Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun Control vs Social Security (160 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So, in your infinite wisdom, how does a woman (5+ / 0-)

    defend against a superior force?  

    Ask nicely?

    Beg?

    Plead?

    Cough, "call the police", cough, cough?

    Domestic abuse victims usually die, even after repeated calls for police assistance.

    I don't feel "emasculated", I'd  feel helpless.  There is a huge difference.  Helpless in the face of reality in these "United States" where "special rules" govern crimes against woman because they're labeled as "domestic disputes", so therefore not "real crimes".  Crimes that if done to anyone else would bear the full brunt of our legal system.  

    And who's fault is it today? People that claim they're helping protect society, Bull crap.  We are members of society as well and labeling crimes as "domestic disputes" where a conviction is a slap on the wrist with the promise not to do it again IS WHAT MAKES US VICTIMS.  If they knew there would be real life-threatening or life altering consequences, maybe less of us would be dying!

    You'd then take the one tool away that can prevent me from becoming that helpless victim and you now "won't mention it" because its the "exception proving the rule"?

    Who here among us is truly being sexist?  It sure as the hell isn't me.  Women are still clearly secondhand citizens in your mind.

    Thanks for sharing.

    -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 02:51:31 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I hate to indulge this further, (0+ / 0-)

      But you are arguing that Jared Loughner and not Gabrielle Giffords is the real feminist.  I agree with everything you say, up to the point where you suggest the solution is that anyone can have an assault weapon.  Unless more is done to protect women from the abusers by law, the same statutes or lack thereof that might protect women in your scenario, would also arm the abusers, because of Second Amendment interpretive extremists.  At best, your argument meets the problem sideways.  

      As it stands, I believe the federal and local governments can and should weigh the aggregate risks of legalizing kind of individual gun ownership.  Guns that go well beyond any conception of self-defense, like those at issue in Feinstein's legislation, are easy cases.  For handguns, the self-defense rationale can't be dismissed out of hand compared with guns that fire off high capacity magazines, but you're just incorrect that more people, women or men, would survive than if we had the gun laws of other Western democracies.  

      Either way, it's not tantamount to sexism or ignoring domestic violence to think otherwise.  I noted the author's sexism based on his writing, not on his support for laws that allow women to be shot to death in their own homes, like Kassandra Perkins.  That's the difference.

      Have you considered the dangers of lead exposure from being around bullets, and how that might impact your cognition?

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:18:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Aggregate risks", A zero-sum game? An esoteric (6+ / 0-)

        exercise?  "Lead exposure"???  Laughtner is the feminist"???

        Didn't you mean "would not survive than if we had the gun laws of other Western democracies"

        ------------------------------

        The author was being condescending a bit, but sexist, I didn't see that, I saw military respect being employed.  "Ma'am", I've been called that by polite military men while at work and they may have not heard a question I've asked them.  I've heard the same respect from many Southerners, including young women.  

        Banning items will not save lives, especially items that do very little killing.  It's clear the intent isn't to save lives but condition people into accepting the conversion of an unalienable right into a privilege, nothing more.

        I believe the federal and local governments can and should weigh the aggregate risks of legalizing kind of individual gun ownership.
        It seems to me that's exactly what you want here.

        ----------------------------

        In any case, there is only one legitimate avenue of action, change the constitution.  Miller v. US, it did make clear the military usage of firearms.  That was their key finding.  If the military uses it, so can any citizen.  How do you get around this? Ignore the law?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

        You couldn't ban assault rifles or magazine clips that the military uses.  

        Your solution is a dog chasing its tail.  And yes, the sexist nature of our system of law that you will not address does kill women.   The sexist nature of this society that teaches women to be helpless victims and not be taught or utilize tools for self-defense kills women.  The sexist nature of "police responses" kills women.    

        Hey, but the police have been given absolution for it.

        -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 09:08:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Miller left that question open, (0+ / 0-)

          in fact (finding the gun in question could be regulated), and  Read that bloc quotation some more - it's not good for your position.  It says any weapon that's non-militia has no protection under the second amendment, and it certainly suggests there wouldn't be an individual right to one, so long as the test is what has "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."  Anyway, Heller leaves room to bar ownership of weapons that are exceptionally dangerous or some such formulation.  It interprets Miller to protect only what weapons are in common use, by saying there's only an organized militia when it's disassembled, like an anarchist convention.  (Speaking of linguistic difficulties, if I put the "not" in there as you suggest, it would either misstate your position, wouldn't be modified by "incorrect," or I'd have to take out "than.")

          The Gonzales case is many things but certainly not an example of not enough guns (the abuser shot daughters in front of police station and was himself shot to death) -- two of the dissenters in Heller dissented there too.

          Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

          by Loge on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 10:19:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site