Skip to main content

to be safe.

Pro-gun people are advocating for violating the constitutional right to safety (implicit in many parts).

Who agrees with me?

Frame the debate as safety.

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

  •  There is no constitutional right to safety (13+ / 0-)

    because no government could ever guarantee your safety.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:48:02 PM PST

    •  There is the right to life (6+ / 0-)

      An inalienable right which trumps a Constitutional right.  

    •  but doesn't more safety (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharon Wraight, mungley

      make a more perfect union?

      doesn't it promote the general welfare?

      I have reservations about your statements to be frank.

      Bill clinton got through gun legislation because of framing the argument as public safety.

      •  sreeizzle - I think framing the issue as (7+ / 0-)

        public safety, rather than gun control, is very smart politics. However, it has nothing to do with constitutional rights. We have no constitutional right to safety, and if we did you could argue that you should have the right to be armed to protect yourself and be "safe". A "right" to safety isn't a constitutional framework to enhance gun control laws. That won't work.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:25:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not only am I seeing safety (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sharon Wraight

          in the preamble, I read this link and see connections between 14th amendment and safety too

          http://constitution.findlaw.com/...

        •  We hold these truths to be self-evident: (0+ / 0-)
          We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [humans] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...
          One can always find outlier studies and biased 'science' (funded indirectly by vested or partisan interests), but a scientific consensus has emerged among objective studies that for the average citizen owning a gun is more likely to take life (including the owner's) than to preserve it.* We are the reality-based community.

          When we have a Supreme Court that is no longer as ideologically right-wing as the current lot, then hopefully they will better weigh these tradeoffs. For some perspective, see William M. Landes and Richard A. Posner of the University of Chicago Law School, "Rational Judicial Behavior: A Statistical Study" (NBER 2008). They rank the fraction of conservative votes in non-unanimous cases from from 1937-2006. The most extreme conservatives on the bench over the last 70 years are all recent. Out of 43 Justices, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito rank 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th respectively. (Rehnquist ranked 2nd; Kenney is 10th). To repeat: 4 of the 5 most right-wing Justices in three generations sit on the bench today.

          --------------------------
          *There are hundreds of such studies, in peer-reviewed scientific journals. A few examples:
          Azrael, Deborah and David Hemenway, “'In the Safety of Your Own Home': Results From a National Survey on Gun Use at Home,” Social Science and Medicine 50(2) (2000): 285-291

          Bailey, James et al., “Risk Factors for Violent Death of Women in the Home,” Archives of Internal Medicine, 157(7) (1997): 777-782

          Kellermann, Arthur L. et al., “Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home,” Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, 45(2) (1998): 263-267

          Kellermann, Arthur L. MD, MPH, et al., “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home,” New England Journal of Medicine, 329(15) (1993): 1084-1091

          Wiebe, Douglas J. PhD., “Homicide and Suicide Risks Associated With Firearms in the Home: A National Case-Control Study,” Annals of Emergency Medicine 41(6) (2003): 771-782

          Wiebe, DJ, "Firearms in U.S. Homes as a Risk Factor for Unintentional Gunshot Fatality," Accident Analysis and Prevention 35(2003)711-716

          Join us at RASA: Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment. (Repeal will not ban guns, just help regulate them.)

          by Sharon Wraight on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:07:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  That's false (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sreeizzle2012, annecros
      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..
      The government can't guarantee any rights by your definition.

      It is only the restraint of the government they guarantee for any rights.

      That doesn't mean they don't exist, because they can be violated by individuals or naturally.

      That tension between the right to life and security and the right to bear arms is a problem.

      •  The restraint on unwarranted search and seizure (3+ / 0-)

        protects against arbitrary and capricious governmental actions without adequate process that infringes upon the individual liberty interest -- not safety.

        As has been noted frequently, safety is not an enumerated constitutional right -- we are, however, afforded the constitutional guarantee to protect ourselves through the 2nd Amendment.

        •  Well if an individual. not acting for the (0+ / 0-)

          government, disarms you then you aren't armed anymore.

          you want to argue semantics? You don't need to paraphrase the Bill of Rights. They wrote it better than you.

          •  I agree they wrote it much better, but that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            annecros

            doesn't explain why you still don't seem to understand it -- whether respecting the 2nd or the 4th Amendments.

            •  If you think we don't have a right to safety (0+ / 0-)

              that entails the government's responsibility to keep us so, you don't understand the purpose of our government, let alone the bill of rights, or liberalism.

              I really don't know what you are trying to say. But rights define  the conditions of our safety, from both the government and anyone else.

              Are you trying to be clever with the word safety?

              The governments purpose is to keep us safe, as stated in the preamble and as specified in the constitutional amendments.

  •  The 2nd can't be "undermined" (9+ / 0-)

    unless you (not you specifically, of course) amend, or get rid of it all together.

    Please explain, or provide links, where "safety" is an protected right in our constitution, or its amendments - Thank you in advance....IMO, the 2nd would come closest to providing that "right" - I'll wait until I see your links and/or explanation.

    •  what I am saying is that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kentucky Kid, Sharon Wraight

      the 2nd amendment is very important and sacred for the preservation of our society.

      At the same time, gun policies and other policies pertaining to the second amendment can't be violating the implicit constitutional right to be safe and the inalienable right to life.

      Therefore, we must be respect ALL aspects of the constitution ALL of the time.

      The NRA and many who take gun rights seriously are advocating policies that respect the 2nd amendment but violate the other rights I mentioned.

      Safety is what makes a union more perfect and it promotes the general welfare and well being of people. Safety is therefore applicable to the preamble of the constitution for starters.

      We all grew up learning the ABCs of safety and how "safety comes first". Safety officers have taught us that.

      Universal Background checks can be easily set up in a way to ensure that guns do not get in the hands of criminals and people with mental issues who can be a danger to society. Gun laws are so lax in many states such that these people can get guns and undermine people's safety and lives. It is important to be pro-life right? The NRA is against that if you have been following Wayne Lapierre lately.

      •  I support universal background checks (6+ / 0-)

        and a robust data base with all 50 states fully participating adding in the critical data so the background checks really work.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:29:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm still waiting on your links to support that. (5+ / 0-)

        Until then, to me anyway, you can't say that the 2nd "undermines" any right at all - you're actually trying to undermine the 2nd.

        I'm not saying that we don't need to improve some things - just as you mentioned about background checks. I agree - States should be required to keep all of their records for NICS checks up to date - both legally (ie convictions, epo's, etc.) as well as mental conditions  (not sure how far I'd go or include with that, but it's part of what PBO wants). Congress also would have to provide the funds to enforce this, which currently is obviously lacking.

        I really believe that beefing up the NICS, as well as putting man hours (which again, Congress controls the $$ for that) into catching & prosecuting straw purchasers, as well as any FFL's that don't follow the laws and procedures for the NICS checks.

        •  I am not in favor of undermining (4+ / 0-)

          the 2nd amendment. Let me make that clear.

          What do you consider "undermining" specifically?

          Also, read the preamble of the constitution.

          We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

          I see many ways with how safety is deeply connected here.

          Also, even in the 2nd amendment, regulation is mentioned.

          "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. "

          So I don't see why some regulation, even particularly reasonable gun legislation, is so terrifying for some gun owners. President Obama has NEVER said "I support taking guns". There are no transcripts or media videos of that.

          Lastly, there are connections between safety and the 14th amendment.

          http://constitution.findlaw.com/...

          By the way, I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I just have problems with lax gun laws. I really believe we can write gun laws in a way that still respects the second amendment and improves the safety and welfare of other people.

          I searched as well as I could and explained as best as I can. If you disagree that safety is  connected to the constitution at all, please feel free to explain to me your thoughts.

          Thanks.

          •  sreeizzle, I've got to say that you're an (5+ / 0-)

            breath of fresh air, and much appreciated, considering that we're pretty much on opposite "sides" of the 2nd. I really appreciate that - I'm used to being called names, people doubting my manhood, making fun of where I live, etc...rather than actually discussing the issue.

            As for the "undermining", I was playing off of your title - turning it around, so to speak.

            I do agree that safety is somewhat in the preamble - in two areas mainly (to me anyway). By justice, I'd think that means by protecting the safety of people after the incident has happened by prosecution. The other is common defense. Who provides this defense to us? The SC recently ruled that LEO's are not responsible for "protecting" us, so who is it then left up to? It's got to be the individual person, and as such, I think I should be able to provide for my, and my family's safety as best I can.

            I won't get into the 1st part of the 2nd, because that'd be diary worthy on it's own, but in an nutshell, the first part partially explains why we have "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

            •  there is some truth to that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KenBee

              weapons are used by the military for a strong national defense and protection. That is all fine and dandy.

              In other words, the 2nd amendment really is not a problem.

              Some people are just taking things too far and lax gun legislation IMO is allowing that to happen, compromising security, safety, and people's lives.

              The NRA is a bad influence, particularly of their position on universal background checks.

        •  btw here is the nra against backgroud checks (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KenBee
          •  I care not about the NRA. Never been a member (3+ / 0-)
          •  what dumbass!..85% vs NRA..give it up boys (2+ / 0-)

            you lost, my advice is to quickly pivot to the co-optation part of the effort.

            geez, thanks for the link.

            Part of that argument is the concern about a national database of gun owners whose guns were purchased after this screening.
                . Both sides of the issue fear monger a then mandatory registration of previously possessed guns.That inflames the issue making universal bg checks harder politically.

            Universal BG check shouldn't be this hard to pass, the database argument could be defused imo:

            There are good arguments for not having a national database...TSA No Fly list, abuse, sales of it, hacked and published etc etc.

            A universal FFL background check need not become a gun database to function. It should focus on the person, the buyer, not serve as a catchall for the particular guns owned.

            Currently the FFL application posted here recently has a space to ID the gun sold, serial number, and description.
               That should be not an issue for GO/NO GO determination of the applicant. It NEED NOT be an issue.

            The serial number and description details instead could be held at the FFL dealer if a gun's serial number becomes an issue in a crime investigation.

              In this way, a registry only includes people who applied to purchase, and when, where, and how many times. That is the needed data.

              The application for the Universal Background check would not produce a basically useless gun description database but would have no record of if and what was purchased.  This information would be readily available with a simple warrant at the FFL dealer. ( and that FFL licensed dealer info would be a smaller database to be abused and at risk. And is already part of their FFL burden I think.)
                The  serial number would be tracked to the dealer from the FFL database, produced from data submitted by FFL dealers and mfgs....already collected I think...
                 The sales to that person, IF the FFL application was approved, could be obtained from the dealer presuming a warrant. Maybe that warrant and request could be made electronic somehow and still remain constitutional if speed is necessary.

            .....

              Maybe that idea could be part of a compromise proposal to decrease the gun owner's resistance to this and maybe get it more politically acceptable as a compromise, and still be an acceptable and useful screening tool.

            We do need the Universal Background screening and this may help get it.

            This machine kills Fascists.

            by KenBee on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:49:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  to be clearer, heh, the NRA prsnit is the dumbass, (0+ / 0-)

            not the diarist.

            The big difference is the diarist and the other people here are trying to make a better world.

            This machine kills Fascists.

            by KenBee on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:53:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Please don't conflate the NRA with... (0+ / 0-)

            ...the majority of gun owners in the country.  There is a huge gap in what the NRA says and what the average gun owner says and believes.

      •  One Society On Earth Needs Arms Right to Preserve (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shaharazade

        itself. Strong evidence that that idea is incorrect.

        This is not to deny that bearing arms is a right here.

        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 Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:57:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  well in the sense (0+ / 0-)

          the military, police, and other key people.

          You see what I mean?

        •  As others have said ... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          notrouble, annecros

          It is a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs.  

          The stronger evidence that the underlying constitutional principles are correct is that we as a political and legal society continually assert the principle belief in fundamental individual liberties in the face of over-reaching governmental action.

          It's an ongoing struggle and the battle against the 2nd Amendment is no different that the fight we're losing on the 4th.

      •  background checks and the 2nd amendment (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ancblu

        are not in great conflict.

        It's been ruled on a bunch, and background checks, the money and time necessary to make that a good tool instead of a feel good waste of time and money is fundamental want of most or all of the rkba people here on dkos.

        If you are arguing to do away with the 2nd A to then somehow confiscate or something, that is a whole nother argument.

        but background checks, sure thing. Fund it.

        This link shows some of the stupidity posted by johnnumbers earlier that passes for government in this area: the state has the money FROM FFL fees, and it has not been used to catch ex felons and those proscribed from possession..and KNOWN to be in possession from being searched and their guns removed and whatever else from that process...

        They had the money. Stashed away.

        So far have not used it, yet they KNOW of ex felons, you know, often considered to be proven assholes taking the long way back to public favor, that have guns...and they in the DoJ haven't done crap about it. Cause money.

        Plenty of money in the MJ busts sometimes..but not useful to grab ex felons known to have guns. Somehow.

        It is left to the overworked and underfunded local PD to find them one way or another.

        Geezus P.

        So you want them to have more laws to not fund and not but only sporadically enforce.

        Read that article. And these are Democrats in gun grabby California!..well, ok, maybe we can blame the Dukemejian stay behinds...Grey Davis, he's always good for kick?

        This machine kills Fascists.

        by KenBee on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:07:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  What I learned in school is that your rights end (5+ / 0-)

    at my nose. So, you have the right, under Heller, to have limited guns. And I have the right to not be shot by a gun.

    •  OMG that is the 4th amendement (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharon Wraight

      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.[1]

  •  Not a diary...not even close... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Victor Ward

    In fact, barely a comment.

  •  It's a bit late in the day to be changing name (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Victor Ward

    don't you think?  "Gun safety" means something.  So does "gun control."  Just about everyone is for "gun safety."  Not so much for "gun control."

    So, I'm going to continue calling it "gun control," okay?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site