Previous Post
Next Post


“Why are the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments subject to erosion in the name of homeland security, but the Second Amendment is beyond compromise in the name of saving innocent lives?” – Tom Diaz in Guns kill more people. So why does terrorism get all the attention? [via]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. So he’s in favor of the erosion of our constitutional rights, and he wants more of it?

    Sometimes it’s shocking how unpopular freedom is.

    • Yeah, these people gotta stop eating lead paint chips floating in a bowl of airplane glue for breakfast.

  2. Mr Diaz, automobile accidents and clinical errors kill tens of thousands of people, so why do guns get all the attention?

  3. Diaz used to be conservative before he went over to the dark side. That steely-eyed stare is intended to menace his former associates.

    • > Diaz used to be conservative before he went over to the dark side.

      What makes you think somebody can’t be conservative and on the dark side?

      The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

    • Sounds like he adores the Patriot Act, “free speech zones” and so-on.

      That is the Bushevist, so-called “conservative,” a.k.a. DARK side.

  4. plenty of people protested the PATRIOT Act — he’s creating a reality that doesn’t exist

    • Exactly, what makes him think we’re OK with it? If anything, gun owners are very likely to be vocal about those rights as well.

  5. Well first of all, the 2nd amendment IS “homeland security” at it’s first and finest.

    And second, I would point you to a rather famous quote by Jefferson about giving up liberties for safety.

    • “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – LEST IT COME TO DOMINATE OUR LIVES AND INTERESTS.”

      Patrick Henry (emphasis mine)

    • also attributed to Jefferson: “the beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”

    • The person quoted about essential liberties being given up for a little temporary security was Franklin, actually.

  6. “Why are the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments subject to erosion in the name of homeland security”

    1) Thank you for asking the question, the answer is they should not been eroded but the liberal press is more than happy to go along the politicians and less critical of the govt instead of fighting back because they believe in giving up freedom for a false sense of security and a government that will one day step on your neck too. This is like the Crimson Press who wishes to stiffle all descent to libtard Harvard. By keeping silent YOU and the REST OF THE PRESS has allowed those freedoms to go down the drain!

    2) Government used FUD to take away our other freedoms just like they are using FUD to take away 2a

    3) Instead of being a complacent liberal troll as you watch the freedoms erode from a seat at the capital, Come help us fight for the second so we can someday push back and and win back the other freedoms we have lost.

    Otherwise, FOAD because I don’t think you can put 2+2 together.

    • I completely agree, Pascal, especially with #2. I’d like to add that the 2nd “shall not be infringed” so we have the means up undo the “erosion” done to the others.

    • Liberal MY ASS.

      Fox was all about King Bush and his new Ameican Order.

      The “liberal” media wanted no part of it, and were openly critical.

      When are people in this place going to realize that whether it’s America’s far right wing, über-Christian version of the Taliban or the largely leftist gun grabbers, both are equally and thoroughly inimical to freedom and sense.


  7. Well, at least this is a step forward for them – they at least admit its a constitutional right. THey still have that crap about wanting to ban handguns up on their site, so its sill hard to take this seriously.

    I am kinda tired of hearing about how “research” and “information” has been shut down by the NRA. Bloomberg has billions to fund the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. He has given hundreds of millions to the school, with access to a high quality trauma center for case studies, in a city where a lot of kids are actually getting shot (near the Homewood campus of Hopkins, i might add).

    According to their brief their mission is to do “high quality” research. In many cases, they just recite the same tired old studies (you telling me Bloomberg does not have the money for better?).

    I strongly favor gun safety, would the VPC support teaching it in every classroom, alongside PE? yeah, i thought not. this is not about safety.

    I listened to the MD Senate testimony this week, and it made me want to puke. Talking point after talking point from the VPC. Please dont tell me that they have little influence and the NRA is a bully!

    oh and talk about erosion… baltimore and DC are mostly gun-free if you are a law-abiding citizen.

    • Schools barely teach PE anymore and physical activity is important for health and brain functions.

  8. It’s a ruse. Don’t give in to questioning his logic about the other rights.
    His real attempt at misinforming the public is in the second half of that quote. Where he attempts to argue that the 2nd Amendment costs lives. Take him to task about that point!

  9. Because the erosion if the First, Fourth, and Fifth amendments is wrong, much of so-called Homeland Security is a myth, and adding another to the list doesn’t make it better.

  10. Oh, and I just noticed the title of his piece, I’d previously only read the quote.

    Guns kill more people. So why does terrorism get all the attention?

    I would rephrase the question to “So why are we spending all this friggin’ money?”

  11. “Why are the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments subject to erosion in the name of homeland security, but the Second Amendment is beyond compromise in the name of saving innocent lives?”

    Because the groups defending the 2nd are more effective than the ones defending the 1st, 4th, and 5th. Maybe you should get on that.

    Where did this guy get the idea that we support eroding any constitutional rights, for any reason?

  12. One of the things that makes 2A discussions so different is this.
    With nearly all the rest of the Bill of Rights we are talking intangible concepts which “Joe America” has a hard time wrapping their head around because how do you assign a value to a concept. Whereas the 2A discussions don’t just stop with the concept “fight tyranny”, they are also firmly attached to a tangible object with very definite ownership and clearly defined values (in money).

    That physical “anchor” of guns makes the 2A arguments a horse of a different color.

  13. We desperately need to roll back any infringements on the first, fourth and fifth ammendments. Although your comment suggests that you’re not only oksy with those infringements, you’d actually like to expand them to the second.

    You, Sir, represent all that is hateable about our current society. ESAD.

  14. “Guns kill more people. So why does terrorism get all the attention?”

    “the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments subject to erosion in the name of homeland security”

    “the Second Amendment is beyond compromise in the name of saving innocent lives”
    Yes, it is beyond compromise, and saves innocent lives.

    Somehow I get the feeling he’s a disarmament guy, but everything he said above implies the opposite.

  15. Mr. Diaz’s employer is a bigger threat to the First Amendment than the Patriot Act is to the 4th and 5th. By willingly allowing the White House to dictate editorial policy the Washington Post and the rest of the MSM make a mockery of a free press. The staff of Pravda during the Soviet era had more integrity than our media does today.

    • I think Pravda has more integrity now than the American MSM. They also have some editorials telling Americans to stop giving our rights away like candy. Interesting how the roles are reversing.

      • There was a joke circulating in Russia in 2008:

        Q: What is the difference between Putin and Obama?
        A: Putin isn’t a communist.

  16. Maybe because the Second Amendment specifically states this right “shall not be infringed.” Period.

    • The second amendment sates that the right to keep and bear arms hall not be infringed, not the amendment itself.

      The first talks bout religion, free speech and so-on, again talking about non-infringement.

  17. Uh… I dunno about you guys, but I hold a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to changing the first, fourth, and fifth amendments. I live by “no touchy our freedom.” What’s this about “erosion?”

    And when has the “erosion” of the first amendment ever cost somebody their lives?

  18. As much as I believe Mr. Diaz cares about the erosion of any amendment, particularly the 2nd, he does have a valid point. If people are willing
    to compromise their rights for the Patriot Act, why are they now
    getting upset?

    There’s a very high level of energy concerning the 2nd Amendment.
    If you could get people that excited over the 4th and 5th Amendments
    we might not have this train wreck of legislation called the Patriot Act.

    • I was not willing to compromise our rights for the Patriot Act. I felt that these measures were an early indication that we quickly and easily lost the war on terror. Defeat is victory! War is Peace!

  19. 600,000+ die of heart disease every year. Require permits for hamburgers, soda and tobacco if you are interested in the greater good.

    Otherwise, please (and I’ll spell it out for you this time) F*ck Off And Die Mr. Diaz.

  20. I get a kick out of how a trajedy by a madman always leads directly to law abiding citizens firearms. There is no intermediate step, there is just, bad thing happened, must get guns. It almost seems like they wanted them in the first place, Randy

  21. News flash, cornflake.

    Most of us didn’t want THOSE rights eroded either. It’s people in power that think like you that ramrodded through unconstitutional legislation in a big hurry, without reading it, just to prove you were DOING SOMETHING.

    Swear to God..all the trouble in the world is caused by people trying to do something about the “troublemakers”.

  22. Answer #1. Because it is.

    Answer #2 Because people don’t care as much about the others as they do about the Second.

    Answer #3. Because if the second amendment goes down, the minor erosions seen so far in the others will get worse. A lot worse.

  23. Your premise is flawed, therefore so is your conclusion. The fact is that none of our natural, inherent rights should ever be infringed, especially in the name of “homeland security.”

  24. “We’ve already lost some of our essential liberties, it’s only fair that our other liberties be infringed equally.”

  25. If guns kill people then journalists write the truth.
    This goes back to the whole, “pencil makes my mistakes” thing, its so simple and effective to say but people ignore it.
    And correct me if im wrong but is he calling pro-gun people terrorists?

  26. ‘….the Second Amendment is beyond compromise in the name of saving innocent lives?” ‘

    He answered his own question.

    The restrictions are always “…IN THE NAME OF saving innocent lives”

    when in fact they don’t save any lives. The restrictions actually will result in the loss of many more lives in the near term, and possibly enormous numbers of innocent lives in the future. (a la Germany, Russia, North Korea, Cambodia, China… etc. etc.)

    The Second Amendment is a life saver if it’s not infringed upon.

  27. Another BIG Government takes over all fascist and why do you give him air time here RF!!!

  28. Ohh if here wants the Bill of Rights shredded lets takes his press and his 1st Amendment rights away too then!!

  29. He said that? You have to be kidding me. WHY ARE ANY OF OUR RIGHTS ERODED IN THE NAME OF SAFETY? How can he possibly not understand this… BLown away man.

  30. Derp.

    Cause the 2nd Amendment has not been touched, right? Not a single gun law ever passed anywhere. Not a single restriction ever put in place anywhere. Or, maybe 22,000 of them. Because I’m pretty sure the 18-month, $400 process I went through to get a pistol permit in Westchester County New York wasn’t someone’s idea of a joke.

    This guy is a dumba**.

  31. Yes, Mr. Diaz, we have allowed too many constitutional rights to be infringed and diluted already. Yes, there are some 2nd amendment defenders who’ve been blase about dilutions of other rights, because they haven’t been hurt by those dilutions (yet), but 2nd amendment failure hits them personally. This is understandable but unfortunate.

    The solution isn’t to get rid of all rights to be “fair”. It’s to kick the enforcement of our other rights, as well.

    And it’s not like the 2nd Amendment has been defended all that well, historically. Look how long it took to get a case before the Supreme Court to actually have them confirm that yes, the right is an individual right — Heller was, if I remember right, the very first one, in way over 200 years. Yet the right to bear arms has been infringed from the very beginning.

  32. Technically the most deadly thing you can do in the US is go see a doctor. That pretty well sums up why this post, the foundation of his argument and honestly the posts and relevant foundations of those posts; is flawed. Statistics are useful for information and to help provide context to an argument, but drawing conclusions based purely on statistics results in false corollaries.

    Not to mention the whole premise of “We’ve passed these other terrible laws, so clearly we should just keep going,” has to be about the most asinine argument I’ve ever heard. Part of life is learning from your mistakes. If you’re afraid to correct yourself, and just stubbornly push on continuing on the same failed logic you started with, you really shouldn’t expect everyone else to follow you over the cliff.

  33. BEYOND COMPROMISE? Has Mr. Diaz looked at the thousands of gun control laws on the books?
    Beyond compromise? The 2nd Amendment is the most compromised part of the Constitution, and the result has been no improvement in crime stats and millions of law-abiding citizens have lost most of their gun rights.
    Is Mr.Diaz always this out-of-touch with reality, or only when it applies to guns?

  34. When they came for those of another church, I did not speak up because I attend the same church as the President.

    When they came or those on soap boxes, with presses or who assembled to air grievances, I did not peak up because I’d no soap box and go only to work or the firing range, avoiding crowds.

    When they came with no warrants to confiscate the computers and DVDs of neighbour, I did not speak up because they were not at my door.

    When they eradicated Habeas Corpus, I did not speak up because I was not under indictment.

    When they came for my guns, there were a damned sight fewer of us to speak up.

    I’ve been in the trenches since forever in defence of the entire Constitution, not just the 2nd item in the Bill of Rights.

    Where we’re most of you? Applauding Shrubya for keeping protesters out of sight, in “free speech zones?”

    As ye sew, so shall ye reap.

  35. He doesn’t want to further compromise the 2nd Amendment. He wants to abolish it. He wants to eliminate our right to self-defense, and destruy our power to resist tyrannical government. He wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment, and we are not going to let that happen.

    Why are liberals so ignorant of history?

Comments are closed.