You are certainly correct to insist that other Constitutional issues deserve time, as well. I suspect that the popularity of the gun control debate is due to its accessibility to the common person.

Bait and switch. This is emotional, bad journalism and intellectually dishonest. All the Amendments are important and to make an assertion that those who support the 2nd Amendment somehow lose sight of the others is just not true. If anything, the press in this country has far more of a track record of picking and chosing Amendments to play favorites with.

Also, the proverbial "You cant yell fire" and then pointing out how it is a limit on free speach is true but to relate it to gun control is dishonest. Someone cant yell "Fire" and someone cant shoot people in a theater either but they dont take your ability to yell fire away to prevent it. Just like they dont take your pen away if there arises a need to censor a press release.

If you believe various rights are being encorached upon, I not only agree but I support your endeavours to point such things out. However, it needs to be kept in mind that the only Amendment that protects the rest is the 2nd Amendment. If this is a hard concept for you to understand or agree with, you need to take a sabbatical from expressing in print and listen and learn what print has to say about insurgency, guerrilla war, gun control, revolution and a number of other topics.

The nature of power doesnt change, just the setting. Your ideals, no matter how self important you think they are, are the ideals of downfall. It is not the good men who bear arms that bring societies down. It is those who would enable the destruction of the self responsible class with ideas clothed in the robes of nobleness that leads to a real gap that can not be bridged between power and dependant.

The previous post called this article what it is, a classic bait and switch.
However, starting with a presupposition that "gun nuts" are only aware of one of their rights as outlined in the amendments makes me doubt the validity of anything else the author says.
I am not a "gun nut," so I will pretend that the author is not addressing me in this article, but I, unlike the author, do understand the gun lover's mindset. They resist each piece of state and federal legislation meant to place limitations on gun ownership because each time one succeeds, they lose a little ground. As soon as they give a little ground, the next round of legislation is right behind the last, attacking the next level of ownership rights.

That seems to be what the author is trying to get across in regard to other issues like the Patriot Act. If that is the case, then leave the 2nd amendment alone and say what you really mean.

Finally, I understand that the FBI and CIA aren't going to win a popularity contest, but what exactly do you think their job is? They exist to protect the United States and pursue federal criminals and foreign threats. I have friends who work for both now and I am pretty sure they dont go to work each day to figure out how to break laws and take away rights.

I echo the sentiments expressed in the prior comments. Because a citizen chooses to focus his energy on resisting assaults on the Second Amendment does not mean he is unconcerned about assaults on other portions of the Bill of Rights. As was already pointed out, however, the Second Amendment is what ensures the relevancy of the rest of the document. If the people were to be disarmed, what recourse do we have to stop the government from violating our other rights?

Furthermore, your comparisons between "reasonable" restrictions on the First and Second Amendments are profoundly misguided. Just as you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you cannot discharge a firearm in a crowded theater either. The same person who must obtain a municipal permit to hold a protest must also obtain federal and local approval, pay a fee, and pass a background check to legally take possession of an NFA weapon (the machine guns, silencers, and short barreled shotguns that are addressed in the KS bill that apparently precipitated this editorial). The implication made by the author that the Second Amendment can be exercised without any restrictions is a complete fallacy. There are literally over 20,000 existing firearms laws at the national, state, and local levels in this country.

I maintain that the vehemence with which citizens defend the Second Amendment is a direct consequence of the pervasive, systematic attempts by legislative and executive entities to infringe upon it. This does not mean gun owners don't care about encroachments on other liberties, but merely that the threat to the Second Amendment is the most severe. Your grievance seems analogous to criticizing an AIDs researcher because he's doing nothing to combat cancer or Alzheimer's disease.

If Congress and dozens of state legislative bodies began introducing Free Speech Control bills on an annual basis, I suspect you would find most of us "gun nuts" at the forefront of repelling those initiatives.

Mr. Williams,
I would think someone who is a "pre-law" student would have a better grasp of the Constitution and Bill of Rights within that document.
These rights were, and are, not granted by the Federal or State Government but, rather, rights that each person is recognized to possess by definition of citizenship. None of the Amendments (or the Constitution itself, for that matter) speaks from the government to the people, but rather are the people speaking to their government. The notion behind the Constitution and Bill of Rights was not to give rights to the people but rather to set limits on what the government can do. Any powers, rights, etc., that are not reserved to the government in the Constitution reside with the citizens.
Those who value their Second Amendment rights understand full well that any other rights that we enjoy, hinge upon the Second. It is the "armed citizenry" that is the guarantor of a free state. The "free state", therefore, exists because of the "armed citizenry" rather than the "armed citizenry" existing at the behest of the state.The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not collections of philosophical thought that sway with the wind, bur rather documents, by design, to be read and understood by “the people” and should be read as written; not "interpreted” by ideas foreign to the text.
2nd Amendment is not about hunting or recreational use of firearms. Rather, it is all about personal protection and protection of the citizenry against tyranny of government, whether it be federal, state or local. It is, in a sense, the sole guarantor of your right to speak your opinion in your article

Bait and switch? That wasn't my plan. Haha, I shouldn't be surprised though, debates on topics like this usually lead to a gang-up. The original word I used in place of *emotional* responses* was *visceral* responses, which implies a response that is deep-seated and overrun with feeling (or bias instead of logic and intellect. At any rate, I conceded in my article that this is a complicated issue that warrants a lengthy critical essay. I can't exactly address all points in 550-650 words. Also, I should clarify by stating that the rights in the constitution aren't absolute in their execution, the examples I gave about yelling fire in a theatre and so forth pertain to that notion. There are ways to express these rights legally but the judiciary (and sometimes the Executive) can place limits on the agents of those actions (i.e. limiting guns for the second, the press or churches for the first, etc). Also, the mentioning of the Patriot Act and its affronts was really an aside, if you will. The point of my article was to expose the conventional wisdom of ardent supporters by giving examples of how the implementation of any right is non-absolute, not to whine about the Patriot Act (although it highly qualifies as a whine-able offense). Oh and when I call people gun-nuts, it's a term of love really; it's like calling somebody a religious nut or an animal-activist nut :)

Gang up? If you see it as a trend, perhaps you should realize that most Americans are tired of being told what is important to us.

We know what is important to us and it is not the socialism and utopic nonsense that is being taught in most of todays institutes of learning.

So you failed to get your point across, were called out about your tangents, realize the popular support for the issue and cast a veiled aspersion or two that you probably think passes for wit.

Yet I am sure, as with most young people who have never done much with their lives yet and are in the warping and coddling arms of Academia, you will continue to think it is everyone else with the problem.

Hmm, no, I rather like free flowing debate with many perspectives represented. Trust me, I'm not the kinda liberal that thinks CNN, Hillary Clinton, and Harvard college are gods. It's refreshing for me to write about a conservative issue and see what conservatives and moderates (or independents) think about said topic. I'm not trying to step on people's toes. If you'd like Rabbi, you should submit a guest column to the editor denouncing liberal doctrine pervading (or invading if you wish) our more prestigious and competitive public and private academic institutions. Or better yet, apply to be a columnist and introduce more conservative ideals into the student press, because I will admit, liberals have a stronghold on the press (especially in coastal enclaves).

JORDAN: LET ME SEE...

if I can put this in perspective for u as succintly as possible. no puns, no catch phrases, OK? DEAL?

1) The Patriot Act is nary 5 yrs old. The GUN BANNING EFFORTS by socialist (do-gooder Libs) has been going on RELENTLESSLY for MORE than 50yrs now!! Which do U think we're MOST tired of defending, dealing with (hence, most emotional about)?? This country is borderline revolt when it comes to the disgust we PRO-Bill of Rights Advocates (AKA, PRO- 2nd Amendment Lovers) feel for the subject. e.g., THERE IS NOW OVER 204 BILLS NATIONWIDE THIS YR. ALONE INTRODUCED BY LIBS ALL DESIGNED TO WHITTLE OUR 2nd-Amendment Rights away... Multiply THAT by 50 yrs - and u get the picture!

2) WHO 'SAYS' WE'RE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT OTHER BILL of RIGHTS VIOLATIONS? YOU? The Propagandized Media or Soro's MOVEON.ORG??? WHO? SHOW ME A POLL? ANY POLL!
"Gun Nuts" r typically "Grassroots Movement" Backers. Hence, we feel the same way about ALL the Amendments. Its jsut that the 2nd is the most important because when all the others fail - the 2nd WILL defend the rest!

So, get with the Game Plan, Jordan. I KNOW ur an intelligent guy... b4 u jump to absolutely terrible, perhaps even fatal conclusions, stop listening to the pure B.S. the left is dumping on America daily attempting to do exactly what they've done to U: CONFUSE! and start HELPING the rest of us!!! Its tough, man! And we sure could use one more good man.

SIDE-NOTE: While I empathize w/ur concerns, dont worry... we're keeping an eye on the P-ACT too! And yes, it certainly DOES have potential for abuse. However, dont just "talk fear", SHOW me 1 case - jsut 1 "officially-documented" case, to date, where its been abused so far. Ive read many, many stories via the Left's purported "abuse cases", and - as normal- NONE can be substantiated as backable, solid or credible - NONE!

JOIN THE MOVEMENT, JORDAN -AND GET UR FRIENDS INVOLVED AS WELL. I think when u do, u'll find we Gun Nuts "aint" as stupid as u think... perhaps - and this is JUST a maybe - but perhaps we're WAAAAY AHEAD of the Games and the rhetoric. THX for ur time. Late for the bench...

Might I suggest, if you are interested in understanding gun owners, that you find some and ask some serious, thoughtful and open minded questions. They are all around you.
Perhaps, you might look to where they congregate. Shooting competitions of all kinds (iron silhouette, action, bullseye, skeet and trap, etc.) is a good place. Guns shops and gun shows are another really good place to learn more about these kinds of people. Call the NRA, they train more police firearms instructors than any other organization in existence. You may find that they break a lot of stereotypes as often as they confirm them. They will be kind, polite and willing to help you. You may even want to ask a gun owner to take you to a range to see what the big deal is really all about, however, you can get an idea by trying similiar pursuits yourself such as darts, archery, bocci, bowling, horseshoes, ring toss or golf to name just a few.
Try finding a study or a book or an article that breaks down the demographics of gun owners. One statistic you should pay attention to is the one that looks at the arrest records of concealed carry permit holders vs. law enforcement officers. Another statistic you might consider is the education category of gun owners vs. those who don't own guns.
I won't give you the information. It is out there if you really want to know. By searching for yourself, you take caution against certain biases that either side of the debate may have. I wish you the best of luck. Congratulations on your school basketball team's accomplishments.

So your going to be a shyster huh, a legal nut?

Let's see, in the early 90s I was called an extremist, racist, Nazi, right wing extremist, fascist, etc. all because I stood up and called myself a patriot and said I have the natural born right to fight back.

I've always been around guns, from my grandpa's old 12 gauge, the only gun he ever owned, to the several I've owned and own. But shooting and hunting is not the center of my universe. Unfortunately, because of the actions of the American Communist Insurgency and the evil elitists who fund them, my universe has become centered on trying to fight their evil.

Let's keep this short and sweet: On April 19, 1775 the 'legal' British army advanced on Lexington and Concord to disarm the militias, to take their cannon, powder, shot and small arms.

The militia was led by local officers, appointed or elected by their 'legal' system, that was no longer 'legal.' There was nothing 'legal' about what they did when they shot British regulars, called so because of their regular marching skills and because they were 'regulated' or trained in their arts of war, all the way back to Boston.

There was nothing 'legal' about the small group of Jews who collected a handful of handguns and began killing German soldiers in the Warsaw ghetto.

There will be nothing 'legal' about our actions when we are finally forced to start killing the "Liberal" and authoritarian freaks who have been working tirelessly for 150 years to overthrow our form of government and turn us all back into serfs.

No one will care anymore about whether or not the automatic weapons, suppressors, I.E.D.s, or other materials used by REAL American insurgents who are fight for their LIBERTY are 'legal' or not. That will be a moot point.

If you truly have an interest in knowledge, and not in just being part of our now evil ‘Just-us’ system, I suggest you start with these links:

http://www.willowtown.com/promo/quotes.htm

http://www.willowtown.com/reality/blacksburg.htm

If however, your arrogance gets the best of you, may the war start soon enough for me to see you after “Liberal” season begins.

I find it absolutely hilarious that the comments on this page prove what I felt Williams was trying to convey all along.

Attack the idea of the 2nd amendment and those who give it their full support, and you will hear them rally.

How many people who commented on this page have ever responded to another column or issue? Submitted a column or letter of their own? Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing and everyone should exercise it, but it's a difference in quality. Responding to a column on a forum is one thing. Getting out there and writing up a column or letter of your own has far more merit.

Without question, the ability to carry and own a gun is potentially a good way to defer an attack from a fellow citizen. But let's face it people, owning a handgun is not going to help you rebel against the government when/if they threaten your rights. The government has weapons too. And theirs are bigger, stronger, more expensive, and probably more effective.

With the advent of security systems, satellites, and body guards its impractical to think that owning a gun in any way ensures the protection of your rights. It's a remnant from a time when the government relied on its people for support and supplies and technology. Now, military science and technological development far outpaces that of the average citizen, or even a mass of citizens.

Yes people, lets go grab our sawed-off shotguns and silenced handguns and rifles and march on Washington to protest the obvious disregard of rights. Lets see how they respond to it.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

My Rights apply whether you agree with them, understand them, or not. That's why they are called "Rights."

I find Missa's comments to be typical of the uneducated, brainwashed masses. Missa, please tell your nonsense to the Vietnamese, the Afghans and the Iraqis. All of whom have defeated the most powerful militaries on the planet with nothing more than a rag - tag collection of citizen soldiers. I would suggest that before you post foolish statements that prove to the whole world you have no idea what you are talking about, you do a little research into the subject at hand.

As for Jason, it is hard to have a rational debate when the first words out of his computer call his opponents nuts. All of your arguments are shallow and foolish. They show you can not be bothered to research anything and just write from your emotions and feelings. As other posters have pointed out, there is no prior restraint on protesting or yelling fire in a theater. In case you cannot grasp this, it means that nobody forces you to don a gag when you purchase your ticket to the movie or play. I worry for this nation when the up and coming generation doesn't even understand the topic they wish to discuss.

Missa asks, "How many people who commented on this page have ever responded to another column or issue? Submitted a column or letter of their own? Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing and everyone should exercise it, but it's a difference in quality. Responding to a column on a forum is one thing. Getting out there and writing up a column or letter of your own has far more merit."

I have submitted many editorials to various newspapers over the years on a variety of topics. I was on the staff of the university paper during my undergraduate career and wrote a regular column. I volunteer for political campaigns. I vote. I belong to grassroots organizations.

Why do you find it so "hilarious" that when the Second Amendment is attacked, people who take it seriously rally in its defense?

And by the way, I can't afford a security system or a bodyguard, but I was able to afford a handgun.

Jordan Williams wrote:

"Okay gun lovers, please understand that one cannot yell “fire” in a full theatre, must obtain a municipal permit to protest, and cannot use hate speech to incite violence."

My response:

First of all, it is not that I love guns; I love liberty and the tools to deter tyranny. Ever notice that the speech protected in the First Amendment protects RELIGIOUS and POLITICAL speech ONLY.

The Bill of Rights (BOR), according to the Preamble to the Bill of Rights (there is one though rarely published) is to LIMIT the power of government. We do not derive our rights from the BOR; the founders argued that our PRE-EXISTING rights come from nature and nature's God.

The Second Amendment, designed to protect against tyranny is the most limiting upon government; the absoluteness of this restriction upon government is clear: The RIGHT of the PEOPLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The restriction upon government is ABSOLUTE. PERIOD.

By the way, for all that is made up of Jefferson being a mere Deist (which amounts to atheism, by default," it is interesting to not that when writing upon the evils of slavery while an ambassador to France, he wrote this: "Indeed I tremble for my country when i reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever."

As to the various Federal police agencies, it is not the Patriot Act itself that is the threat; it is the existence of FEDERAL police agencies themselves. Their work should be done by local Sheriffs' offices supported by the old idea of "militia," composed of the body of the people. There is NO provision in any article of the US Constitution that gives any branch of government, Police Powers. By default under the Tenth Amendment, such powers reside with the states and the people as well. Until 1870 all law enforcement, including that of federal laws was done locally. A court ruled that Police Powers cime from the Commerce Clause--a clause designed to give congress the power to regulate tarrifs as goods flowed accross borders. No police powers can be found there. Therefore the existence of the FBI, BATFE, DEA, US Marshalls, etc...are ALL of them, extraconstitutional. All the more reason the people be well armed.....including machine guns and all other arms that one may bear.

Those of us that cherish the Second Amendment do not do so to the exclusion of the other guarantees; it is simply that unarmed, we cannot defend against the erosion of the others.

I leave you with this quote:

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." --Col. Jeff Cooper