Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  This is the first HR I've used in a very long time (10+ / 0-)

    Basically one can read these sort of opinions all day long at National Review, Free Republic, whatever.  And you can talk a lot on this site about shooting elk, ammunition, waiting periods good/bad, firearms registration good/bad, whatever.  

    But when you start telling me that the Second Amendment gives a right to rebellion, i.e., that someone can just decide which government officials they need to shoot, that's where I'm not interested in engaging in any discussion.  

    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 08:01:43 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  You're seeing things that aren't there. (12+ / 0-)

      You wrote, "...someone can just decide which government officials they need to shoot."

      Huh? Where did he say -- or even imply -- that?

      How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

      by BenderRodriguez on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:07:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This. (7+ / 0-)

      If the founders' intent was that we be free to violently overthrow the government, why go to the trouble of including any reference to or punishment for treason? Funny that the wingnuts have no explanation for that.

      •  I'm no "wingnut" but I'll give you an answer (4+ / 0-)

        one that I was taught in College.

        It is not treason or insurrection to restore Constitutional law.

        This has occurred in the most recent past:

        Battle of Athens

        -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 Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:58:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's only treason if you lose. Don't you know that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PavePusher, a2nite

        by now?

        The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

        by Wolf10 on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 09:00:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Treason (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wolf10, Hangpilot, PavePusher, gerrilea

        Is to subvert the laws of the land. The Supremacy clause affirms that the highest law of the land is the Constitution. This is why those who have the authority to make law and to enforce those laws by force (lawmakers, sheriffs, military, etc.) take a vow to defend the Constitution, not the "state". When the state itself is attempting to 'reduce us to slavery by arbitrary power we have no obligation to obedience and may rely on our natural right to self defense' (Locke, 2nd Treatise on Government)

        To replace a form of government which no longer defends our natural rights is not only our right, it is our duty. Treason is defying the Constitution, not defending it.

        Again, I do not propose civil war or revolution. I do stand by our right and duty to replace any form of government which does not defend our natural rights with one which does. I believe it is counter-productive to use violent means to effect that end. But we do maintain our natural right to self-defense, regardless.

        •  Whose interpretation of the constitution? (4+ / 0-)

          The problems arise with sheriffs, the military, states, etc. decide to defend the constitution based on their own interpretation of what it says. That's not how our constitutional system is supposed to work.

          Lawmakers pass laws based on their interpretation of the constitution. Those laws can be challenged in court, and the court makes the final decision (subject to being overturned by a later court or a constitutional amendment). Sheriffs, et. al., are obliged to obey the laws.

          There's nothing in the President's proposals to reduce firearms violence that, if enacted, would be likely to be found unconstitutional. Gun nuts screaming, "It's unconstitutional!" do not make it so.

          •  see Printz v US wrt Sheriffs (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea, PavePusher

            What I have seen the Sheriffs assert is that they will not be a party to confiscating guns or violating their citizens Constitutional rights.

            The US congress is constitutionally prohibited from directing/compelling state officers (of which a sheriff is one). Partly, the reason for this is that it would upset the balance of powers in at least two ways - the first being the obvious one between the States and the Federal govt.

            The second and one which many do not consider (and I did not until I studied the decision in Printz) is that if Congress made a law that directed the states to perform an action, then they would infringe on Presidential authority as the executive, whose responsibility is to enforce the laws of Congress.

            I suggest being familiar with Printz when commenting on the Sheriffs assertion of their responsibilities.

            http://www.law.cornell.edu/...

            •  Yes. It has to be done indirectly. (0+ / 0-)

              That's how it has worked with drinking age, speed limits, etc. Tie federal funds with the requirements, and state legislatures usually come around. Then the sheriffs would be required to enforce state laws.

              I'm not sure if that would work with the current activist Roberts court based on what they did with the Medicaid expansion as part of the ACA.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site