Skip to main content

    First, a few words about who is writing. I received my first long-gun, a Stevens .410 shotgun from my father when I was ten years old. When I was fourteen, he blew my mind by presenting me with the Marlin lever-action .22 I had been salivating over for a year, a gun which I still possess at 70. My father had many fine long-guns and pistols that he let me use at will in my mid-teens. To, gun-lovers their names will mean something: A Parker Brothers 12 gauge shotgun; a pre-Japan-manufacture  Model 70 Winchester .220 Swift with a 9 power scope; a Manliccher-Schoenauer carbine, a Smith and Wesson .38 Special long-barrel revolver. A Ruger single-six .22 revolver. A Winchester .30-06 for hunting in the dense Pennsylvania brush where we lived.He trained me carefully and well in gun-safety and from fifteen on I was free to roam the woods and fields with the weapon of my choice for the day, usually with a friend, both of us wearing pistols.
    When I was older, during the Sixties I lived on Communes in Western Marin County California, the Trinity-Siskyou Wilderness area and in the Southwest. As a, by then, skilled hunter, I was sometimes called on to provide meat. A pal and I would grabbed a bag of black tea, a small camp pot, some jerky, and nuts and raisins and disappear into the Coast Range,  to hunt the Spotted Fallow deer that some rich-local doctor had once thought pretty. He imported several breeding pairs and they became a nuisance invader species. In other places there were other species of Deer.
     The Fallow Deer were light enough that field-dressed and quartered they weighed about fifty to sixty pounds. We would  field-dress and quarter them, skin them,cut two sets of 12” parallel slits in the skin, tie the meat in  with the leg-skins knotted diagonally across the back. You could slip your arms through the slits and pack it home.
      Because we had no money for licenses and ate only wild meat, we were poachers. Consequently, I hunted these deer with my quiet .22 to which I had added a four power scope for light gathering. I never lost a single deer to escape wounded.
     I mention this to establish bona fides as a “gun-nut.” I reloaded ammunition for my .38 Special revolver, .220 Swift, and .30-.30. Despite ending my hunting when I became a Buddhist later in life, I still own my .22, an octagonal barrel .30-.30 lever action, and a small-of-the back, stainless steel .22 automatic I kept around when I lived in my truck and slept rough, too close for comfort to urban areas.
Now, on to the matter at hand:

    The Second Amendment, protecting the right for a well-established militia to keep and bear arms, was written at a time when a skilled marksman still required at least 30 seconds to reload a flintlock rifle after firing. The Founders could no more have imagined 100 bullet magazines, semi-automatic weapons, taped-together 30-shot banana clips and fully automatic pistols then they could have imagined Facebook, cell-phones, or the internet. Furthermore, the Constitution was written at a time when virtually everyone owned a gun as a means of eating and defense from the Native people we were displacing. Gun lore and practice was widely spread and understood.
    One of the wonderful qualities about our Constitution is its flexibility and its serviceability. That is why it has survived into its 2nd century. Our founders lived in a time when slavery was legal, and for political purposes the life of a black person counted as a fraction of a white person’s in determining the number of legislators in an area. Women and landless people were not allowed to vote. My point? Things change! The underlying principle is not invalidated, but made current by our elected representatives.
      Our Congress is charged with adapting these general principles to changing times. The reason I mentioned hunting with a .22 (not ideal unless you stalk well) is that even "underarmed" by most consensus,  I never required Armor piercing bullets, semi-automatic weapons, double-bananna clips taped together, tear-gas, or tactical gear, all of whose rightful place is either with law-enforcement or the military. Such weapons were made to kill rapidly and often. They have nothing to do with sport or survival huntingt. No hunter needs such weapons. Period. Armor piercing bullets for instance (or overpowerful weapons) pass right through the body of the animal without leaving the full impact of the bullet in that body.
     There is a useful phrase I learned in Buddhist practice which says, "An iron Buddha can't pass through a furnace. "A clay Buddha can not pass through water." It reminds us that nothing, no idea, ideology, or tool ever works all the times. That is why flexibility and adaptation is required.
       Those who scream “2nd Amendment” every time reasonable regulation of ammunition and military style weapons for civilians arises,are clinging like drowning men to the life-raft of a kind of Freedom that makes no sense in some situations. They have so bullied our politicans ,that the politicians have become too flustered to remember to remind the Voters that no one has ever called for taking anyone’s weapons away. No such legislation has ever been advanced of even written. What is at issue are the regulations required to maintain a safe society which is the mandate of t the Congress to provide.
 The obdurate position of the NRA  makes no sense, unless we understand that Organization as the lobbying arm of the immense munitions and weapons industry. The US is the largest purveyor of weapons on the planet, and while it is very difficult to determine exactly how many are made and sold, twenty years ago it was over 3,000,000 rifles, shotguns and pistols annually. The NRA protests ring shrill and overdone when they assert that the simplest  common-sense regulation of military-style arms will allow the camel of ‘confiscation’ to get its nose into the tent.
     It was precisely the rigid adherence to "ideas"which led the U.S. to a ruinous war (if not several) in Vietnanam-Cambodia-and Laos, to  keep out the Communists. We lost the war, the Communists won, and none of the Domino theory hysterically perpetuated by our leaders, wherebye a loss would empower Communist governments all through Asia, ever came to pass.
      That ruinous, wrong, over-simplified thinking cost the deaths of 58,000 Americans, the wounding of an additional 350,000 and the decimation of three million Vietnams, Cambodians, and Laotians. It is as silly as bombing Iraq because we did not like Sadaam Hussein. (What would we have thought it the Mexican's bombed Brooklyn because they feared John Gotti?)
      The routine referral to “protecting our Second Amendment Rights’ as even the White House is forced to do, empowers this false and irrational argument and makes it sound as if our right "to keep and bear arms" is under threat. Furthermore, it side-steps the responsibility of Government to set reasonable limits on personal freedoms to protect the public safety.
     Every time we halt at a STOP sign, our freedom is impeded. Every time we travel with the flow of traffic on the right side of the dividing line, we are being regulated. Freedom, in a world which to a five year old is demonstrably  interdependent never meant that anyone can do whatever they want when they feel like it. Despite the assertion of mouth-breathers to the contrary, our freedom ends at our neighbor’s boundaries. We cannot burn toxins upwind of our community; cannot dump them into creeks upstream of others, for clear and readily available reasons.
     All such regulations limit our fixed and inflexible attachment to ideas of liberty. The Japanese call such a person a "one-board fellow." He is like a man carrying a wide board on his left shoulder. He can see everything on his right side, but nothing on his Left.,However the important error, the error worth concentrating on is the adolescence of those ideas. When that immature thinking is harnessed to a wealthy, aggressive industry and free-market Capitalism we create the situation we find ourselves in today----Guns are literally everywhere. Available to be bought, sold, and stolen virtually at will and without oversight or controls.
     It would be a relatively simple matter to create legislation so that lovers of exotic weaponry have access to them stored on site, in gun-safes, in Bonded gun-clubs. That would mean that people would be free to buy civilian hunting and sports weapons, but not miliytary weapons unless they were locked up. That seems like one reasonable possibility. If we could discuss the situation without rancor and hysteria for ten minutes, we’d find others. But there’s no doubt that no hunter needs the kind of weaponryto enjoy hunting. The rapid-fire weapons was available to the kids at Columbine, or Aurora,have nothing to do with the folksy, father-son ads so beloved by the NRA. They are completely different issues.  
      Why do people want such weapons? In my experience of 25 years of noodling around gun shows and chatting folks up, they fall into four categories: the afraid; those who thrill at having such power in their hands; deluded militia-types and survivalists qho believe that they are going to fight off the unimaginible power available to the Federal Government with a few men under arms; and, finally, sociopaths who imagine that they are hunting men when they hunt mega-mammals or shoot wolves from Helicopters. In total, these four categories make up a miniscule part of gun-lovers and hunters, and yet because they make constitute the front-line for the NRA and it’s lobbying efforts for wealthy stock-holders, they receive inordinate attention.
Civilians do not need these weapons to hunt or target shoot. We are neither police nor military nor are we trained sufficiently to handle them safely in dense urban areas. The people who spoke up after Aurora to assert that they possessed concealed carry permits, "and if I had had my gun in that theater….” Are kidding themselves and us. They are leaving out the "ifs" which interrupt their heroic fantasies. “If” they had not panicked.’ “If “ they were crack shots. “If” they got a clean shot in the midst of a roiling, panicked, bedlam, and “if” the killer’s body armor totally failed him, perhaps they might have been of some use. But if the killer had available to him only a knife, baseball bat, shot-gun or bolt-action rifle, even though some people might have been killed, he would have been  over-powered the moment he stopped firing to reload.  He could never have killed 12 people and wounded 71.
     According to the CDC 29,000 people died of gun-related deaths in the U.S in 2009.Some estimates go as high as 100,000 annually ( that would three 9/11’s a month.) Either figure is multiples of any and all European or Scandinavian or Asian country. I would not leave a child in a room where the floor was littered with matches, yet only a few years ago, two Harvard Phd’s who did a study on sociopaths (men and women without conscience, remorse, or guilt) determined about one in a hundred in any population qualify. ( Stranger than fiction, when they disguised the same test as a skills test and gave it to captains of finance, 20% of those taking the test qualified as psycopaths.) That means we each know one. Leaving guns strewn this readily around the culture is like leaving the child in the room-full of matches.
     It is a disgrace that the best that our President, his Spokesman, and Politicians can come up with is flatulent talk about “coming together”, “being a family” and other inappropriate nonsense that adroitly side-steps the political dilemmas  real action on the issue would create for them. If National Elections were Federally Funded and if our public airwaves were given free to qualified candidates, this would no longer be a problem. There is more to say on the subject. Perhaps a later post.

Originally posted to sfzendog on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 04:23 PM PDT.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (252+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    heartobama, Wayward Wind, yojimbo, indycam, word is bond, Azazello, cfm, Empty Vessel, martinjedlicka, twigg, cosmic debris, Lily O Lady, Glen The Plumber, claude, SottoVoce, Purple Priestess, DaveinBremerton, remembrance, 43north, Lorikeet, KateCrashes, YucatanMan, jimraff, FG, tampaedski, auron renouille, luckydog, sawgrass727, VTCC73, stunvegas, Zaphkiel, linkage, scribe, outragedinSF, Clytemnestra, john07801, La Gitane, radarlady, siegestate, Meteor Blades, David54, splashy, blueoasis, Sandy on Signal, Texknight, Ralphdog, caryltoo, hubcap, Matt Z, VexingEyes, KibbutzAmiad, Trendar, Mosquito Pilot, ovals49, pfiore8, zbob, evelette, kamarvt, JoeEngineer, StrayCat, JohnnySacks, ricklewsive, FrY10cK, dustbin, PsychoSavannah, Iberian, Emerson, OregonOak, Dallasdoc, Roadbed Guy, The Wizard, DRo, mamamedusa, deha, Quicklund, StateofEuphoria, ByTor, wide eyed lib, tfistbmpr, tgrshark13, surfbird007, ZedMont, thePhoenix13, hoolia, gloriana, sngmama, stlsophos, run around, muddy boots, MKinTN, tonyahky, Nebraskablue, FutureNow, 420 forever, tart tatine, indie17, palantir, SoCalSal, Its a New Day, aaalb, ChemBob, epc3, DefendOurConstitution, IreGyre, Aspe4, rigcath, wagdog, PrahaPartizan, Pescadero Bill, ORDem, rudewarrior, AdamR510, BlackBandFedora, Wayward Son, StonyB, Transactivist, bluedust, jparnell, Only Needs a Beat, someRaven, US Blues, gooderservice, hyperstation, Glacial Erratic, p gorden lippy, Thinking Fella, slowbutsure, cybersaur, DianeNYS, Melanie in IA, Margd, timewarp, Zinman, Mr Horrible, chrississippi, deviant24x, radical simplicity, tapestry, greengemini, TiaRachel, cocinero, democracy inaction, GeorgeXVIII, blackjackal, splintersawry, cloudbustingkid, Sparkalepsy, Shotput8, RichM, leftist vegetarian patriot, Loudoun County Dem, halef, Kamakhya, busternjake, rogerdaddy, NearlyNormal, emelyn, ScantronPresident, confitesprit, zerelda, Karen Hedwig Backman, ChuckInReno, dagolfnut, scamperj, zozie, Rick Aucoin, semiot, Smoh, eashep, gulfgal98, JDWolverton, otto, Deadicated Marxist, Cory Bantic, cpresley, millwood, 2thanks, Larsstephens, Loonesta, AdamSelene, The Hindsight Times, Cenobyte, Panacea Paola, Mac in Maine, Bud Fields, KenBee, marleycat, ktar7582, joesig, rhutcheson, tytalus, JayBat, WisePiper, Sue B, rubyclaire, Helpless, stevenwag, Kelvin Kean, Bob Duck, sb, Patriot4peace, boatwright, Tinfoil Hat, kathny, wonmug, BRog, beverlywoods, shaharazade, rapala, twcollier, wader, eru, uciguy30, NormAl1792, mlharges, Bob Friend, Johnny Nucleo, Bluesee, oldliberal, OrdinaryIowan, GAS, wilderness voice, dewley notid, operculum, mungley, EdSF, valadon, maxcat06, SnyperKitty, eltee, cwsmoke, Praxical, mikeconwell, randomfacts, Sassy, Naniboujou, jm214, mooshter, countwebb, Jakkalbessie, rscopes, sailmaker, Habitat Vic, navajo, bnasley, Paulie200, Bisbonian, wozzlecat, hooktool, Jujuree, Robynhood too, Mayfly

    Even a crow acts like a God when attacking a dead lizard. If my mind is weak, even a minor difficulty is oppressive.

    by sfzendog on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 04:23:46 PM PDT

    •  Lucid and reasoned (60+ / 0-)

      What a nice compliment. I'm undergoing some medical treatment at the moment and about all I can do is write. I'm glad you appreciated it.

      Even a crow acts like a God when attacking a dead lizard. If my mind is weak, even a minor difficulty is oppressive.

      by sfzendog on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 09:36:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is good to see a level-headed post (14+ / 0-)

        The important point of your post is that we have to regulate firearms (which the Supreme Court just ruled is consistent with the Second Amendment) based on the changed realities of our current society.

        So it doesn't refute your post, but is of historical interest, that the Second Amendment was about militarily significant weapons. People with academic curiosity should check out Joyce Lee Malcolm's history, "To Keep and Bear Arms".

        Because you clearly care about being accurate, you'll want to edit that 100,000 figure: it refers to all injuries, not just deaths. Suicides are a large fraction of the deaths.

      •  You do get one thing wrong, however... (45+ / 0-)

        When you write:

        Furthermore, the Constitution was written at a time when virtually everyone owned a gun as a means of eating and defense from the Native people we were displacing.
        While this is a well established myth, it is, entirely that: a myth. At the time of the revolutionary war very few Americans owned guns. Indeed, the entire purpose of Commodore Hopkins fleet's raiding voyage to the Bahamas, and the reason that the militia at Boston was admonished to wait until "you see the whites of their eyes," was that America had virtually no gunpowder and no native gun powder industry. Why? There was almost no need for it. The troops training in Boston and New York trained with scraps of wood and tree branches as guns. Why? Because there were so very few guns. Why? There was no need for them.

        America was an agrarian country on the cusp of the industrial revolution. Our food was supplied by farms and stock yards, not hunting. We had well established farmlands, towns and cities. There was very little "frontier" (the “native peoples we were displacing” had long been pushed west and were no longer an issue, and hadn’t been for generations). Meat came from the butcher down the road. The reason Mrs. O’Leary’s cow could cause the fire that burned down much of Chicago a century after the revolutionary war was that even then, just as during the revolution, domesticated animals — cows, sheep, goats, pigs, ducks, geese and chickens (not to mention horses) — were kept in towns and cities to provide meat and milk. Few people  hunted because there was little need to. The idea of recreational hunting was all but unheard of outside the manors of the very rich, mostly in Europe.

        How could there have been so few guns when the country (or colonies) had fought the French and Indian war only 30 years before? Because the guns were not needed after the war; they were left to rust, or melted down to make useful goods and tools. And the same thing happened after the revolution. Fifteen years later, there was no need for most people to have guns. They didn’t need them. And they were expensive. A “Brown Bess” flintlock musket cost around £2 4 shillings (about $13 in American money), or about a month’s wages for an average skilled worker, and roughly two months wages for an unskilled laborer. Think anywhere from $3,500 − 5,000 in today’s money. A “Kentucky” rifle (actually made in Pennsylvania) cost more than twice as much. Then add in the cost of gunpowder and shot and you’re talking real money. Nobody had that kind of money to toss around for nothing more than vanity or a “hobby.”

        American gun culture grew up following the civil war of the mid 19th century, when mass-produced weapons used in the war were kept by former soldiers and the expansion west led to greater need for weapons (mostly to defend oneself from other gun owners). Colt’s pistol was less a triumph of making men “equal” than of the nascent art of mass marketing and advertising. Even still, most western towns all but immediately outlawed carrying weapons in town; too many “accidental” killings. Few people in the eastern part of the country owned guns.

        There was never a time before the last hundred years or so that the majority of Americans owned guns. That this is widely believed is a more matter of early 20th century marketing and gun industry propaganda than historical reality.

        •  Interesting points (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sb, mungley

          Thanks for that.  

        •  Truthiness? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sb, Purple Priestess

          Thanks for the info.  My gut says your explanation is right on.  You sound like an expert.  And I'm not.  I wish you had links.

          I'm a fucking retard.

          by Helpless on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 01:09:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The reason the musket was kept over the fireplace (5+ / 0-)

          was to deter rust. Colonial armories couldn't keep up with the constant maintenance. It was more effective to send the guns home with the militia where each soldier would be responsible for keeping them dry and oiled.

          Have you noticed?
          Politicians who promise LESS government
          only deliver BAD government.

          by jjohnjj on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 01:27:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The William and Mary law review contradicts this. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon, high uintas

          Here's a short quote that asserts you may be a bit off:
          "Gun  ownership is particularly high compared  to  other common
          items. For example, in 813 itemized male inventories from the 1774
          Jones national database, guns are listed in 54% of estates, compared
          to only 30% of estates listing any cash, 14% listing swords or edged
          weapons, 25% listing Bibles, 62%  listing any book, and 79% listing
          any  clothes.  Using  hierarchical  loglinear  modeling,  the  authors
          show  that guns  are more  common  in  early American  inventories
          where  the  decedent  was male,  Southern,  rural, slave-owning,  or
          above the lowest social class-or where the inventories were more
          detailed.
          The picture of gun ownership that emerges from  these analyses
          substantially  contradicts  the  assertions  of Michael  Bellesiles  in
          Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture (Arming
          America). Contrary  to  Arming America's  claims  about  probate
          inventories in seventeenth and eighteenth-century  America, there
          were  high numbers of guns, guns  were much more  common  than
          swords or other edged weapons, women in 1774 owned guns at rates
          (18%) higher than Bellesiles claimed men did in 1765-1790 (14.7%),
          and 87-91% of gun-owning estates listed at least one gun that was
          not old or broken."
          William and Mary Law Review
          Volume 43 | Issue 5 Article 2
          Counting Guns in Early America
          James Lindgren
          Justin L. Heather

          But again, this is not my point, but a reference you take exception with. At the risk of being a broken record, how do we interpret the Constitution today so that society works?

          Even a crow acts like a God when attacking a dead lizard. If my mind is weak, even a minor difficulty is oppressive.

          by sfzendog on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 04:43:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  to answer your question... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber

            ...a start would be to deny corporations personhood as is presently described.  It is entirely a legal fiction that a corporation is a  person as is commonly understood:  a living breathing human being.

            I'll leave it to others to come up with the properly nuanced legalisms needed to effect this.

            another start would be to encode a status to The Commons,  the vast lands held in trust for Americans;  our land.  To finally confront the age old "Tragedy of the Commons" that many a social philosopher has opined on, that continues to this very day.

            Of course, it really all boils down to the balance between the freedom of the individual and the needs of society;  it would be good to see the Constitution pointed in the direction of quantifying that balance a bit more towards the needs of society and civilization.

            don't always believe what you think

            by claude on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 08:59:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  That's a load of crap. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon, high uintas

          And fortunately very easy to dismiss.

          As for the Continental Army's gunpowder situation and Nassau, are you kidding me?  Do you think that the average household, at the infancy of fire fighting, stored enough gunpowder to last a militia man through even handful of actions?  Combined with the British evacuation of colonial stores throughout the colonies, of course the revolutionaries were going to target those of the enemy's.

          Seriously, if you're going to parrot the work of an historian without crediting him, at least mention that he was thoroughly discredited and lost his job over this exact same argument.

    •  I agree. Thanks. (9+ / 0-)

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 02:42:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Goats-by-day!!! (24+ / 0-)

      But does a gun have Buddha nature?

      One of the favorite tricks of pro-gun bloggers is to say a writer has misused the term "assault rifle", or "semi-automatic" or somesuch, as if such misuse of terms nullifies the 30,000 Americans who die every year from gunshot injuries.  You start off with your gun "bonafides" so such kinds of bs arguments should be reduced.

      I appreciate that you have pointed out that part of our national problem with guns is due to the fact that our political system allows wealthy and corporate interests to buy the laws and the law-makers.  So our law-makers will not be writing and passing and new laws limiting gun and ammo sales as long as they are dependent on gun-makers to finance the next election.

      This same problem of selling our laws to the highest bidder impacts gun use, environmental protections, banking and financial institutions, oil and gas drilling, healthcare, mortagages, and so on.

      Most Americans, both liberal and conservatives understand our problems are not being addressed.  Most Americans, liberals, conservatives, and yes Buddhists, understand how our government now represents primarily the interests of the wealthy and corporate interests, to the detriment of the othe r99% of the citizens.  Most Americans, reardless of their political views, want this stopped.

      Thank you for your clear and sensible article.  In my opinion, the fix for the gun problem is the same as the fix for the banking problem, and environmental probem, and a whole host of other problems: end the system of government that allows the wealthy to buy the laws they want, and return America to government by, for, and of the people.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 08:17:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  NRA (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sb, mungley, Naniboujou

        When I bought my shotgun, the store owner gave me $20 off if I enrolled in the NRA for $10.  Hard to pass up.

        I'm convinced it's programs like this that give the NRA so many members -- and money.

        I'm a fucking retard.

        by Helpless on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 01:12:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The NRA per se is not the problem. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Americantrueandblue

          The problem is not the NRA, and the problem is not that gun enthusiasts want to band together and ask their government for laws and allowances.

          ALL people should ask their government for laws and allowances, for the things they want.

          The problem is an inherently corrupting system of government that forces our law-makers to solicit private donations from people with lots of money to donate so the law-makers can run an election campaign and stay in office.  Law-makers are dependent on wealthy interests to stay in office.  And along with those donations comes expectations - "I'm happy to donate to your campaign, don't forget me when that vote comes up".

          ALL people should be allowed to vote for their representative and petition their government for a redress of grievences.  Yes, gun owners too.  

          BUT, no one or no company or no organization should be allowed to buy a law-maker or buy legislation.  

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 06:19:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No disagreement here (0+ / 0-)

            Thanks for that Russell. Obviously I agree, because I said as much, only slightly differently. I prefer your pithy statement.

            Even a crow acts like a God when attacking a dead lizard. If my mind is weak, even a minor difficulty is oppressive.

            by sfzendog on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 02:30:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Then let's keep things simple. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Naniboujou
        One of the favorite tricks of pro-gun bloggers is to say a writer has misused the term "assault rifle", or "semi-automatic" or somesuch, as if such misuse of terms nullifies the 30,000 Americans who die every year from gunshot injuries.  You start off with your gun "bonafides" so such kinds of bs arguments should be reduced.
        Any gun-violence legislation needs to focus on the following:
        • Handguns
        • Semi-automatic firearms
        • Magazine-fed weapons

        This still provides for single-shot bolt-action, break-action and muzzle-loading firearms for so-called "legitimate" purposes.

        "Tell me something, it's still 'We the people', right?"

        by radabush on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 03:41:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why not start from being human? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          high uintas, claude

          It saddens me a bit to see how readily we break down into name calling and taking sides. There are many more commonalities among all humans than not. It seems to me that arguments based on that presupposition have less of a chance of hardening defenses, and entrenching fixed positions.

          Even a crow acts like a God when attacking a dead lizard. If my mind is weak, even a minor difficulty is oppressive.

          by sfzendog on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 04:47:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Okay, you just have outlawed most hunting (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon, high uintas, claude

          rifles. For example, the lever action .30-30 is one of the most popular deer hunting rifles in history because it offers a quick follow-up shot when hunting in thick brush.  Your shortsightedness would disallow 99% of the firearms that are currently used in hunting because they are magazine fed.  I challenge you to walk into a sporting goods store and find more than a couple of single-shot high-powered smokeless powder rifles.  

          Sometimes, DailyKos resembles the clueless leading the blind.  If you are going to be anti-gun, you are going to need to be firearm and firearm safety literate.

          •  Did you miss this? (0+ / 0-)

            Where I identified the lever-action .30-30 as one of my current rifles? Nowhere did I suggest that weapons had to hold one shot. BUt after five or six shots, the shooter would have to reload, and there's no way that he could ever fire50-100 rounds a minute. Why pick a fight? Did you even read my piece. I may not know as much about guns as you, but I've owned and reloaded for really quality weapons. You're wasting a good opportunity to talk about something that needs to be talked about just so you can feel superior, it feels like.

            Even a crow acts like a God when attacking a dead lizard. If my mind is weak, even a minor difficulty is oppressive.

            by sfzendog on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 02:35:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  End the government? (0+ / 0-)

        And how would one do that Hugh? My take is to cut off the sources of money that allow the wealthiest to get the keys to the public treasury and disperse it as they like. They have turned that into a cash-contest. I agree with you about 'ending it', but what does that mean? I think that if people were called to service instead of wealth, that would end it? What say you?

        Even a crow acts like a God when attacking a dead lizard. If my mind is weak, even a minor difficulty is oppressive.

        by sfzendog on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 04:45:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The "what to do" is easy. (0+ / 0-)

          The "what to do" is easy - it's the how to make it happen that is the hard part.

          This idea was originally proposed by Theodore Rooseveldt.  He suggested that all election be fully financed by we the people.  This would free the law-makers from the inherently corrupting activitiy of asking people and corporations for private donations to fund their campaigns.  

          When law-makers are no longer obliged to ask for money from wealthy and corporate interests, then law-makers will also be free of voting in ways that please those wealthy and corporate interests.  The law-makers can "vote their conscience" instead of voting for what rich people want.  This would also give the law-makers more time to attend to the country's business, instead of spending lots of time fund-raising for themselves.

          So: outlaw ALL private donations to law-makers in ALL elections (including judges), and make ALL elections funded through public money.

          Notice this would not eliminate rotten law-makers or bad laws, but it would end a system that allows the wealthy and corporate interests to have a greater influence over  our law-makers.  By outlawing all private donations to law-makers, ALL people, regardless of wealth, would have the same influence over their law-makers through the act of voting, and petitioning.

          Of course, the wealthy and corporate interests would use their money and their undo influence over law-makers to prevent such a change.  So making this happen will not be easy.

          But then again, getting woman's sufferage, labor rights, and passing the civil rights act were all very difficult to do, and we accomplished those things.  

          So I think we can eliminate today's inherently corrupting campaign laws.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 06:10:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Not a trick. (0+ / 0-)

        There's no value in debating figments of your imagination.

  •  Reloading speed of a flintlock doesn't matter. (24+ / 0-)

    You know what? The founders didn't think the speed at which a flintlock could fire was fast enough!

    Wanna know what evidence I have to make that claim? The founders formed up into groups of staggered formation to attempt to overcome the limitation of the 1776 technology and send bullets downrange faster.

    See? Every guy on the line went through and reloaded just as fast as he could, hoping that there were enough other guys covering his ass until he could get those black powder rifles packed and ready. 30 seconds was about 29 seconds too long, because in those 29 seconds the tories and supporters of King George could run up and bayonet your ass into the dirt.

    You bet they could imagine guns that could fire a hell of a lot more quickly than once per 30 seconds, they just couldn't figure out how to do it. Just like we can imagine personal conveyances that float above the ground and are powered by solar panels on the roof, we just haven't figured out how to do it.

    •  Well thanks for clarifying (29+ / 0-)

      I get it, all I meant was I seriously doubt that they imagined machine guns in every citizen's hands. Thanks for reading it and thinking about it and teaching me that piece of strategy.

      Even a crow acts like a God when attacking a dead lizard. If my mind is weak, even a minor difficulty is oppressive.

      by sfzendog on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 09:37:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, they figured out how to do it in the Civil (7+ / 0-)

      War with the Henry.  Small units were equipped with it, but the military would not adopt it as a standard weapon, because they feared soldiers firing that rapidly would waste ammunition and it would be too hard to keep them supplied with it.

      Even the army had more sense than the NRA and its herd of enthusiastic penis-extenders.

      Because stupid people are so sure they're smart, they often act smart, and sometimes even smart people are too stupid to recognize that the stupid people acting smart really ARE stupid.

      by ZedMont on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 06:17:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I still find it rather odd... (9+ / 0-)

        ...how many people in discussion of this subject are so concerned about the genitalia of others.

        I just find it somewhat... unseemly... myself.

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

        by theatre goon on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 06:45:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Blame Freud and Jung (7+ / 0-)

          Doesn't make them wrong, just identifies the origin of the meme.

          It's not really about penises, per se, it's about feelings of inadequacy and over compensation. The need of little men of no influence or power to express themselves through big, big weapons.

          The bigger (or more numerous) the gun(s), the tinier the (sense of one's) penis.

          Men who feel good about themselves and their sexuality have little need for guns (or enormous SUVs, $100,000 watches, etc.)

          •  You're no Freud, that's for sure. nt (3+ / 0-)
          •  I'd actually rather... (7+ / 0-)

            ...just blame those who can't craft a reasonable, factual argument -- preferring to rely on nonsensical references to sexual prowess.

            Talk about a dodge of the discussion...

            I mean, it would be like someone seriously advocating the position that the more guns one owns, then the smaller penis they must have.

            That would just be completely silly and off-topic.  Rather sexist too, when you think about it -- since there are so many female gun owners, as well.

            That, or just another unseemly mention of genitalia into a discussion that has nothing to do with them.

            I guess it could go either way...

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

            by theatre goon on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 09:00:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Wow, you just can't read (6+ / 4-)

              or think, can you?

              As I wrote, the idea has nothing to do with actual penises, per se. It has to do with the individual's feelings of personal inadequacy and lack of self worth, expressed as a measure of penis size.

              In the jargon of Jungian analysis (I'll let you go look that one up, shall I? Go ahead, I'll wait) large objects that make a big noise or are flashy and garish are seen as over compensations for feelings of personal or sexual inadequacy, commonly (though essentially  inaccurately) correlated with small penis size. Not even, necessarily, actual penis size, but rather the individual's own perception of their penis and its inadequacy, which then correlates to their own feelings of low self esteem and personal inadequacy.

              The smaller the perceived "penis" the greater the  need for guns and other compensatory material objects.

              Oh, what am I doing? You're a gun nut. All you can see is the word penis and what little mind you possess shuts down. I'll never get past the obduracy and ignorance.

              Never mind, You're right. Happy? Here, I'll make you happier: Penis, penis, penis. Go fondle your "gun" and leave the grown up to talk among themselves.

              •  No, I can read quite well. (5+ / 0-)

                And it's obvious that you can't make a real argument, relying on insults and pop-psychology nonsense, instead.  Well, that's your pretense, at any rate.

                Really -- it's quite obvious already, you don't have to double down on it.

                I mean, please -- it's actually pretty funny.  It's almost like a caricature of anti-gun activists, but nobody really takes this sort of thing seriously.

                That's where you fall down in your trolling, if you don't mind me saying so.  You just go too far into pure silliness.  The best trolls try to at least keep things believable.  You're right on into ludicrous territory, here.

                Your mileage, however, may vary.

                One other bit of advice, though -- you're starting to look like you're obsessing a bit over that word.  That might put you into a whole other category, if you're not careful.

                And a question for those others who happen to disagree with me on this issue:  do you really think people like this advance your cause?  Serious question.

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

                by theatre goon on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 09:54:07 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, it's clear you can't (1+ / 1-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sue B
                  Hidden by:
                  GoGoGoEverton

                  Read the posts,both of them. They are clearly NOT about penises. They are about the psychological phenomenon of over compensation for personal sense of inadequacy.

                  It was Freud and Jung who tied this to penis size. I was merely describing the origin of the meme.

                  There's nothing "pop" about it.

                  But I give up. You win. You're an idiot, but you win.

                  I won't respond to any other posts by you.

                  Get your friends to troll rate me again. Feel free to abuse the system. That's what you people do, isn't it?

                  Idiots and trolls. Goodbye.

              •  You're obsessed with penises, and you're insulting (4+ / 0-)

                and bullying the very kossacks you accuse of putting a false front. Epic fail and HR (not for the penis obsession, which is fine per the FAQ).

              •  Hide Rated for: (4+ / 0-)
                Oh, what am I doing? You're a gun nut. All you can see is the word penis and what little mind you possess shuts down. I'll never get past the obduracy and ignorance.

                Never mind, You're right. Happy? Here, I'll make you happier: Penis, penis, penis. Go fondle your "gun" and leave the grown up to talk among themselves.

                Don't be a dick.
                •  You're right (4+ / 0-)

                  It was a bit much.

                  But frankly the blatant dishonesty of the reply was mind boggling.

                  I replied to a post referring to penis size and guns with the origin of the meme and was accused of obsessing over penises, which I was clearly not. Read the bloody post, it's clear I was talking well above the level to which this person is determined to obsess about. I was trying to elevate the conversation.

                  Then I got accused AGAIN of obsessing about penises when I AGAIN explained that it was, in point of fact, NOT about penises. But he could not manage to bring himself to see beyond the word penis.

                  And if you look in the thread above, he still can't.

                  How many times do I have to say it's not about penises?

                  So I mention obduracy and ignorance.

                  The grown ups bit was a bit beyond, though.

                  Sorry.

                •  I'd say ' dickish' (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  theatre goon

                  but that probably wouldn't help and I'd be accused of bullying instead, the other go-to slur....since we 3 or 4 have now 'ganged up' on the amphibious one.

                  sigh, birds gotta sing, pigs gotta fly.

                  From those who live like leeches on the people's lives, We must take back our land again, America!...Langston Hughes

                  by KenBee on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 12:15:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Nothing about that (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KenBee, theatre goon, high uintas

                those last two paragraphs seem bery "grown up' to me.

                •  And, as always (0+ / 0-)

                  the right wing arrogates to itself the right to obsess about minutiae and ignore substance.

                  I'm betond the pale when I get annoyed, but you all are fine upstanding citizens when you get miffed and bitchy.

                  Fine. Whatever.

                  To you, also, I bid a less than fond farewell. You're simply not worth the energy to refute or pay attention to.

                  Buh bye.

                  •  Right wing? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    theatre goon, high uintas

                    What did I say that was right-wing? Was it that I disagreed with you? When exactly was I bitchy, because as far as I can tell the only person being bitchy is you along with having this superior tone of psuedo intelligence flowing from every single comment you've made. As for not being worth your time and energy, what a coincidence, I was thinking the same thing about you.

                    Good bye.

              •  Please, man (3+ / 0-)

                That's just pop stuff, and you've completely lost the original question of how do we REGULATE guns in a manner that does not negate the Constitution but keeps Society safe. It's sad how quickly anonymous posts turn into BSD competitions at the expense of any forward motion on a really pressing issue. If you need to be "right" you can be right, but you might ask yourself, "Am I helping anyone?"

                Even a crow acts like a God when attacking a dead lizard. If my mind is weak, even a minor difficulty is oppressive.

                by sfzendog on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 05:17:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  HRd for just plain asshattery. n/t (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                theatre goon, rockhound

                "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

                by high uintas on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 08:38:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  sounds like a fetish.. (0+ / 0-)
              nonsensical references to sexual prowess.
              worrying.

              From those who live like leeches on the people's lives, We must take back our land again, America!...Langston Hughes

              by KenBee on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 12:11:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Umm Hmm (0+ / 0-)

          Like this fellow?

          Seems the two of you pal around a bit, as you gang up on dissenting opinions.

        •  I find guns (0+ / 0-)

          that re designed for maximum lethality to be more then unseemly, I find them an obscenity.  Are you ball going to troll rate me cause I insulted a gun? are guns such a sacred weapon that we cannot insult them or God forbid not know the proper names or technical minutiae about them. Why do you people keep jacking any thread regarding gun control  with detractions and misdirection.      

          •  The difference here... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rockhound, high uintas

            ...is that you are talking about firearms, rather than insisting that the discussion has something to do with genitalia.

            That being the case, it was clearly Captain Frogbert attempting to hijack the thread, with his ranting about penises.

            I disagree with you wholeheartedly, but I'm sure you can see the difference in the two subjects.  Additionally, you have not here made any insults aimed at specific people -- he did.

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

            by theatre goon on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 02:12:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  right (0+ / 0-)

              he said she said everybody said. Still you have to admit that any dairy that calls for gun control and legislation to limit access gets bogged down in this bs. Who cares what is or isn't a this or that gun is or isn'r or who many ammo clips you can get on the head of a pin.

              Our society has a problem with violence and access to the means to kill large amounts of people is a symptom. Gun control won't solve it but it's a good place to start. Making it a little harder for violent lunatics to get weapons and ammo is not extreme it's just good common sense.

              Stop jacking the threads and making it be about your right to bear arms and maybe people wouldn't get insulting to you. It's hard for those of us who have to live with the mayhem and mindset that says packing heat is protection and might makes right. Too much fear and violence isn't the answer.

              •  Don't take it up with me. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rockhound, high uintas

                Take it up with the guy who kept going on about penises.

                Discussing specifics about the firearms that we are discussing regulating?  Yeah, those are actually important parts of the dialogue.  I mean, if you don't know what it is you're regulating, how do you regulate it?

                Well, if you want to discuss the subject in any meaningful way, at least.  If you just want to go on and on about subjective opinions about how evil firearms are?

                In that case, it is you not discussing the actual subject.

                Whatever works for you.  Well, as long as you keep in mind that actually discussing the subject at hand is not "jacking the threads."

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

                by theatre goon on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 05:28:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I know exactly (0+ / 0-)

                  what it is we should regulate. Wow you really are a theater goon. The essential subject is not about gun minutiae which gun is a this or a that. That is not what the diary was about and you know it. Penises have nothing to do with anymore then your insistence on making every dairy that's about gun control about everything but  the heart of the matter. Repeating technical gun crap and crying foul is high jacking when a dairy is about what needs to be done about access to weapons that kill large amounts of people.

                  Please do not start with the, what kinda gun this is, your so ignorant and you can't regulate it your not  a gun lover or an expert. Firearms are a tool to kill. They are owned by many people, but regulating them is not extreme and any weapon or ammo that makes it this easy for muckers's to kill with maximum lethality. Machine, assault,  automatic/semi automatic. what ever they are if they allow a person to kill a large number of humans quickly and efficiently they should be illegal.

                  Enough with the penis sniveling that's no excuse to derail a good dairy about gun control.  

                   

                  •  So, you want to discuss regulation... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    high uintas

                    ...but refuse to discuss what is actually being regulated.

                    Right -- you don't want to have a discussion at all.

                    And you accuse others of derailing the diary -- while excusing those who are really derailing it.

                    Irony abounds...

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

                    by theatre goon on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 06:34:02 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Huh? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ER Doc, Robobagpiper, KenBee

        Aside from a strawman by Oliver Winchester, I've never read any objection to the Henry based on its rate of fire.  It's requirement for cartridge ammunition, yes.  But never its rate of fire.

    •  Ummm... no (12+ / 0-)

      The art of musket warfare was well established by the time of the revolution. Soldiers (trained soldiers, at least) did not fumble around "reload[ing] just as fast as he could, hoping that there were enough other guys covering his ass," as you so eloquently write.

      Troops formed up in ranks (thus rank and file, ranks horizontal, file lengthwise) three or four deep. The men in the front rank fired and then quickstepped to the rear to methodically reload as the ones in the rank behind stepped forward to fire, and so on (there were variations).

      This was possible and practical because muskets are so inaccurate that you can stand a few yards directly in front of one and allow it to be fired right at you and face only about a one in four chance of being hit. Indeed, estimates of the time calculate that for every man killed in battle, a weight of lead equal to his body weight needed to be fired.

      Regardless, the constitution allows for the "well organized militias" of a "free state." It does not allow for the widespread ownership of any sort of gun you might wish to have. That is has been misinterpreted recently is more a matter of the corrupting propaganda and bribery efforts of the gun industry and an activist SCOTUS legislating from the bench than the wishes or understanding of the founding fathers.

      •  indeed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mamamedusa

        I had a friend who was a colonial era firearms expert, and he told me that he lived back then and had to depend on his musket to shoot deer, turkey, dove, raccoon, etc. that he would have probably starved to death. Mostly, as he said and demonstrated to me, because a flintlock does not fire when you pull the trigger. There is a delay of the flintlock hammer falling, striking the steel and dropping a spark into the pan, then the time it takes the gunpowder in the pan to ignite, which will eventually ignite the cartridge of powder inside the barrel. I would guess the time span is under two seconds, total. So while this is all going on, the hunter has to keep the barrel pointed at the game, who will spook when it hears the hammer fall, and hope to accurately predict which way the game is going, and hope that the full cartridge ignited properly and put enough force behind the ball to kill the game.  The ball may or may not go where it is pointed, because the flintlocks did not have rifled barrels, so they had no spin on them to keep them stabilized in flight, and black powder is slow burning, too. Imagine trying to shoot a turkey like that. You're better off with a bow and arrow...

        "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

        by azureblue on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 01:47:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, when loaded correctly... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rockhound, high uintas, JayFromPA

          ...that lag-time is very, very minimal.

          I thought the same thing when I first started using flintlocks -- but the lag in my case was largely because I was using "black powder substitute" instead of actual black powder.  

          In fact, I put this very short video together illustrating the difference:
          BP vs BP Substitute

          As you can see, the lag is barely perceptible when firing with real black powder.  Not nearly long enough for the sound of the hammer to frighten off a target before ignition.

          The substitute is fine for percussion weapons (so-called "cap and ball" guns) it's not a problem.

          I have to disagree with the inaccuracy point, as well -- while I haven't shot a deer in a very, very long time, I don't see that it would be particularly difficult to do so with a musket.  You've just got to either get closer, or sit still longer until they come closer to you.

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

          by theatre goon on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 02:09:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Also (4+ / 0-)

      Why should blogs like this be legal? After all, the founding fathers didn't have the internet back then, so how is it possible that the 1st Amendment covers blogs?

      The answer is that free speech is a concept, not a technology. While the founders only had their voice and printed literature (broadsheets, pamphlets, etc), we recognize that the 1st Amendment protects the CONCEPT of free speech.

      The same thing goes for the 2nd Amendment. It was designed to protect the rights of INDIVIDUAL PERSONS to have militia-style weapons so that the populace would be armed to fight a MILITARY battle against 1) foreign invaders (the well-regulated militia) AND, EQUALLY IMPORTANT to 2) Remove the government by force WHEN (not if) it becomes necessary.

      I am tired of these people perpetrating the fallacy "Well, the founders didn't have large-cap magazines and AR-15s, so that means they aren't protected by the 2nd Amendment". That is as IRRELEVANT an argument as saying that free speech on the internet is not protected by the 1st Amendment because they didn't have the internet back in the 1780's and 1790's, so how could they have meant it to be protected?

      AR-15's and other semi-automatic weapons with large cap magazines are the weapon that militia (i.e. infantry) use TODAY and are what would be needed to fulfill the INTENT of the 2nd Amendment in TODAY's world. Much as we apply the INTENT of the 1st Amendment to today's technology, we must also apply the INTENT of the 2nd Amendment to today's military reality.

      SCOTUS says so.

      Its the law of the land.

      Any such ban on so-called "assault weapons" (and they aren't assault weapons) is unconstitutional.

      We cannot solve our problems, no matter how urgent, by violating law abiding citizen's constitutional rights. We need to work harder to find the CORRECT solutions to our problems and where there is not acceptable solution, we need to ACCEPT that the problem has no PRACTICAL solution and live with it.

      As I have said before, humans are VIOLENT and there will ALWAYS be incidents like Aurora - that's LIFE. We should look for whatever solutions are do-able, but should not attempt to take away the lynchpin constitutional right without which the others are vulnerable to being eviscerated by tyranny.

      Finally, as has been pointed out numerous times  on DailyKos and elsewhere, MOST of the American People agree with this statement and any attempt to push this issue now will harm the election prospects of the President and destroy our chances of keeping the Senate.

      Please. Drop it now.

      I'm just saying....

      Fight SPAM tyranny - Use Lion-Mail.NET for e-mail

      by takascar2 on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 10:00:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Than by your definition, regulation of fully-auto (3+ / 0-)

        matic assault weapons is unconstitutional.    But somehow they are regulated.  Using your definition:

        AR-15's and other semi-automatic weapons with large cap magazines are the weapon that militia (i.e. infantry) use TODAY and are what would be needed to fulfill the INTENT of the 2nd Amendment in TODAY's world.
        Infantry today use fully automatic weapons, in both 5.56 and 7.62.  I used to carry an M-60 with 900 rounds of 7.62 as my individual weapon.  Is it unconstitutional that that weapon is highly regulated today?  If so, WHY is it in fact highly regulated, expensive, and difficult for a 2nd Amendment protected American to own one?  

        To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

        by joesig on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 12:33:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ask the people who regulate them (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rockhound

          And set the prices and make it difficult to own one.

          Happy just to be alive

          by exlrrp on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 06:56:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's not my question. Rather, (0+ / 0-)

            If the 2nd is meant to preserve the right of Americans to own modern infantry weapons....

            and if it is constitutional to strictly control and license automatic weapons....

            why isn't it just as constitutional to strictly control and license semi-automatic infantry weapons?

            To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

            by joesig on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 01:02:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Scalia says so... but... (4+ / 0-)

        the adamant double-barreled Dissent by Breyer, Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter and means that this is hardly settled law on principle. Not a good idea to try to make this seem like settled law instead of what it is, an Unconstitutional overreach.

        Scaloa got 5 votes to overturn the Second Amendment in order to write a new Amendment doing exactly what you just said. The lower courts, cities and states are doing everything they can to ignore Scalia via other cases coming up, as they should, and as we should. We should look at this as a decision which will be roundly ignored by future courts, just like Dred Scott.

        The Second Amendment stands as written, no matter how many NRA hacks are hired to write for the Supreme Court.

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

        by OregonOak on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 12:42:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I like your diary (15+ / 0-)

    but 100,000 a year is high I think .
    Private Guns, Public Health by David Hemenway says fewer than that .
    http://www.press.umich.edu/...

    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/...

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 04:44:44 PM PDT

  •  Something I have never understood (38+ / 0-)

    So the 2nd amendment says this.

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    Which would seem to mean that this right has something to do with membership in the militia.  Yet, as far as I can tell, the modern 2nd amendment folks completely ignore the first bit.  Or phrased more simply, the second amendment means little more than this...
    [T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    So here is my question, 2nd amendment as individual rights folks...can you name any other of the 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights that would retain the same meaning while despite dropping an entire clause?

    If not, why is militia clause in the 2nd amendment?

    "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

    by Empty Vessel on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 05:06:35 PM PDT

    •  You can read it (31+ / 0-)

      Five Justices on SCOTUS can't.

      They re-wrote the amendment, and that is way beyond their paygrade.

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

      by twigg on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 05:18:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The militia was basically "the population". (21+ / 0-)

        Of course, the fuller definition of the militia was all able-bodied white men 18 to 45 automatically belonged to the militia.

        That (basically) historically accurate definition used to send one of our more persistent non-thinking anti-gunners into mental fits. He couldn't understand that the militia was basically what we call a demographic group.

        You don't petition to belong to the "group of viewers between 29 and 55", if you are that old then you simply belong to the group. Same way with the militia.

        I am currently a member of the unorganized militia. I am an able-bodied white male between 18 and 45, so I am automatically included.

        So, by my membership in that group called "militia" my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

        And trying to say that the national guard has taken the place of the militia doesn't cut it. In pure terms of doing the population head count, there are people like your's truly that remain included in the "militia" demographic but are not included in the "national guard" demographic.

        Plainly put, the NG doesn't actually include all of the militia - therefore the difference in membership rosters means it cannot be considered to replace the "militia".

        •  It says (29+ / 0-)

          "Well ordered Militia"

          The general population doesn't even come close.

          The National Guard does, especially when Selective Service and the Draft are considered.

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

          by twigg on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 05:40:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Bzzzz, you lose (29+ / 0-)

          Sorry to say, but you only need to read 3 rights further to see that your interpretation is wrong.

          The fifth amendment

          No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
          So, you cannot be charged with a capitol crime unless you are in the militia during a time of war.  Which necessarily implies there are people who are not in the militia during times of war.  Add to that that we have long recognized that people in the military (or militias) are subject to military justice that lack grand jury's.

          So, the framers KNEW that they were limiting gun rights to the militia, and it was not shorthand for everybody.  Militia's really were analogous to the National Guard today, and the framer's of the constitution really were limiting gun rights to those people.

          "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

          by Empty Vessel on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 05:41:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The point that is rarely made (27+ / 0-)

            is that if the Framers had meant "everyone", surely it would have been easy to say so.

            The form of words, and the statement being made conditional upon a "well ordered militia" cannot, even in Scalia's World, have been an accident!

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

            by twigg on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 05:55:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Because it wasn't everyone, it was a segment. (17+ / 0-)

              Remember, it's a demographic. A portion of the population. Not the whole population.

              Basically, the population. As I quote below from the militia act of 1792, signed by that dude on the one dollar bill, and as I mentioned above...

              SOME of everyone. Free men, not slave men, and no women.
              Not all free men, no boys under 18.
              Not all free men, no men over 45.

              Of course they won't say 'everyone' when they specifically mean not everyone. Jeez, why would you try to change my intent like that?

            •  Yup (22+ / 0-)

              All you gotta do is look at the other amendments to see how they deal with everyone types of things.

              Amendment I

              Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

              Amendment III

              No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

              Amendment IV

              The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

              Amendment V

              No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

              Amendment VI

              In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

              Amendment VII

              In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

              Amendment VIII

              Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

              Amendment IX

              The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

              Amendment X

              The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

              Basically, all the amendments either specify the people, or leave it so clearly applicable that there is no doubt that it is everyone who is covered.  The 2nd amendment, not so much.  The 2nd amendment as universal right makes no sense when read in light of the other amendments.

              "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

              by Empty Vessel on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 06:08:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "the right of the people" is too hard to quote? (7+ / 0-)

                Seriously?

                •  srsly...it's right there in the 2nd (6+ / 0-)
                  A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

                  Die with your boots on. If you're gonna try, well stick around. Gonna cry? Just move along. The truth of all predictions is always in your hands. - Iron Maiden

                  by Cedwyn on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 06:13:32 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  along with a qualifier (4+ / 0-)

                    Look, gun nuts will never concede that the plain meaning of the text is what it is.  Forget about rational thinking here.  IP diaries are more sane

                    Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                    by Mindful Nature on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:35:00 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The guys who always swap "people" with "militia" (6+ / 0-)

                      between the two clauses accuse "gun nuts" of not being able to concede the plain meaning?

                      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                      by Robobagpiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:41:58 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Without a doubt (4+ / 0-)

                        You see, we don't have to bend in ridiculous contortions to try to white out the language that is there.  The full sentence has a qualifying clause that cannot just be ignored.   Sorry

                        Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                        by Mindful Nature on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:49:32 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Of course you do. Which is why you, like the (5+ / 0-)

                          diarist, try to slip "militia" into the operative clause, when the word there is "people".

                          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                          by Robobagpiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 08:15:15 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Both appear (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sparkalepsy, lyvwyr101, WisePiper, itsbenj

                            the People have a right to bear arms within the context of a well regulated militia.  Outside of that context, the people don't.

                            See?  That wasn't so hard, now was it?

                            Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                            by Mindful Nature on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 08:35:13 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So your justification for transposing the words (6+ / 0-)

                            from one clause to another is that they both appear in the same paragraph?  And you're accusing us of not being able to read the thing?

                            And nowhere in the Constitution does state, in any wording "Outside of that context, the people don't." You are simply making that up, because that fabrication gives you the answer you want.

                            Indeed, let's use the same grammar and phraseology to make a noncontroversial "right":

                            A highly accomplished orchestra being necessary for the elevation of the public spirit, the right of the people to keep and practice musical instruments shall not be infringed.
                            Can you contrive any reading of this that makes owning a violin contingent on membership in a symphony or band? The answer, of course, is no. We don't even have to argue over what defines highly accomplished or orchestra, or which musical instruments receive the most protection under this clause. The meaning of the phrase is unclear; the prefatory clause is a desirable condition that can not be met unless the operative clause is in effect.

                            Your claim is no different than the fundamentalist who claims that the 1st only grants the right of free exercise, but that's in the context of having a religion - so religion can be imposed on the irreligious. That's how absurd and twisted your claim is.

                            When the Constitution wants to make an exception to a right, it will use the word "except". As in "except by due process of law".

                            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                            by Robobagpiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 09:01:48 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "Meaning of the phrase is *not* unclear" (4+ / 0-)

                            The most dangerous thing about double negatives is flawed accounting.

                            As for "you have a right to free exercise of religion, but no right to not have a religion", it actually is a claim I've seen by right authoritarians. The authoritarian impulse is naturally to see broad exceptions and exclusions to rights that aren't supported by the text.

                            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                            by Robobagpiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 09:19:36 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  As noted below (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            lyvwyr101

                            The first amendment contains no language to operate as a limiter.

                            Contrast

                            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
                            and
                            A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
                            The first statement is a single clause, with no modifying clause.

                            The second statement is two clauses, one modifying the other.

                            Quite different.

                            Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                            by Mindful Nature on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 10:15:44 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Neither does the Second. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon, rockhound

                            It says nothing about limiting the right to the militia.

                          •  Even if it did... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound, PavePusher

                            ...strictly for the sake of argument, it doesn't say anything about actually limiting the militia, either.

                            It's just a no-win argument, no matter how creative they get -- and yet they still use it, ad nauseum.

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

                            by theatre goon on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 03:05:07 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  In the context of the constitution (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            semiot, lyvwyr101

                            definitely.

                            You are correct taht the constitution is silent on the question of whether there's a right to individual ownership.  It is only express in the context of a militia.

                            And the basis for that is the principle of construction of legally operative language.  This is that one does not opt for a reading that renders any of the language mere surplusage.  Those unfamiliar with the concept may struggle a bit, but roughly it means that if the words appear, then they have to have some legally operative effect.

                            Thus equating

                            A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
                            with
                            the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
                            is a violation of the principle that all elements of law have some effect.  Thus, the key principle is that not just that where there are exceptions, the constitution says so, but rather where the constitution includes a limiting phrase, that phrase is operative, does some work, and does actually limit.

                            To take your first amendment example, I will point out that the first amendment does not include any text whatsoever that suggests the presence of such a limit.  Thus the clear difference between the two amendments is that nearly all of the individual rights include no limiting clauses.  The second and fourth, however, do include additional language nor present in the other.  You might as well choose to ignore the "except by due process of law" part as well, as long as we are selectively eidting out text that is, after all, actually in the document.

                            Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                            by Mindful Nature on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 10:13:30 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and yes (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            lyvwyr101

                            this is a spectacularly bad piece of drafting on the part of the founders and one that undercuts the idea that we should hold them as infallible.

                            Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                            by Mindful Nature on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 10:16:28 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  They had to be vague... (0+ / 0-)

                            the same split in urban vs. rural, monied vs. poor and armed vs. not so armed existed in 1789 as now. We are being asked to deal with an issue they could only offer some guidance on, and now, we get to interpret the Second Amendment in the light of the proliferation of powerful weapons in everyone's hands, if they want it.

                            We have done this before, and the situation is not hopeless.

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

                            by OregonOak on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 12:55:00 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Please, diagram the sentence with a competent... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          theatre goon

                          instructor of English grammar.

                          You can not make it mean what you want it to mean.

                      •  Riddle me this (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Sparkalepsy, lyvwyr101

                        if a "well-regulated militia" is what is necessary for a free state, then why does the second amendment protect the rights of the completely unorganize rabble?  These two concepts could not be more completely dissimilar.

                        We just need to read a constitutional requirement that gun owners do military service in the national guard as a condition of ownership and you'd satisfy the meaning.

                        Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                        by Mindful Nature on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:53:36 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  And also (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Sparkalepsy, lyvwyr101

                        if they meant individuals, then they could have quite easily written the following amendment:

                        "No person's right to keep and bear arms shall be infringed"

                        THAT is the language the drafters would have used to express the ideas that gun nuts are trying to contort into.  But you know what?  That's not what they wrote.  It's a very very simple idea to expresss, and yet, THEY DIDN'T!  wow.

                        Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                        by Mindful Nature on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:57:03 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  So, the right of the people to be secure in their (6+ / 0-)

                          persons and possessions from unreasonable search and seizure isn't an individual right?

                          Or the right of the people to assemble and petition for redress of grievances?

                          Very selective of you there. Nowhere else in the Constitution would you read "right of the people" as a collective right that can be denied the individual without due process, except for that one place.

                          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                          by Robobagpiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 08:14:41 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  except amendments nine, ten and eleven (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            semiot, lyvwyr101

                            but except for those, and of course, the preamble, Article I, section 2 (unless I get my own personal member of the house, me!),  Amendment (right of the people to assemble, which cannot, by definition, be done by a single person), and amendment 17.  The authority of congress does not flow from the will of a bunch of individuals, but from the soverignty and will of the collective, the people.  (Unless you are a "soveriegn citizen" type)

                            Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                            by Mindful Nature on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 08:31:08 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  I think the topic has shifted (15+ / 0-)

                It seems to me that you two are arguing syntax, but the point I'm trying to make, perhaps the germane point, is that things change, technology changes, and in the service of creating a safe and stable society, laws have to change. People are not allowed to own silencers and fully automatic weapons because of the threat they pose to public safety. My question is should military type armaments be readily available to citizens? Does it serve public safety and order. We can parse "he Said, She said" all we want, but we are here now with a problem 30,000 people a year are being killed by guns, more than any other Western European or Scandinavian country. I guess the question is "How do we want to live?"

                Even a crow acts like a God when attacking a dead lizard. If my mind is weak, even a minor difficulty is oppressive.

                by sfzendog on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 10:04:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  But we ARE allowed to own silencers. (6+ / 0-)

                  $200 fee for a "tax stamp". Paperwork that must be kept with the suppressor at all times. Other stuff I can't remember this early off the top of my head.

                  And we are allowed to own full auto weapons.
                  There's a lot of paperwork, a long wait time, a hefty background check, and that's JUST FOR PERMISSION. The full auto weapon itself costs many thousands of dollars, if you can find one that is for sale. And buying ammo in bulk sales so you can have enough to shoot the thing, ammo gets COSTLY at full auto speeds.

                •  Can I have a nuclear weapon then (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lyvwyr101

                  After all, there's no limiting language about what constitutes "arms" so if the limited language around the people can be ignored then the unlimited language of "arms" must be similarly interpreted as limitless. B therefore, any law prohibiting the owning and use of nuclear weapons by individuals is patently unconstitutional.  

                  Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                  by Mindful Nature on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:37:51 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  arms (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    rockhound, PavePusher

                    have a specific meaning - weapons that are usable by an individual that he or she can carry into combat. It's why even the 'gun nuts' don't claim a right to own operable howitzers,  tanks, land mines, etc. Nukes fall into that same 'not arms' category.
                     

                    Try to shout at the right buildings for a few months.

                    by nickrud on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 08:24:23 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Um, where do you see that in the constitution? (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      semiot, lyvwyr101, Deadicated Marxist

                      I mean, they do call them "nuclear arms" for a reason.

                      Looking to Webster's third, Scalia's fave, we find:

                      a means (as a weapon) of of offense or defense
                      Going with plain meaning, which governs in the absence of another statutory definition, we find no such limitation.

                      Ergo, if we're going to play this pedantic game, nuclear weapons are CLEARLY within the ambit of the constitutional right.

                      (and besides, an individual CAN use a nuclear weapon)

                      So, where does your unique and limited definition appear in the Constitution again?  Remember, we've decided that we can't limit "arms" to muskets and sword either.

                      Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                      by Mindful Nature on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 08:39:41 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  arms is a word (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Mindful Nature

                        that has a specific meaning.

                        Sorta like 'people'.

                        Try to shout at the right buildings for a few months.

                        by nickrud on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 11:13:28 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Yes it does (0+ / 0-)

                          which I quoted above

                          Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                          by Mindful Nature on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 11:21:47 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  By your definition, (0+ / 0-)
                          weapons that are usable by an individual that he or she can carry into combat
                          hand grenades are "arms."

                          Republican Healthcare Plan: Everyone will be encouraged to move to Chris Collins' district, where noone dies of cancer.

                          by WisePiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 01:24:56 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Not to mention (0+ / 0-)

                            bazookas and surface-to-air missiles, both of which can be carried and operated by a single individual.

                            Republican Healthcare Plan: Everyone will be encouraged to move to Chris Collins' district, where noone dies of cancer.

                            by WisePiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 01:28:32 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  At first glance, that would appear true. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound, WisePiper, PavePusher

                            However, explosives have long been considered separately -- if not handled or stored correctly, they can be dangerous by their very existence, unlike firearms.

                            In other words, explosives can spontaneously explode, given the right conditions, firearms won't get up and go shoot themselves.

                            Even black powder is regulated differently than the various "black powder substitutes," it is considered an explosive while the latter are not (something to do with the burn-time, but I've never looked into the specifics).

                            That makes the question about hand grenades (and the ammunition for bazookas and missiles, for instance) rather moot, in this discussion.

                            At any rate, such things are usually termed "ordnance" rather than "arms."  I will, however, agree that, at times, those terms can seem to overlap.

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

                            by theatre goon on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 01:59:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And yet, at the time the 2nd Amendment (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            was written, "arms" were indeed explosive devices, in that they relied upon the ignition and explosion of black powder to propel the shot.

                            In your comment, you appear to argue that black powder, due to its risk of exploding in uncontrolled and unwanted circumstances, is nowadays properly regulated.

                            It seems to me that 18th century muskets were more akin to ordinance than arms. A musket was essentially a handheld cannon.

                            Republican Healthcare Plan: Everyone will be encouraged to move to Chris Collins' district, where noone dies of cancer.

                            by WisePiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 02:40:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not completely. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound, WisePiper, PavePusher

                            I think they've gone rather overboard with black powder -- it really doesn't go off easily, and it's functionally not that different than the substitutes.

                            I agree with handling actual explosives differently, but black powder itself...?  Nah.  I was just pointing that out as one example where the law sees it differently.  Sorry if I wasn't completely clear on that.

                            It makes a lot more sense, to me, for the more powerful explosives to be so regulated.  Black powder isn't going to go off without a spark -- some explosives may do so if they just get over a certain temperature.

                            I suspect that someone, sometime, built a pipe-bomb out of black powder, and there was an outcry to regulate it, and it succeeded.  It's really not a very good explosive at all -- but quite good for propelling lead balls out of the barrel of a gun.

                            And, in function, a musket is quite similar to a cannon (or vice-versa, it could go either way), but then we get back to crew-served vs. useable by the individual.

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

                            by theatre goon on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 02:52:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  but anyway, I'm not into pedantry (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        KenBee, PavePusher

                        but into plain meaning. As accepted for over 200 years.

                        You can describe a nuclear weapon as a militia armament but you're gonna be out there all by yourself.

                        Try to shout at the right buildings for a few months.

                        by nickrud on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 11:17:42 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  but wait (0+ / 0-)

                          I thought this didn't apply to militias, but only operated to guarantee individuals a right to bear "arms," whether or not there even is a militia or has been one in the last 200 years. A lot of folks are arging that that first clause has no bearing whatsoever on the interpretation of the second amendment, but is instead some flowery explanation of why they thought it was a good idea (even though no other part of the constitution except the preamble includes such explanation, I think)

                          Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                          by Mindful Nature on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 11:21:26 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I still don't see (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher

                            how the fact that there is no militia would make the second clause inoperative. I mean, it doesn't say that only members of an actual militia are the ones allowed to have guns. Is that what you read?

                            But before we go too much further down this road, I should be clear that I'm not in the camp that says gun ownership cannot be regulated. The way I read the second is that the government cannot deny ownership (see Chicago's blanket ban being overturned) but that it most certainly can regulate what weapons are permitted.

                            Try to shout at the right buildings for a few months.

                            by nickrud on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 03:55:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  Ummm... can you state what this.... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  theatre goon, rockhound

                  "threat to public safety" is from Suppresors?  (No, they are not, in any way, shape or form, "silencers".)

              •  Semantics, please review the First Debates (10+ / 0-)

                in Congress about the Bill of Rights...more specifically read up on their debates of what the 2nd A actually meant to them, at that time.

                Read up on the Ratification Documents submitted by the majority of States when they tentatively agreed to our current Constitution, in the name of the people of their respective States.

                Here let me help you out, I wrote a diary on it a long time ago:

                http://www.dailykos.com/...

                Read up on the SC decisions that described it as an individual unalienable right.

                -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 Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 12:08:08 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  They carved out an exception to that (8+ / 0-)

              unalienable right...The gov't could regulate the militia and their arms, when called into service.

              Shay's Rebellion proved there needed to be a command and control structure.  We all couldn't show up at the point of an invasion or insurrection and deem ourselves 5 Star Generals, who would actually do the fighting then???

              The 2nd A acknowledges the superiority of the Central Gov't to have command and control over the Militia, when called into service.  They went further and defined the Militia that could be controlled through the Militia Act of 1792.

              -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 Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 12:04:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  The definition of militia was generally left (5+ / 0-)

              to state and federal law, not the body of the Constitution, and was based on colonial precedents up to a century old.

              Exemptions for militia service included the elderly, clergy, and sailors, among others.

              Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

              by Robobagpiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 04:41:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Militia was governed by Potus (5+ / 0-)

            per the main body of the constitution.
            Power to organize the militia was granted to the congress in the main body of the constitution.

            And it was clarified by the militia act of 1792. You might know the signer of that law, he's on the one dollar bill.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act."
            To quote YOU...

            Bzzzzzzzz YOU LOSE.

            •  From your quote (7+ / 0-)

              "free able-bodied white male citizen"

              So you agree that this was a restricted class, namely the framers INTENTIONALLY withheld the right to bear arms to people under 18, over 45 and who were not able-bodied.  They knew damn well what militia mean, but chose NOT TO USE the term "person" or "people" as they did in other amendments.

              Willfull misinterpretation.  They restricted it to the military, its just that the military (militia) was bigger then.  With a smaller military, less folks have the right to bear arms.

              You may still think you SHOULD have the right, much as I believe that women should have equal rights...its just that neither are in the constitution.

              "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

              by Empty Vessel on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 06:14:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Nope, not the military. (3+ / 0-)

                Note that at the time of the signing, only the power to raise an army and navy was granted to congress. The actual army and navy were not in actual existence - the waters were patrolled by privately crewed warships for example, and just visit some of the "cut defense department" diaries to catch that quote from ?jefferson? about standing armies being inimical to free nations.

                So, with no official army, no official navy, there's no official military. Thus, the militia was not an official state military group.

                Hence, it was (basically) the general population that met certain traits.

                Remember, this is key.... There was no military in existence. Yet the militia was in existence. Therefore the militia is not the same as the military.

                •  Bzzz, you lose again (9+ / 0-)

                  the fifth amendment (posted a second time, I might add)

                  No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
                  It specifically lists "land and naval forces", and distinguishes those same forces from "the militia."

                  Militia was in no way, and in no way intended, as a gloss for people.  The militia was a restricted class that the framers limited gun rights to .  If they wanted it broader, they woulda used the term people, as they did in the other amendments.

                  "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

                  by Empty Vessel on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 06:35:23 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Other way around. You're bass ackwards. (6+ / 0-)

                    The militia was a segment of the wider population.

                    You take the militia from the population, and if any one member did not already have his own weapon then he was required to get one.

                    The militia is divided into two classes, organized (national guard) and unorganized (includes me).

                    The feds are required to equip and arm the organized militia.
                    The feds are not required to equip and arm me.

                    Thus, I provide my own arms. And I keep them once I turn 46, because they are mine, even though I no longer am part of the Militia demographic.

                    Now.... What about this do you not understand?

                    •  And how would the second amendment (9+ / 0-)

                      Prohibit the government from forcing you to surrender your guns after age 46.

                      Everything you cite, except the 2nd amendment is legislative. That means it can be reversed by a majority vote in the same (or in some cases superior body).  Lawsmaren't rights...rights are.

                      What 2nd amendment folks are arguing is that gun ownership is an individual right, in the same way speech is.  But, that is not what it says.  As you agree, militia is a restricted group.

                      So...again, you have no right to own guns if you are not part of the militia, and you are no longer part of the militia once you turn 46.  More-so, we know we can change the restrictions concerning militias, namely we can add women, black folks etc.  so, what is to prevent us from changing the LAWS determining who is in a militia?  

                      There is no right to be in a militia, and only militia memberships the right to bear arms.  By no,stretch of interpretation can militia mean people, cause in every bit of LAW you cite, it's restricted by age, etc.  

                      You have no RIGHT to bear arms unless part of the militia rather you are only allowed to bear arms by LAWS that, at the time, were restrictive...laws that can be changed...laws that can me made more restrictive with a majority vote.

                      "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

                      by Empty Vessel on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 07:39:24 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  This is one doozy of a fail train. (5+ / 0-)

                        It is as simple as these two declarative sentences.

                        1 - The militia is spawned from the population.

                        2 - The person that arrives in the unorganized militia without his own arms is expected to acquire his own arms, on his own, with his own money.

                        I will further point out that no money is ever appropriated by congress for arming the unorganized militia, by law.

                        They would have to write a change into the law and get the change signed by Obama. Then, after that happens, then they could appropriate money for providing guns to the unorganized militia.

                        •  So you agree that you do not have a (6+ / 0-)

                          Right to bear arms after age 46?  

                          Cause if you do, you just sold the farm...this is all legislative now...and laws can be changed on a majority vote.

                          Also, where in the Second Amendment do you get the idea that the government would have to buy you a gun?

                          "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

                          by Empty Vessel on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 07:54:10 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I'll be more explanatory. (3+ / 0-)

                            Same numbers 1 and 2 from above....

                            1 - The militia is spawned from the population.

                            2 - The person that arrives in the unorganized militia without his own arms is expected to acquire his own arms, on his own, with his own money.

                            Now take a sheet of paper.
                            Across the top, write down numbers from 5 to 50
                            Down the left side, write
                            "Armed"
                            and
                            "Unarmed"

                            Scatter the X's into the squares randomly. Some kids will be armed, some will be unarmed, because empty bellies will demand looking for food and will not care about if you are 18 or not. Some folks 18 will be armed, most will not. More folks of 30 will be armed than at 18, simply because they will have had time to earn enough to purchase a gun - and population growth precludes everyone from receiving dad's blunderbuss.

                            Now you have a grid showing the actual state of the militia demographic Take your pencil and draw a circle around the grid squares that are for people aged 18 to 45 of either armed or unarmed status.

                            See, the people that already have a weapon, have THEIR OWN WEAPON.

                            And in an effort to get this slice of the hodge podge population trained ("regulated", made regular, functioning like clockwork) they needed this slice of the population to get a damned weapon.

                            G Washington wasn't buying rifles for the militia he called up and commanded during the put down of the shay's rebellion.  Neither was the fed government purchasing rifles and handing them out to the militia either.

                            Do you get that? NOBODY was handing out rifles to people that were being put into militia service!

                            Do you get that? The militia was being called into service from the wider population, and they were expected to show up at muster ready to march to battle.

                            Do you understand that they HAVE to have their own BEFORE they were suddenly called into service?

                            I've gotta get to work.

                          •  If the 2nd said "the right of the militia to (4+ / 0-)

                            keep and bear arms", that might be true.

                            It doesn't. You have been desperate to avoid that the right is guaranteed for "the people", so desperate that you dishonestly left the 2nd off your list of amendments with "the people" in boldface above.

                            Even households without a man of militia age were required to keep a firearm.

                            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                            by Robobagpiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 03:56:11 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  There is no law restricting the militia (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        high uintas

                        to certain genders between certain ages.  It's just that it was more difficult to require people outside that group to participate.

                        But trust me, one of my ancestors was a woman who fought tooth and nail against a French attack.

                    •  Under that reading, you have no right (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      lyvwyr101

                      Since the right extends only to well regulated militias, which, as you pointed out, does not include "unorganized" militias by definition

                      Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                      by Mindful Nature on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:45:01 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Nor does the 2A say you need to be (7+ / 0-)

                    in the militia to bear arms.  It just says a populace without restriction on guns is needed in order to create an effective one.

            •  Curious (6+ / 0-)

              What was the name of the Captain or Commanding Officer who enrolled you in the militia?

              I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

              by Wayward Wind on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 06:15:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  None was needed. (7+ / 0-)

                The militia act of 1903 CONFIRMS my declaration that the national guard does not have a monopoly on the "militia" by being declared of the organized militia, while the rest of the demographic is of the unorganized militia.

                Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able-bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be divided into two classes—the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective States or Territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia.
                I'm still automatically included in the militia.

                Now, why don't YOU do some research?

                •  When someone says that their (7+ / 0-)

                  actions today are justified by archaic laws and quotations from hundreds of years ago, they are grasping at straws...just as you are demonstrating here....

                  You want to be in the militia?  I am sure there is a recruiting station in your hometown...

                  I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                  by Wayward Wind on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 06:53:40 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Are you getting cranky? (8+ / 0-)

                    If you can't handle having actual laws that apply to our actual nation, then just duck out gracefully.

                    Look, it's not my fault that I can cite the body of the constitution, laws signed by G Washington, and then further laws, all of which construct a framework where an armed populace provides individuals who slot into categories where some are military and some are not and some are merely armed non-qualifiers.

                    You want to imply I'm some nut just because I can answer your questions and show you are in error, have the spine to come out and call me a nut or troll or freeper or secret republican. I'm a gun owner who is a proud leftist, and can take it.

                    •  The current interpretation (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Tonedevil, semiot, lyvwyr101

                      of the Second Amendment is pretty straightforward: as an individual citizen, you have the right to possess a firearm in your home for self-defense, if you meet all of the other licensing and registration requirements imposed by federal, state, and local laws. Nothing more, nothing less.

                      Using revolutionary era quotations and century old laws in an attempt to justify that the rights are broader is just plain silly in my opinion - on par with the "...tree of liberty..." bullshit that is used by whacko paramilitary groups to justify their activities.

                      I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                      by Wayward Wind on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 08:55:42 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  It won't stay that way. (4+ / 0-)

                        There's a bunch of different cases in the works right now.

                        Kwong - 2nd circuit NY - excessive fees are effectively an economic-based ban. Think "poll tax" applied to 2A.
                        http://saf.org/...

                        Maenza and Woolard - 3rd circuit NJ and 4th circuit MD - deprivation of the right for no valid reason.
                        http://saf.org/...
                        http://saf.org/...

                        Kachalsky - 2nd circuit NY - requirement for "good cause" is violation of constitutionally protected right.
                        http://saf.org/...

                        Bateman - 4th circuit NC - can't have a restriction that apply only during "state of emergency"
                        This one, if it is struck down by scotus, will also have application to PA, which has a similar law.
                        http://saf.org/...

                        Palmer and Moore - DC and 7th circuit Illinois - 2A included "bear arms", cannot have a ban on bearing arms in public.
                        http://saf.org/...
                        http://saf.org/...

                        •  Without even reviewing the cases (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          OregonOak, IreGyre, lyvwyr101

                          one can tell that these are but a few of the more than 200 that have been filed, which have failed in the district courts, and are now on appeal - that is why they are in the circuit courts.

                          Alan Gura and the SAF would love to have folks believe that "victory" is just around the corner - it keeps those donation dollars flowing.

                          Given the specific language in Heller, I don't see any of them going anywhere.  Outright bans, like Chicago, and essentially de facto ban, like NYC, would fall, but I think there will be very little movement beyond that.

                          I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                          by Wayward Wind on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 03:45:23 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  Apparently... (5+ / 0-)

                      ...being well-informed is now a bad thing.

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

                      by theatre goon on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 03:15:40 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Playing to your expertise (13+ / 0-)

                      Jay, you seem like a really knowledgeable and well-read man, but forgive me for saying that you seem to be playing to your scholarly strengths and ducking the underlying argument of what do we do in the real-world? The Consitituion is no better than the men and women who interpret it. Give me a Supreme Court full of morons or ideologues and we'd be in trouble, because since Chief Justice Marshall seized the power to determine what law was permissible and what was not, they are the last word.
                      The USEFUL argument, (I think) is how do we square our rights and guarantees with the civil society, and the need for people's kids not to be shot in their home playing the piano by stray bullets, or taking their kids to school or a movie and never seeing them again. You could be absolutely correct in every one of your assertions, and you seem to really know what you're talking about, but would you even admit we have a problem? Four people die of guns in Japan annually. Do we have a problem? If so, the task of knowledgeable men and women is to figure out how to SOLVE it and not take refuge in texts. Forgive me, I don't mean to sound impatient, but I do feel like the legitimate question I asked has been hijacked.

                      Even a crow acts like a God when attacking a dead lizard. If my mind is weak, even a minor difficulty is oppressive.

                      by sfzendog on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 08:03:08 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  What do we do in the real world? (0+ / 0-)

                        For one, we quit crying. Shit happens, not very much of it is preventable, if you extend the monitoring range long enough everybody has a mortality rate of 100%. Accept that death happens, and suddenly people stop freaking out about the insubstantial fluff.

                        Case in point, the wisconsin state senate was handed to Dems in the recall election. But some peckerhead who's thin skin is way oversensitive to fluff got hurt feelings. He acted like a two year old child lashing out at the big meanies who hurt his feelings by leaving the Dem party, returning the WI state senate to a dead even number of D's and R's. What a crybaby!

                        Look, children get all hopped up on drama. Adults examine what is actually the problem, look for from where the problem is spawned, consider how to halt the problem without creating new issues, and then just do it.

                        Object Management does not do anything to change attitudes. Take away the guns from the Britons, and you get the invention of the glasgow smile because the vacuum left by guns is then filled with knives.

                        When a person wants to get across town, and you take away their car, what do they do? They find a replacement that will fit their needs. Bicycle, bus, friend with a car, neighbor with a car, hitch hike, walk. You took away the car because you didn't want them to go across town, did using Object Management achieve your desire? Nope.

                        We don't want mentally unstable people to go nuts and kill others. If we take away guns, what will the replacement object be? A bomb? A rock? If a gun is bad, but a bat or knife is acceptable, then you aren't really upset about people being killed... You would just be upset about how many, upset that it was 70 injured or killed but not so upset if it was 5 or 6.

                        What do we do? We accept that shit happens, and thus when shit happens in our stress filled lives we will be able to recover and regroup without our world shattering before our eyes.

                        What else do we do? We recognize that it's not the gun or the bat or the knife.... it's the person.

                        If you are looking for the choke point, the bottle neck, the one place where you prevent all of the possible bodycounts, then you are looking for the way to prevent the person like Holmes from becoming unstable, you are looking for the way to create a community that will be Holmes's support network.

                        Reloading guns are more than a hundred years old, they are actually older than the invention of the assembly line and the industrial revolution. There's no way to get rid of them.
                        The gunpowder, called smokeless powder to differentiate it from black powder, is so old that when it was invented the only way to write was to dip a quill in a bottle of ink.
                        Object Management is NOT going to work on these things.

                  •  Change the laws then n/t (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gerrilea, theatre goon, fuzzyguy
              •  WW, is that a failing of the citizen (7+ / 0-)

                or a failure by the Respective States.

                After Emancipation, the Respective States had no desire to fulfill their duties under the Second Amendment.

                No guns, for no negroes, no how.
                Same as it ever was, same as it ever was...
            •  Only when called into Federal service, as per (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theatre goon, fuzzyguy

              Article I. The US Constitution is agnostic on their chain of command (or whose job it is to provision and discipline) them when not called into Federal service.

              Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

              by Robobagpiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 03:54:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sorry, it's article II that puts them under the (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                theatre goon, fuzzyguy

                PoTUS only when called up for Federal service. Article I puts the responsibility for provisioning and disciplining them on Congress, only when called up for Federal service.

                Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                by Robobagpiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 04:28:50 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  No, you cannot be charged on a capital (5+ / 0-)

            crime without a grand jury, except in the bolded clause.

            It is saying you don't need a grand jury to hold someone for a capital crime in the case of land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger.

            Otherwise you do.

            You need to read the whole thing.

          •  I think you got it backwards? (5+ / 0-)

            The quote says that you cannot be charged for a crime UNLESS it has passed through a grand jury. The exception is if you are in the military in times of war, in which case military tribunals would be in force. That's how it sound to me at any rate.

            Even a crow acts like a God when attacking a dead lizard. If my mind is weak, even a minor difficulty is oppressive.

            by sfzendog on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 09:59:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  No, this is not accurate. (4+ / 0-)

            The 2nd Amendment does not create a right.  As Americans we are born with them.  The BoR's limits our created gov't and it's actions NOT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

            They can only regulate arms during militia service, not before or after. They made clear by the Militia Act of 1792 the people whom would comprise said Militia, that they could regulate while called into service.

            They didn't say anything about women, doctors, lawyers, children, etc.

            And the reason the 5th A is worded as such is because if you were on active call up, you were obligated by the laws of the Sea, Maritime law (international) not civil law.

            -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 Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 11:17:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You're reading it backwards; it's not referring to (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon, fuzzyguy

            people who weren't in the militia in time of war; it's acknowledging the fact that militia outside times of war (when called into Federal Service, as outline in Article I), retain all the protections of civilian law, as they are civilians.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 03:51:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Your interpretation is erroneous. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Robobagpiper, fuzzyguy

            What the bold section you highlighted states is not that you cannot be charged with a capital crime unless you are in the militia, but rather that if you are in the militia in a time of war you do not have the right to a Grand Jury proceeding.

            I won't believe corporations are people until Texas executes one. Leo Gerard.

            by tgrshark13 on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 06:00:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Backwards (0+ / 0-)

            The word "except" modifies the clause "on a presentment of indictment of a Grand Jury"

            unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;
            Thus the meaning is that one can be held to answer for a capital crime UNLESS said crime occurred during military & militia duty during an active war or other dangerous time.

            So this:

            So, you cannot be charged with a capitol crime unless you are in the militia during a time of war.
            is backwards. It should be:
            So, you cannot be charged with a capitol crime IF you are in the militia during a time of war.
            Though the most common interpretation using modern language tends be:
            You cannot be charged with a capitol crime if the killing happened as a result of your active duty role in the militia during a time of war.
            It's what protects soldiers from murder charges if they kill someone as part of a battle.
             
        •  Really interesting (7+ / 0-)

          But to do you think that that invalidates my central point that in an age of highly sophisticated weaponry, the Founders intended for everyone to have access to any weapons they wanted? They didn't even want broad swathes of the population to vote, so it's difficult for me to believe that they would want everyone armed to a level that superceded local police. What do you think?
          ps-what part of PA are you from. I grew up around the Delaware Water Gap, near Stroudsburg, Bangor, Easton.

          Even a crow acts like a God when attacking a dead lizard. If my mind is weak, even a minor difficulty is oppressive.

          by sfzendog on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 09:50:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Read the Constitution on this. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lyvwyr101

          It at one point defines the Militia (the capitalization simply referring to a noun as English had not yet reformed that German grammar convention out of the language) as being under the Commander-in-Chief, whereas the sort of militia you describe would not be under the command of the federal government because, among other-things, the oft-maligned Tenth Amendment.

          It's a strange clause.  But it's a very nuanced one, open to multiple interpretations.

          "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

          by auron renouille on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 10:43:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's only this case when called into Federal (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon, fuzzyguy

            service.

            When not, the US Constitution is agnostic on the militia, which are taken to be pre-existing entities, meaning that it's left to the states to manage.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 03:58:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Wasn't it white men that age (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lyvwyr101

          So women, blacks and other people of color would have been cut out?

          Women create the entire labor force.

          by splashy on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 03:08:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The mindset you start with matters here. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon, Robobagpiper, fuzzyguy

            You start out with the impression of a large population, of which only some will at all be needed in order to achieve the goal. It's an impression born of us currently having a tiny military that still manages to achieve massive things.

            Not so back then, back then if we were at war, then it was a whole population thing. Sorta like how EVERYONE did their part during world war 2, even though only some were in uniform with a gun.

            When EVERYONE is doing their part, the "militia" is going to be defined as the segment of the population that is going to be doing their part on the front lines.

            It wasn't meant to cut out a segment of the population and apply special "I can have a gun" rights.

            It was meant to cut out a segment of the population and apply special "You are being called into front line service and might die, so make sure you arrive stocked with plenty of ammo and powder and a good gonne" status.

        •  so, since I'm a 43 y/o white male (0+ / 0-)

          I lose my constitutional RKBA in a couple of years?

          •  No. Because, fortunately - contrary to the (5+ / 0-)

            claims of the diarist, the Constitution guarantees that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the right of the militia, is what shall not be infringed.

            The Constitution says nothing about the right of militia to keep and bear arms, except insofar as the militia is made up of the people.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:12:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's not what JayFromPA was saying in his commen (0+ / 0-)
              So, by my membership in that group called "militia" my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
              •  Jay was addressing a rather more specific point, (0+ / 0-)

                you attempted to generalize it well outside the bounds of Constitutionally permitted language.

                Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                by Robobagpiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 08:16:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Why is it, then, that the notion that the right (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon, cryonaut, fuzzyguy

        was conditional to membership in a militia only appear in 20th century thinking on the Constitution (as a transparent attempt to reinterpret the right out of existence), when that line of reasoning is absent from 19th century commentaries?

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 03:49:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, they read it right. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Robobagpiper

        Deal.

      •  Yeah (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        semiot

        Stevens' dissent really highlights how embarassing the majority ruling was.

        In particular, that he points out that the Congress which first passed the 2nd Amendment considered but did not adopt an alternate wording of the amendment which did not include the bit about well regulated militias.  

        If that's what they, in effect, intended, why wasn't it just worded that way?   The modifier is clearly there to limit the scope of the amendment or it wouldn't be there as it would serve no purpose.

    •  other constitutions have similar (6+ / 0-)

      language for other rights.

      www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

    •  First Amendment: (9+ / 0-)

      The following read is commonly understood to be "correct application" of the First Amendment in regards to public works of worship, or displays of religious icons - independent of public funding or endorsement.
      Benign neglect is no defense when a church or other group makes use of public space.  It's understood that if it's on public space or open to public access (such as a town funded library or community center) then religious works are strictly forbidden "RIGHT IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT".

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
      Note, having a court rule against such religious works in public space does "prohibit the free exercise thereof".

      We just choose to ignore that.

      Not unlike Mayor Bloomberg, who chose the following read:

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
      All admit, it's a bit tough to comprehend when hacked-up like that.  Obviously that was an issue for NYPD too.
    •  The Amendment doesn't say you (12+ / 0-)

      need to be in a militia, but that a populace with guns and who know how to use them are essential if a militia needs to be formed in the future.

      An example of a similar text:

      "A knowledgeable legislature, being essential to the good governance of the state, the right of people to educate themselves shall not be infringed."

      Here you will see how the parts work together.  The populace have the right to educate themselves - not only if they are a member of the legislature, but in the event they are called to do so.

      •  This, at least (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Catesby, Dragon5616, fuzzyguy, lyvwyr101

        Is a good argument...unlike the standard militia equals people argument being presented above.

        I've actually never heard it before...so I will think about it.

        "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

        by Empty Vessel on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 07:58:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Don't forget the "Well-regulated" part... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FutureNow, lyvwyr101

        Its important, and it means offcered, known to officials, under command and able to take commands. That is what Washington meant by Well-Regulated; he wasnt talking about how much powder they carried, but how disciplined in military tactics and technique they were.

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

        by OregonOak on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 05:50:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  people vs The People (0+ / 0-)

        is "The People" the same thing as a person? Because it doesn't say the right of people it says the right of The People. Couldn't it be interpreted that there is no individual right to gun ownership but a collective right?

        •  Is the 4th amendment applicable only (5+ / 0-)

          collectively? You have no right to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures as an individual? It uses the same phrase.

          Indeed, nowhere else in the Constitution does anyone try to collectivize "the people" except in the 2nd, which speaks to the intellectual honesty of trying to do so.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:15:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  but that isn't what it says (0+ / 0-)
            The right of the people to be secure in their persons
            implies an individuality that simply "the people" doesn't.

            and if you were implying that I was being intellectually dishonest for asking a question, then [redacted]. If not, then have a great day!

            I'm neither a gun owner, an anti-gun advocate, nor a constitutional lawyer. Just call me bi-curious to understand both sides of the argument.

        •  Do we still have a collective right though? (0+ / 0-)

          The National Guard can be sent to Iraq...so...not sure somuch that it's George Washington's militia anymore.

    •  Fair question (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      claude, Glen The Plumber

      I think that in a Colonial 'citizen's army" local militias were trained for local defense. I'm not sure if membership was obligatory or not. Perhaps today's equivalent would the The National Guard. In the syntax of the sentence, "A well regulated militia" is a qualifier to "the right of the people" isn't it? Perhaps it was included specifically so that people who were not in the militia did not fear confiscation of their weapons so necessary for defense and hunting. It must have had a contemporary reference, and I didn't dig that deeply into it.  I'll go back and re-read the Bill of Rights and see if I can find one. Thanks for such a thoughtful reply.

      Even a crow acts like a God when attacking a dead lizard. If my mind is weak, even a minor difficulty is oppressive.

      by sfzendog on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 09:47:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The point of the second amendment was that (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SoCalSal, lyvwyr101, itsbenj

      the Framers of the Constitution were wary of a standing army (and the MIC has proved them quite prescient in that regard!!) so that's why the second amendment was needed - so that a militia could be formed for the defense of the country at the drop of the hat.

      For example, when rumors started that Canada was about to invade, well, the next week the militia members could be organized and sent up there to seal the border.

      But now that we have a standing army, and then some, the second amendment has become completely and thoroughly obsolete.

      •  Unfortunately for that view... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Robobagpiper, rockhound, fuzzyguy

        ...there is no mechanism in the Constitution such that one may simply dismiss those parts of it that they feel are obsolete.

        There is, however, an amendment process -- but you have to have quite a bit of support for that.  Support which does not seem to be available for changing the 2nd Amendment.

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

        by theatre goon on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 06:48:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nor is the correct remedy to repeal the 2nd (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon, KVoimakas, fuzzyguy

          But to dismantle the standing army, along with the militarized police forces of towns like NYC and Oakland.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 06:55:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  There might not be a mechanism in the constitution (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lyvwyr101

          but in reality there are plenty of mechanisms, just saying, several of the other amendments are essentially flat out dead these days.

        •  There is no requirement (0+ / 0-)

          to alter the Second Amendment. Just as the First Amendment does not protect all speech, Second Amendment should not be interpreted to protect ALL gun ownership. Or would you advocate that if disintegrator rays are developed in the future, the should one day be commonly owned and kept, because of the framers? I'm making a joke but there are already limits as to what is legal and illegal to own. RKBA advocates love to mock and jeer at how uninformed non gun advocates are about guns, but the fact is that even if there are technical differences between automatic weapons of one kind or another and machine guns of one variety of another, there's nothing stopping an assessment that might broaden the number of weapons considered too dangerous to own. The Second Amendment will not suffer, people will still be entitled to own guns. Some here want to own arsenals that protect them from incursion by a SWAT Team and that is where others of us throw our hands up in frustration.

    •  How about removing just one word? (0+ / 0-)

      Even the tiniest changes make a world of difference:

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
      To
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
      Oops.
  •  Very good commentary (10+ / 0-)

    There are a few minor errors in the figures, and the Diary would really benefit from some links.

    That said, excellent contribution to the debate from one who clearly has the credibility to put the balanced point of view of hunters and sportsmen.

    T&R

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

    by twigg on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 05:22:05 PM PDT

  •  I'm not sure why you included this paragraph (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Samulayo, gerrilea

    other than to display your anti-war bona fides, but it is inaccurate.

    It was precisely the rigid adherence to "ideas"which led the U.S. to a ruinous war (if not several) in Vietnanam-Cambodia-and Laos, to  keep out the Communists. We lost the war, the Communists won, and none of the Domino theory hysterically perpetuated by our leaders, wherebye a loss would empower Communist governments all through Asia, ever came to pass.
    If you mean by "We" the US military, you are wrong. The war lasted until 1976 between South and North Vietnam. The US Congress ended all military support the the South in 1973, whereupon the North, with continuing support from China and the USSR invaded and overran the South. The Vietnamese boat people seem a little more convincing in their assessment of the outcome than you do.
    •  Ummm...no... (16+ / 0-)

      I don't want to hijack the diary, but need to respond.

      The US ended combat operations in 1973, but military support continued right up to April 30, 1975 (not 1976), when the last helicopters left from the roof of the CIA Annex in Sai Gon.

      The US then imposed a crippling international embargo which lasted through February, 1994, one major effect of which was to starve the population and deny them access to even basic medical supplies.  The boat people were, for the most part, voting with their stomachs not because of ideology.

      I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

      by Wayward Wind on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 06:01:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Perhaps you could enlighten on how the funding (0+ / 0-)

        restrictions shown in table 6 of this document and the annotations thereto were circumscribed?

        One doubts the embassy evacuations, though conducted by the military, were in any way reflective of offensive or defensive military operations, as commonly understood (or contemplated in the statutes).

        The stomachs of the refugees were the responsibility of the North Vietnamese by act of conquest. Isn't that the standard the Israelis are held to?

        •  From 1973 through 1975 (15+ / 0-)

          there were 507 US military KIAs in Vietnam, the most famous of whom were Charles McMahon and Darwin Judge, the two Marines killed at Ton Son Nhut on 29 April 1975. Up to you whether you want to count them as within your definition - I certainly count them in mine.

          The embargo starved people throughout Vietnam.  In many ways, its effects were far worse than those during the war.  While the was was in full swing, there were many areas in the north and south which were unaffected; the embargo, however, reached every corner of the country.  That wasn't something that was generated by the government in Hanoi - it was purely and completely the result of vindictiveness by our government.  We not only barred trade by American companies and institutions, we threatened out trading partners with sanctions if they traded with Vietnam.

          I was there several times in the 1980s on humanitarian missions.  I saw the horrific effects of the embargo - children without food in the orphanages, hospitals which had no anesthetics to use for the surgeries, etc.  I also spoke with many a refugee, both in and outside of the Orderly Departure program, and never once did I hear anyone speak of ideology - they spoke of extremely difficult times with not enough food to eat.

          I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

          by Wayward Wind on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 08:18:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for that. (9+ / 0-)

        I feel a bit like the conversation was hi-jjacked. A little like arguing with Fireman who come to put out a fire in your house, about the types of hoses they use. It was not the strain of logic I was looking for, but it was well thought out and civil and I learned something.

        Even a crow acts like a God when attacking a dead lizard. If my mind is weak, even a minor difficulty is oppressive.

        by sfzendog on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 10:08:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's like arguing religion (0+ / 0-)

          If I have a discussion about religion with a Christian, they will frequently attempt to make the argument for god by using he words of the bible.  

          If I disagree with the meaning or the history of the bible, then more bible verses are quoted to support the religious position.  

          I don't care about the specifics of a specific religion.  I am more interested in discussing the ideas at play.  

        •  Thanks for trying (0+ / 0-)

          to start a rational dialogue.  I hope you get an argument that addresses the point in your question

          Do we have a problem? If so, the task of knowledgeable men and women is to figure out how to SOLVE it and not take refuge in texts.

          Die Entropie der GOP strebt einem Maximum zu

          by Tonga 23 on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 02:55:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  And you plan to ensure this is what? (5+ / 0-)
    But if the killer had available to him only a knife, baseball bat, shot-gun or bolt-action rifle,...
  •  Great post. Thanks for this (9+ / 0-)

    It's great to get an 'insider's' perspective.  Your expertise with weapons will spare you the gun-rights nitpicking regarding arcane  taxonomy.

    On this site if one don't know the difference between a magazine and a clip one's opinion about gun control is deemed invalid.

    It's interesting that the tricorner hat crowd likes to enshroud modern military technology in the 2nd Amendment without recognizing the fact that at the time of it's writing most states required the registration of guns and some the communal storage of guns so that this scarce military resource could be redistributed to those who know best how to use them.  Owning a weapon back then implied a civic responsibility, a notion that is completely lost by the NRA.

    The notion that every colonist had a musket on his mantle is another romantic fallacy. Back then,  a gun would cost a colonist  a couple years income and were thus far more common amongst the landed gentry than the average homesteader.

    An investment in knowledge pays the best interest. -Benjamin Franklin

    by martinjedlicka on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 06:37:47 PM PDT

    •  Guns were not communally stored (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon, rockhound, KenBee

      Indeed, they were required to be kept in the home.

      Large quantities of powder were communally stored, away from homes, because (unlike modern brass-cartridged ammunition), black powder is an explosive.

      Indeed, it was the attempted seizure of these communal powder-houses by the British Army that was a major spark in launching the American Revolution.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 05:33:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Tip'd for owning some spiffy old guns and... (10+ / 0-)

    your slap at the

    ...sociopaths who imagine that they are hunting men when they hunt mega-mammals or shoot wolves from Helicopters.
    For this, I thank you:
    In total, these four categories make up a miniscule part of gun-lovers and hunters, and yet because they make constitute the front-line for the NRA and it’s lobbying efforts for wealthy stock-holders, they receive inordinate attention.
  •  You are correct that things (7+ / 0-)

    have changed.

    And the Founders knew that they would - they just didn't know how.

    That is why we can change the Constitution.

    Unfortunately, that doesn't have much support.

    So the 2A stands.

    •  But what would you change? (10+ / 0-)

      I don't think it's necessary to change the Constitution. But unwavering fealty to an idea in the face of facts and reason is just silly. (See my remark about a Clay Buddha being unable to pass through water.) Nothing holds up in every circumstance. The Constitution, whatever the intention of the 2nd amendment does not prevent Legislators from making reasonable adjustments. What stops them is the power of money, confusion of issues, and raw political threat.

      Even a crow acts like a God when attacking a dead lizard. If my mind is weak, even a minor difficulty is oppressive.

      by sfzendog on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 10:11:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Humm...are you saying the right to bear arms (8+ / 0-)

        here???

        What stops them is the power of money, confusion of issues, and raw political threat.
        How is "reasonable" defined?

        Here's the list of changes that I'd push for:

        1. Renegotiate NAFTA, GATT and remove our membership from the WTO.

        2.  Prosecute our bought and paid for Congress Critters.  

        3.  Deny them any exemption from the laws they pass.

        4. Prosecute them again.

        5. Dismantle our Military Industrial Complex, keeping only enough to protect our boarders from foreign invasion.

        6.  Fund our educational system and our health care system (including free mental health services) LIKE OUR LIVES DEPENDED UPON IT.

        7. Educate our children in peaceful means of dispute resolution.  Give them the tools necessary for success.

        8. Remove any legal restrictions on personal vices, ie end the fake/failed "war on drugs". Ending our cradle to prison pipeline.

        9. Create the conditions whereby any American wanting or needing a living wage job, can actually get one.

        That's just my short list, oh did I mention, PROSECUTE THE BASTARDS THAT HAVE HIJACKED THIS NATION???

        -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 Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 12:30:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Absolutely! (4+ / 0-)

          You'd have my vote.

          Disclaimer: Weapons of Mass Destruction and terrorists may vary according to region, definition, and purpose. Belief systems pandered separately.

          by BlackBandFedora on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:56:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  All of those are nice (0+ / 0-)

          but it's like asking baseball umpires to overturn each others calls. Most of that bucket list is beyond hope of ever happening. And even if every one of those policy initiatives were enacted, you still haven't taken any action toward disarming deranged individuals intent on causing maximum harm.

          I see pro-gun activists hauling out variations on that list time and time again. They seem stocked with the most thorny and difficult to accomplish political initiatives, yet each of you walk away from the statement brushing off you hands and slapping each other on the back for a "job well done." This is the real world, and there is a realpolitik that must be considered. You may as well say that nothing can be done about gun violence until we have a credible and functioning 3 party political system. It might never happen. So what do we do until then? How about this: establish gun controls, and when utopia is finally realized we can relax all the features you find odious. It's only temporary, so I'm sure you'll agree it's necessary to give a little to get a little.

          •  Really??? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon
            They seem stocked with the most thorny and difficult to accomplish political initiatives,
            I don't find any of my list "difficult to accomplish".  Modifying our educational system to include a few classes on logic and peace would only take a policy change, not a constitutional amendment.

            Rescinding our involvement with the WTO would only take a vote in Congress, again no constitutional amendment. Renegotiating NAFTA & GATT would only take a leader to do so.

            Rescinding the majority of drug laws can be done with a simple act of Congress.

            Dismantling our Military Industrial Complex won't take an act of God, just men/women committed to doing the right thing. Using the freed up funds for jobs, healthcare and education.

            Prosecuting them for insider trading can be done right now.  Prosecuting them for conflicts of interest can be done right now.  Prosecuting them for betraying the public trust can be done right now.

            ALL THESE THINGS ARE CURRENTLY CONSTITUTIONAL.

            Making Congress abide by the laws they pass...now that might take an amendment.

            You'd rather we hand over the levers of our gov't to the Republicans for the next generation???  When you say this, there can be no question:

            How about this: establish gun controls, and when utopia is finally realized we can relax all the features you find odious.
            We must define "utopia".

            What you describe is Orwellian authoritarianism disguised as "helping".  Ban everything and anything that man can use to harm his neighbor and man will still find a way to do so.  Necessity breeds invention.

            Until we teach, practice and live peace, man will continue to kill man.

            Until we teach tolerance, man will continue to kill man.  

            Until we teach respect, man will continue to kill man.

            We have only to decide to teach the future for it to become real.

            “I touch the future. I teach.” ~Christa McAuliffe

            -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 Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 03:07:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  The Constitution is meaningless if you're going to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Americantrueandblue

        ignore the parts you don't like anymore.

    •  Indeed, they hoped things would change (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon, fuzzyguy

      Which is why the authority to grant patents was right there in the Constitution.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 04:55:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ok, so the constitution guarantees the right to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lyvwyr101

      own a gun, firearm, whatever.

      It's not actually the gun that does the killing, it's the little projectiles that end up doing the deed.

      It doesn't guarantee your right to own ammunition.

      Own as many guns as you want, but regulate the shit out of ammo, including making it illegal to own without a whole bunch of checks and balances.

  •  So repeal it if you want (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dragon5616, Cedwyn, Robobagpiper, fuzzyguy

    that's what the proper procedure is if we decide that a freedom is obsolete.

  •  The Second Amendment is not at all about hunting (7+ / 0-)

    ...nor about the rights or regulation of a militia.

    After that, your entire argument falls apart like a poorly-built card house.

    And I really don't want to live in a place where only the police and military have guns.  I've done that several times.  Didn't care for it.  

    Can we do better about crime?  Sure we can.  But that's not the way.

  •  Speaking on the structure of it, briefly, (7+ / 0-)

    The phrasing of that amendment is a bit strange among all of them.  A legitimate reading of that is to say that the first clause is commentary; no other clause can be found like that in at least within the original document and Amendments I through X.  The Second Amendment does not require a militia, it simply comments on its necessity.  Thus, some believe that the first clause of that sentence is mere commentary on the second clause, perhaps a justification of the right.  That is more or less the current legal theory.  As I recall, a few pro-RKBA scholars are willing to address the militia clause head-on but their belief is that "militia" needed to be interpreted broadly.

    But read the full Constitution and the first ten amendments carefully; no other right or obligation is preceded by a justification the way the Second Amendment is; all other clauses are simply stated in very methodical, almost mathematical fashion.  So, I believe that claim to be largely debatable under Art. II § 2(1) which reads

    1:  The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
    In plain English, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the states' militia.  If you kidnapped one of the drafters and brought them here to ask what they meant by militia, odds are they probably meant the states' National Guards, although they would not have expected Guards units to be so methodically organized.  You can thank Napoleon for a lot of the military reforms that came shortly after our founding.

    So, when you apply the basic theory of legal construction that there are no unnecessary words in the Constitution - if you read it carefully, there are none - in all likelihood, I personally have long felt that they meant that the original states had both the right and the obligation to maintain a militia to protect against the very real threats presented by the great powers of Old Europe (which the former colonies were surrounded by and whose borders difficult to defend) as well as against the threat of another absolute dictator, an Oliver Cromwell (and Cromwell's ghost factored heavily into our history, and not just because of Monty Python).

    So it was understood that those men were to keep and maintain their arms at hand if called to serve either by the Governors of the states or the President as Commander-in-Chief of the militias; there was no central disbursement of munitions at the time except for what passed for heavy artillery.

    I know that this isn't the current legal thinking.  Give this answer on a bar exam and you'll take the exam again.  But if you want to change public opinion, change policy and eventually change law without opening up the fiery chasm that a Constitutional amendment process can become, try to give the above theory a public hearing.

    I don't mean to sound like a teabagger but very few people read the Constitution "cover-to-cover."  Very few people need to in their daily lives, really.  But once you do read the whole document, the wording of the Second Amendment sticks out like a sore thumb.  That first clause meant something special.

    (note: written right before bed when I should already BE in bed, so if this is word salad - sorry!)

    "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

    by auron renouille on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 10:34:11 PM PDT

    •  Thank You - N/T (0+ / 0-)

      "Upward, not Northward" - Flatland, by EA Abbott

      by linkage on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 11:16:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Recc'd for conversation but I'm not sure (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jam, Deadicated Marxist

      about the conclusions made...great idea about reading the constitution "cover to cover"...

      I just so happen to carry with me my handy dandy Pocket Constitution....just in case I forget something...

      ;)

      -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 Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 12:34:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You're missing a condition in your conclusion (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon

      The text reads:

      The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
      The POTUS is only CiC of the militias when they're called up for Federal service. At all other times, the Constitution is agnostic on their chain of command (or, per Article I, who provisions and disciplines them). In other words, when not called to war on a national level, they're a state matter.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 04:03:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Umm...you are mistaken on a few points. (5+ / 0-)
     The Second Amendment, protecting the right for a well-established militia
    The BoR's limits the actions of our gov't.  The only time our gov't could regulate arms was DURING MILITIA SERVICE, not before or after AND could only regulate those actively called into service as such.

    Take a moment and review this very old diary of mine:

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Read up on the First Debates in Congress regarding said Amendment.

    Read up on the Ratification Documents submitted by the majority of the States to the newly created Central Gov't.

    What you are doing here is attempting to re-write history, respectfully, I cannot sit by and let it go unchallenged.

    Read those Ratification Documents a couple of times if necessary, you'll find that they were always talking about an individual unalienable right. Some made it perfectly clear like New Hampshire:

    XII. Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.
    And Vigrinia, North Carolina and Rhode Island wished to grant a Religious exemption to individuals so disposed.
    19th. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.
    What is further obfuscated here is the unalienable human right to self defense using whatever means are necessary.  

    You may, at some future point, deny me the right to the most effective tool created for such, ie the firearm...I ask you this, will you stand guard at my side on that day? Who protects the individual then?

    You do know that our LEO have no constitutional obligation to protect anyone, right?

    The unalienable right to bear arms is not meant for hunting rabbits.

    Sadly, your comparison to driving does float, driving is a privilege, not an unalienable right. Unalienable rights are not based on need.  Do you need to practice your religion? Do you need to write your diary here? Must you prove a need to do these things then ask for permission from our created gov't to exercise such? NO.

    History shows us that the pen has always been mightier than the sword (or in this case, the firearm).  Especially against women, children and minorities. See the Bible.

    Political Speech is just as bad... See GW's false claims of WMD's in Iraq, we've killed over a million innocent civilians there, thousands more in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, South America, etc.

    Heck see the Republican meme of "tax breaks for the wealthy", that's taken a cool trillion from our coffers that could be used to fund our infrastructure, our schools, social safety nets such as universal health care and mental services, etc.

    See the lies about "free trade", that alone has impoverished millions in Mexico, Haiti and here in the US.

    If your all about "saving the children" then shouldn't we be pushing back against these actual lies and not going down the Yellow Brick Road???

    Let's have an honest discussion, I'm ready.

    -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 Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 11:55:12 PM PDT

  •  A comment I would like to make. (4+ / 0-)

    "Rabid" gun supporters like to say that that 2nd Amendment gave people the right to bear arms "in case the government becomes an oppressive government", I disagree. The 2nd Amendment gave the right to bear arms to the people in order to defend the government as outlined in the US Constitution.

    These are the same people who fail to understand that "our" government is just that, ours. They act as if "we the people" have no part of our government.  These are the same people, for the most part, who do not participate in elections and then pontificate about overthrowing the government.

    I would argue, if a person does not like where the government is headed, become engaged in the electoral process. Study the issues, and make informed decisions. Get off your butt and support the candidates that align with your views. Doing nothing and then complaining about “the government” and how they should be in fear of people with weapons is laughable and unacceptable.

    Rant done.

    To the world you are one person. To one person, you are the world.

    by p a roberson on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 03:31:54 AM PDT

    •  The commentaries of the Framers paint a more (6+ / 0-)

      complicated picture. An armed citizenry was indeed thought to be necessary to prevent and combat tyranny - whether that be from foreign invasion or from a tyrannical domestic government. But the latter was less a matter of "overthrowing a tyrannical government", and more a matter of depriving government of the principal means of tyranny, namely a large body of armed professional soldiers (or paramilitary police, which are just soldiers garrisoned for use domestically), and replace them with an armed citizenry entrusted to enforce domestic law via the obligation to respond to a "hue and cry".

      Looking at the adventurism of today's large professional military, and the widespread abuses of today's professional police forces, and it seems the Framers might have had something of a point.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 04:08:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is also why military appropriations are only (5+ / 0-)

        valid for two years; they hoped that this would give Congress the opportunity to review the military after any conflict, with an eye to downsizing it.

        WWII, the Cold War, and the cult of the General finally put an end to that. Now appropriations are more or less rubber stamps on the Pentagon's requests, and any sturm und drang over the budget is a distraction about the details.

        Not surprisingly, this is when the Department of War (which managed a small peacetime military) was Orwellianly renamed the Department of Defense (which manages a large permanent war-footing military).

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 05:13:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Speaking of claptrap (9+ / 0-)
    The Second Amendment, protecting the right for a well-established militia to keep and bear arms,
    You're not being truthful about the text of the Constitution. The text of the Constitution does not protect that right for a "well-established militia".

    It protects it for "the people".

    And here we get to the core of the gun control argument - it first requires a surreptitious rewrite of the text of the Constitution.

    Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

    by Robobagpiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 03:46:45 AM PDT

  •  Right on the money (3+ / 0-)

    Great post and very true

  •  When making any 2A arguments (5+ / 0-)

    It's best to not even attempt to include anything about hunting.  The language isn't there, and any gun lover coming along will simply deride you for including it.

    My own take on hunting and 2A is that hunting was an integral part of life for a far larger percentage of Americans then than it is now, so it simply wasn't even considered.  The rights of Americans to own hunting rifles was simply a 'given', just as 'water is wet', so no legislation was ever even mentioned.

    •  Which is often why... (7+ / 0-)

      ...there is such a huge division on this matter between rural and urban voters.

      For rural folks, the rights to own hunting rifles (for the moment and the sake of argument, setting aside pistols, etc) is still simply a 'given.'

      Even if hunting is less a matter of being the only source of food than it once was (although, there are still more families than a lot of people want to think about who would have a lot less to eat without hunting), it is still an important issue.

      A big reason why rural voters often appear to be single-issue voters -- this is such an ingrained part of life that attempts to curtail it simply will not be welcomed.

      The reasoning doesn't just stop at "they're trying to take my guns" (as is so often claimed), but "what right are they going to try to take away next?"

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

      by theatre goon on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 04:38:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly as it has been since 1789... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emelyn, Americantrueandblue

        The Urban and Rural divide was anticipated by the Second Amendment since it was written in a time of Farmer's Rebellions against the further establishment of a strong central government, and slaveowners distrust of a strong central government.

        The unusual wording of the Second Amendment is the artifact of that compromise. We are supposed to figure it out, make it work, because they could not get an agreement from these very different factions and get the Constitution ratified, and we have to understand that the situation has changed. They knew it would, and so they left a lot of wiggle room in the wording for future compromises which they knew would be necessary.

        Nonetheless, a complete reading of the WHOLE Second Amendment provides an interpretation not currently enjoyed by Scalia and the Gang of Five to limit militarily useful weapons to military or militia use, closely defined. Circumstances now warrant such an interpretation.

        But only in my view and the view of millions of Americans and legal scholars out of power since the 1980's Reagan and Fundamentalist Revolution, the Revolt of the Power Elite and their Power Base, the Anti-Central Government crowd. This is exactly the same debate as in 1789, but with the addition of technology thousands of times more powerful than during their time.

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

        by OregonOak on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 06:14:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As has been explained... (6+ / 0-)

          ...numerous times throughout this very thread, claims that the 2nd Amendment is somehow arcane in its wording, or that anyone is ignoring part of that wording is simply false.

          It is those trying to write the individual right "of the people" out of the 2nd Amendment who are ignoring words and the construction.

          But, as I stated, that has been pointed out numerous times already.

          If you want it changed -- amend it.  Insisting that words mean something other than they mean, or that there is some construction that simply doesn't exist doesn't get it done.

          Good luck with that, by the way.  Personally, I don't expect such attempts to do much more than get Republicans elected.

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

          by theatre goon on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 06:43:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They're not just insisting on changing the words, (7+ / 0-)

            they are freely transposing them from one part of the amendment to another.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 06:56:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Your attempts to circumvent the wording (5+ / 0-)

            of the Second Amendment are currently in force, thanks to Scalia. I do not think your avoidance of accepting your allegiance to the most Conservative and convoluted thinker on the Court since Justice Taney do your argument here much good. We should elect more Progressive Democrats, and we will not do that by promoting the causes of Radical Right Conservatives such as Scalia as you do.

            Public attitudes are changing, since more people can now clearly see the effect of this radical reinterpretation, penciling out the Well-Regulated Militia clause of the Second Amendment.

            I only wish more people, Democrats and Progressives especially, would live in the real world, instead of in a fantasy world of their own creation.

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

            by OregonOak on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:18:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Where have I mentioned Scalia? (5+ / 0-)

              Oh, right -- apart from right here, I haven't.

              That being the case, you seem to be arguing against something not said.

              Being unable to respond to what has actually been said in favor of something not said at all (such as trying to link an argument with a disliked individual who is not involved in the discussion) doesn't speak well for your position.

              Unless and until you can respond to what has been said instead of crafting stances not held for others, I believe I will refrain from responding to you directly.

              I will, however, continue to point out falsehoods, anywhere I see them.

              You have a fabulous day.

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

              by theatre goon on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:23:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I would redirect this right back at you: (5+ / 0-)
              I only wish more people, Democrats and Progressives especially, would live in the real world, instead of in a fantasy world of their own creation.
              If you think pushing any sort of supply side gun control is a winning issue.

              Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

              by KVoimakas on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:24:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Abolishing slavery, and abolishing Taney was not (4+ / 0-)

                a winning issue either, until it was won. Then, of course, it became wildly popular. Similarly, I would argue that controlling military-designed semi-automatics will become very popular in a very short time, thanks to the numbers of deranged Right Wingers with military weapons. We have, in my view, reached the break point and we will now use the entire Second Amendment to enact sane policy in this administration, or the next, or the next.

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

                by OregonOak on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:37:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Abolishing alcohol was wildly popular too, among (6+ / 0-)

                  moralists and self-righteous thugs. Until they realized that it just empowered organized crime at the expense of a basic liberty.

                  You're not proposing an expansion of rights, you're proposing a contraction and prohibition.

                  Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                  by Robobagpiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:46:05 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Interesting mention of self-righeous thugs (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    lyvwyr101, Deadicated Marxist

                    I dont want to honor it with the accusation of implied name calling, so I won't bring it up.

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

                    by OregonOak on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:57:59 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Abolishing slavery WAS a contraction of rights.. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    lyvwyr101, Deadicated Marxist

                    assumed to be part of American Right; the right to keep and bear slaves unregulated from Central Government control or restricton. We had to fix that under a reinterpretation of the Constitutional intent of the Framers. We are doing the same thing now with military-designed automatic and semiautomatic rifles and handguns. We are only a portion of the way done with Abolition of military weapons in private hands.

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

                    by OregonOak on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 08:00:52 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Not a reinterpretation. (5+ / 0-)

                      An amendment.

                      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                      by KVoimakas on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 08:23:24 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Right, an even more difficult task (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        lyvwyr101

                        than simply reading an existing Amendment. Or perhaps you advocate abolishing the Second Amendment in favor of a more automatic-weapons friendly amendment without that troublesome 13 words about a Well-Regulated Militia.

                         The easiest and most workable solution is to simply apply the whole Second Amendment as we see fit today, and the public is moving in that direction, thanks to the overreach of Scalia, the Corporate Gun lobby (NRA) and people who cannot see how their support is endangering us all in the 21st Century, the RKBS group.

                        The President agrees. I am wholly in his camp on this.

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

                        by OregonOak on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 08:47:50 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Those 13 words aren't troublesome. (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          theatre goon, fuzzyguy, KenBee

                          Robo's had some good comments about that in here.

                          I'm all for abolishing the standing army and getting every citizen (exercising their individual right to keep and bear arms) into a citizens militia (original intent of the second amendment).

                          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                          by KVoimakas on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 08:56:55 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  That was my position for many years until (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            splintersawry, lyvwyr101

                            I realized that this was not possible in the 20th Century.

                            The complete Second Amendment has a perfectly good mechanism for dealing with the problem. The most efficient, least disruptive of civil rights and the civil society is my suggested remedy.

                            Use the first thirteen words to fulfil the requirement for public safety AND strictly regulated access to military weapons. Any other remedy is extremely intrusive. It is only a modest change from the status quo, and as such, can be done, as was done in Australia after 1999 Tasmanian mass murder with an AR-15 where 35 died at the hands of an unregulated firearm weilding maniac. Its a very simple, elegant and unobtrusive solution to our fears of today.  

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

                            by OregonOak on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 09:16:36 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  It WAS a contraction of "rights," though. (3+ / 0-)

                        and that is generally agreed upon by legal scholars and the public. You may not any longer make your money from the abuse of other human beings, and I am essentially saying the same thing to the NRA, the gun manufacturers, the arms industry in general and the public who buys military weapons. You are going to have to accept a contraction of your heretofore enjoyed "right" because of the actions of some delusional people.

                        I welcome that contraction for my heretofore  enjoyed "right. I will be the first to sign up for a semiautomatic rifle permit under new rules, if I can get there first. I want to be separated from the assumption by many that because of ownership, I am just like the delusionals. Regulate me. It protects me.

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

                        by OregonOak on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 08:56:19 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh, and AR15s are not military weapons. (5+ / 0-)

                      The M4 or the M16...that's different.

                      You keep bringing that up. And you keep getting told you are, by definition, wrong. Why?

                      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                      by KVoimakas on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 08:24:05 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  We disagree on that. (5+ / 0-)

                        And I think that the public is coming around on that as well. I pray it will not take a few more Aurora incidents to bring people to the same conclusion many gun owners, such as myself, have come to on that. We believe there is a good reason to now categorize civilian "versions" of military weapons as military weapons for the purpose of regulation.

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

                        by OregonOak on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 08:49:59 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You do realize that you're playing right into (5+ / 0-)

                          the hands of those on the right wing side that say

                          "SEE?! Liberals will just classify your semi-auto as a MILITARY WEAPON and it'll be banned too!"

                          Of course, they make the blanket statement that all liberals are gun grabbers (we aren't) which implies that all conservatives are pro-RKBA (they aren't).

                          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                          by KVoimakas on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 08:58:09 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks for your concern about what teabaggers (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            itsbenj

                            might say.

                            Most of us don't give a shit.

                          •  If it was just the teabaggers, I wouldn't be as (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound, KenBee

                            worried.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 11:03:28 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  See my comment above, add Repukes. n/t (0+ / 0-)
                          •  all hail president romney...nt (0+ / 0-)

                            From those who live like leeches on the people's lives, We must take back our land again, America!...Langston Hughes

                            by KenBee on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 02:13:06 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We will miss your vote for Obama... (0+ / 0-)

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

                            by OregonOak on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 03:14:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you presume way too much (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound

                            I've been advocating not getting embroiled in gun legislation proposals before next election.
                              See MB's diary last night for a clearer argument from him.

                            This is about the only issue they can trap Obama and down ticket candidates with.

                            They have won this issue for now...I was suggesting the other opinion is very good for Romney, an absolute must defeat candidate.

                            And what's your opinion of reeper trolls infesting liberal websites suggesting we do just such a thing:

                            a. likely

                            b. never happen

                            c. not effective

                              I hope you're answer is a and c and will assure me Obama, senate dems, house dems will win.

                            but, you know what, you can go on like the dangnabbit  egernizer bunny, and I ain't got da time right now...so...later please.

                            From those who live like leeches on the people's lives, We must take back our land again, America!...Langston Hughes

                            by KenBee on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 03:39:24 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sure, we could continue later. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KenBee

                            I don't think a concern for the President's reelection is valid now that he has declared, without any prodding from me, that he is in favor of changing gun control legislation to include AK-47 type weapons which satisfy Second Amendment concerns.

                            In other words, the President is agreeing with many of us here on the DKos side.

                            I guess that adds a new element to the discussion for some later time.

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

                            by OregonOak on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 04:12:17 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  They will foam and fume, but the key element (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            lyvwyr101

                            is to persuade, publicize, and carefully craft legislation, and on that we both agree.   These "stop any legislation" people are a small fragment of the gun owners who are on ANY side, and we can enlarge that fragment if we do this starting after the elections with President Obama's second term.  

                            They will try to paint this as some sort of horrible Constitutional intrusion, but the public now has strong visual, legal and moral evidence in support of limiting military-use gas-charged automatic or semiautomatic weapons. We here at DKos, I think here at least, are closer to a definition and a consensus that this is correct. The country is close behind. We need everyone's support, and we can put the first stake in the heart of ALL of Scalia's half-baked and convoluted decisions. Next up: Citizen's United to destroy the NRA's ability to fund Conservative Radicals in Congress and intimidate the rest.

                            In America, there is almost always a political cost of doing the moral thing, but that has never stopped us from eventually enacting Progressive Legislation.

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

                            by OregonOak on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 10:19:58 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Do you still support the President, despite (0+ / 0-)

                            his statements of yesterday about seeking controls on military-style weapons such as the AK-47?

                            Or is that a deal-killer for you, and you will support Romney?

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

                            by OregonOak on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 03:16:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There is nothing that will make me support (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon, rockhound

                            Romney. He's worse on RKBA than President Obama.

                            Also like to point out that President Obama isn't stupid. Some general comments aren't a policy statement. If he comes forward with some idiotic AWB or something similar, I'll fight his proposed legislation but in the end, will still vote for him.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 09:42:50 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Wow, careful there, you're going to pull something (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      theatre goon

                      contorting like that.

                      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                      by Robobagpiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 08:30:57 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

  •  What is the most cogent argument to me (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber, JayBat

    --that the second amendment is a counterbalance to government power--ignores 2 things:
    1)  The arms, surveillance gear and control systems we supply our government with so far outstrip the capabilities of a a band of citizens with AR-15s or the like, that it's ridiculous to cling to that notion of the 2nd amendment unless you pair it with a call to dramatically downsize the US military
    2)  That successful revolutions since Gandhi have all used non-violence and passive resistance to achieve their goals

    Yes, the universe is change and our laws in this area are not keeping up.

    We kidnap. We torture. It's our policy. Embrace it or end it!

    by Mosquito Pilot on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 04:30:23 AM PDT

    •  Except for all the revolutions that didn't (6+ / 0-)

      use peaceful means. Libya. Romania. And so on.

      Even Gandhi's is a poor example - the British didn't pull out because of Gandhi's passive peaceful resistance. The Indian Army made it clear that it was on the side of independence, and that was the end of it. They pulled out under the credible threat of armed revolution (which did occur twice, under partition, though, which is why Pakistan and Bangladesh are separate countries).

      Similarly, the British never would have pulled out of the bulk of Ireland if not for dedicated armed resistance.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 05:03:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oddly enough, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KenBee
      1)  The arms, surveillance gear and control systems we supply our government with so far outstrip the capabilities of a a band of citizens with AR-15s or the like, that it's ridiculous to cling to that notion of the 2nd amendment unless you pair it with a call to dramatically downsize the US military
      a much smaller proportion of people, with little arms training, lower quality arms, have and continue to do just that after being under direct assault by the most powerful military juggernaut ever seen on this planet using every technical means at it's disposal in Afghanistan, but the citizens there have been fending off the tentacles of multinational, combined, colonial aggression for how many years now?
  •  Proofreader nitpick: our 2nd century ended in 1976 (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pfiore8, lyvwyr101, KenBee
    why it has survived into its 2nd 3rd century.

    The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war.

    by lotlizard on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 04:37:35 AM PDT

  •  Poacher (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Robobagpiper, claude

    The best thing to do with poachers is turn them in to authorities so they can be arrested and tossed in jail. In no way should they ever be trusted with firearms.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 04:45:36 AM PDT

  •  wow, dog. Good work. (7+ / 0-)

    You have managed to get the RKBA folks and the gun control folks talking with civility.  No mean feat,  and a valuable service to the community.

    Light,  without the usual heat.  Thank you.

    don't always believe what you think

    by claude on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 05:21:39 AM PDT

  •  The problem with your breakdown of (10+ / 0-)

    people who own military look-alikes is that it reveals your bias. I own a military look-alike rifle but I do not think I fit in the category of a "survivalist", someone who "salivates at the thought of having that much power" or a "sociopath". The way you describe it, there is absolutely no room whatsoever for the idea that a perfectly reasonable person might own one of these rifles. You forcibly categorize gun owners into "people who don't own military style weapons, and slobbering nutcakes".

    I also wonder if it is a wise idea to base banning military look-alikes on how the Founding Fathers "could never have conceived of such firepower" and were thinking only of "muskets". Actually, by that time, there was the "Puckle Gun", an early form of rapid-fire weapon that could be called the grandfather to the Gatling Gun of later years. It is also worth remembering that some early cannon were actually privately owned, as were the cannon that were mounted to the decks of privately owned merchant ships that ended up being used for naval and coastal patrol work.

    There's also the awkward notion that, following that same train of logic, would imply that the First Amendment only covers spoken words, quill pens, and manual-set printing press, since the internet, TV, and radio could not have been imagined by the Framers as well. It's a poor way to base one's logic.

    I don't bring all this up to antagonize you, but to show you that the structure of your arguments are flawed, and your categorizations are belittling and insulting. Issuing blanket condemnations about peoples' mental state when I doubt you have the requisite background leads down dangerous paths-- what, then, is wrong with telling people about how "all the Black people" or "all women" think like?

    Really, I don't disagree that firearms laws need some work. But all too frequently, the term "reasonable gun laws" are being spoken by people who are making unreasonable or misinformed statements about guns or gun owners. So we end up going nowhere, and the polarization continues.

    •  Gun owners' mental states are, like everyone (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lyvwyr101

      else in America, various and diverse. I think the diarist says this when he says that only a small number of gun owners fall into the category of people in a state of unreality of less-than-typical mental health. Nonetheless, they have immense power with current technology, so we need to proceed cautiously, since they can create great mayhem if we do not address their concerns.

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

      by OregonOak on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 06:19:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This was his exact quote: (4+ / 0-)
        Why do people want such weapons? In my experience of 25 years of noodling around gun shows and chatting folks up, they fall into four categories: the afraid; those who thrill at having such power in their hands; deluded militia-types and survivalists qho believe that they are going to fight off the unimaginible power available to the Federal Government with a few men under arms; and, finally, sociopaths who imagine that they are hunting men when they hunt mega-mammals or shoot wolves from Helicopters.
        None of these categories fit me in any way, but the tone of the diary insists that I am to be forcibly pigeon-holed into one of these four "categories".

        I am neither afraid, nor "thrilled at power"; I'm not looking to fight the government (hell, I am the government) and I've never even been "regular" hunting, much less thrown myself into a sociopathic fantasy where I pretended to be "hunting humans".

        I mean, seriously, what the fuck?

    •  I so love these ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lyvwyr101

      ... mini-lectures on the history and wonderfulness of guns! guns! guns!

      Please keep them coming.

  •  Great way to start a conversation (3+ / 0-)

    Good diary man, real good

    --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

    by idbecrazyif on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 05:32:38 AM PDT

  •  Your Winchester Model 70 is "military-style." (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Robobagpiper

    Why would you want such a weapon?  

    Anyways, it's not as if you can do anything about it.  So plink away.

  •  Excellent diary, with a paragraph for the ages.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Only Needs a Beat, john07801
    In my experience of 25 years of noodling around gun shows and chatting folks up, they fall into four categories: the afraid; those who thrill at having such power in their hands; deluded militia-types and survivalists qho believe that they are going to fight off the unimaginible power available to the Federal Government with a few men under arms; and, finally, sociopaths who imagine that they are hunting men when they hunt mega-mammals or shoot wolves from Helicopters.
    How many folks are going to respond about how THEY don't fit into any of those criteria, and demand you create another for 'well-adjusted people who just happen to own a military-style weapon but really don't have any mental issues and by God they're not afraid of anything and if you disagree, come over to their house and say that.'?

    "To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well." Justice Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, Nuremberg.

    by Wayward Son on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:41:04 AM PDT

  •  militias/gun control (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Drobin, lyvwyr101

    After reading through the comments/arguments on the various sides of the militia/gun-regulation issue, as well as  reading up about the contemporary definition(s) of 'well-regulated militia' circa 1770, it seems to me that. depending upon which definitions and interpretations you choose to embrace, you could stand somewhat firmly on several seemingly opposite sides of the arguments about weapons ownership and what a militia constitutes.  One thing that occurred to me is this:  let's say it is 500 years in the future, say, the year 2512, and we are trying to figure out what constitutes a 'proper' interpretation of a legal issue.  Are we to try to make heads or tails of what those folks way back in the 1700's intended, based on a now-700 year old frame of reference, or do we look at today, modern society, with a long history of an evolved society and frame of reference, and make determinations based on what makes sense for us today.
    It seems to me that my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can only be preserved in a society of rules, laws, and regulations that take into account a world vastly different from that world which existed in centuries past.  Would I be freer and happier in a society that permitted unrestricted/unregulated ownership of (fill in the blank-weapons/nuclear power plants-mega-size hog farms, extremely loud musical instruments, media conglomerates that have unlimited control of the public airwaves and disseminates misinformation and lies, etc.)?  Sorry for rambling.

  •  Good diary... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    semiot

    I think you glanced at the reason in one of your paragraphs:

    deluded militia-types and survivalists qho believe that they are going to fight off the unimaginible power available to the Federal Government with a few men under arms
    There are many on the right that believe the Founding Fathers put the second amendment in so that the population can oust their government by force.  To carry this out to extreme, it means that they populace will be fighting against our trained, professional army - the very government institution that the right loves over all others.  This is the result of a gross mis-understanding of history.  The Founding Fathers were NOT trying to over through the government, they were trying to exercise their rights as free Englishmen.  They wanted representation in parliament.  If the English King would have swallowed his ego and allowed proportional representation of the colonies in parliament, this country would have been part of England and the revolution would have never happened.

    'Osama Bin Ladien is still dead and GM is still alive' - Joe Biden "Dems kill terrorist. The GOP keeps them around as a boogeyman - so they can continue to steal."

    by RichM on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 09:32:46 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for this - the "militia" bit in the 2nd... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, lyvwyr101

    Amendment stands in the context of the Framers' conviction that standing armies were a threat to freedom, and so neither the US not the States were allowed to have standing forces.  However, the US were then living in a dangerous neighbourhood, and the Framers recognised the need for some fashion of armed forces.
    The messy compromise was to provide that the armed forces would be made up by militia; that the States would provide the training and the officers; and the US would call them up.
    So:  If you have a gun, you have declared yourself ready, able and willing to be called up to training by the State, and to be shipped off to the front by the Federal government.

    γνωθι σεαυτόν

    by halef on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 09:42:02 AM PDT

  •  Very Interesting Diary and Discussion! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, lyvwyr101

    Your Statement:

    "An iron Buddha can't pass through a furnace. "A clay Buddha can not pass through water." It reminds us that nothing, no idea, ideology, or tool ever works all the times.

    The NRA will never learn.  I wish that Wayne LaPierre and Grover Norquist had been in the theater in Auroro.  Their only defense would have been in the $hit in their pants as they hid in the aisles.  The NRA executive Board are a bunch of quivering idiots who hide behind their nonsense.  LaPierre and Norquist are intent on destroying our democratic republic!

    Dick Cheney said, "Pi$$ on 'em!" And, Ronald Reagan replied, "That's a Great Idea. Let's Call it 'Trickle Down Economics!"

    by NM Ray on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 09:48:29 AM PDT

    •  Good post. (0+ / 0-)

      Any country that cannot control violent--public---shooting--massacres is a country that has handed control over----to someone else.

      "But the protesters were only armed with chalk---the cops had guns and batons----and they were beating the protesters."

      by lyvwyr101 on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 12:03:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  According to the NRA and the RKBA group, as... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, lyvwyr101

    ... I understand their positions, every gun carrier who kills someone with a gun UNlawfully is deranged, mentally unstable, unfit to carry a gun. Or, perhaps, wrongfully convicted (to leave the maximum wriggle room for their position.)

    It's just that divining these dangerous propensities in advance can be somewhat of a problem, especially in a free society. We have to be able to distinguish them - as our diarist points out - from those who are non-dangerously afraid, get non-dangerous thrills from brandishing their hobby in public, are non-dangerous yet deluded survivalists, non-dangerous self-constituted militiaists, and non-dangerous sociopaths.

    We'd better get started, for we may not have seen the last massacre with a semi-automatic gun-used-as-a-weapon.

    Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

    by TRPChicago on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 10:29:00 AM PDT

    •  No, that is incorrect. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas, rockhound
      I understand their positions, every gun carrier who kills someone with a gun UNlawfully is deranged, mentally unstable, unfit to carry a gun. Or, perhaps, wrongfully convicted (to leave the maximum wriggle room for their position.)
      You very much do not understand the position.

      If someone kills someone else with a gun unlawfully, they are a criminal.

      Often, those criminal acts are mitigated by mental health issues, which does open up a whole other area of discussion.

      Where you got your understanding of those positions is not at all clear -- I've never seen anyone make any such statement.

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

      by theatre goon on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 01:25:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was summarizing. Gun Clutchers seem always (0+ / 0-)

        ... to flee to those kinds of issues. Of course, killing someone with a firearm UNlawfully is, by definition, a crime. And crimes committed with guns, under most statutes, are penalized much more harshly than those commited without a gun. Gosh, would that have anything to do with guns themselves? Nope, it's the user who is always argued to be the danger, not the gun.

        From many discussions on the subject, I've concluded that gun rightists are congenitally unable to admit that the proliferation of guns and the ease of getting one or more are responsible for massacres and mayhem with guns.

        The strategy of Gun Rightists is to scatter responsibility around all of society and every other ill of society, never on easy access to guns. While they doggedly adhere to that strategy, they lose credibility with the rest of us.

        Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

        by TRPChicago on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 06:01:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your summary... (3+ / 0-)

          ...was incorrect.

          References to "gun clutchers" and ascribing stances and opinions to people they don't hold just shows that you have no interest in discussing this matter in any meaningful way.

          Apparently, your false representation of the position of the "NRA and RKBA group" were purposefully incorrect, instead of a misunderstanding of actual stances and positions taken.

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

          by theatre goon on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 06:40:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Protecting us from the Muslim-Socialist hordes... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lyvwyr101

    The vibe I get from the folks who own military grade weapons with large ammo clips is that they honestly think that they constitute the Militia mentioned in the Constitution, and that their home armories are all that is deterring that Socialist Obama from establishing a muslim-liberal dictatorship.

    Mitt Romney treats people like things. And he treats things - corporations - like people.

    by richardak on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 10:33:13 AM PDT

  •  There is more to say (0+ / 0-)

    I appreciate that you have written this.  There is a serious problem with the inability to even discuss the idea that we would do anything about gun related about gun violence.  

  •  This is why the gun laws don't change: (0+ / 0-)
    Despite ending my hunting when I became a Buddhist later in life, I still own my .22, an octagonal barrel .30-.30 lever action, and a small-of-the back, stainless steel .22 automatic I kept around when I lived in my truck and slept rough, too close for comfort to urban areas.
    Despite your common sense ideas about automatic weapons, gun laws won't change until enough people stop fetishizing guns completely.

    Even our Buddhists are so scared of frightening gastly "urban areas" that they still pet their guns in their sleep.

    In such a society, sensible gun laws are basically hopeless.

    In such a society, blaming a person like Obama for the gun fetish you legitimize is rank hypocrisy.

  •  This is an interesting perspective (0+ / 0-)

    but it should be noted that the Second Amendment has exactly  nothing to do with hunting, other than that hunting rifles may be pressed into military/security service in a pinch (and the early militia members may have used the same weapons for both purposes). But the purpose of the Second Amendment is to provide a defensive capability, not meat.

    That said, the position of theal  NRA and the various gun lobby groups is insane. Though the Supreme Court found the Second Amendment grants an individual right to bear arms, they expressly noted that the government has the right to regulate the kinds of weapons individuals may own, to require registration, tracking, etc. of weapons, to prohibit felons or insane persons from owning weapons (i.e. require background checks). The notion that people have a right to buy and sell and possess every sort of weapon anonymously is a recipe for disaster.

    "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

    by Alice in Florida on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 11:28:14 AM PDT

  •  Just want to add (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonga 23, Kamakhya

    that just as the First Amendment does not protect ALL forms of speech, neither does the Second Amendment protect ALL forms of gun ownership. When certain types of guns are found to be a profound public safety menace they can very easily be declared illegal without compromising the glorious promise of the founder's infinite wisdom.

  •  Doesn't follow (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GoGoGoEverton, theatre goon

    since the second amendment isn't about hunting, what does it matter what kind of weapon a hunter does or doesn't need?

    Medic Alert: Do not resuscitate under a Republican administration.

    by happymisanthropy on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 11:53:48 AM PDT

  •  You missed a catagory (4+ / 0-)
    Why do people want such weapons? In my experience of 25 years of noodling around gun shows and chatting folks up, they fall into four categories: the afraid; those who thrill at having such power in their hands; deluded militia-types and survivalists qho believe that they are going to fight off the unimaginible power available to the Federal Government with a few men under arms; and, finally, sociopaths who imagine that they are hunting men when they hunt mega-mammals or shoot wolves from Helicopters.
    My wife and I have a large farm and a berm sit up. We shoot at zombie targets for fun. Our favorite weapon is an AK 47. We do it because it is legal and safe where we live. I don't fit into any of the categories that you list above. The AK fits my wife very well. We use thirty round magazines. 7.62x39 is a light round that is cheap and does not recoil too much.

    I don't scream and rant about rights and the 2nd amendment. I have tried not to say too much on DKos because I know that most of the folks here have very strong feelings against guns and particularly any thing deemed an "assault rifle."

    I think that different areas of the country may need to regulate firearms. I don't see where picking on one type of gun makes much sense. Many crimes are committed with hunting rifles. John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were not killed with "assault rifles".  

    I did write this diary Missing the point about the Aurora shooting.

    My problem with gun control in the rural south where we live is that it wouldn't work any better than prohibition did. My fellow southern is not going to turn in his gun.

    Also, I think one result of gun control laws would be that more African-Americans and Hispanics face even more laws that would subject them to even more prison time and more of them with criminal records. We don't need more prisoners in this country. And I don't think that it would make life in high crime neighborhoods safer.

    "Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright" Curt Siodmak

    by Wisdumb on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 12:52:46 PM PDT

    •  more prohibitions would be good for Wells Fargo (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wisdumb

      a majority owner in the private prison industry...so another law that can be applied to poor(can't afford the rights they were born with) and racial minorities will be good for business.

      From those who live like leeches on the people's lives, We must take back our land again, America!...Langston Hughes

      by KenBee on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 02:24:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  some great thoughts (0+ / 0-)

    2 of them really stand out for me:

    The ADOLESCENT notion that all perceived rights are absolute
    and
    the failure of the modern-day rightwinger to understand that without regulations of all kinds, our lives would be brief and brutal

    (Yes I know I have agressively paraphrased...)

  •  I've read some fascinating comments (0+ / 0-)

    upthread arguing the intent of the founding fathers in the wording they used in the 2nd Amendment.

    There is merit in both of the opposing interpretations.

    I'm more of a "fuck the Constitution" kind of guy.

    The Constitution provided a great blueprint for the development of a well ordered society, and, for the most part, it has served us well.

    But here's the reality: This blueprint was written over two centuries ago by men who lived in a vastly different world. And the amendment process which supposedly makes the Constitution a living document, adaptable to changing circumstances, is so unwieldy as to be virtually meaningless. (After many decades we STILL haven't been able to pass something as basic as the Equal Rights Amendment.)

    In the 21st Century, the idea of 9 political ideologues deciding what is or isn't allowed, based upon whatever spin they choose to put on words written in an era that bears little resemblance to the present, is a prescription for the collapse of society.

    Revolution is inevitable. Men and women of good will can choose to make it a peaceful one, or not.

    Republican Healthcare Plan: Everyone will be encouraged to move to Chris Collins' district, where noone dies of cancer.

    by WisePiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 02:12:25 PM PDT

  •  All Rights Have Limits (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paulie200

    Your 1st Amendment rights do not allow you to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

    Similarly, your 2nd Amendment rights should not allow you to squeeze off 50 rounds per minute in a crowded theater (or anywhere, for that matter).

    Why are 2nd Amendment rights sacrosanct (it's okay to carry a pistol outside the GOP convention) but 1st Amendment rights are fenced in (it's not okay to carry a water pistol there)? It makes no sense.

    In some quarters, the 2nd Amendment carries more weight than the 1st Commandment.

  •  Honestly? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theatre goon

    I am in no mood to be lectured at by a man who, by his own admission, violated several laws by hunting deer cruelly and inhumanely.  I will simply point out that if gun elimination advocates can't be bothered to follow existing law they have no business proposing enacting new statutes.

  •  Another thing. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theatre goon

    By "exotic" weapons, I assume you mean NFA regulated weapons.  If you'd taken five minutes to do...I don't know...some actual research, you might've noticed that the only place civilians can go these days for that experience is to the premise of a Class 3 license holder.

  •  OT, Hi sfzendog! (0+ / 0-)

    Nice meeting you the other evening.

    Hot topic you got here.

    Carry on, everyone.

  •  What I would love to hear from the NRA... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparkalepsy

    I would love to hear them come out and say how many people die due to firearms in this country every year.

    I would love to hear them say it's a goddamn tragedy and ADMIT once and for all that it does not happen in many many other nations similar to our own.

    I would love to hear them say that they are OUTRAGED at what has happened at Va Tech, Columbine, with Gabby Giffords and those around her, this in Aurora, that at some 13 year old girl who's brother just shot her dead in my little town... and around 12,000 more times a year, ever year.

    I want to hear their solutions.
    How do we fix this?
    Because it's PERFECTLY CLEAR that there are places where this shit does not happen.

    I'm sick and tired of NRA and gun types stopping any and all attempts, no matter how reasonable, to control this slowly unfolding self inflicted national horror.

    WHAT DO WE DO NRA? IS THERE A MAGIC INCANTATION!

    And if your magic incantation is 'more guns' you have to prove it, not just make up a nice fantasy scenario about how a hero with a gun could make this all stop.

Meteor Blades, claude, fladem, OkieByAccident, PrahaPartizan, MouseThatRoared, Pescadero Bill, mlharges, hyperstation, Aspe4, polecat, Sandy on Signal, Bob Friend, emelyn, hubcap, niemann, goObama, Paulie200, scribe, busternjake, cfm, Zinman, twcollier, cosmic debris, mrblifil, Wayward Son, farmerhunt, ovals49, someRaven, sngmama, evelette, wonmug, Iberian, splashy, navajo, Chrisfs, SnyperKitty, wader, Texknight, VexingEyes, Dallasdoc, lungfish, dustbin, VinBacchus, TiaRachel, hoolia, i dont get it, BMarshall, Jujuree, Wayward Wind, outragedinSF, JayBat, KateCrashes, zerelda, mungley, Mosquito Pilot, TheOrchid, valadon, Sassy, sawgrass727, sb, radarlady, Tinfoil Hat, DianeNYS, Sparkalepsy, DarlingtonD, democracy inaction, OpherGopher, offred, kamarvt, run around, ChemBob, jparnell, YucatanMan, FutureNow, eru, grog, nwsound, CompaniaHill, SBandini, WisePiper, Shotput8, Red Bean, Cory Bantic, Team Slacker, zozie, kathny, ChuckInReno, Kingsmeg, Clytemnestra, Cartoon Peril, mooshter, Patriot4peace, KenBee, The Wizard, deha, Naniboujou, ktar7582, luckydog, yojimbo, blueoasis, StrayCat, twigg, The Hindsight Times, gooderservice, looty, Cenobyte, CA Nana, una, Mr Horrible, Quicklund, AntKat, cpresley, Thinking Fella, pale cold, john07801, timewarp, pfiore8, Habitat Vic, Loudoun County Dem, Deadicated Marxist, AdamSelene, gloriana, EdSF, epc3, Matt Z, bnasley, US Blues, eashep, Transactivist, millwood, Rumarhazzit, uciguy30, GeorgeXVIII, cloudbustingkid, ByTor, Ralphdog, JDWolverton, MKinTN, rogerdaddy, GAS, Johnny Nucleo, mamamedusa, wagdog, mikeconwell, dewley notid, bluesheep, dagolfnut, Tonga 23, Karen Hedwig Backman, palantir, Mayfly, dmhlt 66, rhutcheson, Purple Priestess, maxcat06, oldliberal, rubyclaire, Glacial Erratic, rudewarrior, mjkellett, greengemini, eltee, Nebraskablue, Zotz, WakeUpNeo, DefendOurConstitution, TheOpinionGuy, IreGyre, stevenwag, boatwright, deviant24x, Larsstephens, brooklyns finest, confitesprit, awcomeon, icemilkcoffee, eXtina, eb23, gulfgal98, nosleep4u, ZedMont, Kelvin Kean, tgrshark13, Mac in Maine, Onomastic, harchickgirl1, StateofEuphoria, Bob Duck, slowbutsure, jm214, hooktool, La Gitane, marleycat, muddy boots, sofa turf, TRPChicago, peregrine kate, bluedust, sekular, VTCC73, randomfacts, wide eyed lib, JoeEngineer, SoCalSal, rscopes, blackjackal, stlsophos, DRo, caryltoo, Azazello, Only Needs a Beat, StonyB, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, cwsmoke, Mindful Nature, Jakkalbessie, Drobin, David54, rustypatina, a2nite, 420 forever, 2thanks, congenitalefty, martinjedlicka, This old man, radical simplicity, BRog, burnt out, ricklewsive, Margd, tytalus, thePhoenix13, splintersawry, FrY10cK, Glen The Plumber, Melanie in IA, Bisbonian, Robynhood too, Sue B, Lily O Lady, MishaBrewer, Panacea Paola, TheMeansAreTheEnd, countwebb, dangreenberg, remembrance, idbecrazyif, Praxical, alice kleeman, Mikesq, Smoh, rigcath, geonello, Elizabeth KS, heartobama

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site