Skip to main content

View Diary: Bob Costas continues the dialog about guns and violence-support him by tuning into his show (182 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why is it that you don't (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gramofsam1, Tonedevil, 1BQ

    think (assuming you don't) that individuals should be able to have nuclear weapons? They are deadlier than guns, but OTOH if you can't have them that is definitely a limitation on your rights. Where is your line?

    •  I asked my brother that very question (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil, 1BQ

      (he's the only person I know who owns a handgun). His response was that the second amendment was designed to protect citizens from a tyrannical government, and that therefore citizens should have access to the same weaponry the government has, including nuclear weapons.
      He did, however, qualify that by saying that they should be stored safely. And he swears he wasn't kidding.

      •  The Founders thought of arms (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gramofsam1, Tonedevil, 1BQ

        as muskets. Maybe they meant the right to bear muskets. Or maybe they meant all weapons, including bombs, cannons, whatever. Those who claim the right to bear arms should include modern guns must be able to articulate why the Constitutional right should stop at a certain level of destructiveness. Seems to me it is all one slippery slope (though I'd agree that muskets are clearly intended to be included). So to me the answer lies somewhere between 18th-century breach-loaded muskets and WMD.

        But I don't see how RKBA people can be so sure just where that line is.

    •  The limitations of the Second Amendment (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Robobagpiper, theatre goon

      are well documented.

      The OED is your best source for understanding the english language used in the Bill of Rights.

      Seeks: Arms in comparison to Ordnance

      •  Okay that's confusing. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        doc2

        Wouldn't it be better to use a dictionary that was actually in existence when the Bill of Rights was written?

        •  ^^not a rhetorical question. (0+ / 0-)
          •  The OED has "England English" (0+ / 0-)

            complete to Arms being defined both as personal weaponry, and as Heraldic.  Modern and archaic uses of the term.

            Ordnance by the OED definition is rather finite, and unambiguous.  

            Work on the OED began in 1857, which is 60-ish years after the writing of the Bill of Rights.  I believe then-current usage was more concurrent to usage in 1792, than 2012.

            Just as I believe you or I could define: "8-track tape", "varsity jacket" or "go-go" for a dictionary written for publication in 2022 - we have the means of using personal knowledge, unavailable to a future generation writing 200 years hence.

            (your answer wasn't taken as rhetorical)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site