Skip to main content

First of all, I have to tell you up front that I'm a handgun owner and one that really enjoys target shooting and punching holes in old tin cans.  I'm also a dyed in the wool progressive, which is probably an oxymoron; guns and a liberal, what a combination.  

I stopped hunting a long time ago as I found that my love of animals was stronger than my blood lust.  I also am realistic enough to know that the 2nd Amendment is not going to be discarded...but within that short amendment lie two words that the right wing ignores, and probably will wish were never inserted in the sentence...those words are "well regulated".  Voila!

My God, isn't it ironic that the solution to assault weapon ownership, 30 round magazines, and availability of firearms is found within the Amendment itself?  

Ponder those two words..."well regulated"

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 (7+ / 0-)

    "I don't belong to any organized political party, I'm a Democrat"...Will Rogers

    by Castaway Jones on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 08:25:31 AM PST

  •  Hasn't this been settled by Supreme Court? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hmi

    It’s the Supreme Court, stupid! Followed by: It's always the Supreme Court! Progressives will win only when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive.

    by auapplemac on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 08:46:29 AM PST

  •  The crux is current use or use at time of writing (5+ / 0-)

    Current use, is that nothing is well regulated until there's a document the size of 26 CFR, plus Administrative rules.

    (that's the IRS section)

    Historic use via constitution.org.

    •  But more relevant is the question (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      subtropolis

      of what to do if the militia is not well-regulated.  It appears that article 1 allows for provisions for better regulation, but amendment 2 forbids disarmament.  

      States' rights? Corporate rights? Militia rights? Government rights? Hell no! Only individuals have rights. Proud lifelong human supremacist.

      by happymisanthropy on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 10:07:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  the militia in 1812 was a failure (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gerrilea, subtropolis

        20 years of nationhood, a bunch of fingerpointing, and less than unanimous support for challenging English holdings, resulted in a lackluster Militia response.

        The militia performance was quite different 50 years later as the Civil War raged, with more defined objectives.

    •  When written, the words "well regulated" ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy, subtropolis

      meant "in good working order", meaning that the country would need both men and their weapons to be in good working order if the need to use them arose.  However, as a prefatory clause, the need for a militia at the time was never taken to mean it was the ONLY reason the right of the people to bear arms could not be limited.

      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

      by Neuroptimalian on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 01:24:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wow, who's re-interpreting things here? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        subtropolis

        The constitution does not grant rights, it protects ones Americans are born with, ie unalienable. That right is not dependent upon the constitution nor the 2nd A.

        http://supreme.justia.com/...

        6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.
        You seem to have missed this point in your theories here.

        With this understanding established, read the amendment again.

        Clearly it's stating that they only time a person's RKBA can be "regulated" is if they are a Militia member, not anyone else.

        Seriously, would we re-establish the same tyrannical controls we fought against 12 yrs previously?

        http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/...

        Americans started stockpiling guns and ammunition in violation of British laws. Their defense of such a stockpile led to the shots fired at Lexington and Concord and the beginning of the Revolutionary War.
        I am getting older but I haven't forgotten that history!

        -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 Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 03:43:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'd check out that blood lust stuff (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PavePusher, Canis Aureus

    Cause I know a lot of hunters and I really can't say I know any that have it. Might be something more serious and worth looking into seeing as your shooting things.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 09:03:53 AM PST

    •  Unless one cannot afford to buy food, .. (0+ / 0-)

      what other POSSIBLE reason could there be?  Competitiveness?  Bah!  Pass a polygraph; only then will I believe it.  There are plenty of sports that can provide it without any killing involved.

      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

      by Neuroptimalian on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 01:28:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Have you ever gone hunting??? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        subtropolis

        It was something my father and mother taught us.  Did we ever kill anything to eat, nope! Hell, we never actually killed anything but tried.

        There was no "blood lust", it was something we needed to learn to do.

        My Dad taught us how to farm and save seeds and my Mom taught us how to can food.

        Did we ever actually have to utilize these abilities to survive???? NO!

        Again, it was something we needed to learn to do.

        Period!

        They taught us how to survive without civilizations "benefits" because they lived through the depression.

        -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 Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 04:02:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  reading is fundamental (0+ / 0-)

    A danger foreseen is half avoided.

    by ncheyenne on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 09:06:45 AM PST

  •  Well regulated (7+ / 0-)

    in the 18th century meant well supplied and trained, i.e. properly functioning and prepared, rather than it's current meaning of restricted by law or bureaucracy.

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

    by happy camper on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 09:09:06 AM PST

    •  Well regulated (0+ / 0-)

      Yes, I agree, but then we get into the argument as to whether the Constitution is "dead" as Scalia maintains, or a living document.

      "I don't belong to any organized political party, I'm a Democrat"...Will Rogers

      by Castaway Jones on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 09:16:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Camper--strongly disagree on your "definition" (0+ / 0-)

      of "well regulated", esp in 18th century.

      Check the examples of the Oxford English Dictionary
      as reported by 43north above.

      "Well-regulated" 18c usage, OED

      Regulation has more to do with control and training--
      practically nothing to do with "supplied".

      And, an 18th century well regulated militia would be
      expected to turn out on the village green "regularly"
      to register, get instruction, train, drill, etc.

      Stonewall was a RIOT!

      by ExStr8 on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 09:33:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  how can you strongly disagree? (0+ / 0-)

        You're each making essentially the same point. The examples at the link you posted buttress camper's argument as much as yours.

        Anyway, this does make sense to me now. But i'm not sure that i understand the last part of this sentence:

        Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

        All things in the sky are pure to those who have no telescopes. – Charles Fort

        by subtropolis on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 04:36:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  "Well-regulated" (6+ / 0-)

    modifies "militia," not "right."

    •  Damn, I was going to say that too! (0+ / 0-)

      ;)

      The militia must be "well regulated", that's it!

      -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 Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 03:28:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Need a balanced approach (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joy of Fishes, Neuroptimalian

    Unfortunately, the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court recently stated that the prefatory clause to the Second Amendment, which is the one that contains the well regulated militia phrase, does not limit the main clause.   D.C. v. Heller.

    I don't like that opinion, and I do not appreciate some of the snarky comments the Court made in it, especially in light of recent history.  "Grotesque.", to quote the Court itself.

    Anyway, the bottom line as I see it is that the Supreme Court has held that the 2d Amendment gives an individual the right to keep and bear arms for defense of hearth and home.  Thus, the Court struck down a law imposing an absolute ban on handgun ownership and use in the District of Columbia.

    On the other hand, the Court clearly would uphold a ban on rifles like the M-16.  However, I'm not sure whether, in referring to the M-16, the Court was speaking strictly of military assault rifles capable of full auto fire, or whether that includes semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 Bushmaster, which arguably is in "common use" now.

    The majority opinion included a long paragraph praising the advantages of a handgun for home defense.  When I read that, my thought was that a short-barreled shotgun has all these advantages and more, yet sawed-off shotguns are commonly banned.  The Court's 2d amendment sensibilities are informed by what weapons are in common use at any given time.  

    Given the 2d amendment, an effective response to the Newtown shootings and others like them is going to have to be combination of banning certain types of weapons, banning extended magazines, enhanced licensing and registration requirements, more armed guards paid for by taxes on the sale of guns and ammunition, enhanced background checks to acquire a gun, better integration of mental health records with the database used for background checks, enhanced gun buy-back programs, and closing the gun show loophole.   There is going to be nasty political battle every step of the way too.

    No one thing is going to stop mass shootings in the U.S.  All we can hope for is that a combination of these measures will in the aggregate make such incidents less likely.  

    Finally, we are going to have to accept that whatever new gun laws are passed, there are going to be fellow citizens who not only disagree with the laws, but are willing to use force in defiance of the laws, and that good men are going to have to risk their lives, and some are going to have to give their lives, to enforce the law.

    The whole deal sucks, but that is the life we collectively have chosen.

  •  And how do you suppose (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hmi, Neuroptimalian

    one would form a well-regulated militia out of the citizenry, at short notice, unless the citizens had the right to bear arms?

    The Founding Fathers determined they needed that right in order to create militias if needs be.

    Nowhere does it say gun owners need to be in a militia all the time.  Or even ever.  Just that a good militia cannot be formed unless the citizens possessed and were experienced with arms.

    If we feel that determination is wrong, we need to change it.

  •  I've always wondered the same (0+ / 0-)

    I'm not USian so maybe i missed something. I've always been very confused about people who are opposed to regulations citing the 2nd Amendment. Has it already been decided that those two words don't really mean what they seem to mean?

    The people who drafted the Constitution and its Amendments chose their words very carefully. In this particular case, it seems obvious to me that they meant for the government—at some level—to be involved. Though they wisely left the implementation details for future generations.

    Why are these two words ignored? Why aren't they the common response to the bullshit coming from the NRA?

    All things in the sky are pure to those who have no telescopes. – Charles Fort

    by subtropolis on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 04:23:42 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site