Skip to main content

View Diary: National Review: Newtown Is The Price We Pay For Our Rights (236 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The National Review is absolutely right, though (4+ / 0-)

    With the Second Amendment in place, and great masses vocally defending these rights, there is very little if anything that can be done.

    The very predictable consequence of those uninfringable rights is that there's not a lot that can be done to prevent such massacres from happening over and over. It isn't just Sandy Hook, but the other 15,000 murder that will occur as well.

    We know this will happen, and yet a lot of people are vocal about how important those rights are, which is antithetical to doing anything about it.

    Ironically, I just made this exact observtion in Mets diary

    It's not pretty, but it's the reality we live in.

    (I also said much the same as this diary about supporter of the status quo recently as well)

    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 Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 12:41:39 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Sure there is. This isn't hard. (39+ / 0-)

      First, pass law.

      Second, get Supreme Court to uphold law.

      Now, it will require someone on the conservative side to resign or drop dead, but that isn't an implausible scenario considering their age.

      •  That is what it would take. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ivorybill, White Buffalo

        As things stand right now, Americans have elected enough conservatives that any legislation is likely to be blocked, either by the Tea Party in the House or by filibuster in the Senate.

        Then of course, we have a Supreme Court that has not upheld any gun restrictions recently.

        So surviving either hurdle is unlikley.

        (but I know you already knew that)

        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 Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 01:02:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Confrontation now (0+ / 0-)

          Force them to block it.  Force them to continue to defend the slaughter of scores of six-year olds with 21st century weapons based on ambiguous words written more than two centuries ago.  That's how change takes shape.

      •  There's another way (19+ / 0-)

        it won't happen, but it exists.

        Pass a constitutional amendment explicitly outlining what weapons are permissible, and what is required for owning a weapon.

        We passed an amendment banning alcohol. And repealed it. We passed an amendment banning slavery, which was permitted in the constitution as it was originally written.

        The constitution is a living document. WE CAN CHANGE IT.

        And maybe it's time we did.  

      •  Certainly possible, yet still implausible. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jdsnebraska, Mindful Nature

        Congress could certainly pass a law, but if past experience is any guide (and I tend to think it is), it's simply unlikely that it will do so.  Even if Congress were to pass a law, it's questionable whether any truly effective law would survive constitutional challenges in federal court given the Supreme Court's recent antipathy to gun control.  Sure, one of the Five Horsemen might die, but I don't see any of them ready to keel over at the moment.

        So yeah, in theory it isn't hard, and in practice, at least getting a law passed shouldn't be hard.  But we're dealing with the U.S. Congress here, where one house is controlled by an arm of the NRA.  I'd therefore say prospects are dim.

        None of which means we should give up on the idea, but I do believe we need to be realistic about what our chances are.

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

        by FogCityJohn on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 01:18:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          emidesu, FogCityJohn, adrianrf, Wilmguy

          If we stick with realism, we won't change anything. Imagination, intelligence and empathy plus the will to act are what we need now.

          President Barack Obama. Good man in a storm.

          by mwm341 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 02:16:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I fully agree. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mwm341, Wilmguy, blueoasis

            Which is why I said we shouldn't give up on the idea.  Unless we make the effort, we'll never change the terms of this debate, let alone the laws themselves.

            I'm just pointing out the the battle is uphill.  But that fact is no reason not to fight it.

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

            by FogCityJohn on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 04:42:10 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, I don't know (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueoasis, FogCityJohn

          Call it "The Sandy Hook Protect Our Children from Assault Weapons" law and see how many Republicans are really ready to stand up and say they just can't support such a thing.

          It would be far more accurate than the "Patriot Act" -- and they passed that damned monstrosity without even reading it.

          History should teach humility and prudence, but America doesn't seem to learn. I've never seen a virgin who loses her innocence so often. -- Gordon Wood

          by stormicats on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:24:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You'd be surprised, I think. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sagesource

            I doubt you'd find many Republicans who'd support any kind of effective gun control legislation.  They'd be too worried about primary challenges from candidates even crazier than they are on the gun issue.

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

            by FogCityJohn on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:46:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Pass what law? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mister T, Sparhawk

        What law would have prevented this? Or the guy who shot his kid dead accidentally outside a gun store last week? Or any other of the countless gun deaths we have every year in the US.

        There are none - you can't be a little big pregnant. Either we have the 2nd amendment and the attendant gun violence that comes with it, or we don't.

        Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

        by absdoggy on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 02:41:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just like we can't pass any laws (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gramofsam1, Hillbilly Dem

          against violent or child pornography, or where people can demonstrate... oh yeah.

          Stay fired up: now is the time to focus on downticket change! #Forward

          by emidesu on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 03:45:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  No. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hillbilly Dem, Wilmguy, DBoon, blueoasis

          As Obama said, there's no way to completely eliminate gun violence through gun laws, but there is certainly a way to minimize the harm without draconian bans on all guns.  

          The weapon used in Newtown--the Bushmaster .223--would have been banned under a modified version of the Assault Rifle Ban that expired in 2004.  Let's imagine that highly imperfect ban was still in effect and had been updated to deal with manufacturers's work-arounds.  Imagine that 30-round magazines were illegal.  No doubt the killer could have done a great deal of damage with his handguns or a different rifle, but in all likelihood he would not have been so lethal.  It doesn't sound like much of a "win" to contemplate 10 Kindergartners dead rather than 20, but it is an improvement.  No reason we can't act quickly to bring down the body count.

          •  Actually, without that weapon and its magazine (5+ / 0-)

            There's a very good chance he would not have been able to get through the locked door he apparently blew apart to get into the building.

            And while he's trying to shoot out a dead bolt lock with a revolver, people would have had a lot more time to call 911 and get out of the way.

            History should teach humility and prudence, but America doesn't seem to learn. I've never seen a virgin who loses her innocence so often. -- Gordon Wood

            by stormicats on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:27:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  10 kids dead is an improvement (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DBoon

            That's great, thank you.  So, 10 kids dead is the price we pay for the 2nd amendment, just like the National Review said.

            Unreal.

            Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

            by absdoggy on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:31:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No.... (0+ / 0-)

              10 kids alive is an improvement.

              I understand your sentiment, but I don't think it will lead to any diminishment in the gun violence problem in the US.  Demanding the improbable (a US without guns) or the impossible (a world without senseless violence) is fruitless and likely to alienate the responsible gun owners whose voices and votes are needed to make actual immediate changes to gun laws.  Maybe if we can get them on board we can counteract the celebration of firepower that now characterizes the shooting community, shaming the puerile fetishists and 2A fundamentalists.  That by itself would be a positive step.

              FYI, I'm in favor of a ban on semiautomatic weapons, if we can craft a good definition of that term that gun manufacturers can't easily weasel around.  And on large capacity magazines.  And require waiting periods.  And close gunshow loopholes.  If there are other steps, like requiring ammo etching or insurance, etc., that should be looked at, too.

              Would all of this absolutely protect all children from gun violence?  No.  But it certainly protects more than at present.  

      •  Re (0+ / 0-)
        First, pass law.

        Second, get Supreme Court to uphold law.

        Now, it will require someone on the conservative side to resign or drop dead, but that isn't an implausible scenario considering their age.

        There is of course more than that.

        Government only exists by the consent of the governed.

        Gun "rights" or gun "control" depending on your point of view is a very controversial issue. Many people will not accept the legitimacy of changes in the law being forced on them from above.

        Look at the last 40 years of abortion rights. Was it the right decision? Absolutely. Large amounts of the country did not accept the decision, however, and look at the results. Endless, sometimes violent conflict.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 05:20:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not sure you can say "large amounts" (0+ / 0-)

          When you actually start looking at statistics, it's not a majority.  It's a loud, well-placed, well-funded minority with access to the media and the halls of government.

          Haven't you noticed that as much as legislatures posture and crow, the last thing they want to do is actually put it to a popular vote?  The last time I can find that anyone actually tried, SOUTH DAKOTA, of all the red states, rejected it by 56% of the vote.

          I have a strong feeling that the argument about unlimited guns, unlimited ammo, unlimited access and carry 'em everywhere has about the same broad-based popular support as restricting abortion.

          History should teach humility and prudence, but America doesn't seem to learn. I've never seen a virgin who loses her innocence so often. -- Gordon Wood

          by stormicats on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:36:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            radarlady
            I have a strong feeling that the argument about unlimited guns, unlimited ammo, unlimited access and carry 'em everywhere has about the same broad-based popular support as restricting abortion.
            You mean, lots of it?

            Something doesn't have to have majority support to be very disruptive. A large and fervent minority can be very dangerous.

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:44:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  WE need to all get rocket launchers and (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SilentBrook, blueoasis, aintnoreason

      other military fire power and then dare the Supreme Court to tell us we can't have them legally, because there are NO limits on weapons posessions, right?

      test the limits to prove there is a limit to gun rights

    •  "Supreme Court Undercuts 4th Amendment... (12+ / 0-)

      Protections, Yet Again. and

      By discarding a 1986 precedent, the (Supreme) Court has needlessly weakened the protections of the 6th Amendment.  

      It seems that other Constitutional Amendments are fair game for "lilmitations" and "bypasses", but for some reason the Second Amendment is perceived by many as sacrosanct--untouchable in any way.  Just because people perceive it that way does not necessarily make it so.

    •  The interpretation of 2nd Amendment is the (6+ / 0-)

      problem. That amendment became anachronistic when the nation formed military branches. Even then, the Amendment includes the phrase "well regulated".

      As large a problem is how long we'd have to wait for SCOTUS to change that interpretation, while thousands die.

      The sh*t those people [republicans] say just makes me weep for humanity! - Woody Harrelson

      by SoCalSal on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 02:46:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Stop with the perverse reading of Second Amendment (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aintnoreason

      The right to have assault weapons is not part of the Constitution. You are twisting the constitution beyond recognition and beyond rationality.

      Hey, hey, NRA, how many kids did you kill today?

      by freelunch on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 04:50:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  to be clear (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FogCityJohn

        I am merely reporting on what the current status under our Supreme Court is.  Personally, I think that language about

        A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
        is critical.

        Individual rights to bear arms for self defense have no rational relationship to either a well-regulated militia or the security of a free state.  the second amendment is about defense of the state not the person.  The people, collectively, may organize militias to defend the United States.  That's it.

        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 Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 04:56:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Court has not gone that far (0+ / 0-)

          It certainly decided that there was some sort of individual right, but nothing further.

          Hey, hey, NRA, how many kids did you kill today?

          by freelunch on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 06:24:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  "Right to keep and bear arms" (0+ / 0-)

          Has it not been argued that when the Constitution was written, this phrase referred not to the right of individuals to own weapons, but to the right to serve as an army officer?  (This right already existed in Britain, but not in many Continental countries, where only aristocrats could become military officers...)

    •  Mindful Nature (0+ / 0-)

      Too bad you weren't around as cheerleader for Rosa Parks. I am sure you would have told her she has no choice but the back of the bus.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site