In a Monday column for The Herald-Times, forensic and clinical psychologist Paul Shriver called for the complete repeal of the Second Amendment.
Shriver reasons that there is no legitimate purpose for the right to keep and bear arms. Not even in the context of personal defense.
“Firearm use is by definition a violent act (homicide when a human is the recipient) and has no place in civilized society. Nothing ever invented is easier to obtain or more lethal with less effort than a firearm,” he writes.
“No reasonable person could possibly imagine that expressing one’s feelings or opinions with a bullet could be equivalent to ‘free speech’ or even exist as a ‘right’ on the same piece of paper,” he continues.
No offense to Shriver but these sound like the musings of a slack-jawed idiot who hasn’t read the Constitution (or, quite possibly, inflammatory drivel from an anti-2A Internet troll). Civilized society remains civilized because there are noble men with guns to keep the peace and enforce the rule of law. Disarming these good men opens the door to full-blown tyranny.
Case in point, Ukraine. There’s a reason why Ukraine’s leadership did a complete 180 on its gun laws with respect to certain rifles in the face of the Russian invasion. Because an armed citizenry is kryptonite to hostile forces.
Violent acts by good men are a necessary reprisal against those who seek to harm our families or imperil our sovereignty. But Shriver doesn’t think so. On the contrary, he contends that it’s time to turn the 2A from a fundamental right for all into a privilege for the select few.
“The only real solution must begin with the repeal of the 2nd Amendment in its entirety and without delay. It might then be re-written in clear language as a privilege to be strictly regulated — the details to be worked out later by usual democratic means. This would include specifics as to legal and reasonable legitimacy of uses, manufacture, sales, types, and related products,” he argues.
He goes on to say that all guns in “current ownership” would need to be “recalled” and if not “re-legalized, eliminated,” and that this call for widespread disarmament is not “not anti-gun per se, nor in any sense extreme.”
New Study: Small Group of Known Criminals Driving Crime (Not Law-Abiding Gun Owners!)
And as for the natural right of self-defense, he completely rejects the notion that firearms are the best tool for the job, indicating that less-lethal measures are good enough.
“Personally, I would not recommend self-defense either by pre-emptive or counter attack as an appropriate use, as there are many effective and less lethal options,” he writes.
“Of course, under the new laws, it would still be true that if (some) guns are outlawed, only outlaws would have guns, but non-compliance would make (possibly) you, (former law-abiding citizen) one of them, now wouldn’t it? (And good luck with that.),” he adds.
Again, Shriver’s ignorance shows through in his analysis. As the gun community is fond of saying, disarming good guys does not make dangerous people harmless. Hyper-violent criminals are never turning their guns over to the state, which means his call for compulsory forfeiture would leave millions of compliant Americans at the mercy of these predators.
Shriver is, therefore, suggesting that law-abiding citizens should be relegated to bringing a taser (or a flashlight or pepper spray or some other less-lethal implement) to a gunfight.
Maybe that’s a sufficient safeguard for his family but it’s not for mine. If myself or one of my loved ones comes face-to-face with an armed and determined killer, we won’t be defending ourselves with a rape whistle or some bureaucratic-approved less-lethal device — that I can promise.
We have a 2A that “shall not be infringed” for a reason. It wasn’t by accident that the founders and framers put it into the Bill of Rights at the number two spot. Highly educated people who seriously question its enduring importance to this nation and its free people should have their heads examined, perhaps, starting with Dr. Shriver.
“Blue Dog” was unavailable for comment.
liberal fools like Shriver are just urinating into a gale-force wind now. It is laughable to hear. The American people can clearly see the threats for themselves and will never surrender their ultimate bulwark freedoms to this gov’t under any circumstances. That may well be Trump’s legacy. He came along and so enraged these sewer rats on the Potomac and upset their agenda that they crawled out of their fetid sewer nooks and crannies to attack him and the American people saw them clearly for what they are. We will see what happens in November. There are a lot of very angry Americans out there. Right now, their anger is suppressed out of respect for our Constitution.
It sounds like Mr. Shriver is just upset and in desperate need of a fresh tampon and tissue.
Shriver is a fool, with our very ‘porous’ Border, guns would simply pour across as demand from the criminal element rises.
It’s a common theme whenever something heavily used or ‘popular’ is banned, the black market rises to the occasion.
Shriver may be educated, but he’s ignorant as hell for a psychologist.
Having taken a college-level course in psychology, I can say without equivocation that Mr. Shriver is insane. Therefor, it follows that he could never legally own a firearm, and as such, out of irrational jealousy, wants to make it so no one else can either.
I recommend a long course of therapy to include electroshock treatments and possible lobotomy for Mr. Shriver.
If Ukrainian citizens had historical access to firearms as American’s do, the invading Russian’s would not stand a chance. Bombs, Tanks, and War planes are all great for warfare, but at some point Russia has to occupy Ukraine in order to claim victory. Imagine trying to control 45 million people with guns who sincerely do not want you in their country. When the Ukraine government finally realized the Russian’s were coming they started trying to arm the citizens. Too late! If Russia succeeds in taking over Ukraine, it will be because they citizens were not sufficiently armed. Other countries should take note.
Someone please hand Shriver a Kleenex. He just had a liberal wet dream.
Why should we allow criminals to continue to reoffend, they should be removed from the gene pool.
Shriver needs to put his money where his mouth is…..I propose taking him to a Mental Hospital for the criminally insane….put him, and, the biggest, most violent, deranged killer in a secure room with security cameras….also in the room are easily accessible 9mm pistol and a taser…. after the nut job is unshackled and the door is locked and the nutjob makes his intentions clear….let’s see Shriver back up his hollow words.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I should send him a thank you card – best laugh I’ve had all year!
Repeal the Herald-Times.
Mark N, thanks for the clarification. I hate to say it but I get caught up in the ‘Rights’ thing myself. The Bill of Rights just lays out what the government cannot do. I liked the insight of the right was always there.
So pre-emptive attack…wtf…….isn’t that what a criminal does…… I can really see the benefit of pepper spray to stop a car from running down someone, good luck with that. sad thing is people listen to this hair brained crap and actually believe and support it????
“‘No reasonable person could possibly imagine that expressing one’s feelings or opinions with a bullet could be equivalent to ‘free speech’ or even exist as a ‘right’ on the same piece of paper,’ he continues.”
Strawman from Hell. No one makes either argument. This bonehead seems to think that 2A advocates believe the Second Amendment is tied to the First Amendment beyond a protective measure.
In his “expert” eyes he wants to convince the public that like the 1st amendment they can gut it and decide what they want it to be rather than what it is meant to be…..I doubt Biden’s new misinformation dept will go after this guy and his bs!
The fundamental fallacy underlying Shriver’s screed is that the Second Amendment “grants” rights to the People to possess firearms, and that therefore repeal of the Second would repeal the right to keep and bear arms. This is legally incorrect. The Second doesn’t “grant” anything, it is instead a limitation on the government’s power to restrict the pre-existing right held by the People. The Preamble provides that the States and the People (each in their sovereign capacities) create the federal government and cede to it certain powers, and reserves all powers not ceded. Therefore, the Second Amendment precludes the government from interfering with the People’s rights to keep and bear.
A proper interpretation of the amendment reveals that a repeal would not revoke the right; the right pre-existed the Constitution and the Second Amendment, and will continue to exist even if the amendment is repealed. And, since the federal government is supposed to be one of enumerated powers, the absence of any power to interfere with the right continues in force; the Second merely states expressly that which is implicit ion the Constitution itself.