Skip to main content

View Diary: Eerie: knife attack in Chinese school, also today, 22 *wounded* --- your move, MSM (163 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Right (10+ / 0-)

    Laws regulating gun ownership = fascism and communism. got it. you are clearly full of sound reason and logic. proceed, governor.

    "Today is who you are" - my wife

    by I Lurked For Years on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 01:30:28 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  In the face of the 2nd Amendment, yes (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The 2nd Amendment says every law abiding American has the right to own a gun.  If Ryan Lanza, the shooter, had no priors and passed a background check, then explain what law regulating gun ownership would have disarmed Ryan Lanza and prevented this tragedy, as the diarist claims should have happened, without violating his 2nd Amendment rights?

      I have no issue with background checks.  If Ryan Lanza was previously declared mentally unstable and/or criminally insane, then of course his individual rights can be stripped, and he can be prevented from owning a gun.  But rights must be removed by due process.  Were Ryan Lanza's rights removed?

      If they were not, if Ryan Lanza had a clean record, then there is no way for gun regulation to have prevented what happened today without violating the 2nd Amendment.

      If Ryan Lanza was not legally allowed to own a gun, existing laws cover that.  If he was legally allowed to own a gun, then only a communist state and the surrender of our constitutional rights could have maybe, possibly stopped it.

      But that's not a trade I'm willing to make.

      •  You are not being asked to surrender "your rights" (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FogCityJohn, Drobin, stunvegas

        You are being asked to consider abolishing one "right" that has clearly outlived its usefulness. This is, moreover, a "right" that exists in no other democratic state, showing that it is unnecessary to the maintenance of democracy.

        Again, your exaggerations are drifting in the direction of mendacity. Even the total abolition of the 2nd Amendment, if that were possible, would have no effect on the health of democracy in the United States.

        After all, throughout all of US history, how many individuals and groups have succeeded in defending their liberties by fighting for them? You might want to ask the Native Americans about that one. From the Whiskey Rebellion to the present day, not a single armed resistance against the US Federal Government has succeeded. And the one that got closest was fought in the distinctly ignoble cause of being able to sell your fellow citizens as property. That was a "sacred right," too, once.

        "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

        by sagesource on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 02:51:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's a "right" that didn't exist until recently. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Drobin, stunvegas

          Until the Five Horsemen decided Heller, there was no constitutional "right" to individual ownership of guns.  This whole "rights" discussion is a complete distraction from the true issue, which is the deadly nature of guns.

          Even First Amendment rights can be curtailed and regulated.  And this is despite the fact that unlike the Second Amendment, the First Amendment uses the unmistakably clear phrase "Congress shall make no law . . ."

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 04:33:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  So taking away "constitutional rights" = communism (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        that's your argument?

        You realize the only reason the bill of rights exists is because the constitution can be changed, right? That's why they are "amendments."

        And does this stop at constitutional rights? Is it communist to limit statutory rights? Or implied rights? Was the country acting as a "communist state" when it took away the right of people to own slaves?

        "I believe that, as long as there is plenty, poverty is evil." ~Bobby Kennedy

        by Grizzard on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 03:52:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Consider Australia. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Sometime about a decade and a half ago (or whenever it was) they passed strict gun control and they actually follow through in enforcing it. They meant business.

        What soon followed was mass disappearances, dissidents being rounded up, people held indefinitely for praying to the  wrong god or declaring disbelief in gods, severely increased surveillance of the populace, secret police, numerous warrantless no-knock raids at 4am, etc.

        Oh, wait . . .

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

        by RockyMtnLib on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 09:08:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not American, I'm from the UK so I will tread carefully here.
          What I would say though is that I have just looked at this 2nd amendment of yours and being as the English language and the meaning of words is important to me I'm confused, as it very clearly states that members of a "well regulated militia" have a right to own arms. Not everybody.

          What am I missing?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site