Skip to main content

View Diary: What you may not know about gun violence in Chicago (335 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I am an unapologetic supporter of the 2nd Amendmen (22+ / 8-)

    There are so many lapses of logic in this argument that in the interest of brevity I will not even attempt to answer them all in one post.

    To attempt to answer the issue of inner-city gun violence with "gun control" is an exercise in futility. The gun grabbers have no idea where the guns are, how many guns there are and in whose hands they are. Does any rational person think that without totalitarian controls guns can be kept out of the hands of the gangs and gun dealers who comprise the perpetrators of most of this violence?

    You may try, but you will initiate a civil war in the attempt.

    The most effective solution is to end the prohibition on recreational drugs. Do you see gangsters on the corner gunning each other down because a rival gang is encroaching on their alcohol-selling territory? No, you don't. You see folks generally peacefully making a transaction at the local liquor store or corner bar, helping the economy and filling coffers with tax revenue. One would see this in the era of prohibition, however. Their response was the first gun control laws. But until the 18th amendment was repealed, the problem persisted.

    The 2nd Amendment is in place as a final stop against a tyrannical government. To stop the gun violence through gun control will merely affirm the tyranny of the government in attempting to prevent the sovereign people of the United States from exercising their natural right to defend themselves. People will not turn in their guns for the most part. How do you propose to get them without starting a civil war/revolution?

    •  HR for "gun grabber" and threat of civil war. (10+ / 0-)

      You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

      by Cartoon Peril on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:23:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Talk about a lapse in logic! (9+ / 0-)
      To attempt to answer the issue of inner-city gun violence with "gun control" is an exercise in futility. The gun grabbers have no idea where the guns are, how many guns there are and in whose hands they are. Does any rational person think that without totalitarian controls guns can be kept out of the hands of the gangs and gun dealers who comprise the perpetrators of most of this violence?
      I often see this argument from people who live in the black and white world of most guns rights absolutists.  Here's the thing you need to wrap your head around: A reduction in the number of guns available doesn't have to be 100% effective for it to be effective.  Yes there will be guns in the hands of bad guys and guys who are good guys until the moment they become bad guys, but fewer guns means fewer guns available for people who want to use them for harm.

      ....no longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

      by TFinSF on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:37:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  ...final stop against a tyrannical government... (10+ / 0-)

      Snark right?

      "A final stop against tyannical government being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the people to
      keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
      Gobbletygook.

    •  welcome to Daily Kos. (6+ / 0-)

      ;7)


      We are not broke, we are being robbed.

      by Glen The Plumber on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:39:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This comment (13+ / 0-)

      is in no way HRable. Uprated to counter abuse.

      "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

      by happy camper on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:46:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  stop against tyrant gov? take on army fireteam? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, Cartoon Peril

      no I didn't that so, because that would not accomplish much except getting killed

      80 % of Success is Just Showing Up! CLIMATE CHANGE: The era of procrastination, half-measures & delays is coming to an end; In its place we are entering a period of consequences!

      by Churchill on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:53:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am quite experienced in combat. (4+ / 0-)

        What you seem to not understand is that American private gun owners are equivalent to the militaries of the top 20 militaries in the world, including of course, the US, China and Russia.

        Our military is predominantly made up of the children of these same Americans. The "gun culture" sends their children to protect our freedoms (however disabused they are in their efforts). You misapprehend the situation if you believe the majority of the military will disarm their communities.

        That is a dangerous misapprehension. Again, I make no threats. I dont seek to lead a revolution. I am stating facts as I see them.

        Gun confiscation is the Rubicon for a large group of Americans. Those proposing any such idea are treading on exceptionally dangerous ground - possibly being unaware of doing so. I want you to be aware.

        •  nobody is going to confiscate guns (3+ / 0-)

          that just sounds unreal.  We need a rifle (I hate to use the word gun because we would never use a pistol to fight the government, we would use a rifle) to protect us from our government.  Why couldn't we just get fed up with our government leaders and vote them out?

          80 % of Success is Just Showing Up! CLIMATE CHANGE: The era of procrastination, half-measures & delays is coming to an end; In its place we are entering a period of consequences!

          by Churchill on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:47:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  voting is just SO much work! (3+ / 0-)

            You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

            by Cartoon Peril on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:55:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Tell me who to vote for... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher

            who will restore our liberties as defined under the Constitution? I will happily do so. Unfortunately, the oligarchs who control BOTH major parties and 90% of the media do not find that our liberal political philosophy found in the Constitution serves their end to reduce us to serfdom.

            Since they DO control the electoral process and the media, I do not want them to also have a monopoly on force.

            Consider that Congress is uniformly despised yet incumbents have a reelection rate of over 90%. The electoral process effects liberty? Not.

        •  as a combat vet would you worry about civilians (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber

          armed with handguns? Rifle, of course, but handguns?
          I have a rifle, and my family has owned rifles and shotguns for as far as I can trace because, before The War Between the States.  I too know about a civil war because 660,000 Americans dies in one of our many American Civil Wars.

          80 % of Success is Just Showing Up! CLIMATE CHANGE: The era of procrastination, half-measures & delays is coming to an end; In its place we are entering a period of consequences!

          by Churchill on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:53:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I am much more concerned... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Churchill, Samulayo, PavePusher

            by the threat of mass murder/genocide perpetrated by a tyrannical government with a monopoly on the use of arms than I am by a free citizenry in which law abiding citizens are armed with ANY weapon.

            Any knowledge of 20th century history will affirm this concern.

            •  you, sir, are absolutely 100 % correct, (0+ / 0-)

              but do you think we are approaching that level? And what good would a armed militia do against Cobra gunships, or Apache gunships?

              80 % of Success is Just Showing Up! CLIMATE CHANGE: The era of procrastination, half-measures & delays is coming to an end; In its place we are entering a period of consequences!

              by Churchill on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 10:21:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  See Vietnam or Afghanistan... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PavePusher

                for your answer to that. I also don't believe our military will fire upon American citizens who are defending themselves against an oppressive government. Most members of our military come from the same "stock" as the gun owners and believe deeply in their oath to defend the Constitution.

                •  Please see, indeed (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  YucatanMan

                  What is the American version of the Viet Cong and their patron state, North Vietnam?  Who are the American Taliban?  America has NOTHING like that around which to organize an effective insurgency against the most powerful military the earth has ever seen.  "Same stock?"  What does that even begin to mean in America? Nonsense.

    •  Uprated to offset HRs. (11+ / 0-)

      Pete, I don't agree with you 100%, but I'm intrigued to hear more of what you have to say.

      Welcome to DKos. You've made a hell of a first impression.

      How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

      by BenderRodriguez on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:58:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I thank you. (5+ / 0-)

        For the welcome. I dont expect my views to be welcome here, but possibly folk who are open minded to views they do not share will at least have the opportunity to be exposed to them in a non-threatening way.

        I am appalled by the comments who project onto me a desire for civil war as my goal is exactly the opposite. But folks who misapprehend the vehemence with which the gun owner/Patriot community will resist any effort to thwart their natural rights to self-defense need to hear the truth. And I will speak it.

        •  do you support this comment..??.. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bob Johnson, annieli, coquiero
          A revoution is in order, though violence is neither in order, nor would it serve the purpose of freedom. As far as being traitorous, it is very clear in the Declaration of Independence that we have both the right and duty to change our form of government (revolution) should our form of government fail to fufill its purpose of protecting our natural rights. I believe we have the natural right to defend ourselves if exercising this right should bring violence upon us, but revolution is not necessarily violent, and certainly not traitorous.


          We are not broke, we are being robbed.

          by Glen The Plumber on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:24:03 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  tyranny? (4+ / 0-)

          who defines tyranny? when in the history of the american republic has the government been "tyrannical"? some common suggestions:

          1. whenever there's a black man in the white house.
          2. whenever there's a democrat in the white house.
          3. whenever my nutty uncle fred thinks he's being robbed by the IRS.
          4. when the black helicopters arrive.

          the conditions become absurd almost immediately. i question the sanity and / or good faith of such arguments.

          the 2nd amendment says nothing about guns and overthrowing a tyrannical government. if we allow anyone the right to own a gun in order to overthrow tyranny, we are allowing mentally unstable persons to dominate the discourse.

          there is no right to overthrow the american governmnet  by violent revolution in the constitution. those who say otherwise should immediately be suspect, and their intentions very carefully examined.

      •  I removed my HR (4+ / 0-)

        after reading this far in the thread, but I'm sure not going to uprate!. The whole idea that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect against tyranny is right-wing nonsense, IMO.

        As to the meaning and applicability of the Second Amendment, that's up to the courts, but I agree with the four dissenters in D.C. v. Heller that it just applies to state militia, not civilians. Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy wrote an activist decision overturning decades of settled law regarding the power of the government to regulate guns for public health and safety. Even then, the majority clearly stated limitations on their decision. It does not come close to the anything-goes interpretation promulgated by the gun lobby.

    •  When they threaten Civil War, you get a Warrant. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, a2nite

      If they dont, you dont. Very simple. Thanks for asking.

      Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

      by OregonOak on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:35:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for your concern, lies. (6+ / 0-)

      Your argument against violent revolution is to allow everyone to arm for a violent revolution and start shooting whenever they feel like it?

      Thanks for your concern, but if your theory of precipitating civil war through background checks were anywhere near true, we wouldn't have killed Tim McVeigh.

      By the way, while your tossing around what causes revolution, you might want to keep him in mind as an example.  Just saying.

      Does any rational person think that without totalitarian controls guns can be kept out of the hands of the gangs and gun dealers who comprise the perpetrators of most of this violence?
      Yeah, actually, me and Wayne Lapierre think that background checks and rigorous prosecutions will go a long way.  Get out of your bunker and ask around.
      The 2nd Amendment is in place as a final stop against a tyrannical government. To stop the gun violence through gun control will merely affirm the tyranny of the government in attempting to prevent the sovereign people of the United States from exercising their natural right to defend themselves.
      No, the second isn't. That's just an argument made up by people who figure that if they have a right to all the weaponry the US military has in order to make a good fight at revolution, they can have automatics or whatever.

      That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

      by Inland on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:37:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You misstate my position (0+ / 0-)

        I will refrain from speculating on whether this is by intent or through careless reading - then again, perhaps I am not making myself clear.

        No, I dont believe people should (or will) just start shooting whenever they please. Some will, to be sure, but the majority of Americans and the majority of gun owners will not support this. McVeigh, whom you mention, thought his action would precipitate an uprising. Instead, it precipitated revulsion, as was proper.

        The oppressive actions of Waco and Ruby Ridge which led McVeigh to attempt to initiate his uprising precipitated revulsion and an awakening as well. The "Patriot Movement" went underground at that point, which is dangerous. I am very open about my position.

        I am not against most background checks. I believe it is appropriate that we attempt to keep guns from felons and those who are mentally unstable. My position is that there are so many guns in America that this is an impossibility without draconian controls - i.e., totalitarianism - and this would spur violent revolution.

        So, more effectively we should look at the causes of most gun violence. Among others, the lack of opportunity brought on by the economic fascism of both parties and the "war on drugs" is, I think, the primary cause of gun violence. We would be much more effective to address these, as well as having an effective mental health policy, than we would by enacting more "people control" disguised as "gun control".

        And no matter how many times you repeat the fallacy that the 2nd Amendment is not in place as a final check on a tyrannical government, history and reality will prove you wrong every time.

        •  You're turning it on its head. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero, Cartoon Peril

          The idea that we have to allow people to arm because they are dangerous is exactly backwards.

          And no matter how many times you repeat the fallacy that the 2nd Amendment is not in place as a final check on a tyrannical government, history and reality will prove you wrong every time.
          Actually, I'll never be proven wrong.  I'll be disagreed with by someone with a gun who thinks that they finally see a tyrannical government appear.  Maybe they will have gotten the idea that an assault weapons ban is that point.  Maybe they already think it with the ban on fully automatics.  The point being, when people like you pretend that the individual has a right to determine when tyranny has begun, and that they can use deadly force to overthrow it, you condone their use of violence.    

          You, in other words, don't have the right to revulsion at  McVeigh's act.  You don't get to dare pretend to.

          McVeigh, whom you mention, thought his action would precipitate an uprising.
          So he was wrong about what it would precipitate.  Bad call in strategic terms, but within his second amendment right as you see it.

          Final word: we have guns too, so all the Blackstones and their constitutional theories should think less about what Tench Coxe said and more about what happens to ebels and traitors.

          That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

          by Inland on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 01:40:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Uprated to counter BS HR's. (8+ / 0-)

      There is nothing here that is so offensive at to merit being hidden.  Nothing.  Try some decaf, people.  

      Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

      by SpamNunn on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:37:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Uprated against HRs for disagreement. (7+ / 0-)

      There are those who don't care for this sort of opinion, but there is nothing in this post that is HRable.

      If you disagree with what is posted here, then do so -- but HRing for disagreement is strictly against site rules.  The "explanations" for the HRs are ludicrous.

      Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

      by theatre goon on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:39:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Uh huh (11+ / 0-)

      The Red Dawn wet dream in the following is absolutely the worst argument for allowing unrestricted gun ownership:

      The 2nd Amendment is in place as a final stop against a tyrannical government. To stop the gun violence through gun control will merely affirm the tyranny of the government in attempting to prevent the sovereign people of the United States from exercising their natural right to defend themselves.
      I can only think of two examples in American history when people used guns to try to stop tyrannical government. (1) The indigenous peoples who were really upset by all of the undocumented immigrants stealing their land and (2) Those who fought to protect their constitutional right to own other human beings as property.  Neither of these efforts ended well.  

      Think about the invocation of Seneca Falls, Selma, Stonewall.  Those event mark efforts to expand the promise of the Declaration of Independence.  To the extent they succeeded, the success did not come by being armed.  

      And, let's think about the American war for Independence.  Cornwallis did not surrender to a group of unorganized privately armed citizens and privately armed citizens did not prevent the British navy from rescuing his army

      I'm amazed at the number of people who think Red Dawn is a documentary.

      [Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security] do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.

      by MoDem on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:51:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not this again... (12+ / 0-)
      The 2nd Amendment is in place as a final stop against a tyrannical government.
      This deep paranoia about "government tyranny" runs rampant among the folks defending the Second Amendment here. And it is paranoid, bordering on the delusional. I don't think I've ever seen a  more frightened group of people afraid of some unseeable bogeyman.

      I wrote a diary the other day highlighting a few of the late, great Chicago newspaper columnist Mike Royko's columns on guns.

      In this one from 1980 he addresses the paranoid notion that the government is coming to take away all of our "freedoms and liberties" (read: guns):

      Many gun lovers say that if people can’t own guns, they are at the mercy of an oppressive government that might someday take over the country. Only the threat of being shot at by honest citizens keeps government from taking our liberties, they say. Maybe. But once again, how effective is a handgun against the kind of weapons the government can muster – planes, tanks.

      That’s why my organization (the National Association for the Legalization of Machineguns, Bazookas, Hand Grenades, Cannons, Land Mines and Anything Else That Goes Boom) wants the heavy stuff legalized for home use. See how many government inspectors and other bureaucrats would come snooping around if they thought they might step on a hidden land mine as they cross your lawn. And mines would also be effective against those rude people who let their dogs go on your grass.

      It’s that wonderful slogan – “Guns don’t kill; people kill” – that has always made me wonder why certain poisons, such as arsenic, aren’t sold over the counter in drug stores. After all, poisons don’t kill; people kill, right?

      And it’s that spirit that makes me wonder why so many people are concerned about the possible spread of nuclear weapons. I don’t see anything wrong with all kinds of little countries having their own nuclear arsenals.

      After all, “Nuclear bombs don’t kill; people kill.”

      Come to think of it, why can’t individual Americans have their own little nuclear arsenals.

      I’ll have to bring that up at the next meeting.

    •  Fear, fear, fear... (8+ / 0-)

      Fear of a tyrannical government.

      Fear of bad guys lurking around the next corner.

      Fear of touching off a civil war.

      Jeezuz Christ, you must have to walk around in diapers with amount of fear you express in your post.

      No wonder you need a gun.

    •  Tyranny of the government?????? (5+ / 0-)

      How about the tyranny of the gun lovers!!!!!

      Frankly, people who extoll the virtues of guns to protect themselves from the government scare me!!!

      Gun lovers are pushing this to the limit of what our government and its citizens can bear.

    •  Wait a sec (6+ / 0-)
      You may try, but you will initiate a civil war in the attempt.
      I thought most gun owners were "law-abiding citizens"?  If certain guns are made illegal, those who own them will abide by the law and turn them in.  Otherwise, they'll just be criminals, and will deserve to be treated as such.

      As for the method: A mandatory buyback has proven very effective and painless in other stable democracies.  If you don't sell your illegal guns within the grace period, you're a criminal.  Plain and simple.    

      Look, America has a problem with its guns. 30,000 dead and 70,000 wounded every year, and it's steady, even though other crime is going down.  To fix our problem, we can get rid of the people, or we can get rid of the guns.  The NRA and its parroters insist that if we just got rid of (i.e. cut access to) the right people, we could keep the guns.  That's why they focus on bogeymen and criminals and "illegal" guns [nb: all illegal guns were legal when first purchased].

      But most gun deaths are suicides... showing that the person most likely to kill you with a gun is yourself, not some "criminal" or "bad guy out there".  And in most of the others, as you can see on the daily GunFAIL diaries, don't have a career criminal involved either--- it's usually family, friends, or trusted acquaintances, with no discernible mental illness, gunning each other down in a thoughtless moment.  A thoughtless and irrevocable moment.    

      The time is past for ignoring our nation's problems with guns.  The NRA lost that battle, so now it's focusing on the people side of the problem... we have to get rid of the guns or the people.  But we can't get rid of the people.  That leaves the guns...  and all the corny bluster and bravado about civil war won't change that inevitable conclusion.

      Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

      by nominalize on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 10:10:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think you misunderstand the law... (0+ / 0-)

        We are founded under the philosophy of NATURAL LAW. We institute government to protect the inalienable rights endowed by natural law.

        Edicts eminating from an entity posing as a legitimate government is not law. Let that sink in.

        Now, what makes a government legitimate? A legitimate government is one which protects our natural rights. When "government" becomes injurious of that purpose, it is no longer legitimate, thus no longer government. It cannot issue "law" but only edicts.

        Thus, refusing to obey these edicts are not unlawful acts, but duty.

        In our Constitution, we LIMIT THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT, not the people. When "government" exceeds those limits, it is trying to exercise ARBITRARY power, as it is usurping power not allowed it by the sovereign power of the country - the people.

        "whenever the Legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence." John Locke, 2nd Treatise on Governement

        Right To Revolution

        •  well now, Pete you've drifted into (4+ / 0-)

          standard LP territory with your quoting "NATURAL LAW" and Locke would be best tempered by quoting /citing some Tom Paine, otherwise many folks here will think you a 'bagger sympathizer

          Warning - some snark above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ "We're like a strip club with a million bouncers and no strippers." (HBO's Real Time, January 18, 2013)

          by annieli on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 11:38:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not to mention, (5+ / 0-)

            Pete misses three important points.

            1) Natural law is not an immutable reality; it is a theory of law, the way that natural selection is a theory of evolution, and gravity is a theory of motion.  However, unlike natural selection and gravity, there is a lot of evidence showing the inadequacy of the theory of natural law, including a ton of recent research showing that morality (and hence law) is a product of human cognition--- it doesn't exist outside of our minds.  

            2) Even if there was such a thing as natural law, there is no guarantee that the laws we write correspond to it.  Just because the Founding Fathers held it to be self-evident that all men are created equal doesn't mean there is a natural law to that effect.  For all we know, there is a natural law that men are not created equal, and our "self-evident" laws contravene them.  Indeed, for most of human history, equality was not a virtue.  Look at the Founding Fathers themselves--- they certainly didn't live up to that "natural law", did they? Writing tracts about equality by day, beating and raping their human chattel by night.  Restricting voting and citizenship, and so on.  

            The point is--- they weren't necessarily right.  And they, being men of the Enlightenment, knew this perfectly well.  That's why they wrote the constitution as forming a "more perfect union".  If the work was complete, they would have written just "perfect union".  As products of the Enlightenment, they would be aghast at you worshipping their work, instead of applying the fruits of the 230 years of experience gained here and in other countries.

            3)  "whenever the Legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power,"

            There is not a single gun law in the country that does these things.  The Founding Fathers may have feared a distant federal dictator, but 230 years of experience gained here and in other countries shows that stable, lasting democracies don't devolve into dictatorships, and that they can disarm themselves peacefully, and let the darkness and overwhelming fear in their souls drift away.   Unwarranted and unhealthy fear will drag down your soul, Pete.  Let it go.
             

            Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

            by nominalize on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 12:55:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Some are welcoming you to DKos (6+ / 0-)

      I won't be joining them.

      I do not think we need to have nicey-nicey conversations with clearly right-wing trolls to prove that we have a big tent.

      If you believe that gun control in the US will result in Civll War, please take your rantings elsewhere.

      This does not further any conversation. It only derails the conversations that we should be having.

      I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

      by coquiero on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 12:52:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Zero Diary Fuck-Tard Troll nt (0+ / 0-)

      There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

      by bernardpliers on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:04:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You are wrong (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero, Cartoon Peril

      The 2nd Amendment was a guarantee to slave states that their militias would be there to protect them against an invasion by the federal government to emancipate their slaves.

      It was necessary in order to persuade those states to ratify the Constitution, even though there were numerous other obnoxious compromises such as the 3/5, the Senate and Electoral College, and the 10th Amendment, because of the spreading abolitionist fever and because of the establishment in the Constitution of a standing federal army.

      But since the Civil War, it has been completely obsolete and useless. just like the 3/5 Compromise. Only in the 20th Century was it applied to the question of gun control, in spite of its clear connection to militias (through the phrases “well-regulated militia”, taken from the Articles of Confederation, and the phrase “bear arms”, used at least since the 17th Century primarily to refer to military action).

      The 2nd Amendment never had anything to do with personal defense (or with hunting, for that matter).

    •  You need to read (4+ / 0-)

      The book is "Private Guns, Public Health," by David Hemenway.  He effectively dispels all of the nonsense you just typed.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site