Skip to main content

View Diary: NRA targets judicial nominees to keep federal courts in gun-friendly hands (83 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The Supreme Court has ruled... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cocinero, tytalus, SoCalSal, bear83, PinHole

    ...in Heller that restrictions on firearms are perfectly constitutional as long as they are not completely banned.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:41:44 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Fighting to restrict liberties is (0+ / 0-)

      fighting to restrict liberties.
      The means you choose to do so is irrelevant.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:44:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So are you against the 1968... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cocinero, tytalus, annieli, bear83

        ...Gun Control Act? You think guns should be directly available to all comers via mail order? Are you against the 1934 National Firearms Act? You think sub-machineguns should be available to everyone without restriction? How about bazookas?

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:04:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  My criteria is simple. (0+ / 0-)

          No infringements on what innocent Americans enjoy today.
          My rights have not infringed on you.
          How dare you infringe on my rights.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:24:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your "rights" infringe on me and on Americans (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tytalus, SoCalSal, bear83, PinHole

            across the country.

            They infringed on the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of the 26 killed at Sandy Hook Elementary.

            They infringe on the rights of all those who have been killed or wounded around the country, not only in the mass shooting incidents, but all those that that occur every day and don't make the national news.

            They infringe on all those who live in fear because of gun violence.

            They also infringe on taxpayers who must pay for extra security and for the police response and investigation following gun violence.

            Your Second Amendment rights end at the point where they infringe on the basic rights of your fellow Americans.

            •  My rights have infringed on no one. (0+ / 0-)

              By this criteria, your rights of a warrant for wiretaps infringed on the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of the 3000 killed on 9/11.

              By this criteria, any victims of terrorist attacks if you don't support Gitmo or torture are your responsibility.

              I rejected this bullshit of attempting to fallaciously blame innocent Americans & their Rights for the actions of murderers then, and I reject it now.

              We, your fellow Americans, will meet you at the ballot box.
              Afterwards, you can tell us if infringing on our liberties for your perceived security & your distrust of innocent Americans & your loathing of American liberties was worth it.
              I look forward to hearing your answer.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:04:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Saying you have a right (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bear83

                to own an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine as long as you don't use it to shoot someone is like saying you have a right to drive 100 mph on the highway as long as you avoid an accident.

                Dangerous weapons can be banned within the Second Amendment just as other things are banned that are a threat to public safety. The Supreme Court and lower court decisions have made it clear that the 2nd is not unlimited, NRA propaganda notwithstanding.

                •  A highway is public. (0+ / 0-)

                  Your analogy is flawed.
                  A more apt analogy to driving 100 on a highway, is that one doesn't have the right to shoot anywhere they want....and they don't.

                  "2nd is not unlimited"
                  That explains the limits currently on it.

                  You want to infringe on the rights of innocent Americans for your perceived security.
                  The right-wing wanted to do the same.

                  I reject both attempts to infringe on the liberties of
                  innocent Americans.

                  We will be able to ask those innocent Americans what they think of your infringements at the next election. In Ohio. In Florida. In Pennsylvania. In Nevada. In Virginia. In NC. In NM. In Iowa. In Wisconsin. In all these places, innocent Americans are going to tell you what they think of sacrificing their liberty for your perceived security.
                  I look forward to their answer.

                  You can tell us how much 'safer' you feel after the elections.
                  I look forward to seeing if you felt infringing on the liberties of innocent Americans was worth it to you.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:21:01 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Not all gun violence is the result (0+ / 0-)

                of "the actions of murderers."

        •  MB, I'm against the GCA '68 (0+ / 0-)

          The GCA '68 was the disenfranchisement of a minority population.  ALL Felons are debarred from firearms, regardless of non-violent conviction.  The height of the bar for those non-violent Felons to clear, for restoration of rights, is often impossible to reach.  They lack the "well employed" job, due to poverty, poor schooling, and the felony conviction.

          They lack the funds to employ the lawyer who will represent them to the Court, Feds, or State board which hears appeals for restoration of rights.

          They're also not the persons likely to commit felony assault or murder, but that's inconsequential - if your goal is to debar the use of firearms to a poor and minority population.

          My follow-on question is:
          If disenfranchised sufficiently, how many DO become depressed, and commit further crimes?  Possibly violent crimes, as society treats them as pariahs - killers loosed on our streets.
          Perhaps a question best put to doc zombie.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site