You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
Once again, how about a cartoon showing the printing press at the various times? Do you really believe that all of the minutemen we well dressed members of the upper class? Is a semblance of a balanced cartoonist too much too ask?
Once again Sack, like most anti-gunners of his ilk, betrays his utter lack of understanding of the firearms he maligns. Here, he mistakes technical data for practical capabilities. "Hundreds of rounds a minute" might be the mechanical cycle rate of a certain firearm. But it is not by any means, the practical firing rate. And it would take a "high-capacity clip" of a size and weight even more enormous than this grossly exaggerated cartoon, to carry such a number of rounds. Sack further erroneously equates the 'militia' with a musket-toting colonial. Anyone who has actually studied the history of the Revolution and it's aftermath, knows that what the 2nd Amendment straightforwardly envisioned was that the citizenry should maintain for itself a rough parity with the light infantry of the day. Thus, a "military-style" rifle with a "high-capacity magazine" (a standard magazine in all reality) would be totally appropriate to the intent of the Founders.
The founding fathers were fine with citizens carrying the same grade of firearm that was in use by the military. They didn't state that citizens had to be armed beneath the capabilities of their oppressors.
Sense of humor anyone?
"Thus, a "military-style" rifle with a "high-capacity magazine" (a standard magazine in all reality) would be totally appropriate to the intent of the Founders." To protect this country NOT for everybody for any reason to have one.
Sack is spot-on once again. The arms and ammunition from the period when the second amendment was written and what people have access to today are worlds apart. It's time to put limitations on the caliber of munitions available to civilians and stop the bleeding and murders.
I keep hearing about the "Founders' Intent," as if they had the ability to see into the future and the types of arms we have today (not just guns, mind you, the 2nd Amendment says arms). Did they intend for our citizens to turn those arms against our children? What did they intend for us to do about it? Lots of folks seem to know what they intended, so I'd love to know what they'd do now.
thehoffers-- They didn't say "firearms" or "guns" they said "arms." If the military is using Rocket Propelled Grenades, mortars, tanks, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, etc. does that mean that anyone in the country (it doesn't say law-abiding mentally-healthy citizens only, either) may also possess those things?
arspartz-- Asking for a "balanced cartoonist" misses the fact that this is in the OPINIONS section of the paper.
You will never find "balance" in this biased publication. When I was a kid, we were taught that news should be presented as news, for the consumer to make up their own mind about. Now it is presented with a bias, so we already know how we should feel.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
Poll: How are your seasonal allergies this year?
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks