Skip to main content

View Diary: Should we amend the US Constitution? Justice Stevens thinks so, incl. 2nd Amendment (new book) (321 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Unreal (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, Norm in Chicago

    The US was driven out of Vietnam largely because of AK-47's.  They have been driven out of Iraq by poorly trained insurgents. They are being driven out of Afghanistan by poorly fed insurgents.

    Do you want secession? How about MORE nullification? How about de facto civil war? Do you want millions of "gun nuts" declared to be felons?  What do think the outcome of THAT might be?

    ANYONE who keeps pushing more gun control while the nation's governance openly rots is pushing for a reactive anarchy. If a lack of trust is the problem, grabbing guns is not the solution.

    •  More fantasy I see (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh, Sharon Wraight, cal2010

      No one said "grabbing guns". What was said was repeal or amend the 2nd amendment so rationality can be brought back into the discussion.

      The perversion of the Heller decision is a far more dangerous action then legally changing the Constitution could ever be.

      We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

      by i understand on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 08:26:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Reality (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh, roadbear, cal2010, i understand

      The US was driven out of Vietnam largely because of lack of unarmed war protesters at home (well, armed with flower-power) and the injustice of our position and tactics in Vietnam (e.g. carpet-bombing peasants in a foreign land, supporting a corrupt South). Most Vietnamese did not own guns, the Vietnamese Army had far more than AK47s, and there was no 2nd Amendment in either North or South -- yet they still won.

      To answer your questions:
      1. No (I don't want secession, nor do I anticipate or fear it).
      2. No ("nullification" is bullsh*t and will be crushed).
      3. No (I don't want civil war, de facto or de jure).
      4. No (I want gun-nuts to obey whatever laws are democratically passed, as with everyone else, and penalized according to the law if they disobey).
      5. A windfall for private prisons? ;-)

      Am I worried about secession (by whom? Gunlandia?), or civil war in the US over gun issues? No. I think that is very unlikely, and in the event pockets of it bubbled up I have full confidence they would be justifiably crushed. That kind of rhetoric is so full of beans that it surpasses cow-burps as a climate-change gas. All talk, no revolution.

      I don't see anyone calling for "grabbing guns," do you? Even outright repeal of 2A would not do that -- it would be up to the democratic process what to do next. "Imagine" that!

      •  typo. nt (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Smoh, roadbear, cal2010

        (while the system was down somehow a typo got in my comment -- I meant to say something like:

        The US was driven out of Vietnam largely because of lack of support at home, including the protests of unarmed war protesters...)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site