Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

Reason Magazine's Jacob Sullum Soundbite on Gun Control Laws

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
1,707
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Apr 26, 2007

Reason magazine's Jacob Sullum provides a soundbite on gun control laws after the Virginia Tech murders on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight. See Jacob 47 seconds into the clip.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 2 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (117)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • I have a crazy idea. How about we keep the second amendment, and address the actual root of the issue that motivates some people to use guns against the greater good. Too complicated? Never mind then. I sometimes get optimism seizures, so don't mind me.

  • They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. (U.N art display slogan) And those who beat there swords into plowshares will plow for those who dont (anon, and full of common sense)

  • Guns are way too cool to be illegal.

  • Yeah, I think he's right . . . I'm not some right-wing nutcase by the way (more like a left-wing nutcase) but having citizens that are armed is a good idea. I wish it were more liberal over here in Britain.

  • Anyway, I'm watching this again, and he said support for gun control is declining. Good or bad?

  • Indeed. I was kinda hoping to angle at that in my post. The rights are natural rights. The writers of it came from the background understanding of law which basically says that governments cannot give freedoms, but by definition only curtail man's natural freedoms. Of course, we accept the limits of law as they are beneficial. But yes, no one can GIVE anyone a right (despite what some say in the Continental tradition). And the rights to self-defence and life and liverty cannot be bargained away.

  • It also implies that the right is given by something greater than the state, or nation. "shall not be infringed" sounds to me like it wasn't given. And what isn't given cannot be taken away.

  • True, but even the text as it is implies there is a right to bear arms: it simply says that that the needfulness of a militia is a reason for why that right should not be infringed. Of course, the constitution is quite clear that people have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - AMONGST other rights - and I would say to anyone, how can we defend our rights to life and liberty without the right to arm ourselves?

  • Exactly. That is what anti gunners must understand. We need to focus on laws that keep guns out of the hands of certain people, not everyone. I am liberal, but I only support certain kinds of gun control. I support gun control laws that keep guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, but out of the hands of criminals.

  • The original text said also implied that being in a militia is not a prerequisite for the ownership of firearms.

    Then again, being in a militia would sure help. They wouldn't pick on us if our gun culture was that strong.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more