Skip to main content

Matt Wuerker
(Click for larger image)

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:00 PM PST.

Also republished by Comics.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  They read that comma as a semi-colon. (11+ / 0-)

    Even though it makes the first part a incomplete sentence, since it's a dependent clause.

    Yeah, I'm gonna just argue this from a grammar point of view.  The "two parts" cannot be take separately.  The first part clarifies the second, which can stand alone, but for some reason the author added the dependent clause.

    Therefore, the first part existed for a reason and cannot be ignored or treated separately.

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:04:28 PM PST

    •  The 2nd amendment (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bontemps2012, Laconic Lib, Janet 707

      Was only meant to reassure the anti-federalists that the government wasn't going to disarm them.

      The right to keep and bear arms was already common law.

      In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

      by boriscleto on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:22:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, it was for slave and frontier states (0+ / 0-)

        who realized that they would be fucked if the federal government passed a law against arms.

        The right to keep and bear arms was as extensive as the states allowed them, because common law rights are whaqt a judge says it is, and in any event can be undone, amended or revoked by statute.  Which is why you don't see lots of talk about indigenous people and bound labor having rights to guns.

        One piece of free advice to the GOP: Drop the culture wars, explicitly.

        by Inland on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:45:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, None Of The Above (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          stevenaxelrod, mightymouse

          If you survey the various provisions (and proposals for same) in state constitutions that eventually led up to the Second Amendment, it is spelled out more or less clearly that the whole idea was to have functioning and easily called up militias for defense of the town, county, state, or country as applicable. At the time nobody wanted or was willing to pay for a full-time standing army - they had had too much of that, used against them, 1765-1775. So "well-regulated militias" which could be called up on short notice were the only practical alternative.

          It worked, sort of, as long as the United States remained small, isolated, relatively backward, and not at war with itself.

          Those days are gone - blown away for good with the smoke from the guns of Fort Sumter.

          If it's
          Not your body,
          Then it's
          Not your choice
          And it's
          None of your damn business!

          by TheOtherMaven on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 07:01:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's not inconsistent with what I said. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mightymouse

            The state consitutions spelled out what the states considered their militias, and the federal government's ability to interfere with that was limited by the second amendment.

            If a state wanted to do away with its militia, or arm it with penknives only, that's the state's perogative.  There's no individual right to own a gun. As shown by all the people denied that right.

            One piece of free advice to the GOP: Drop the culture wars, explicitly.

            by Inland on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 07:23:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Including swords. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laconic Lib, TheOtherMaven, Janet 707

        "We have done nothing to be ashamed of. We have nothing to apologize for." NRA 12/14/2012

        by bontemps2012 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:37:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you. I saw that years ago. (4+ / 0-)

      A dependent clause introduces the second part and is the foundation for the second part. Arms belonged to an organized fighting force and not a paranoid mob.

      I remember years ago someone asked Charlton Heston to recite the second amendment and he said, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." He grinned when asked about the first part, and I'm paraphrasing, but he implied that too many people were too interested in that first part. The Supreme Court, of course, went with their conservative impulse and not the "originalist" language in this case.

      "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

      by Wildthumb on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:29:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  P.S. For some reason, I remember a dependent (0+ / 0-)

        clause from Don Quixote that I ran across years ago (in English translation): "These preparations having been made,"
        {the Don was able to sally forth on his nag}. In other words, Quixote couldn't start his adventure without the preparations.

        "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

        by Wildthumb on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:32:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Would it be too strictly constructionist (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wildthumb

        to pass a law allowing people to keep and bear the arms they already have, but not allow them to buy anymore?

        It doesn't say anything about the right to BUY guns does it?

        And the government does have the right to regulate commerce.

        I mean, if the right can totally bypass the dependent clause, we can stick to the exact meaning of the words.

        The sleep of reason brings forth monsters. --Goya

        by MadScientist on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:55:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just about as likely to... (0+ / 0-)

          ...be accepted as disallowing the purchase or possession of paper, ink, printing presses, printed materials, TVs, radios, and internet access would be.

          Such laws would not be "abridging the freedom of the press" any more or less than banning the purchase, by the people, of firearms would have "infringed" on  "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

    •  I think it is the opposite (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laconic Lib

      The first part does not clarify the second part.  Rather, the first part is an assumption, then the author states the second part. The second part rests on the assumption of the first part -- though it is not clear how the second part flows from the first part. They arguably could be separate statements because the there is no coodinartor word.  They work equally fine and are equally confusing as either two sentences (assuming "being" is changed to "is") or as the one sentence. There is nothing very clear about the sentence at all other than that the author intended the principal part of the sentence to focus on prohibiting infringement of whatever right that is asserted.

      •  If it's an assumption, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mike101

        why is it necessary to specifically spell it out, stating what it is, AND why it's necessary?

        Grammatically, "A well regulated Militia IS a necessity of a free state" works, but the word being and the comma changes it to a dependent clause.  

        Nope, the second part clearly is to deal with what is set up in the first part.  Interesting how if that reading you suggest is correct, it's the only amendment to address two different subjects.

        In other words, Nope it's ONE point, and it refers to militia, not individuals.

        I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

        by detroitmechworks on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:27:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Still not convinced (0+ / 0-)

          Why would it principally deal with a well regulated militia when the point of the 10 amendments in the "Bill of Rights" was to restrict the central government's power?  Your reading would be the one that makes it different from the other 10.  Several of the other 10 (including the 1st amendment) deal with multiple matters.

          •  States... (0+ / 0-)

            Have militias.  Therefore, it deals with the states rights to resist a federal government in the worst case scenario.

            As far as the other amendments go, the "Multiple matters" are clearly related.

            One could argue the same for the 2nd amendment, however, that assumes that the individual "Right To Arms" was considered equal with that of the state's rights to arm and maintain a militia.

            In no case can I find a similarity with any other amendment where the rights of states and the rights of individuals are conflated.

            I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

            by detroitmechworks on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:22:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  more like a co-dependent clause /nt (3+ / 0-)

      yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

      by annieli on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:58:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You forget, they also wrote "chuse". (0+ / 0-)

      And forgot one of the Ns in pennsylvania.

      So, you go ahead and 'chuse' to tackle the grammar. Have fun with that.

      It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the stuff in the kitchen.

      by JayFromPA on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 06:21:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Founder father face palm . (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    poco, bontemps2012

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:12:04 PM PST

  •  If Congress effs up and fails to do its job (0+ / 0-)

    this does not give Congress extra powers that are specifically forbidden to it.

    States' rights? Corporate rights? Militia rights? Government rights? Hell no! Only individuals have rights. Proud lifelong human supremacist.

    by happymisanthropy on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:16:24 PM PST

  •  Absolutely spot on n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bontemps2012, Laconic Lib
  •  Dear Founding Fathers- Define arms, please. (5+ / 0-)

    The definition of arms seems to be the important bit.  

    The Supreme Court (rightly or wrongly) has said the 2nd confers an individual right to keep and bear these things "arms".  

    So what are "arms"?  A Glock 9mm? An AR-15? My grandfather's old hunting rifle?  

    Can my neighborhood association buy a Patriot Missile Battery or an F-35 Joint Strike Force Plane?  

    Yes, I'm setting up strawmen, but I don't understand why this one amendment is the sacred one that allows for no regulation.

    There are no absolute rights.  Certain speech and publication is allowed to be outlawed as obscenity.   Demonstrations for the redress of grievances are subject to regulation.  

    •  Actually, it probably wouldn't have come up (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mike101, wenchacha, AirSpencer

      if the second had been properly interpreted.

      If someone is bearing and keeping some THING pursuant to a well regulated militia, then that THING would, most likely, be reasonable.   That is, I expect our national guard to have military grade rifles.

      If someone is wielding some THING pursuant to his own itch, then the deadly nature of the thing becomes seriously important.

      One piece of free advice to the GOP: Drop the culture wars, explicitly.

      by Inland on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:42:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lorell

      ...since people are having fun with syntactical arguments...

      Yes, I'm setting up strawmen, but I don't understand why this one amendment is the sacred one that allows for no regulation.
      The Second Amendment is the only one that says that a right "shall not be infringed".

      Note that the First Amendment only says that "Congress shall make no law...". Unlike the right to keep and bear Arms, perhaps other regulatory mechanisms such as treaties (which are not laws) could "abridge ... the freedom of the press". And, obviously states could do so.

      Perhaps, given the wording of the Tenth Amendment, the Second Amendment was always intended to restrict the states, not just Congress, where obviously the First restricted only Congress (until the 14th Amendment and the imposition of the Incorporation Doctrine of course).

  •  Dress congress up as cheap hookers, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bontemps2012

    Give 'em shiny new WalMart assault rifles and take naughty pictures.

    Everyone is gonna need a new calendar pretty soon. The money can keep the tax-man away from the Billionaires really running the show.

    Poor people have too much money and vote too often. Republican platform plank, 1980 - present

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:26:19 PM PST

  •  Answer used to be "A", but now illiterate justices (3+ / 0-)

    imagine  the answer is "B".  

  •  Should have had a cartoon of the DEA (4+ / 0-)

    SQAT teams carrying out "no-knock" raids with automatic weapons. Maybe the time is here to look at the causative effect of State sanctioned violence in citizen committed violence, rather than just blaming video games.

    "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

    by shmuelman on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:27:44 PM PST

    •  Paranoid schizophrenia and criminal (0+ / 0-)

      acts supporting drug sales -- prime causes of attacks on strangers and urben murders generally -- have no cause-and-effect relationship with DEA/SWAT/ATF.

      Same for any other other connection to LaRouchian "jack-booted government thug" fantasies.

      "No Knock" has been standard practice since the 1920s for high-risk take downs.

      "We have done nothing to be ashamed of. We have nothing to apologize for." NRA 12/14/2012

      by bontemps2012 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:46:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hmmm... Interesting (0+ / 0-)

        High risk take downs? Like the 10,000's of kick in the door drug busts every year? That is just a LaRouchian fantasy I suppose. And how can you blithely assert that a violent government has nothing to do with a violent citizenry and vice versa?

        "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

        by shmuelman on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:04:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Does anyone take note of when this was written? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Blackhawks, bontemps2012, Laconic Lib

    For heaven sakes, the definition of "arms" has changed quite a bit since the late 1700s.  People could keep dry powder and a musket in their homes because they did not have a phone, TV, computer or other device to remain informed, organize and/or call for help.  Today, we are "armed" with all these devices to defend our free state.  Now, all we need is a brand new musket with dry powder and several musket balls.  Private citizens should be guaranteed nothing else.

    •  You do bring up an interesting angle (0+ / 0-)

      While what is literally meant by 'arms' is open to interpretation (and it shouldn't be, that needs fixing) you bring up an interesting concept.

      The idea that we, as citizens, have instant communication, meter-level GPS, instant portable video links, and 24 hour news service is something which would have left our Founders gobsmacked.

      Our military certainly views information and communication as a 'munition'.. If General Washington had even a 10% of what we carry in our pockets to use against the British, he would have had a sh!t eating grin even WITH his bad teeth.

      Our 1st Amendment rights amplify our power.

      I'm saddened but I understand that Heller changed what the 2nd Amendment meant. The Founder's intentions are nice, but don't really apply right now.

      That being said, that the 'keep & bear' and 'militia' meanings are different now.. lets fix the rest of it. You want an animal killing tool? ok, fine. You want a self defense tool? Ok, fine. You want a tool meant to kill men at a scale of 5:1 or better.. tell me why or go back to playing Call Of Duty.

      I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that his justice cannot sleep forever. - Thomas Jefferson

      by MightyMoose on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:38:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bolt-action rifles force hunters to re-aim (0+ / 0-)

      carefully between shots.

      That is a very good thing.

      "We have done nothing to be ashamed of. We have nothing to apologize for." NRA 12/14/2012

      by bontemps2012 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:47:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  To say nothing of the fact (0+ / 0-)

      that those old muskets were a tool used to provide game for the supper table.  

      Most people don't have to go hunting to stuff themselves with Big macs.

      The sleep of reason brings forth monsters. --Goya

      by MadScientist on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:00:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Are you suggesting that there are some people (0+ / 0-)

        who do have to go hunting to stuff themselves with 'Big Macs' or that going hunting subsequently gives one an appetite for overindulging in a number of said Macs?

        No actual response to my smart-ass question is expected, I just had to ask it.

        Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. Carl Sagan

        by sjburnman on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:38:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  An Argument that Cannot Be Won (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Blackhawks, wenchacha, Laconic Lib

    Arguing about the 2nd Amendment is futile, in spite of the perfect interpretation of the language i.e. "well regulated."

    Arguing with people who believe they have an individual right to own weapons designed for killing human beings efficiently is like arguing with a crazy person, such as these must be regulated under penalty of law, (enforced sanity.)

    •  I am a Canadian - so I apologize IN ADVANCE - (4+ / 0-)

      FOR - being a balanced, sane, rational being. (A commodity I understand to be in short supply south of the 49.)

      Either:

      A) You won a war of independence in order to not have "Taxation without representation."

      OR B) You won a war of independence in order to be "Free" and have the "Liberty" to bear "arms" to be able to confront "tryanny" so you can "revolt" against your "elected" government if a) the n*gger wins, b) a n*gger lover wins, c) the sp*c wins or d) a commie wins who wants to destroy your civilization by allowing all your citizens to have - your know - a family doctor they can rely on and who is paid by a "single payer," the "country" - like EVERY other western country - and most of the eastern ones too.

      If it is B) - or any other variation of B) then you - as a nation - are obviously bat sh*t crazy.

      Having been your unwilling neighbour for my 66 years I have no doubt that enough of you think B) for the slight majority that remain to almost never be able to get a workable majority in a Government - DESIGNED - by your so very loved Forefathers to be ungovernable.

      What a clusterf*ck.

      •  Technically.... (0+ / 0-)

        ... the whole thing that started the process that became the Revolutionary War was the Stamp Act which taxed the colonies who had no representatives in Parliament - "taxation without representation."

        Few people remember that part, the part that started it all....

        We don't have a single-payer medical system.  We will be forced to pay insurance corporations who want our money to provide a higher profit margin for executive bonuses and stockholder dividends....  The insurance corporations will pay the hospitals and doctors/clinics and pharmaceutical corporations (and we may be stuck with co-pays on top of insurance premiums).... so it will end up being (I believe) a great money laundering scheme that includes record-setting profits for all of them.  [We would / could have a not-for-profit single-payer medical insurance program if everyone was put on our medicare program..., but that would also mean putting limits on how much money they would pay hospitals and clinics and pharmaceutical corporations... and zero money would go to insurance, medical, and pharmaceutical corporations from We The People.  According to our legislators, we can't have common sense or logic prevailing....]

        I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

        by NonnyO on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:32:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't doubt many will appreciate your (0+ / 0-)

        insults.  I don't think I will start an avalanche of troll ratings.  But I personally find your attacks on America and your status of an "unwilling neighbor" to be troll worthy.  So there, I gave you an explanation.  

        btw, who was the most recent minority Prime Minister of Canada?

        •  well, I took the TR back (0+ / 0-)

          your post is a self TR.  Anyone who does not see that will not be swayed by my input.  You trash America because you think this is safe water, says enough about us I guess.  But I don't buy your line.  Last I heard, you have a conservative leader, we have a progressive one.  Last I heard, your leader supports the gas pipeline and ours does not.  Last I heard, your firearm registry is going to pot.  
          http://www.cbc.ca/...

          and since you made this personal, here is one of my favorite jokes.  "When was the last time you heard somone say, why don't we go out for Canadian food?"

          pow

    •  It cannot be won (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bontemps2012

      because the law is what the Supreme Court says it is, and that means that opening clause is mere surplussage.

      Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

      by Mindful Nature on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:48:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then they don't have a rudimentary knowledge (0+ / 0-)

        ... of history just before, during, or just after the Revolutionary War when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written.

        I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

        by NonnyO on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:23:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sad but true (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NonnyO

          Too many people have never gone beyond "Lies My Teacher Told Me" and have no frickin' idea what was really going on between 1750 and 1800.

          If it's
          Not your body,
          Then it's
          Not your choice
          And it's
          None of your damn business!

          by TheOtherMaven on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 07:11:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Love your sig line! (0+ / 0-)

            Or did I tell you that already.  If I haven't, I meant to.  I sent it to a friend a while back, in fact.

            As far as history..., I was always crazy about it, mostly in England, Scandinavia, parts of Europe where the Celts originated, but much, much earlier stuff up through 24 Mar 1603.

            Then, as I got farther and farther back in genealogy research, all these historical details crop up..., and genealogy research has been instrumental in my learning various tidbits about American history in areas where my ancestors lived, primarily, but also a few general things that affected other areas.

            It's really quite interesting..., but if I mention historical details, people, especially young people, give me a blank look like I've lost my mind, and then say (snottily) "Oh, who cares about all that old stuff?"

            Well, "all that old stuff" is what led to things that affect us today.

            Siiiiiiiiiiiiigh....

            Mercifully, in my quest for genealogical and historical knowledge, I have a network of people from literally around the world and in both hemispheres who are also interested in all this lovely arcane knowledge....

            What would we do without friends who share our interests?

            :-)

            I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

            by NonnyO on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:31:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  NRA types have argued sometimes (0+ / 0-)

        that the phrase "well-regulated" as written in 1791 meant "well-trained", not regulated like we think of government regulations.

        liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

        by RockyMtnLib on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:30:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Even so (0+ / 0-)

          That would suggest that ownership comes with a duty to train and maintain ones position without the militia.  It would roughly mean that owning a gun requires membership in the national gun

          The current chaos meets neither definition

          Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

          by Mindful Nature on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 07:02:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  They have a point but it doesn't help them (0+ / 0-)

          as it still implies the need to belong to said well-trained militia.

          These days, that means the State or National Guard (some States still have their own State Guard as well as a local branch of the National Guard).

          If it's
          Not your body,
          Then it's
          Not your choice
          And it's
          None of your damn business!

          by TheOtherMaven on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 07:20:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Even Jefferson, the most founding of the fathers, (6+ / 0-)

    did not think everything they said or wrote was sacrosanct, writing in old age:

    "They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment."

    stay together / learn the flowers / go light - Gary Snyder

    by Mother Mags on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:32:40 PM PST

  •  Neither (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bontemps2012

    The first phrase is an adjunct clause modifying the second phrase. The second phrase is the principal part of the sentence. Although the clause lacks a subordinate conjunction, it seems clear that preventing infringement of the right to bear arms is the primary concern of the sentence.

  •  Why do we even debate this amendment? (3+ / 0-)

    It was a document written by white men that bought and sold slaves. Obviously these "founding fathers" were often vicious, amoral opportunists. Only fools worship this document like it was written by the hand of God and delivered as a gift to our young nation to follow in perpetuity.

    2012 presidential election. Never has so few spent so much to have so little effect on a national election. Citizens United and Corporations are not American Values.

    by Blackhawks on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:34:01 PM PST

  •  Justice Scalia is just so very much smarter ... (5+ / 0-)

    ... than we will ever be. And he seemed quite sure that the first clause informed (it was "prefatory") but did not limit the second clause, which was "operative." And under all kinds of theories, the Court held, unequivocally granted the individual's right to bear arms. Period.

    SCOTUS helpfully rephrased the question the litigants presented (though the case was very carefully chosen by gun advocates in the guise of the conservative Cato Institute), ran oral arguments nearly half again longer than the alloted time and reached for the Far Right conclusion.

    Although the case purported to be limited to Federal jurisdictions and self-defense issues ... Hah!

    So argue all we want, the Gun Huggers finally had the court they wanted and they won big.

    2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:40:18 PM PST

  •  False Dichotomy (3+ / 0-)

    I don't like this false dichotomy one bit.

    There seems to be so little middle ground in the gun control debate, but I'd like to see some honest, hard questions asked about how we can make good regulatory choices while still allowing private gun ownership under the second amendment.

    This always surprises my liberal friends, but I'm both VERY liberal, and a gun owner. I enjoy shooting, I enjoy my guns, I believe strongly in an individual right to keep and bear arms. But I also want to make sure bad people don't do bad things with guns, and if that means smarter gun control, then PLEASE, bring it on!

    These desires are not at odds with each other! There is no need for extremist positions in either direction, and the debate of the last few weeks has left me feeling stretched out and defensive on both sides. Can't there be a middle path?

    •  It always strike me (6+ / 0-)

      that under just about any reasonable regulatory regime, the responsible gun owners will be able to demonstrate their responsibility and their ability to keep their guns safe (and thus the surrounding community safe).

      What we are really debating is the 'right" of unsafe and irresponsible people to get guns, since they're the ones who would be weeded out by gun regulations.

      Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

      by Mindful Nature on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:50:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mindful Nature, mightymouse

        And this seems like a completely reasonable standpoint.

        Licensing, training and registration requirements, trigger lock and storage requirements, and so forth, are all (in my mind, at least) no-brainers that should get implemented first, and do not bother me at all as a gun owner.

  •  Thank you MattWeurker. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DefendOurConstitution

    This one really touches.

    God be with you, Occupiers. God IS with you.

    by Hohenzollern on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:58:56 PM PST

  •  actually the psycopath in question (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bontemps2012

    murdered his own mother and stole her gun.  

    Look, what it comes down to is whether people believe in civilian gun ownership or not, the rest is just semantics.  Sure, we can ban certain guns, but those who propose that overstate the actual effect such a scheme will have.  One gun, two guns- thirty round mag or ten round mag; c'mon, you really think this will change things?  I just don't see it in the real world.

    The problem is we have a free society and one that produces an inordinate number of killers.  How do we "fix" that?  I don't have any answers.  But I don't think government is going to protect us from ourselves.  Many disagree with my opinion, and I don't blame them.  If there are real ideas on how to change men's souls, I would be more than happy to hear them.  

    •  Doesn't seeem to follow- (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laconic Lib
      we have a free society and one that produces an inordinate number of killers.  [...] If there are real ideas on how to change men's souls [...]
      It doesn't seem to be in mens' souls, but rather a product of our free society.

      -- We are just regular people informed on issues

      by mike101 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:04:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  so what do we do? (0+ / 0-)
        It doesn't seem to be in mens' souls, but rather a product of our free society.
        How do we fix the problems caused by our free society?

        "Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone you might still exist, but you have ceased to live." Mark Twain

        by Void Indigo on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:08:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Reasonable regulation. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Laconic Lib, RockyMtnLib

          ANY activity can be pushed to excess.

          Look at Banking...receive deposits and loan them out...sounds innocuous enough but it almost killed our whole economy.
          For that example we actually had reasonable regulation but it was removed by people who wanted to push it as far as it could go. They took it to excess.

          Our problems with guns and the people who wish to push their ownership as far as it could go seems to me another issue of excess. I think it calls for reasonable regulation.

          There are various models of reasonable regulation all around the world that we could examine to base ours on.

          -- We are just regular people informed on issues

          by mike101 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:43:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  A Solution (0+ / 0-)
      The problem is we have a free society and one that produces an inordinate number of killers.
        TurkeyCreek
      How do we fix the problems caused by our free society?
       Void Indigo

      The free society we have today includes people who were routinely held as inmates in state mental institutions prior to "Deinstitutionalization" which began almost sixty years ago with the discovery of the first anti-psychotic drugs. Most of the people who would have been institutionalized then are now free to guide their own arc through life, whether in Mom's basement or under a bridge, whether dosing themselves or rejecting anti-psychotic drugs (they love their manic highs too much to embrace normality), they are treated as if they are perfectly normal. Many are in prison as if they are nothing more than common criminals. This is the pool most of the mass murderers come from. Deinstitutionalization as it has been implemented, including the ADA is an abject failure. Correcting this travesty should take precedence over taking law-abiding citizens' rights.

      •  I heartily agree, but who wants to pay for it? (0+ / 0-)

        Of course, if the Corporations get the idea that there are Big Buckolas to be made from high-security insane asylums with long-term commitment facilities and procedures, they'll branch out into that area from prisons...but the consequences might include drastic violations of individual rights for anyone who seems "abnormal". (Like, anyone who wants to opt out from the corporate consumerist lifestlye....)

        Be careful what you ask for, and keep a damn close eye on anyone who promises to provide it.

        If it's
        Not your body,
        Then it's
        Not your choice
        And it's
        None of your damn business!

        by TheOtherMaven on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 07:25:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  why is this a quesion of belief? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mike101, RockyMtnLib

      How about a practical review of the facts?  There are quite a number of rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.  I suggest that when talking about whether a right is being circumscribed by government action or inaction we need to look at laws or their absence in the context of their effects.

      So, how does unregulated weapons ownership affect our other rights?  

      The state may not forbid me to worship in my church or temple, but an incident involving an armed and hostile person may prevent me.  I don't expect a ring of police around every sikh temple and mosque, but waiting for a crime to be committed is too late to prevent the chilling effect on my religious activity.

      The same applies for a non-religious "assembly", say to  provide a controversial health care option for women.

      Perhaps I would like to discuss this state of affairs with you.  I may not speak freely, if you bring a gun.  Government sits by, waiting for a crime to be committed... and you have effectively ended the discussion.  

      Or consider if I go out into the community and you are there.  You can carry a loaded weapon openly in Arizona for example.  If you do, it puts a huge burden on me as a proprietor or customer.  

      In a bar!  Won't be much of a party for me at least.  At a store?  Not real comfortable for the cashier if your credit card is declined.  A school or a community center -- my kids won't be going there.

      Are gun owners so small, so powerless, so fearful, that that they cannot live in a civilized country without the ability to kill at a distance within easy reach?  Well from here, that's what it looks like.  And it sure feels like we who don't own guns are giving up a chunk of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to accommodate your fear.

      •  You seem to want to put the blame . . . (0+ / 0-)

           on the generic group "gun owners". Can't you see the benefit of controlling those who are demonstrably causing these incidents or are you comfortable waiting until another one of these mentally disturbed social misfits visits someone else's child's school?

        •  You know what? (0+ / 0-)

          I've been opposed to unregulated firearms my entire life.

          I don't have a way to measure the tragedy-ness of an incident.  My claim is that the ubiquitous availability of highly lethal weapons that require little or no planning, physical strength, coordination, training or actual physical contact with the victim are the problem.  That, and the mistaken belief or fantasy that having a gun is going to actually increase anyone's safety.  It's pretty well documented that a gun owner is more likely to be injured or killed with a gun -- over 4 times more likely by one study.  The implication of my original comment is that the rest of us are tired of being the collateral damage.

          Sandy Hook is an example of highly news-worthy event.  A relatively rare mass killing of children in what happens to be a high income 95% white community, by someone who may have had a mental health problem.

          But there are plenty of less newsworthy gun deaths.
          Los Angeles county had over 617 murders in 2010.  Many of those people were latino or black.  Relatively few were children,  most were the only one killed in the incident.  Many of those murders are unsolved -- no physical evidence except the bullet.  Certainly not national news.  I don't have statistics for 2010 or later, but I did come across this interesting assertion:  74% of homicides in 2004 (1,807 out of 2,444) were committed with a firearm in California.

          Eighteen Hundred Murders.  Now consider if many of those killers didn't have access to a gun.  I claim that the moment would pass while the drunk husband tries find a suitable knife, or the road rage incident degenerates into a fist fight, or the gay couple dials 911.

      •  you did not expand on the term "you" and "your" (0+ / 0-)

        so I will correctly assume you were speaking to me personally.  But then again, you don't know me, so you were speaking to a huge swath in reality.  

        I guess you assume I own guns and that I carry guns around.  I don't think my previous post would imply that- hell, you should see me defend smokers and online poker players lol.

        But the point is, you are saying that if someone owns a gun or even carries one concealed, they somehow have defacto infringed on your rights of free speech.

        Hell, it is not like I can defeat you here with a few well strung barbs.  If you honestly believe that, there is very little I can say to change your views.  But this is an open blog, everything we say to each other is really an idea put out to thousands to judge.  All I can say is I don't think a law abiding gun owner is likely to shoot you because he disagrees with your opinion.  If you really think a declined credit card will lead to bloodshed because someone has a gun, you (and I mean you) have a lower opinion of the average American than do I.  

        Look, I understand that many of us were raised to hate guns and to fear there existence.  But if you are interested in the political realm, you must come to realize that many of us were not.  There are at least half of Americans who don't think a normal person with a gun is going to commit murder simply because he has access to a weapon.  

        And remember, my original post was a sincere effort to ask for ideas on how to stop madmen.  I really don't care if someone owns a gun if they are not a threat to me or you.  I want to find a way to stop the lunatics.  

        •  Well since you did not expand on the term . . . (0+ / 0-)

            "you" and "your", I hope I'm correctly assuming you were speaking to me. I didn't assume anything about you because I was actually responding to what  byzantium said.
              I just think arguing against guns is a losing proposition. The easier way to get at the problem of these mass murders is to address the mental illness aspect. Banning "assault weapons" ain't gonna do it.

          •  well I might agree with you (0+ / 0-)

            but I am not sure.  Sure mental health is a part of the problem, but I don't see from this a solution.  Those who think lunatics are "allowed" to purchase firearms through traditional means are simply wrong.  If the laws need to be changed to improve on this prohibition, that is a likely a good thing.

            As per you assumption that I was speaking to you, the fact that my response was to another should  quell that idea.  

            •  and in fact (0+ / 0-)

              There are many sane people committing murders with weapons they legally own, and who, if it took a little more effort to take someone's life, might think the better of it. Just from the perspective of reducing domestic violence deaths alone, it makes good sense to regulate firearms.

              •  I hear what you are saying byzantium (0+ / 0-)

                and it seems heartfelt.  I am not going to discount it out of hand, but I do have a question.  If you believe murders of passion will be reduced if the killer is required to exert more effort; does that not imply that the real problem lies elsewhere?

                •  And those issues should also be address (0+ / 0-)

                  If you look at murder through the lens of age and gender, 18-24 year old males have the highest rates of homicide.  I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that testosterone and poor impulse control are big factors.  

                  Time and life experience and social relationships are going to reduce their propensity for rash violent actions. In the meantime, reduced access to the easiest, and least personal, of tools for taking a life is going to help.

                  In Israel, I seem to recall, you can't get a license to own a gun until age 27.  That, my friend, is a policy that targets gun violence and this demographic in a way that is not much different from how we license drivers.  

                  You see, I'm looking at guns as a social problem not unlike smoking in public places.  And you are looking at them as what?

          •  The point I'm trying to make is this: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TurkeyCreek

               You are not going to make much progress going after guns. SCOTUS has ruled. I think doing something comprehensive about the mental health issue is possible. The families of these people are begging for help. Nothing comprehensive is going to be done about guns. I hope we expand the background check to gun shows and the internet. That's probably all that's possible.

            •  let me take this opportunity to explain the gun (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lorell

              show loop-hole to those who want to know the real facts.  I  don't care if people agree with me on guns or any other political issue, but I have proven through many years here that I do not lie about the facts.

              Many people talk about the "gun show loophole" but I wonder if they really know what that means. And to be clear, I am including politicians when I say this.

              Here are the hard facts, with no political opinion involved.  There really is no "gun show loop-hole".  What it comes down to is this.  There are two types of sellers at gun shows.  There are the traditional sellers, who have federal firearms licenses, and there are average joes who have nothing but some guns they might sell and others they might buy.

              The traditional sellers are licensed FFA  holders, they are required to run all sales through the NCIS (national criminal background check) just like any gun store, it doesn't matter if they are at a gun show or a swap meet, it is the law.

              The so called gun show loop-hole really describes the non gun dealers who usually buy a booth and then display a few guns to sell.  These are legally regular citizens just like you and me, but they plunked down a few quid to have a table at a gun show.

              So here is the rub.  In most states, people are allowed to sell their property.  It is no different than selling a car or even a t.v.    It does not matter if the sale takes place at a gun show, a parking lot, or your living room.

              So the only way to end the "gun show loop-hole" is for a federal law that says individuals can not sell their firearms property to another individual unless the buyer goes through an NCIS check.  So if I own a gun, and want to sell it to my buddy, we would have to go to the local gun shop and run an NCIS on my buddy before the sale, and at a price of course.

              Anyway, no one can deny what I have said here, it is simple fact.  So I hope people at least now know what is meant by the "gun show loop-hole".  I am not arguing either way here, I played it strait down the middle.  

              Simple translation of the "gun show loop-hole" is that many want to federally legislate that gun owners can not sell there firearm property to another person without an NCIS check.  It really has nothing to do with gun shows.  As a said, gun dealers with ffa licences must run the same checks at gun shows as they do in gun shops.  

        •  Well now I am talking to you (0+ / 0-)

          I have been threatened a few times by people with firearms.  I must have done something right, because I was never shot.  And I am not actually in fear that someone will shoot me.  I claim the idea that gun deaths are mostly caused by lunatics is mistaken.

          Did you know that if you put a life-like turtle decoy in the road, you can depend on it to be intentionally run over by 6% of drivers?

          just sayin'.

          •  well, I have never been threatened by people with (0+ / 0-)

            guns, so I must be doing something exceptionally right :)

            I do hope you are well, and stay that way, it is just a discussion on the internet.  We are on the same side here right?

        •  Well then. (0+ / 0-)

          You, Sir, sound like one of the more intellegent people in this community of bloggers.

          I wouldn't mind a discussion with you some day so as to convey a few ideas I have to curtail these madmen who commit these horrific crimes you speak of.

          What say you?

  •  The Guardsmen in the picture (0+ / 0-)

    seem to be wearing the same style helmets German forces wore during WWII.

    "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

    by TLS66 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:21:21 PM PST

  •  When will Markos put an end to the abuse of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laconic Lib

    responsible gun owners?  I mean, today he's allowing people to discuss the meaning of the Second amendment, what could be next?  OMG! Markos may even allow a discussion of sensible gun regulations!  Not that!  I mean, anything bet that!  Who will think of the poor, defenseless and abused responsible gun owners?

    /snark, although I'm sure some among us would like to have the Second Amendment be like some topics (like the Israeli-Palestinian issue) that are not even allowed for discussion. Why should we discuss something that can save tens of thousands of lives when we can focus on so many other things?

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:36:40 PM PST

  •  For most American men the 2nd Amendment (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laconic Lib

    is both Viagra and Cross because in a real sense guns are their manhood.  For this reason, the Amendment should be repealed and replaced with something clear enough not to give tight wing paranoids a carte blanche to amass arsenals with which to threaten the peace ever again..

  •  Dear Founding Fathers.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    agoldnyc

    Please make people study history and what society was like just before, during, and immediately after the Revolutionary War and remind them:

    We had NO standing army at the time the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written.  From the Mayflower forward, all men Able To Bear Arms were part of the local Militias who were periodically called out to protect their little communities or to help each other - e.g., King Philip's War when the Marshfield, MA militia (among others) went to RI to help with the Indian uprising.

    One of my ancestors from Marshfield came home from RI with PTSD.  Another one of my ancestors from RI was murdered by Indians and beheaded while out looking for the one son who had married an Indian woman; said son was thought to be firing on the colonists, apprehended, and executed as a traitor - his son was later given his property which was unusual since normally the crown confiscated the property of traitors.  Most men who owned guns and/or were able-bodied and could shoot a gun were on ATBA lists; genealogists use them, along with lists of Freemen and Militia lists to prove ancestors were where they are purported to be.  [I've been doing genealogy research for 50 years.  Daily or weekly since I got my first PC in the fall of '01.]

    Being a member of a militia didn't mean much because few (or none) did regular drills like they do with National Guard units today. They were also likely to be the men called on to hunt wild game for meat for people to eat..., or, like the winter when the Mayflower landed, about half the people died so lots of graves had to be dug.  Perhaps one man stood guard with a gun while others dug the graves, or maybe the gun was just within arm's reach of anyone digging a grave.  For more information, read the works of the second governor of Plymouth Colony, William Bradford.

    The first record of a militia drilling that I've run across so far [I have more to research] was at Valley Forge during the winter of 1777-1778 when a Prussian who couldn't even speak English came to get the various regiments of enlisted men to do drills.  IF any of the enlisted men were members of a militia before they joined up, they were just members of a community who owned a gun, perhaps [usually] knew how to shoot it.  Some didn't even own guns, but came anyway [France later supplied us with guns].

    When the Revolutionary War was over, that was it.  The men who had enlisted [twice, in my ancestor's case - total of six years and ten months according to his honorable discharge signed at Newburgh by G. Washington on 16 June 1783].  They waited at Newburgh until the ship arrived to tell them that the peace treaty had been signed at Paris..., and more importantly, the same ship had the money the Continental Congress borrowed to pay the troops before they were finally mustered out.  Most of the soldiers had not been paid in months, sometimes years.  They had also been promised a land bounty if they re-enlisted at one point.  If we had lost the Revolutionary War, that was a hollow promise.  Everyone who signed the Declaration of Independence would have been executed as a traitor [probably hanged, drawn, & quartered], land and property confiscated by the crown, and the promises they had no right to make (since they didn't own the land they promised anyway - they were on shaky ground promising that in the first place..., but my ancestor did get 100 acres in what became ME after the war, after his disability had been granted, in fact, after he broke his thigh bone and shoulder bone and had been forced to ask for a war pension because he couldn't provide for his wife and minor children - he got the pension, too).

    Once mustered out of the military, the soldiers all went back to their homes.

    There was NO standing military when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written... and THAT's why the Second Amendment is written the way it is.  We did not have a standing army until after the War of 1812.  To have any kind of a military force, Congress had to ask men to enlist..., men from those little local Militias in each community.

    The one great advantage to doing genealogy research is that one finds out about these things as pieces of miscellaneous information... because, if one had colonial New England ancestors (as I did, in both my maternal and paternal lines), one finds out what role one's ancestors played in the early formation of this country.  I had several ancestors in the Revolutionary War..., and one Loyalist.  I was, in fact, looking for info on someone else in my family tree when I ran across the application for pension for Andrew Bennet/Bennett.... and that is the group of papers that tell when he enlisted, reenlisted, lists the battles he was in, the regiment, his commanding officers, along with the info that he was at Valley Forge one winter..., which led to finding the Valley Forge Muster Rolls for 1777-1778.  Andrew wasn't "anyone important."  He was a Private..., but he was there!

    It's because of him and the others who were in the Rev. War that I've had to brush up on my knowledge of history before, during, and after the Revolutionary War when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written.

    Nope, I don't know everything..., but I do know there was no standing army and that's why the Second Amendment was written the way it was..., why the Third Amendment prohibits quartering troops in private homes (the Brits and Hessians were brutal with the colonists).

    If I had known in grade school and high school what role some of my ancestors played in the early formation of this nation, American History would not have been as boring as it was back then.

    It behooves all of us to study early American history and look at the world from the point of view of the Founding Fathers and thoroughly understand what life was like for them AT THAT TIME to know WHY the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were worded the way they are.  If one does not understand the world of our Founding Fathers, then any modern interpretation is just arbitrary crap [like making corporations into legal persons and corporate money into "free speech"].

    We owe our Founding Fathers - and ourselves - so much more....

    I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

    by NonnyO on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:21:38 PM PST

  •  Yes, but (0+ / 0-)

    why do we breed psychopaths beyond the wildest dreams of Hitler or Mussolini?  Are Murricans just by nature mentally defective?  i don't think so, we've done great things (saving the world from Hitler, reaching the Moon, for two)  but what's wrong with us now?  Don't tell me it's video games, the rest of the world plays video games and they don't breed mass murderers (except for Anton Breivik in Norway, one of the most advanced democracies in the world).  

  •  2nd Amenment (0+ / 0-)

    WOW! I have never seen so much hypocricy gather in one place in my life than I have right here with you egg heads.

    You all have these (obviously automatic) patriotic phrases and quotes under your comments but the contents and context of your comments say that you can't give up your rights, liberties, and freedoms fast enough.  And that you can't get enough government in your lives to tell you what to do. You must all be unable to think for yourselves, I guess? Our country can't afford the government it has now. Why ask for more?

    Your weakness and desire to be blind sheep make me sick!

    But even though you are such a strain on our society and economy I will use my side arm to protect you and your family should the need ever arise. And believe me.....The need WILL arise someday.

    You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

    •  Scrambled Eggs (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      agoldnyc

      To each 2 eggs add 1 tablespoon of milk or cream. Add salt and pepper to taste, beat until frothy. Pour into a hot well-buttered frying pan and stir constantly with a wide-bladed implement until sufficiently congealed. Collect and turn over with pancake turner, top with cheese and/or bacon bits if desired, divide up and serve immediately.

      If it's
      Not your body,
      Then it's
      Not your choice
      And it's
      None of your damn business!

      by TheOtherMaven on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 07:34:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Several questions (0+ / 0-)

    The framers of the Constitution felt that self-defense was an inalienable right given by God, and this was actually stated in the debates over the language of the 2nd amendment. So:

    1) Do you believe that a person has a right, whether legal, god-given or otherwise to defend their own life?

    2) Do you accept that for various reasons, a person may be physically incapable of matching an attacker's strength, be outnumbered by them, or both?

    3) Do you feel that a pepper spray that can be negated with a minimal outlay in mask and filter, or a taser with a maximum of 2 shots and a cost to be proficient with it of $20 per shot is the strongest means you would allow for a person outnumbered or outmatched to have sufficient self-defense potential?

    4) If your answer for question 3 is that those two technologies are not sufficient to meet a reasonable need for self-defense, what do you suggest as an alternative?

    5) Last, if you believe a person should be allowed some sort of weapon to enhance their self-defense, and you are claiming the 2nd does not speak of an individual right to own weapons, do you think your position is inconsistent?

  •  Interesting (0+ / 0-)
    I couldn't help but notice some similarities between red states and states with more gun violence.

    Be happy, try not to hurt anyone, and fall in love.

    by glb3 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:04:47 PM PST

  •  If there is doubt, amend the Constitution (0+ / 0-)

    and remove the doubt. What's that? It is difficult to amend the Constitution, you say? I get the suspicion it was purposely made so. I could be wrong on this point, but I don't think so.

    The Constitution was ratified in 1789 and the 2nd Amendment in 1792. Yet somehow the 2nd Amendment is superfluous because the power of Congress to raise, arm and regulate the militia is dispositive on who can own and bear arms despite the 2nd Amendment?  

    If you don't want to be kept in the dark and lathered with horse dung, stop acting like a mushroom.

    by nomorerepukes on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 05:00:24 AM PST

  •  psychopath used gun but did not own it (0+ / 0-)

    A ban against the mentally ill owning AR-15s would not have prevented Sandy Hook.

    "Your victory has demonstrated that no person anywhere in the world should not dare to dream of wanting to change the world for a better place." -- Mandela

    by agoldnyc on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 07:23:43 AM PST

  •  Getting it wrong again (0+ / 0-)

    The cartoon shows a State Trooper. For me, that says that the cartoonist believes that the second amendment was only intended for the creation of state and government militias.

    This is not the case. When only government is armed, governments can and do abuse that power.

    History is full of examples of government abuse of gun control.

    Labeling anyone who believes otherwise as a sociopath shuts down dialogue and is not useful.

    However, ignoring that sociopaths do get hold of guns is also not useful.

    There needs to be a compromise between "ban all guns" and "no limitations what so ever to gun ownership". This cartoon does nothing to encourage that debate or reach a compromise.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site