Skip to main content

While there is room for reasoned debate among honest, rational people, no amount of legal or historical sophistry can make the NRA's vision for a total lack of gun control in America resemble the "well-regulated militia" mandated by the 2nd Amendment.  What they and likeminded extremists in fact support is gun anarchy - the unchecked, unmonitored, and unaccountable profusion of unlimited firepower into the hands of whoever wants it and can afford it.  There is, by definition, no regulation involved in such a state, and it obviously does not constitute a "militia" when the very concept of discipline, control, and accountability to central authority over the acquisition, storage, and use of weapons is deemed "tyranny."  What the NRA supports, and its Republican Party allies enable, is the opposite of both the letter and intent of the 2nd Amendment, deliberately undermining the "security of a free state" the 2nd Amendment seeks to guarantee and making a "well-regulated militia" effectively impossible.

As shown repeatedly in history - e.g., the Whiskey rebellion that President Washington had to suppress with a show of force - those who claim individual power to veto the policies of an elected state through arms have no intention of service in a compulsory citizen militia where they have to obey orders.  In fact, history even into the present day shows that many of these people arm themselves precisely in order to avoid the accountability of a well-regulated militia, and try to deter the state from imposing it on them with criminal threats of violence.  These are not citizens protecting their own rights or the security of a free state, but petty tyrants who make no distinction between their power to do something and their right to do it.

Some of these people join voluntary private "militias" with no chain of command to the elected government - i.e., they're just paramilitary gangs serving the commands of whatever rich anti-government nut funds them - and in which they basically play at soldiery so long as it suits them.  Unless they would obey the commands of the elected government - which many, if not most of these groups explicitly exist to refuse - they have nothing to do with the "well-regulated militia" stipulated in the Constitution, and certainly nothing to do with enhancing the "security of a free state."  Quite the contrary: Many of these groups revel in the rhetoric of tyrants, threatening to impose ideas and practices on others by force that the American public would never consent to in a free state (e.g., reimposing racial segregation, theocracy, silencing those who speak against them, etc.) and make a hobby of issuing death threats to the elected officers of a free state.  

But most gun extremists are too undisciplined, disorderly, and irresponsible to even handle that level of organization, and it is these who make up the ideological base of the NRA and its fellow travelers.  These are drunken idiots, common thugs, and hate-filled "lone nuts" responsible for so much of the misery and chaos caused by gun anarchy in this country.  Such people may float in and out of organizations that reflect their uniquely paranoid, violent, and narcissistic personalities, or they may just take advantage of the weaponry made available to them due to the complete absence of a well-regulated militia: They love guns simply because the ability to murder a lot of people makes them feel powerful - not because of any preexisting political beliefs or cultural dispositions.  

You know who I'm talking about: Criminally reckless morons who fire off guns into the air at celebrations, shoot random animals that wander by their house for fun, or use bullets to try to open a beer when there's no bottle opener handy.  And in this country, thanks to the NRA, there is no law against carrying a firearm while intoxicated - you could go to jail for operating a motor vehicle drunk because you might kill someone, but it is perfectly legal to carry a semiautomatic assault rifle while being too shitfaced to even recite the alphabet: Something designed to not just kill people, but kill as many people as possible.  In what "well-regulated militia" is that permissible?  What free state's "security" is served by allowing that?

Anarchy is not freedom, but the tyranny of gangs, lone nuts, and rich tyrants with the money to build their own private armies - and the NRA knows it.  The NRA knows the claims they make that gun anarchy improves security are not true: They know that the more unregulated guns there are, and the more firepower they have, the less secure a community is, making people want to buy even more guns just to keep up in the arms race with their neighbors whom they fear.  They know this because the gun manufacturing industry that dictates their agenda knows this - the arms industry is most profitable when society is less secure, and kept in a constant state of fear and trauma.  This is Mayhem for Money, and it's all that the NRA truly serves.  What they didn't count on was that the public would be pushed passed its limit when something like Newtown happened: We would not just shrug and quietly endure more of the same.  Their transparent treason is no longer tolerable.

Frankly, the NRA is waging war on the 2nd Amendment, because a "well-regulated militia" doesn't need a lobbying arm, doesn't buy more weaponry than makes sense, and doesn't sell machine guns to gangbangers and drug cartels: I.e., doesn't serve the firearms industry's bottom line to the same extent that gun anarchy does.  And the same is true of the "security of a free state" - a free state doesn't need high-powered weaponry everywhere in the hands of unaccountable people, and in fact can't long endure such a state of affairs.  The NRA's perverted interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is the 1st and only right the right-wing political element behind the NRA recognizes, and this is what it would read if they were honest about their intentions:

Gun anarchy being necessary to the maximum profits of weapons manufacturers, and the security of a free state being an obstacle to those profits, the right of anyone with money to acquire as much lethal firepower as they please without restriction, obligation, or accountability of any kind shall not be infringed.
Well, it's about time the American people reasserted the supremacy of the US Constitution over the profits of these verminous murderers.  Below are just a few features of a well-regulated militia designed to enhance the security of a free state, and to hell with the paranoid narcissists who would call it "tyranny" to have to follow regulations in exchange for their self-appointed power of life and death over others:
1.  Rigorous monitoring of the location, ownership, storage, and sales history of every firearm.
2.  Criminal penalties for failing to meet the above reporting requirements.
3.  Only the legal owner may fire the gun outside of tightly-controlled conditions.
4.  Training requirements, including not just gun safety and storage, but gun laws.
5.  The greater the firepower, rate of fire, or number of weapons, the more rigorous the reporting, safety, and storage requirements, and the greater the criminal penalties for violating them.
6.  Unique labeling of bullets that allows them to be identified after having been fired, and tracked at every point from manufacturing to use.
7.  Illegal sale or transfer of a firearm makes you legally accomplice to whatever crimes are committed with it.  Losing a firearm or being incautious enough to let it be stolen is reckless endangerment.  Failing to report a loss or theft of a firearm is not only reckless endangerment, but obstruction of justice and subject to accomplice charges in whatever crimes follow from the gun's new possessor.
8.  No being intoxicated while carrying.  Felony penalties.
9.  Must report every time the gun is fired: Where, when, under what conditions, how many rounds expended, and identifying each bullet used.
10.  All firearm manufacturing must be nonprofit to avoid financially incentivizing the promotion of criminality, chaos, and treason.

And most centrally...

11.  Those who enter the citizen militia by virtue of possessing firearms acknowledge the authority of the state to regulate the associated activities.  Otherwise there is no "militia," and indeed no "state."

Needless to say, the NRA would be against every single of these, not to mention the multitude of other measures that would be needed to satisfy the Constitution.  And the reason, as stated, is that they are simply not interested in a well-regulated militia or the security of a free state.  They just want as much money as possible to be transferred from the people into the hands of the arms manufacturers, and they're willing to enable the most hateful, paranoid, criminal, violent domestic enemies of freedom in order to make it happen.  Not "gun rights" - gun anarchy.  None of the Founders wanted that, very few Americans want that, and the 2nd Amendment mandates the exact opposite.  Time to take back our nation's gun laws from the gangsters, psychos, and terrorists who rule them today.

4:35 PM PT: Just an aside: Apparently Stephen King has written an essay in favor of gun control that looks pretty interesting, from the description in The Guardian.  


Originally posted to Troubadour on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 04:08 PM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

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

  •  Pretty much. (14+ / 0-)

    I always find it humorous when gun nuts try to compare guns to cars.  It's as though they're ignorant of all the regulations and rules we have about driving a car in this country.

    28, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

    by TDDVandy on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 04:26:36 PM PST

    •  But like cars... (10+ / 0-)

      ... I think that gun owners should have to purchase insurance on their weapons.  Let the free market set the rates, and let the rest of us breathe a little easier that society doesn't have to pay the bills if one of their "little darlings" loses control.

      I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

      by Hey338Too on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 04:47:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "The bills" are measured in bodies (7+ / 0-)

        and the shattered lives of those who care about them.  Insurance is not enough.

        Pour yourself into the future.

        by Troubadour on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 04:49:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hey - there are two issues regarding insurance (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hey338Too, annecros, PavePusher, notrouble

        No insurance company will insure criminal acts so if the gun was used in a crime there would be no insurance coverage. You won't see Congress even discussing liability insurance for accidental injuries, because unless it was very inexpensive it would likely run into issues under Heller. Legal analysts feel that any tax, fee, or insurance that uses cost to deny access to firearms or ammunition, might have a problem under Heller.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 08:19:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  First of all, Heller is moribund. (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hey338Too, pistolSO, Sandino, cfm, S F Hippie

          It's lawless, made-up crap the conservative 5 just pulled out of their asses.  If they had the authority to do that, they could just issue a proclamation declaring that it is unconstitutional not to pay them a $10 billion salary.  Well, they don't get to do that, and they don't get to interpret the Constitution as meaning the opposite of what it says.

          But as to not depriving anyone of the right to bear arms by requiring insurance that could be expensive, that doesn't stand up to reason:  Not everyone can afford to buy guns in the first place, but the NRA isn't claiming that guns must be made available for free - that would violate their reason for being, the profits of the manufacturers.  In fact, the manufacturers and retailers charging at a markup would be unconstitutional because they would price guns out of someone's range who otherwise has a right to them.  So if that's not the case, then you can't say it denies anyone's rights to simply add expenses.

          Pour yourself into the future.

          by Troubadour on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 08:31:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The ultimate goal of all of these ideas is to... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Troubadour

          ... reduce gun violence.  Unless the insurance company is liable for the gun, the entire endeavor would simply be a means for insurance companies to make obscene profits.  The insurance premium would be priced so as to take into account the potential damage the weapon can inflict on society should it be lost or stolen and the actuarial risks posed by the gun owner.  While the premium may determine the actual weapon the owner chooses to purchase, it wouldn't necessarily prohibit a person from purchasing a weapon.  

          Every 16 year old wants a Porsche, but drives a beater because it's all they can afford because of the insurance.  They can still drive and own a car.  I'm sure that every 21 year old gun nut wants an AR-15, but insurance may force them to stick to a bolt action rifle.  They can still shoot and own a gun.

          I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

          by Hey338Too on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 09:54:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hey - you brought up the topic of insurance (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher, Hey338Too

            so I wanted you to understand why liability insurance isn't part of the discussion in Congress. There are Heller issues and what advocates for insurance would like, funds to compensate victims of gun violence, is likely not insurable. There may be some attempt by one of the states to impose an insurance requirement, although no state could require gun owners buy insurance if there was no insurance products available. However, if a state did require insurance we can watch with interest the lawsuits that would quickly follow.  

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 08:31:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I understand, and I appreciate your comments... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BvueDem

              ... It's an idea that I hope will gain traction, so I mention it where possible in gun related diaries.  

              I found Troubadour's comment about Heller interesting.  I also wonder if Heller is worded somehow to protect firearms and ammunition manufacturers from pricing suits from gun and ammo purchasers.  We've all seen the supply v. demand curves in economics classes, and we know that price (and profit) is a function of both.  It would seem that the manufacturers could be in serious trouble if someone claims that prices are being fixed by corporate constraints on supply - thereby preventing someone from purchasing what they want.  Do you know if Heller address issues like that?

              I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

              by Hey338Too on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:57:30 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hey - there are no Heller issues if the market (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Hey338Too

                sets higher prices for guns based on supply and demand. It's only when governments try to impact the demand by creating a higher cost through taxes, fees or insurance that you would have a Heller issue.

                I found Troubadour's comments about Heller to be nonsensical.

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 11:12:04 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  Mayhem for Money (6+ / 0-)

    and sick kicks for free.

  •  A five day camp week once a year (6+ / 0-)

    Perhaps some of the druggies and administers would be identified, and a few of the fruitcake too.  Awards for safe handling.  Group discussions. Anger exploration workshops . Films of children maimed or killed.  ....

    It seems very right to me.

    •  Good ideas. (10+ / 0-)

      Make gun owners watch the sort of "Red Asphalt" films they make driver's ed and convicted traffic offenders watch.

      This pile of red goo's name was Bob.  He went hunting drunk, tripped, and dropped his rifle...

      This is Kyle.  He was six years old.  Here he is the day before he died.  Here he is ten minutes after he got a hold of his father's gun and started playing with it...

      Here is the aftermath of a robbery.  The two dead patrons in the background were shot by the store owner trying to shoot the robber, not the robber himself, who had merely drawn a knife.  Think guns save lives?  You know what saves more lives?  Not drawing a gun unnecessarily...

      Preach "gun abstinence" the way wingnuts try to tell people not to have sex.

      Pour yourself into the future.

      by Troubadour on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 04:48:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I was talking with a LEO about this the other... (11+ / 0-)

      ... night.  He said that if people want to own firearms to "take the law into their own hands", that they should be required to attend LEO level training for every weapon that they purchase.  He indicated that the training isn't incredibly intensive; it teaches the law, how to clean the weapon, how to store the weapon, and how to use the weapon.  And if a person can't hit a paper target after the training, they shouldn't be allowed to own the gun - just like any law enforcement officer.

      I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

      by Hey338Too on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 04:54:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Did You See the Report in an Earlier Diary That (6+ / 0-)

        law enforcement accuracy when out in the field is only about 17% ?

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 05:32:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  "take the law into their own hands" (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Troubadour, IreGyre, PavePusher, Hey338Too

        LEO level training for someone who might use a gun in the street is good public safety.

        Guns in the hands of those who want to "take the law into their own hands" strike me as a bad idea.

        "Be your own cop", the trip Zimmermann was on, is a completely different mindset from "be your own bodyguard". A trainer for the latter may say, for example, that if you have a clear shot from 75 feet behind cover, you should "run like hell".

        DIY bodyguarding is obviously debatable but it's not the same set of arguments as for vigilantism.

        •  I don't think he meant "take the law..." in that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BvueDem

          way.  I think he meant it more along the lines of not calling the police and trying to evade whoever is in your home until the police arrive.  You know, the vigilante shoot first ask questions later crowd.

          I didn't ask him what he thought of Zimmerman or stand your ground.  I would guess that the doesn't want unsolicited "help" if he's been called somewhere.

          I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

          by Hey338Too on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:08:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Self-defense is NOT... (0+ / 0-)

        "take(ing) the law into their own hands".

        So your LEO is Teh Phale.

    •  and drug testing. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MartyM, Troubadour, Tom Anderson

      Stonewall was a RIOT!

      by ExStr8 on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 05:09:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And spot checks on storage and safety. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ExStr8, PrahaPartizan

        Pour yourself into the future.

        by Troubadour on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 05:19:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Alcohol, too? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ExStr8, PavePusher

        As far as "drug"-related accidental gun deaths go, alcohol usage surely figures most prominently.  But since alcohol use is legal, a drug test would seem to be meaningless and futile.

        And while we're on the subject, what about, say, liberal medical marijuana users?  Since about 40% of Democrats are, supposedly, gun owners, how many of them are likely to oppose this requirement?

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

        by Neuroptimalian on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 07:51:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Driving is legal too, but you're not allowed (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          exterris, ExStr8

          to drink and drive.  You have a right to a gun, but that doesn't mean you have a right to be drunk while handling one.

          Pour yourself into the future.

          by Troubadour on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 07:55:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are, too, allowed to drink and drive. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher

            Unless you meant that literally, as in having an open container in your vehicle.  But you are certainly allowed to drive with alcohol in your bloodstream, just not above a certain threshold.  And there is NO law that makes it illegal to hold a gun while inebriated.

            None of the foregoing, however, has anything whatsoever to do with the point I made.

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

            by Neuroptimalian on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 10:23:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Their actual agenda is to manipulate a bunch (8+ / 0-)

    of extremist into becoming the shock militias of the corporatists, in the anticipation that there will eventually be unrest caused by the carefully executed de-funding of the proper function of government--for the benefit of a rising corporatist fascist regime.

  •  Excellent diary. Thank you. (6+ / 0-)

    Stonewall was a RIOT!

    by ExStr8 on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 05:12:08 PM PST

  •  Massive rec for just the opening paragraph (5+ / 0-)

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

    by nosleep4u on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 05:12:49 PM PST

  •  "a well-regulated militia" is necessary! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour, Canis Aureus

    according to the 2nd Amendment - IF we expect to live in a free state where the people are allowed to possess guns.

    "Tax cuts for the 1% create jobs." -- Republicans, HAHAHA - in China

    by MartyM on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 05:21:38 PM PST

  •  Didn't the Court Eliminate the Militia Requirement (2+ / 0-)

    in saying that there was a fundamental right to bear arms? I do recognize they see a role for firearm regulations though.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 05:31:08 PM PST

    •  The Court can't declare the Constitution (3+ / 0-)

      to be unconstitutional.  

      I wrote a snark diary about that a while back:

      Supreme Court 5-4 Rules Constitution Unconstitutional

      The 2nd Amendment says what it says, and guarantees TWO rights: The right to bear arms, and the right of the people as a whole to regulate the manner of it.

      Pour yourself into the future.

      by Troubadour on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 05:34:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  There never was a militia requirement. n/t (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neuroptimalian, PavePusher, notrouble

      Humans shouldn't be disarmed, for the same reason that cats shouldn't be declawed.

      by happymisanthropy on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 06:47:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The requirement is that the 2nd Amendment (2+ / 0-)

        be interpreted in the context of providing a well-regulated militia and a secure free state.   I.e., the absence of gun control is unconstitutional.  Citizens could technically sue the government for failure to provide it.

        Pour yourself into the future.

        by Troubadour on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 07:01:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But there never was (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PavePusher

          any requirement to join a militia before you could own a gun.  

          Also, nothing in the second amendment provides a militia.  The regulating of the militia falls under Article I, so if there's any truth to your assertion you'll need to look for it there.

          the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

          by happymisanthropy on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 07:08:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Let me try to explain it in more depth. (5+ / 0-)

            I'm not saying you have to join the militia to own a gun - I'm saying the very act of owning a gun automatically makes you part of the militia, and subject to the authority and discipline involved - this was the understanding at the time the 2nd Amendment was written.

            Furthermore, I'm not saying the 2nd provides a militia - I'm saying it requires that the interpretation of the right to bear arms be such that it enables a well-regulated militia and public safety.  Interpretations that do the opposite, such as the NRA's gun anarchy, are unconstitutional, and many states are in violation of the 2nd Amendment by not adequately regulating gun owners to protect the general citizenry and enforce order.

            Pour yourself into the future.

            by Troubadour on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 07:12:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  wrong. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher

              women who own guns are not part of the militia, unless they join the national guard.

              the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

              by happymisanthropy on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 07:56:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sure they are. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ExStr8

                Pour yourself into the future.

                by Troubadour on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 08:08:04 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  if you say so. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Kickemout, PavePusher

                  10 USC § 311

                  a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

                  the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

                  by happymisanthropy on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 08:24:46 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  that is just silly. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Troubadour

                There is no reason why a woman could not be called as a part of the militia, and some notable women faced combat during our revolution.  US codes could in fact be revised or challenged on this matter.

                Happily you do agree, I see, that a militia does exist, and that there could be a reason to require that gun owners be qualified to serve.

            •  More precisely, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher, notrouble

              the SC held that the "militia" phrase prefacing the 2nd Amendment was merely a prefatory clause; i.e., the need for a militia is one reason that citizens have the right to bear arms, but it is not the only reason.

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

              by Neuroptimalian on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 07:58:08 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  More lawless, made-up excuses from corrupt (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ExStr8

                right-wing "Justices."  Excuse me, but to just dismiss something actually stated in the 2nd Amendment in deference to something not even hinted at is bullshit.  Scalia et al are making up the law as they go along and shredding the Constitution in the process.  As far as I'm concerned, they were just mumbling incoherently to themselves when they said that, because it had nothing to do with the laws of this country.

                Pour yourself into the future.

                by Troubadour on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 08:09:59 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Alrighty then. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PavePusher, notrouble

                  One thing:  the SC Justices were appointed to interpret the Constitution; you weren't.  You don't even have a law degree.  What "laws of this country" are you even referring to?  I can't think of a single one that comes close to inferring what you infer.

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

                  by Neuroptimalian on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 10:32:20 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The 2nd Amendment. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    S F Hippie, ExStr8

                    And what if the Corrupt Five handed down an opinion stating that it's unconstitutional not to pay them each a $10 billion salary?  What if they handed down an opinion that the Constitution mandates that people with red hair must be sacrificed to Baal?  They are not oligarchs - their decisions have to have a plausible legal basis, and I know theirs don't because I can fucking read and the US Constitution is not written in fucking Sanskrit.

                    Pour yourself into the future.

                    by Troubadour on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 11:11:20 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  "What if"? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      notrouble

                      When they do, let us know.

                      If you were talking about only one Justice's interpretation, you might have something, but it's FIVE ... out of NINE, meaning the MAJORITY's interpretation, as provided for in the Constitution, is what counts and nothing else.  I'm certain when any five agree and issue a decision you like, the ACA for example, you don't have a problem with the system.  Yet many people are just as outraged by that as you are about gun control.  Should we ignore the SC and let the dissenters have their way, like you wish you could have yours here?  

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

                      by Neuroptimalian on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 10:26:24 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

    •  Heller decision said individual but regulated (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Troubadour, PavePusher

      The furthest Scalia could push things was that outright bans were illegal but that the government had authority to regulate firearms ownership and use.

      Many lawyers's kids will be able to afford college because of the open questions there.

    •  You can't eliminate what was never there. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      notrouble

      The militia clause is not, grammatically, historically, or in any case law, a restriction on "the right of the people".

  •  Basically I'm in complete agreement with these (3+ / 0-)

    points.  However, I fear that we have so many armed criminals out there that any such proposals are way too late to prevent the sort of out of control violence that we see now.

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 06:15:56 PM PST

    •  Stop the flow of unregulated weaponry, (4+ / 0-)

      eliminate the profit motive from gun manufacturing, and hold those who possess firearms rigorously accountable, and the swamp will dry up.  

      Pour yourself into the future.

      by Troubadour on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 06:27:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's right (4+ / 0-)

        We eliminated the profit motive from alcohol manufacturing, we held those that possessed alcohol to be rigorously accountable and alcohol use disappeared entirely.

        •  What the hell are you talking about? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DefendOurConstitution

          Pour yourself into the future.

          by Troubadour on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 07:32:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It worked so well for marijuana, too (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wishbone, exterris, PavePusher

            During Prohibition, when alcohol was illegal; no one sold illegal alcohol, no one drank and no one smuggled alcohol into the country.

            •  Is this snark, or did you actually just... (3+ / 0-)

              equate the lack of success in banning victimless crimes that most people enjoy at one time or another with gun control measures that have proven overwhelmingly effective throughout the world, and which only complete nutjobs and gun industry executives oppose?  Unless you're kidding, your comment is too goddam stupid for Daily Kos.

              Pour yourself into the future.

              by Troubadour on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 07:49:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Mexico, too (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wishbone, Kickemout, PavePusher

                Guns are very illegal in Mexico.  Even more illegal than they are in Chicago.

                There are no shootings or murders by firearm in Mexico.

                In Vermont, 16-year-olds can get concealed carry permits.  Vermont must have the highest murder rate in the country.

                •  You know where they get the guns in Mexico? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  S F Hippie

                  Texas and Arizona.  It's a lot harder to get illegal guns in places not adjacent to regions where guns are totally unregulated and ubiquitous - gun control works just fine in the UK.  If the US as a whole were to actually respect the 2nd Amendment right of the people to regulate firearms, where the hell are the illegal ones supposed to be smuggled from?  Russia?  That's a little more difficult than having tens of millions of them floating around unregulated.

                  Now, are you planning to toss out of every single debunked NRA talking point and gun nut fallacy ever before uttered in the history of the issue?  Because you seem to be on track for it.  

                  Pour yourself into the future.

                  by Troubadour on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 08:17:05 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  you should add in (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Troubadour

                  Sweden, UK, France, Spain, Netherlands, Canada, Japan.... they too have very high gun mortality rates due to gun deregulation...The Swiss?  Well...

              •  "Victimless"? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                pistolSO, PavePusher

                Hardly.  The primary motive of the women who led the movement to prohibit alcohol usage was that they were sick and tired of their husbands' abusive treatment of them, which was caused by their alcohol consumption.

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

                by Neuroptimalian on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 08:00:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, victimless. Nothing about alcohol (0+ / 0-)

                  is physiologically designed to elicit violent responses.  People in ancient times used alcoholic drinks as their primary staple food.  If you're going to compare a source of chemical recreation to a weapon specifically designed to maximize death and destruction, I don't know how to take your opinion seriously.  But even within the context of what you're saying, that just reinforces my point about criminal penalties for being intoxicated while armed.

                  Pour yourself into the future.

                  by Troubadour on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 08:25:08 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Gah! (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PavePusher, notrouble

                    I'm sure millions of victims of drunk husbands and boyfriends (and even wives and girlfriends, friends and strangers) would beg to disagree.  The defense that alcohol isn't "physiologically designed" to do something is ridiculous; alcohol isn't "designed" to do anything; it is what it is.  But it is an EXTREME form of denial to believe that its consumption doesn't result in violence in many cases.

                    I also disagree that "most people" have "enjoyed" alcohol at one time or another.  Although many have tasted it, and many have gone on to drink it regularly, many don't "enjoy" it so much as they consume it to alter their minds.  And MANY don't, and have never, consumed any whatsoever.  I'm assuming you're a regular imbiber, given that that's a common defense they use.

                    That said, I don't disagree that people under the influence of any such substance should be anywhere near any weapon.  But good luck getting such a law passed.

                    And no, no one in history ever used alcohol as a "primary staple food".  Primary drink, yes, for various reasons, but liquid is not food, especially one that has no nutritious value.

                    Lastly, I am not a gun owner; never have been, hopefully never will need to be.  But if society worsens significantly, I'll be glad to have the right to defend myself if I feel it necessary.  ALL constitutional rights should be respected, period.  Figure out a way to keep guns out of the hands of the impaired, and only the impaired, and you're on to something.  

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

                    by Neuroptimalian on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 10:51:38 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Comparing deaths by accident and reckless (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      S F Hippie

                      driving of automobiles - things that were never designed as weapons - to murders using things designed specifically to be murder weapons is insane, and is an NRA talking point I have no intention of tolerating.  

                      Auto manufacturers, safety regulatory bodies, and urban planners go out of their way to make cars as safe and non-lethal as practical.  Gun manufacturers, however, go out of their way to make guns as convenient a set of murder weapons as they possibly can, and nothing short of the most rigorous regulation can keep them under reasonable control.

                      But good luck getting such a law passed.
                      What the hell kind of an attitude is that?  Good luck getting 13 fractious colonies who despise and fear each other to all split from the world's most powerful empire at the same time and remain united through a war.  Good luck landing men on the Moon in a decade and repeating the feat six times.  Good luck winning the Cold War.  This shit is just a matter of sustained civic action, nothing more.
                      And no, no one in history ever used alcohol as a "primary staple food".
                      They used alcoholic beverages as a staple food - beverages with high caloric content.
                      Primary drink, yes, for various reasons, but liquid is not food, especially one that has no nutritious value.
                      We don't drink the same stuff they did, precisely because it's thick and filling.  We want it for the alcohol alone, and want to avoid the calories that ancient peoples survived by.

                      Pour yourself into the future.

                      by Troubadour on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 11:08:33 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  "Victimless crime?" (0+ / 0-)

                Alcohol is responsible for about 75,000 deaths each year in the USA. Many of those are innocent victims of intoxicated individuals.

                A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

                by notrouble on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 11:14:23 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  We sure as hell didn't eliminate the profit motive (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Troubadour, PavePusher

              Further, if memory serves it was manufacture and sale of alcohol that was illegal, not possession.

              Not that I'm in favor of creating black markets.

    •  Is it the armed criminals you're afraid of? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PavePusher

      Or is it the guy in the car behind you who thinks you're going too slow and who hasn't been convicted of anything yet?

      Or is it the guy with the arsenal and the Red Dawn fantasies?

  •  Brilliant! (5+ / 0-)

    Wish I could recommend this 100 times.

  •  Outstanding! (5+ / 0-)

    Thank you for writing this.

  •  Thank you Troubadour! Well thought out and (6+ / 0-)

    clear.  When I grow up I want to write diaries like you.

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 07:46:44 PM PST

  •  The second amendment was written to defend (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour

    Slavery.  Just like the 3 fifths clause.  The South did not trust the North.  Thus the South had well armed militias at the start of the Civil War.  Thanks to the 2nd amendment as intended.

    http://www.saf.org/...

    •  Hmm, I didn't know that. (0+ / 0-)

      Nonetheless, as written, it's a perfectly benign right.  The damage all comes from the NRA's insane perversion that ignores the references to a "well-regulated militia" and "security of a free state."

      Pour yourself into the future.

      by Troubadour on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 11:38:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's way more complicated than that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharon Wraight

      It is documented that suppression of a slave revolt was on the minds of many people while the constitution was drafted, but the argument that this was the primary motivation for the 2nd ammendment and the existence of militias in states is a caricature of reality. The fact that this gross simplification is so often and vigorously presented on these forums misinforms rather than informs this dicussion. The truth, as always, is somewhere in between.

      •  This interpretation is perfectly historically (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sharon Wraight, BvueDem

        Consistent.

        The intention of this amendment was not stated.  Where else are the south's standing armies justified?

        The Slave states needed this amendment to defend slavery from the enemies of slavery.

        •  A militia (0+ / 0-)

          is not a standing army, so no Southern state had a standing army. No state has ever had a standing army. States had/have militias. This includes Northern and non-slave states. Your interpretation is only historically consistent if you ignore most of the document information. It is therefore misleading.

  •  Tipped and Recc'd, although I doubt that (0+ / 0-)

    most of the items on your list could pass in their current state-- there'd be some movement on some of those. But I think a lot of the recommendations are good starting points, at least.

    Some of the ones about marking every individual bullet and the like, for example. More likely things would be done by lot numbers-- otherwise you're talking about a massive information overload that would actually hinder police work by having to wade through a tsunami of data.

    I've stated in a number of diaries that the answer to the firearm situation is already in place, and that is that we simply focus on the "well-regulated militia" and bring some discipline and organization to it.

    Overall I like and agree with the basis of your diary here, and think that your list of recommended actions is a good place to start. I'll probably post another diary myself soon about how a formalized militia could be organized and used, and the role it could play, etc.

  •  well-regulated (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PavePusher, notrouble

    meant good at shooting and able to march around in lines at the time.

  •  2nd Amendment=America's 'original sin'. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sharon Wraight

    It's the lethal fault built into our violent society. It is completely irrelevant to any notion of freedom from tyranny that sane individuals can consider, yet it sustains a level of widespread lethal violence nationwide that horrifies people in Europe or Japan.

    Anyone else remember when foreign embassies were warning their citizens to avoid rental cars in Florida after a wave of lethal car-jackings of tourists?

    Yeah. That's how people around the world see Americans. As gun-toting savages. And not without reason.

  •  You need to do some more reading. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    notrouble

    http://constitution.org/...

    http://www.guncite.com/...

    http://www.guncite.com/...

    http://www.guncite.com/...

    And this:

    And in this country, thanks to the NRA, there is no law against carrying a firearm while intoxicated...
    indicates that you are either deeply confused, didn't actually do any research, or are pushing a falsehood to drive an agenda.

    You can link to many state and federal gun laws here: www.handgunlaw.us

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site