Skip to main content

View Diary: The fatal flaw in 'Stand Your Ground' laws (221 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  We should probably all be made... (14+ / 0-)

    to wear a label, or patch, on our clothes, declaring our status as gun carriers.

    That would probably work out well, yes?

    •  hey (7+ / 0-)

      that's a pretty good solution, PavePusher.


      could make it a lapel pin, in the shape of a gun, maybe?


      Isn't it time to fix the Filibuster?
      -- Here's how.

      by jamess on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 07:38:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I suggest conceal carriers only wear it. (5+ / 0-)

      That way, we know who to avoid.

      202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

      by cany on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 07:43:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just don't HAVE conceal carriers (2+ / 0-)

        Have it all open carry.

        You know, like hunters do.

        At least then we would know where it was pointed.

        Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

        by splashy on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 01:29:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  made to wear a label (6+ / 0-)

      Whys it taking so long to get our Social security #s tatooed on our forearms ?
      4 some people, its already a fashion statement

      Who is mighty ? One who turns an enemy into a friend !

      by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 07:44:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Some countries have had the presence of mind to (9+ / 0-)

      just extinguish private firearms rights, and they all happen to be impacted less by firearms violence than we are. Could there be an evolutionary imperative at work here?

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 07:46:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  America is so young and newly evolved relative (7+ / 0-)

        to much of the world. And the west, in particular, has such a reputation as wild and wooly even in places where it probably wasn't.

        202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

        by cany on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 07:51:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  "extinguish... rights" (11+ / 0-)

        Yeah, that's what this country was founded on....

        •  You mean absolute interpretation? (4+ / 0-)

          202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

          by cany on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 07:55:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  so you are against amending the constitution... (3+ / 0-)

          to take away a corporation's rights to free speech..??..AKA Citizens United.


          We are not broke, we are being robbed.

          by Glen The Plumber on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 07:58:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  not "extinguishing" (5+ / 0-)


          but finding the appropriate "boundaries" for co-existence.


          Free Speech has such "limits":

          -- shouting 'Fire' in a crowd theater

          -- your fist, my nose

          -- certain areas of pornography

          -- certain quota of plotting overthrows

          etc.


          Bearing arms has "a limit" or two, as well:

          -- can't own machine guns

          -- can't own bazookas

          -- can't own anti-aircraft launchers

          etc


          it's about peaceful "co-existence."


          Isn't it time to fix the Filibuster?
          -- Here's how.

          by jamess on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 07:59:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  This country was not so much "founded, but came to (4+ / 0-)

          be. What you refer to as founding was the creation of a document to help move the people at a particular time into the future.

          Now here's an actual point of fact,"the most cherished American Right" doesn't even appear in the original document. Right to Privacy was never included because it wasn't even envisioned as such. Ohthe principle was familiar, but protecting it made no sense when there was damn little government and nothing but privacy.

          Conditions change over time, and how a free people structure their society inevitably does and must. Adults playing with firearms is an anachronism in a nation of 300,000,000 people trying to figure out how to get along not only with each other, but with the nearly 7 billion others that we have no choice but to figure out how to assimilate with.

          Sorry, but your current mindset does nothing to promote that process.

          There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

          by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 08:59:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  ROFL, most things weren't included that's why (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            oldpunk, PavePusher, Tom Seaview, fuzzyguy

            the 9th & 10th Amendments were specifically added in.

            So that there would be no confusion, whatever authority was being granted to the newly created Central government was limited to the words written IN the Constitution, not any other authority to do, say, act, believe, think, pass, push or twist what was being granted and agreed to. IF it wasn't in the constitution, it wasn't allowed without amending it.

            Since the Central gov't had very limited powers and authority that creation wouldn't be taking names, numbers or addresses for anything other than court proceedings, there was no need for them to worry about privacy.  The central government wouldn't have privy over anything else.  The States however, had no limitations.

            As for your red herring about playing nice with the world...where the hell have you been the last 150 yrs? Heck, the last 20 are truly revealing aren't they?  How many nations have we invaded? How many millions of innocents have we killed? How many millions more have we allowed to be by the puppet dictators we installed?

            We don't play nice with the world and you dare to use that as some moral standard to whip us into line with?

            LMFAO!

            Our policy from Top down, throughout our entire history has been very simple: MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!

            Really, why in the hell would you think we'd ever place nice with each other? ROFL.

            Can't fix the problem until you actually identify it properly.  And from where our corporate overlords sit, we don't need to change a thing, except disarm the masses before they come looking for them once they realize it's all been a game of control and involuntary servitude manufactured and presented to them as "freedom" while their gilded cages were slowly prepared for them to exist in.

            The one principle you actually didn't identify that IS the basis of our Common Law system that was never enumerated because it was assumed all understood the reason for man coming together in social compacts was Equity Under Law.  All are equal in the eyes of their created government...It was mentioned, if I'm not mistaken, in the Declaration Of Independence, 12+ years previously.

            Making mental note for next revolution and aftermath of creating a nation from scratch to include this ideal, specifically spelled out: Equity Under Law, Equity Under Law, Equity Under Law, Equity Under Law, Equity Under Law!

            There, now we're done.  

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 10:52:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  How, exactly, did you get to the point of arguing (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              blueness

              for abolishing Social Security, Medicare, etc.? Extremely confusing points, except that I've never heard anyone argue 9th and 10th Amendment primacy who was not trying to justify getting the government out of most of the things that most of us think are exactly the things that government should be doing.

              And I know that you're not arguing for abolishing our standing military, because that is specifically authorized.

              How very confusing.

              There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

              by oldpotsmuggler on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 09:52:04 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  ROFL, didn't you say "right to privacy" isn't in (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                fuzzyguy, PavePusher

                constitution?  Yep, you did.  

                You try to correlate my point to mean ending the social safety nets the masses have willingly agreed to.

                Nope, never said that.  It would be nice for you to address the position I did actually take though.

                There is no need for a right to privacy being enumerated in the constitution when the central gov't wasn't granted any more authority that what is contained within it.
                 

                http://www.constitution.org/...

                But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.

                -cut-

                I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.

                -cut-

                 I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given,

                We can however, amend it and grant them more authority if we all agree.  THAT WAS THE PLAN the founders envisioned.  Nothing more or less but they did make it difficult to amend it to prevent the tyranny of democracy from stripping people of their individual unalienable rights.

                Oh, and there's these clarifications as well:

                http://www.usconstitution.net/...

                and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

                Now since you brought up something else I didn't say, let's address that too, just for fun, okay?

                The "standing army" thing, yes I want it abolished! The founders also understood how military dictatorships come into being their contemporaries in France had to deal with Napoleon. They specifically limited funding to a maximum of 2 yrs.  Did you miss this point in history class? They tried to prevent the government from raising a standing army on the ashes of the militia.

                http://memory.loc.gov/...

                From Pg 778 of the First Debates in Congress transcripts:

                    "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms".

                    This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

                    "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary.

                   Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

                It seems our created government has veered from it's authorized duties and instituted exactly what our founders warned us against and tried to prevent from occurring.

                Don't like my position, take it up with history, because these are the facts here. NOT your red herrings that I'm claiming we shouldn't have SSI or any other social safety net.

                If we want these things then follow the damn constitution, simple. And I would vote yes for including them in as new amendments, really.

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 11:30:42 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Like all law school graduates, I formally studied (0+ / 0-)

                  Constitutional law. Five semester credits over the course of first year. Maybe you did too and just don't agree with anything you were taught. Which would mean that you would favor throwing out two hundred plus years of jurisprudence of the SCOTUS. But short of that, your viewpoints have been so thoroughlydisapproved that the easiest way to argue against your misguided positions would be to just republish any Constitutional Law text. You obviously don't like how broadly federal powers have been interpreted, but that doesn't change reality.

                  And as far as being scared, or absolute, there are no such things as unalienable rights. And even less unalienable than most of the others is RKBA. Do you know what portions of the Bill of Rights are simply lost by a felony conviction? RKBA alone.

                  And I'm not saying that I like it any more than you do, but it doesn't change the truth.

                  So, in short, I don't know if you are so mistaken because you just haven't taken the time to appropriately study the issue, or because you think you have a right to disagree with the correct answers. Without knowing which, there's simply no way that i could go any further.

                  Thanks.

                  There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                  by oldpotsmuggler on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:55:23 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Arrogance does not prove you are accurate. (0+ / 0-)

                    Arguments from "authority" are even less.

                    Five semester credits over the course of first year.
                    You were taught the opinions of others, not the facts.  So was I.  I continued my education on my own after thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars paid to institutions that didn't teach truth but their opinions wrapped and packaged as "facts".

                    The appeal to popularity (history) is also invalid.  There is nothing in this universe, even God™ itself, stopping any current or future Supreme Court from reversing all Common Law precedents, nothing.

                    The difference that kept me from becoming an ordained attorney at law was the truth.  Not the bastardizations included in Stare Decisis or Plea Bargains or the system of law we are all told is legitimate.

                    A premise based on misinterpretations, obfuscation and misdirection will lead to false conclusions.

                    False conclusions that are then perpetuated and disseminated to the masses, compounded day after day, year after year, century after century as gospel truth.  Accepted and never to be questioned again!

                    Nope, didn't work for me.  My stubbornness is legendary in some parts.  What you weren't given were the actual facts.  I've provided them for you, ignore them if you will, twist them if you must but those facts have not changed since they were written down for future generations to read, re-discover and understand.

                    I will accept that to the victor goes the spoils.  He does, after all re-write history to suit his own desires.  The only reason our "federal government's" powers were so broadly interpreted were because why again? FDR's attempts and ultimate success at packing and threatening the the Supreme Court with total social destruction and implied "populous revolt" against them. FDR is known for telling them he couldn't guarantee their safety if they didn't do what the people wanted.  The very real threat of physical violence and revolution. For no other reason, period.  It does not make that expansion lawful or constitutional. It proves the masses can easily be led to their own slaughter, demanding it be done!

                    The only thing that keeps society civil is when we all agree to the rules and when those rules are applied equally and justly.

                    GW proved beyond a shadow of a doubt this nation is not a nation of laws but arbitrary rule by our corporate overlords.  Their crimes still go unpunished.  

                    The final straw was when a sitting Supreme Court Jurist claimed that ACTUAL innocence was not a valid or legitimate defense within our system.

                    http://thinkprogress.org/...

                    This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.  Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.

                    So, I'm truly glad you didn't waste your time presenting me with your "case law", I'm sure the majority is meaningless to me today.

                    As for your point about the RKBA being the only right abrogated after adjudicationis also incorrect. You can lose your life, the ultimate liberty; you do also lose your free speech, your right to protest, right to privacy is non-existent.
                    And in the majority of these United States, these rights (with the exception of death) are automatically restored upon sentencing completion, ie once you've paid your dues back to society.

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 11:57:23 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Subsequent to law school I spent eight years (0+ / 0-)

                      in federal prison doing jailhouse lawyering, and the reading required to do that successfully. Even coming from my extreme position with respect to the legal justice system, I can see that you and I are just going to have actual meeting of the minds on almost nothing.

                      Best of luck.

                      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                      by oldpotsmuggler on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:19:22 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  So, you ground your chops for convicted criminals (0+ / 0-)

                        This experience doesn't prove anything more than you had to learn to work within a corrupt and illegitimate system.  Will commend you for your efforts, it still doesn't change the facts you've been presented.

                        I do wish you well.

                        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                        by gerrilea on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 01:23:24 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

      •  only if (7+ / 0-)
        Could there be an evolutionary imperative at work here?
        If you assume that a government that bans guns is less likely to be overthrown by popular revolt than a government that allows guns, I suppose you could argue that a controlling regime has a higher fitness.  Of course, this argument nullifies the argument that guns would be useless to overthrow a tyrannical government.
        Could there be an evolutionary imperative at work here?
        There is no "good" or "bad" in evolution, nor is there "higher" or "lower."  Thus, it's probably useless to point out that we evolved from them, rather than the other way around.

        Our founding fathers saw, considered, and deliberately rejected the state monopoly on arms practiced by the European powers.

        In politics, there is the class war. Everything else is naming post offices.

        by happymisanthropy on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 08:37:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And God knows, nothing has changed since. (3+ / 0-)

          202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

          by cany on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 08:40:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It seems like I read someplace that that might (5+ / 0-)

          have happened over two hundred years ago.

          We suffer in ways that no other society does, and we maintain a relationship with RKBA that no other society does. Accordingly, what we do could fairly be characterized as non sensical (or even counter productive if one wanted to be brutally honest).

          There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

          by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 08:47:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  no other society? (6+ / 0-)

            I'll let the Swiss know.

            •  Maybe we should pay attention to the Swiss. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Glen The Plumber

              I don't think they kill 88 people a day with their guns.

              **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

              by glorificus on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 09:02:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  They have many policies which I agree with (7+ / 0-)

                including 2 years of mandatory national service, better health and mental health systems, some very nice cheese, and Teuscher chocolates.

                They also don't fuck-around with gun crimes.
                Military trial, military prison... you come out as a corpse.

                •  They also don't have gun shows, people going any (0+ / 0-)

                  place they want in the countryside target shooting, etc.

                  There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                  by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 09:36:21 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'll have to phone my friends in Sils-Maria (4+ / 0-)

                    and inform them of their illegal alpine activities.
                    Got in Himmel, they're criminals!

                    As to gunshows?  I believe you're correct.  They travel to Germany for those.

                    •  So, no gunshows! Then there's a;so the part about (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      blueness

                      how Switzerland has no standing military, and practices stringent neutrality.

                      That's not apples to oranges. Standard NRA talking points?

                      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                      by oldpotsmuggler on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 09:39:40 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  They travel to the equivalent of (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        PavePusher

                        the Paris Airshow.  The US "Shot Show" is similar but perhaps smaller.

                        The Swiss have a standing military, comprised of those persons called to active-duty for a 2 year stint, and their supervising Officer corps.

                        As to "standard talking points" you really need to do better than MAIG and Brady if you're going to hit me up about Switzerland.
                        Uf Widerluege.

                        •  You're not a Republican (are you?), you don't (0+ / 0-)

                          get your own facts
                          Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe. Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense.
                          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                          also "To purchase a firearm in a commercial shop, one needs to have a Waffenerwerbsschein (weapon acquisition permit). A permit allows the purchase of three firearms. Everyone over the age of 18 who is not psychiatrically disabled (such as having had a history of endangering his own life or the lives of others) or identified as posing security problems, and who has a clean criminal record (requires a Criminal Records Bureau check) can request such a permit.[9]
                          To buy a gun from an individual, no permit is needed, but the seller is expected to establish a reasonable certainty that the purchaser will fulfill the above-mentioned conditions (usually done through a Criminal Records Bureau check). The participants in such a transaction are required to prepare a written contract detailing the identities of both vendor and purchaser, the weapon's type, manufacturer, and serial number. The law requires the written contract to be kept for ten years by the buyer and seller. The seller is also required to see some official ID from the purchaser, for such sales are only allowed to Swiss nationals and foreigners with a valid residence permit, with the exception of those foreigners that come from certain countries (Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Albania, Algeria), to whom such sales are not allowed even if they do have a residence permit. Foreigners without a residence permit must ask for Waffenerwerbsschein (weapon acquisition permit). [10]"

                          All bullshit aside, what part of that sounds like where you live?

                          There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                          by oldpotsmuggler on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:09:59 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Perhaps you should meet some Swiss (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher

                            and find out how well that Wikipedia article is adhered-to.

                            As to the exclusion of certain "lesser-persons" to equal rights, I've no recourse but to agree.

                          •  On my trips to Switzerland (admittedly when I (0+ / 0-)

                            was in the position some years back to avail myself of the money laundering opportunities) I'm not sure I ever met anyone who was not Swiss. And I must say, everyone I dealt with was 100% by the book. In fact one teller really sticks in my mind because of the way that she smiled so genuinely when she was counting out my $1,000 bills, and apologizing for not having more of them available.

                            There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                            by oldpotsmuggler on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 09:31:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Grandma already knows how to suck eggs, sonny. n/t (0+ / 0-)
                          •  Possibly the most interesting comment I've ever (0+ / 0-)

                            read here. Totally inane, but interesting nonetheless.

                            There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                            by oldpotsmuggler on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 09:33:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, there are firearms in Switzerland. No, we do (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              blueness

              nothing like they do, and they allow nothing like what goes on here incessantly.

              There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

              by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 09:24:16 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You are, of course, correct oldpotsmuggler (6+ / 0-)

                We also fail to have periodic purges of people who don't look like "us".  
                We fail to follow the jingoistic policies of many a European nation, and expel the foreign among us, after the work's been done for lower wages that "we'd" accept.
                The darker-of-skin, the worshipers of religions other than those who adhere to the tenets of Martin Luther.
                We fail to hold-fast to our national identity and protect our private holdings from those not born here.
                Well, not really "here" but of good solid Northern European Stock.  Except the Irish.  Not them.  Nor the Poles.
                We tossed the French.  Those mediterraneans?
                They're so dark and swarthy... oh noes.  They can't become citizens, nor hold property.

                It just wouldn't be right, fitting, or well-regulated.

          •  All these modern interpretations are <30 years (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber

            old, and all were created by the NRA, bought politicians and stacked courts - not a single one of these "historic" interpretations existed for the first 200 years of our Constitution.

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

            by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 09:06:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  asdf (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              oldpunk, PavePusher, Tom Seaview, fuzzyguy
              " `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

              In politics, there is the class war. Everything else is naming post offices.

              by happymisanthropy on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 10:55:02 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea, PavePusher, fuzzyguy
            It seems like I read someplace that that might (2+ / 0-)
            have happened over two hundred years ago.
            Exactly.  That's what we evolved from, if we choose to use that metaphor.

            The metaphor breaks down mostly in that evolution is not a deliberate choice.

            In politics, there is the class war. Everything else is naming post offices.

            by happymisanthropy on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 10:47:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Sarcasm is such a fine art, sometimes people (6+ / 0-)

      just can't understand it.

      I was thinking of the Big Scarlett "G.O" or "C.C." being mandatory on every piece of outer clothing, front and back with little iron-ons for the arms.

      Think of the fashion trends that could be cultivated here and turned into a viable business venture!

      "You want your Scarlett Gun Letters? Stop down and visit us! We have a full line of your mandatory public shaming formats.  From winter wear to sultry beach attire, we know you can't leave home without them!"

      "We even have washable pasties for those whom travel in the buff but love the outdoors!"

      "**special offers and group rates cannot be combined with daily promotions or coupons, see Store for details!"

      Who's with me???

      ;)

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 11:10:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No need for that, just open carry (0+ / 0-)

        Couldn't be simpler.

        Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

        by splashy on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 01:37:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hey, if it's mandated across the board for all (4+ / 0-)

          I'd consider it.  No exceptions for any bodyguards, secret service, FBI, CIA, IRS agents, DHS Agents, SSI agents, etc.

          I want to see the police state we've become.

          Let Americans see it in all its glory, shall we?

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:09:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Just open carry (0+ / 0-)

      So it's obvious.

      Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

      by splashy on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 01:27:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (145)
  • Community (55)
  • Baltimore (38)
  • Civil Rights (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (32)
  • Economy (28)
  • Culture (28)
  • Elections (28)
  • Law (24)
  • Texas (23)
  • 2016 (20)
  • Environment (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Rescued (19)
  • Hillary Clinton (18)
  • Education (18)
  • Media (16)
  • Racism (16)
  • Politics (16)
  • Barack Obama (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site