Skip to main content

I really tire of ignorant NRA gun enthusiasts yelling "Second Amendment, Second Amendment" whenever someone tries to prevent some of the rivers of blood created by gun violence.  

Case in point: regulating rapid fire assault weapons and high-capacity clips.  The dumbshits, and I use that work with malice aforethough, yell that it is their Second Amendment right to have fun with these weapons and clips regardless of their use in massacres of innocents.  That is, their selfish fun, their kicks in which they feel powerful having and firing a weapon that can kill many people in a very short amount of time, is more important than the lives of others.  More important than those who perished in massacres and no doubt will perish in the future.  

As Mr. Kelly (husband of Gabby Giffords) showed, such limitations would have saved lives in Tuscon Arizona.  Even in a mass shooting, perhaps 10 die instead of 20.  Isn't that possibility of saving a few lives worth a limitation on your fun?  Even one life?  

Leaving aside the moral bankruptcy of the fun-with-guns absolutists, they don't know shit about law.  Here is a small excerpt of the American Bar Association President's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee:        

While some maintain that the Second Amendment should apply to prevent any regulation of assault weapons and high-capacity clips, the ABA believes that the individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment must be understood to have some limits, just as does the First Amendment and every individual right under our Constitution. As it is often noted regarding the right to free speech that there is no right to falsely cry “fire” in a crowded theater, likewise there are limits to Second Amendment rights, They must be balanced against other rights in serving the common welfare, including protecting the safety of children and all citizens from especially dangerous weapons. It is on this basis that fully automatic “machine guns” have been carefully regulated since the 1930s. As Justice Scalia stated in his majority opinion in the Heller case:
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [United States v.] Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.
The muskets of the 18th Century and other single-shot weapons have little in common with the military-style assault weapons today and the 100-round ammunition drum that was used at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. These are unusually dangerous weapons, which the government may regulate under the Second Amendment and the Heller decision. We believe the government has a duty to do so to protect the common good – specifically, the safety of American citizens.
LAUREL G. BELLOWS, President on behalf of the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
for the record of the hearing on WHAT SHOULD AMERICA DO ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE?
before the Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. SENATE January 30, 2013

Heller, some may remember, was the most expansive Second Amendment decision in our history in which the Supreme Court overturned 100 years of precedent and held in a 5 to 4 opinion that a handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.  

The decision was heavily criticized for its expansion of the Second Amendment [and likely will be overturned if one vote changes on the supreme court].  Here are a few criticisms from conservatve jurists who think the decision was constitutionally flawed (even though they may like the policy outcome) from a wikepedia article on the case:

Richard Posner, judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, compares Heller to Roe v. Wade, stating that it created a federal constitutional right that did not previously exist, and he asserts that the originalist method – to which Justice Antonin Scalia claims to adhere – would have yielded the opposite result of the majority opinion.

snip

J. Harvie Wilkinson III, chief judge of United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [and noted conservative], consents to Posner's analysis, stating that Heller “encourages Americans to do what conservative jurists warned for years they should not do: bypass the ballot and seek to press their political agenda in the courts.”[65]

wiekpedia

But even under Heller, rapid fire weapons and high capacity clips can be outlawed consistent with the Second Amendment.  The most expansive intepretation of the Second Amendment in our history allows that.

So don't go hiding your moral bankrupcy and selfishness behind the Second Amendment.   The plain fact is that you think that fun with guns is worth the sacrifice of innocents.  Own your selfishness and disregard for others!  Don't try to hide behind the US Constitution.

Originally posted to TomP on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 08:20 AM 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

  •  Man, I hate this originalism stuff (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, stevej, kharma, Hey338Too

    "[I]n common use at the time"? Scalia's interpretation of the Constitution requires that it be frozen in amber back in the 1780s and I couldn't imagine a less healthy way to read the document.

    In this case, of course, it's great that there's an escape clause giving a way for folks to actually regulate deadly weapons. I suppose if that's what a Scalia-originalist interpretation is good for, I'll take it.

    But I detest the fact that, in order to do it, we have to treat the Constitution as a museum piece. A society whose founding documents are interpreted through the eyes of the eighteenth century cannot possibly survive in the 21st.

    •  I agree, and Scalia (6+ / 0-)

      had to use his own theory like a pretzel to get there.  But regardless, there is an escape hatch.

      Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

      by TomP on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 08:40:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I really wish the national media would've covered. (4+ / 0-)

        the hearing that was held in Connecticut the other day better; the hearing in which one of the fathers who lost a child @ Sandy Hook spoke so eloquently and from the heart about how the 2nd Amendment shouldn't supersede his child's right (or anyone else's) to life and the pursuit of happiness enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, which existed before any constitutional amendment.

        I don't remember the man's name but I will remember what he said that day for the rest of my life.

        Instead, the media had to cover Wayne LaPierre's disingenuous screed about how we all should just live in a perpetual state of anarchy in this country because criminals won't follow the laws anyway.

        Even if I tried really, really hard, I couldn't think of a less credible witness at any congressional hearing on guns who, incidentally, comes complete with no less than an obvious bought-and-paid-for conflict of interest.

        Thanks for the diary, Tom.

        "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." ~ Aldous Huxley

        by markthshark on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 09:49:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  IANAL, but, I think you are twisting Scalia's (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fuzzyguy

        interpretation yourself.

        We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [United States v.] Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
            Unless you also agree that the First Amendment applies free speech only to the audible spoken word, quill pens, and printing presses using hand-set type...
             The implication I read is that the weapons protected are the ones commonly in use at this time. Miller allowed the banning of sawed-off shotguns and submachine guns as weapons not in common use at that time. Heller held that handguns are in common use at this time, and therefore can't be the subject of a blanket ban. Given that there are  (by some estimates) over 3.5 million AR-15 type rifles in private hands in the United States, they can also be described as "in common use."

        -7.25, -6.26

        We are men of action; lies do not become us.

        by ER Doc on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 10:32:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Court opinion itself is twisted in knots (0+ / 0-)

          around what kinds of weapons are permissible, but left no doubt that certain kinds of regulations were very much permissible:

          nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of  arms.
               We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” ...
               It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.
          The handgun ban amounts to aprohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.
    •  asdf (6+ / 0-)
      But I detest the fact that, in order to do it, we have to treat the Constitution as a museum piece.
      Not only that, we have to treat the founding Fathers as infallible. The irony of this of course is that the FFs would have probably laughed themselves stupid if they could have seen how it would play out.

      This non American is very confused.

      •  we don't have to treat them as infallible; (7+ / 0-)

        that's why we have the amendment process.

      •  To the GOP, the FF's are like Jesus... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kharma

        ...open to their own interpretation, and revisionist history.  Perhaps a hollywood (ala D'souza, NOT liberal hollywood) version of Jesus and the FFs is more to their liking.

        This is not at all surprising.  After all, their revisionist history is all they have, certainly from the last 10 years.  It is literally just about all they have to grasp at from the W years.

        Buy Aldus Shrugged : The Antidote to Ayn Rand, and tear Ayn and the GOP new orifices. ALL ROYALTIES BETWEEN NOW AND MARCH 1, DONATED TO THIS SITE, DAILYKOS!! @floydbluealdus1

        by Floyd Blue on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 09:37:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, they do think the FF's are like Jesus (0+ / 0-)

          They just love to quote them. That is why we need to study and quote them right back. Because, the Founders opinions on various subjects were not universally one. In fact, several of them held conflicting opinions on the very same subjects.

          What they did express was interpreting the Constitution based upon the document itself and not upon their opinions on the document. This fact gets very little coverage.

          I love to quote them Madison on the separation of church and state, "religion and government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together".

          And, I love the quote by Jefferson that goes something like this, ". . .government paid for by the contributions of the rich alone, where the poor farmer will see his children educated and his roads paved without contributing a dime of his own income". Man, wingnuts hate that quote and posting it up on Redstate will immediately get you tossed off of the site for good!

          •  I love those quotes.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            matador

            ....I do notice that the most rabid gop freemarketeers never ever quote the guy you would think would be their rabbi:  Adam Smith.

            No wonder!  And this is directly from The Wealth of Nations, their supposed manifesto:

            "Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer.

            What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole.  No society can surely be flourishing and happy of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.

            The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities."

            (I quoted these directly at the end of Aldus Shrugged.  I love the irony!!)

            Buy Aldus Shrugged : The Antidote to Ayn Rand, and tear Ayn and the GOP new orifices. ALL ROYALTIES BETWEEN NOW AND MARCH 1, DONATED TO THIS SITE, DAILYKOS!! @floydbluealdus1

            by Floyd Blue on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 11:57:37 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  They'd surely be laughing (or perhaps crying)... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TomP

        about how misguided one of the nation's two main political parties turned out to be.

        Actually, I think the Founding fathers deserve credit for their profound insight and broad circumspection of life itself in a representative democracy.

        The irony of this of course is that the FFs would have probably laughed themselves stupid if they could have seen how it would play out.
        This "strict constructionism" meme regarding the U.S. Constitution is a myth. Nothing stays the same. Certainly not life. I'll always believe (and logic dictates) that the Founding Fathers were smart enough to realize that things are literally bound to change over time. It's called natural progression of life on Planet Earth, and our Constitution should reflect those inevitable changes.

        This hallowed document; this blueprint for governance they left us was fundamentally a rough guideline that allowed for adaptation to contemporary changes in it's interpretation, and should be both defined and refined as needed over time.

        "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." ~ Aldous Huxley

        by markthshark on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 10:24:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hateful invective helps clarify issues and (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fuzzyguy, sensetolisten

    persuade others, and if you don't fully accept my beliefs on the subject, you are demonstrating your selfishness, disregard for others, and moral bankruptcy.

    Not to mention your ignorance: the term for "magazine" is "magazine," not "clip."

    Have a lovely day brandishing your pretty, shiny, self-amusing malice.

    YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

    by raincrow on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 08:43:13 AM PST

  •  This statement is false. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fuzzyguy, johnny wurster, ER Doc
    As it is often noted regarding the right to free speech that there is no right to falsely cry “fire” in a crowded theater, likewise there are limits to Second Amendment rights, They must be balanced against other rights in serving the common welfare, including protecting the safety of children and all citizens from especially dangerous weapons. It is on this basis that fully automatic “machine guns” have been carefully regulated since the 1930s.
    No. Wrong on the law, and wrong on the facts.

    The NFA was upheld in US vs. Miller in 1939 because the justices held:

    "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
    The NFA was not ruled constitutional because public safety trumped the right contained in the 2nd, but because - in the opinion of the justices - the weapons were exotic without military use.

    There was no opposing counsel in Miller. Had there been, the counsel might have pointed out that short-barreled shotguns were widely used with great effect in WWI, and thus did actually bear a reasonable relationship to such - the Justices' understanding of the facts is incorrect; and a different understanding may well have produced a different ruling, using the very same legal reasoning.

    The same would be true of full-auto weapons; these may have been exotic in the 1920s, but by 1939, there was nothing exotic about them. But since the case was not about "machine guns", but a sawed-off shotgun, it was not relevant to the ruling.

    The court added:

    These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
    The "reasonable relationship" standard most certainly would apply to the semi-auto variants of general-issue battle rifles, and the magazines that feed them. Heller is not the be-all/end-all of gun rulings. The proposed AW and LCM bans fail, on their face, the standard set in Miller 74 years ago.

    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 Feb 01, 2013 at 08:48:56 AM PST

  •  In 1934, Congress severly restritcted the private (12+ / 0-)

    possession and transfer of fully-automatic weapons ("Machine guns") and required their registration.  Nothing in Heller questioned the constitutionality of THAT ban.  Yet, somehow, 80 years later, we are on our way to fascism if semi-automatic weapons are similarly resricted.

    The logic totally escapes me.  

  •  magazines (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Robobagpiper, fuzzyguy

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 08:57:57 AM PST

  •  Respectfully, (0+ / 0-)

    I am not a "fun with guns" RW fanatic, nor am I an ignorant NRA member, nor do I even own a firearm, but none-the-less, I read the "right to bear arms shall not be infringed" to mean that "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." 

    Limitations? 

    Sure.... if someone is a convicted felon, we need to have universal background checks to prevent them from purchasing firearms. 

    Now, if you want to establish another limitation, while I do respect it, I however may not agree with it. But the  thing that I would like you to respectfully consider is this:

    I see all of you anti 2nd Amendment folks sharing one fundamental belief, namely: that the 2nd Amendment is no longer necessary to protect our freedom. However, I would like you to honestly answer one question for me:

    Do you honestly believe that Bush/Cheney would have relinquished power if not for the 2nd Amendment?

    Let's review the facts:

    Bush/Cheney attempted what can easily be said to be an outright coup, involving massive corruption, public unapologetic admission of torture on national tv, tyrannical wars under false pretenses with trumped up lies killing untold hundreds of thousands of people, thousands of Americans, trillions of dollars, repeal of Habeas Corpus, illegal wire taps, corporate corruption on a massive industrial scale, (most likely) stolen elections in 2000 and 2004, etc etc etc .... and with the very real threat of a tribunal at the Hague for War crimes, or maybe even war crime prosecution here.... 

    Personally, but no, I am sorry. I absolutely do not believe that Bush/Cheney would have relinquished power had it not been for the 2nd Amendment ... if not for an armed populace ... a populace that is armed to the teeth. Bush/Cheney would not dare resist the will of the people in a nation where the populace is armed. 

    Do you? Honestly? 

    Could you look me in the eye and honestly tell me that you do? 

    And if you say, "yes" ... I am sorry, but I don't believe you. 

    Answer me this: How many innocent souls (Iraqi or American) were killed in the Iraq war?

    How many? 

    Answer: too many! 

    SO
    Before you start preaching to me about "rivers of blood", you might want to check your facts and try to remember the last 8 years. Sorry, even if there are 10 times the number of these shootings, I really don't care.. because the government (ANY and ALL governments) can always be far far worse, AND THEY HAVE WITHIN OUR LIFETIME... within our childrens lifetime ... in fact, just yearerday ....

    FACT: all governments are or can be capricious and untrustworthy, by their very nature. 

    PERIOD!

    So, if you tell me that the 2nd Amendment is no longer necessary, I am gonna challenge you every time. 

    Every time.

    And I find it profoundly ironic that it is the Republicans who are supporting the 2nd Amendment right and not the Democrats... in light of the recent abuses of power by Bush and Cheney. Just thought there should be some perspective in this discussion.... rather than your insulting dismissal of those of us who are defending the 2nd Amendment as being merely "ignorant NRA gun enthusiasts" because I am becoming tired of that insulting ignorant refrain. The founding fathers enshrined the 2A for a reason. And it was a very wise and prescient reason, of you ask me. 

    •  Absurd question based on (7+ / 0-)

      a silly premise:

      Do you honestly believe that Bush/Cheney would have relinquished power if not for the 2nd Amendment?
      Yes, I do.

      Guns do not restrain the US Government.

      As an American, I reject treason and the use of violence against this nation.  
       

      Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

      by TomP on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 09:36:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  When the fuck did "Second Amendment (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DefendOurConstitution, kharma, TomP

        solutions" become other than RW memes on Daily Kos?  Sheesh.  And from a 600k UID.  Nah.  I don't find that curious!

        •  So let me get this straight (0+ / 0-)

          You (and three of your friends) are incriminating me because I mention that the US CONSTITUTION protects our freedoms? 

          Really? 

          Seriously? 

          Yes my UID is 600k+ ... I am new to Daily Kos. Obviously. And since you mention this... as a new member of your online community, are you seriously informing me that according to you (and the entire Daily Kos community) the US CONSTITUTION is a "RW meme"? 

          ... a right wing meme?????

          Seriously? 

          So, the US CONSTITUTION is not a respected document here? It is merely a right wing meme

          Seriously!!!!!?????

          Interesting. Very interesting.

          Excuse me for asking, but....

          What nation are you from (no no no, don't bother answering, Mr. "Its the Supreme Court Stupid", Mr. "DefendOurConstitution", Mr. "Kharma", and Mr:"TomP" ........ that's merely a rhetorical question) because your choice to incriminate me for mentioning the US CONSTITUTION suggests to me that you are not from the United States of America..... at least, not from the same United States of America that I am from.

          (And I sure do hope you all see the supremely profound irony that DefendOurConstitution is incriminating me for DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION.... !!!!!!!!!)

          ROFLMFAO!!!!

          Btw, that was sarcasm, because I really would laugh, if it were not so profoundly sad.

          Now, I am sorry if this offends you all, but I am even inclined to ask:

          Have you ever heard of John Adams? George Washington? Thomas Jefferson? Benjamin Franklin? The American Revolution? The Decleration of Independence? Does this nation's history mean anything to you? Does it mean NOTHING to you?

          Apparently not..........

          Because you sure as heck sound like you ain't from the same country that I was born and raised in!

          QUESTION: Are you telling me (and are you telling the world) that the entire Daily Kos community does not hold the US CONSTITUTION as sacrosanct? 

          Are you? 

          Do you want to go on the record with that? 

          Do you? 

          Apparently so... and duly noted.

          Good to know.

          "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."
      •  I reject treason too. (0+ / 0-)

        Who said that I didn't?

        It is insulting for you to suggest or imply that I am.

        However, if Bush/Cheney had failed to transfer power to Obama, now THAT would have been treason. And THAT was my point, and you know it. So please refrain from insults of this nature.

        Now, you say that you do (believe that Bush/Cheney would have transferred power.)

        I don't believe you.

        I don't believe that you're being honest with yourself. I believe that you are blinded by your emotional reaction to the horrific events in Newtown. I believe that you will say whatever it takes to make yourself feel safe and soothe your emotional trauma, even if it means lying. Just as you are most certainly lying about what my words have implied. You loose credibility and respect, when you do this.

        But, be that as it may.  My point remains. I am not the fanatic "gun loving" audience that you are portraying as the ardent supporters of the 2A. Fact is, I have never owned a gun. But, I none-the-less support the 2 Amendment Constitutional Right, because I (sadly) think that it is necessary. You do not. I respect you and your opinion. I disagree with your opinion, but I respect it and I respect you. Please respect me and mine. Save your insulting tirades.

        FACT: The Founding Fathers of this nation fought a war against the ruling government, due to tyranny by their own government. As a result of that first hand experience of tyranny by their own government, the Founding Fathers enshrined the individual's right to bear arms, to safeguard the individual against tyranny by their own government. This is the historical context. This is an historical fact. This is our heritage.

        Everyone knows this.

        You know this.

        I know this.

        EVERYONE knows this.

        "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."
    •  Well, I read "A well-regulated militia (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      being necessary to the defense of a free state,..." to mean that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the defense of a free state, and to modify that which comes thereafter.

      As for your "Second Amendment solutions", that is treading real close to HR territory.  Sharon Angel-style politics are NOT appreciated here!

      •  FACT (0+ / 0-)

        FACT: The Founding Fathers of this nation fought a war against the ruling government, due to tyranny by their own government. As a result of that first hand experience of tyranny by their own government, the Founding Fathers enshrined the individual's right to bear arms, to safeguard the individual against tyranny by their own government. The "well regulated militia" being the joining of many individuals exercising their individual "right to bear arms" as they so choose to defend their individual freedom against the tyranny by their own government. This is the historical context. This is the historical rationale. This is the historical intent. This is an historical fact. This is our heritage.

        Everyone knows this.

        You know this.

        I know this.

        EVERYONE knows this.

        Any and all attempts to deny this are willfully fraudulent.

        "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."
      •  And threats of UNWARRENTED abusive HR (0+ / 0-)

        will not make your argument any less fraudulent.

    •  Well, by your own logic I'd say that the ban on (0+ / 0-)

      criminals and those with mental illness is an infringement on a criminal or mentally ill persons right to bear arms. Let's get that overturned immediately....

      I read the "right to bear arms shall not be infringed" to mean that "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

      Limitations?


        Are not limitations an infringement?

      Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.

      by teabaggerssuckbalz on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 07:43:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are being willfully myopic (0+ / 0-)

        because the comparison was to "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" and you know it.

         A criminal who has engaged in a violent crime may have forsaken their "right to bear arms" just as they may have forsaken their "right to walk free" and you know that too.

        You cannot win this discussion with childishly transparent games of misleading sarcasm.... no matter how artful you think you're being, trust me, you're not. 

        Your lack of respect for the 2A in your willlfully ignoring our very own colonial history in the American Revolution and the first hand experience of tyrrany by our own government that our founding father's fought with blood sweat and tears to overcome that drove their insistence upon enshrining the individual's "right to bear arms" is proving you all to be hypocrites of the highest order.

        And you call yourselves a "reality based community" .... not so much, apparently. 

        And you posture yourselves as honest historians .... only when it suits you, apparently. 

        And you claim to be the defenders of the US Constitution.... hypocrites is more like it, apparently. 

        You are proving yourselves to be petty lying dishonest rude bullies, whenever someone challenges you on issues you disagree with. I may be new here but it doesn't take a low Daily Kos UID to see that you are giving Daily Kos a bad name. 

        I am a liberal.

        I am a progressive.

        I am a Democrat.

        I support Obama.

        And, I also support the 2A.

        And there are a lot of us around. 

        Deal with it. Respect it. Or loose your relevance in the national narrative, because the NRA (idiot) Republicans aren't the only ones defending the 2A, in case you hadn't noticed.

        •  Well quite honestly in reading the rabid defense (0+ / 0-)

          Of 2A I'd have to agree with Wayne on the issue of mental health, I think if given a true mental health assessment that a good 90% of 'law abiding gun owners' would be banned. Incessant and perpetual paranoia, irrational fears that everyone is out to get them, that the government is out to get them and their guns, that a hundred round magazine is vital for hunting vermin or deer- yeah, pretty damn obvious a mental health issue there.
             A limitation is indeed an infringement, call it whatever you'd like to fit your narrative  

          Noun    1.    infringement - an act that disregards an agreement or a right
          2.infringement - a crime less serious than a felony
           
          2act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:
          to limit or reduce someone's legal rights or freedom
            Nothing childish about that, those are straight from a few different dictionaries.
             Quite frankly I don't give a shit about Scalia's interpretation of much of anything, do you clamor to protect Citizens United vs FEC in the same manner? I don't believe in massive gun proliferation and will apologize to no one for my feelings towards it, if in the end it costs Dems votes, so be it, I prefer to be on the right side of this debate.
             I have owned guns in the past, mine were all what you would call sniper rifles, Accuracy Internatioal PM, 4 different Parker Hales, a 1200 and it's military version, the M82, a M83, a few Rem 700's, a Steyr SSG 69- All very heavily modified for competitive shooting. So no, I am by no means unfamiliar with the workings of rifles and have a very clear understanding on what one can be used for. High cap mags have no place whatsoever in civilian hands. For your info every rifle I owned had a military counterpart and not a one had a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds.  
             When you have a child killed by guns, when you've had 9 friends gunned down over the years as I have and you can still hoop and holler about their greatness to any and all things, well, be my guest.
             I am a liberal.
             I am an Independent.
             I support Obama on most issues and spent well into 500-550 hrs helping to get him elected.
             I am not nor have I ever been a one issue voter.
             Nothing good comes fast and nothing good comes easy but it's a fight I'm more than willing to take on, fuck the repercussions politically.
              Have at it.
              I will

          Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.

          by teabaggerssuckbalz on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 04:55:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You have avoided the central (0+ / 0-)

            issues that I raised. Typical.

            I am no fan of Scalia's, though I agree with his ruling on the 2A.

            I am absolutely not a supporter of the Citizens United decision.

            Please do not insult me in this manner again.

            If you want to mention volunteer hours, as a measure of something, here goes:

            FACT:

            Given your 550 hour number, I spent more volunteer hours getting Obama elected than you did, many times over.

            I spent more volunteer hours in the primary election of 2008 alone, than your 550, getting Obama elected.

            I spent more volunteer hours in the general election of 2008 alone, than your 550, getting Obama elected.

            I spent more volunteer hours in 2011 alone, for Obama's 2012 campaign, than your 550, getting Obama elected.

            I spent about 500 to 550 hours in 2012, for Obama's 2012 campaign, than your 550, getting Obama elected... but then, I was very ill during the last 6 weeks of the election.... but even being very ill, I still put in about 150 to 180 hours in those last 6 weeks.

            Do you not presume to judge me, Sir.

            You avoid completely the primary subject of the writings, efforts, and intent of the founding fathers, as well as, this nation's colonial history, which means you have no honor in your discourse.

            I have nothing more to say to you.

  •  How dare you have an opinion about (8+ / 0-)

    dead babies in school, dead teenagers sheltering from rain, trauma and nightmare when you do not know the difference between magazines and clips?
    The only opinion which matters is that of the experts, don't ya know.
    O, and don't you dare mess with a woman's right to choose.
    Her right to choose 30 clip assault weapons, that is. Did I get the lingo right?
    Excuse me while I puke!

    Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

    by JoanMar on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 09:57:03 AM PST

  •  Scalia is a strict-constructionalist (4+ / 0-)

    And, since he believes that the Constitution is "dead," and believes that it only has relevance as to when it was written, then Scalia would outlaw assault rifles, extended magazines and the like...because they did not exist when the 2nd Amendment was written.  He cannot have it both ways.

  •  Glad you mentioned Mark Kelly. I think his.. (6+ / 0-)

    ..testimony identified an important meme/language/wording that could take hold nationally.

    Gabrielle Giffords Husband made a powerful argument against high capacity clips during the senate gun control hearings.
    Kelly on High Capacity Magazines  -
     

    A heated argument erupted on high capacity magazines. Dick Durbin argued with Kopel about how many bullets should be allowed in a magazine. Kopel said a hundred round magazine would be silly and not function. But he defended 33 round magazines. Kelly interjected that that if Jared Loughner had had a 10 round magazine he probably would not have been able to shoot Christina Taylor Green, the nine year-old girl he killed. She was killed, Kelly said, with the 13th round. And Loughner dropped his second magazine. Kelly has been clinical and direct in discussing the shooting.

    The 13th round - could be a focus point in discussions. It's hard remembering but much harder to forget imo

    Senate gun hearings with transcript & video @ Link - Jan 30, 2013 10:46am

  •  Deliberate? Keep and "carry"? (0+ / 0-)

    WTF?

    "Bear arms" is vastly different than "carry arms", judging by some of the scholarly stuff I've read here on dKos...

    sheesh...

    Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

    by k9disc on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 10:55:07 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site