 7:48:40 PM
Author: FireGoddess
Should teachers have guns? Cuz I can see some fairly obvious 'accidental' scenarios stemming from that.

No kidding!

"What about the fact that firearms- Well, firearms are used 60 times more to defend people then they are to take a life in this country, too.

"We need guns to protect ourselves...from people with guns!"

 

[sumbride]

Before I saw this on HuffingtonPost.com this morning, I read the blog of a local columnist, Dan Rodricks, for the Baltimore Sun. He does a lot of work helping former users and criminals get out of the life and get straight so he has little tolerance for guns. He pointed out that the 2nd amendment is less about the right to own a gun and more about the militia, as Codex pointed out. Rodricks suggested that all that fight for the right to bear arms need to realize that as a gun owner in this country, they are part of a militia and they need to get ready to be in the National Guard and get over to Iraq. I wonder how quickly THAT would happen?

 

[indecisive]

Date: 10/6/2006 7:57:59 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 10/6/2006 7:48:40 PM
Author: FireGoddess
Should teachers have guns? Cuz I can see some fairly obvious ''accidental'' scenarios stemming from that.

No kidding!

''What about the fact that firearms- Well, firearms are used 60 times more to defend people then they are to take a life in this country, too.

''We need guns to protect ourselves...from people with guns!''

They say they should in Wisconsin... talk about a horrible idea

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15142930/

 

[pearcrazy]

2nd Amendment

"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."

As much as I hate to agree with Rosie O'Donnell on anything, I have to say that I agree with her on this one. It's funny that the whole first part of this amendment usually is omittted when quoted and the only part I ever see is the part that says the " the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed". My opinion is that this amendment was written with respect to keeping a militia--a citizens' army to protect the new union and defend their independence from England. No one could have imagined 230 years ago that weapons would be used for any purpose other than defense of the country. This was written when soldiers carried muskets that only fired as many shots as could be packed with powder,tamped down and fired in a certain amount of time. I think our forefathers would be turning over in their graves if they knew the state of chaos with respect to guns we have in this country now. I wish that this amendment could be re-written and that the "right" to bear arms would be for soldiers and public defenders (police, federal agents) only. Sort of like our modern day MILITIA.

This is always a touchy subject. I'll never have a gun in my home. The odds of one of my family members being injured or killed by a gun FAR outweighs any odds that I will injure or kill an intruder in defense of my person, my family or my home.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I personally hate guns and do not wish to have one. BUT, um, who exactly do you think will no longer have guns if there is gun prohibition??? It''ll be the nice, law abiding people like us. Organized crime (and other elements) will always have weapons. I''d hate to see it that one-sided. Seems very, very dangerous to me.

 

[pearcrazy]

I agree, the damage has already been done. No criminal is going to give up his gun. I'm not so sure that that's the reason to keep the status quo, however. I highly doubt that in my lifetime I'll ever see a change to the second amendment. Too many people are willng to throw their hands up in the air and say screw it. By that token, why don't we all walk around with our six shooter strapped to our hip.

Perhaps law abiding citizens won't have to bury one of their kids or their kid's friends when they decide to get mom's gun and shoot up their high school. Is it worth it when some kid doesn't have a gun to accidentally shoot their 8 year old cousin when they stumble across daddy's hiding place? By the way, that almost happened to me as a kid.

 

[MelissaSue]

i saw this episode.. I haven''t read the story yet.. but.. honestly.. Elizabeth Hasselbeck looked like a big dumb dumb.. Rosie OBVIOUSLY knows her stuff on the gun control stuff.. she''s been talking about it non stop since Columbine.. Elizabeth just kept saying "well people need guns to defend themselves".. but hello.. Rosie isn''t saying no one should have a gun.. she''s just saying that they should be registered, traceable.. etc.. with waiting periods.. so they don''t fall into the wrong hands.

 

[diamondfan]

As said before, the issue is the non law abiding citizens who will get them on the black market, assemble new weapons that are untraceable from pieces and parts of various stolen stuff...guns are a hot commodity on the black market. I DO not like hunting for sport (seems humans are on that list now more than ever) and think it is different to discuss a farmer etc having a shot gun versus Ouzi''s and other automatic weapons with hollow point or cop killer armour pentatrating ammo. I think the issue is that can we stop the CRIMINALS from getting these weapons? And what about a previously "law abiding" citizen or person who has escaped being ever caught who goes through proper channels and fills out the papers and waits the time required, all the while plotting to go out and slaughter an office full of people, or a school where his ex worked, or a school, etc...and what about when kids find a parent''s gun that is not properly stored and go on a rampage? Sure you can file charges on the parent but it will not bring back the kids...Some young kids in the midwest a few years back got the grandfather''s gun out a safe (they took a car and DROVE there and they were not even 13 if I recall), somehow they were able to get into a LOCKED safe, the drove the stolen car to school and killed 7 people. They were young, no record, the gun was secured in a home other than theirs and they were bound and determined to get their hands on it and kill people. I wish there were better answers or more secure safeguards, but it is just a scary world.

 

[strmrdr]

ya all want mine come get em.. ya can have em one bullet at a time :}

 

[Eva17]

The odds of a loved one dying at the hands of a loaded gun, "FAR" exceed the chance that it will be used to protect onself or "Valued Other Property" in self defense.

 

[codex57]

Date: 10/6/2006 8:25:20 PM
Author: sumbride
Before I saw this on HuffingtonPost.com this morning, I read the blog of a local columnist, Dan Rodricks, for the Baltimore Sun. He does a lot of work helping former users and criminals get out of the life and get straight so he has little tolerance for guns. He pointed out that the 2nd amendment is less about the right to own a gun and more about the militia, as Codex pointed out. Rodricks suggested that all that fight for the right to bear arms need to realize that as a gun owner in this country, they are part of a militia and they need to get ready to be in the National Guard and get over to Iraq. I wonder how quickly THAT would happen?

Yes! If you wanna own a gun, I better see you in the National Guard or Army Reserve helping protect our country. Certainly be available to go to Afghanistan or Iraq.

 

[anchor31]

Date: 10/6/2006 7:00:29 PM
Author: EBree

My opinion might not be a popular one, but I think human beings are too stupid and/or impulsive to have guns, period.

Ditto.