Skip to main content

View Diary: GunFAIL XI (136 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not just a hobby. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gfv6800, Patrick Costighan

    Also a right. And yes, I value my rights very highly.

    •  There have been many changes in the (12+ / 0-)

      Constitution as times and circumstances have changed.  Slavery.  Suffrage.  I'd say it's time to recognize that weaponry and ammunition available to civilians today bears little resemblance to what the Framers had in mind in the 1700s.

      Furthermore, according to this article in the NYT

      Only 2 percent of the world’s constitutions protect, as the Second Amendment does, a right to bear arms. (Its brothers in arms are Guatemala and Mexico.)
      I'd prefer not to be exceptional in this regard.  And it would be hard to argue that Guatemala and Mexico enjoy greater domestic tranquility than we do, wouldn't it?

      I'm not optimistic about it, but I believe it's time to rewrite the Second Amendment to reflect modern life and to emphasize the well regulated aspect.  I don't think civilian police should have weapons of war, any more than other civilians should.  Next we're going to be arguing over rocket launchers and plastic explosives.  We've already gone from muskets to automatic rifles with mega-magazines.

    •  Highly enough to consider the death toll recorded (6+ / 0-)

      in this diary to be an acceptable level of collateral damage?
      Evidently so. Well, other Americans value our rights very highly, too; and many of us, possibly even a majority, believe we have a right to life even if it limits your right to play with guns. We're not going to threaten you with violence, even implicitly, as you seem to be doing to those you disagree with here. All we can do is rub your faces in a little bit of all that blood and try to shame you out of your sick-puppy fanaticism.

      "Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous." -- Molly Ivins

      by dumpster on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 02:42:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Where have I implicitly threatened violence? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Patrick Costighan

        Where?

        And your right to live does not conflict with my right to be armed. This is not a zero-sum game.

        •  Maybe I'm over-interpreting, but (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Smoh

          the assertion that you value your right [to be armed] very highly sure as heck sounded like the verbal equivalent of waving a gun in our faces. But I'll grant you your plausible deniability and move on to conflicting rights.
          The failure to impose reasonable limits on what kinds of weapons & ammunition may be owned, & by whom, conflicted with the right to continue living of not only the specific fatalities listed in this week's GunFail, but those schoolkids in Newtown, their teacher and principal, and thousands more Americans.

          "Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous." -- Molly Ivins

          by dumpster on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 05:09:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Well we haven't finished (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh, WakeUpNeo

      deciding just what your "rights" are.

      They are certainly NOT the free-for-all many gun owners seem to want.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 05:11:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

        A very telling comment.

        When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

        by Patrick Costighan on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 01:40:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  We shall see. (0+ / 0-)

        I fully expect New York's SAFE act to be struck down. We'll see how much clarification we get out of the ruling.

        I suspect you will be very disappointed.

        •  I suspect you will be very disappointed. (0+ / 0-)
          I fully expect New York's SAFE act to be struck down. We'll see how much clarification we get out of the ruling.
          I believe there may be some adjustments made to certain provisions of the law, but the NY SAFE Act will survive to achieve its purpose.
          Q: What does this law do?

          A: The NY SAFE Act is designed to make New York a safer place to live by reducing gun violence through common sense and reasonable reforms. The law respects the right to bear arms and the interest of hunters, sportsmen, and legal owners who use their guns appropriately. The law protects New Yorkers by:

          Keeping guns out of the hands of convicted felons and potentially dangerous mental health patients.

          Banning high capacity magazines and assault weapons.

          Ensuring all gun purchases are subject to a background check.

          Toughening criminal penalties on those who use illegal guns.

          Thank you for reminding me to post this here for all to see once again exactly what the NY SAFE Act is meant to accomplish.
    •  Insisting on being armed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh, adrianrf

      is an implicit threat of violence.

      End of discussion.

      "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

      by nosleep4u on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 05:44:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (151)
  • Community (65)
  • Elections (43)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Culture (32)
  • Baltimore (28)
  • Economy (27)
  • Environment (27)
  • Texas (27)
  • Bernie Sanders (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Health Care (21)
  • Barack Obama (20)
  • Republicans (19)
  • International (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site