Skip to main content

Bill Of Rights
Thanks to the judicial activism of the right-wing extremists of the Roberts Court, there is an individual constitutional right to bear arms. That is the current law. That is the current official interpretation of the meaning of the vague words of the small, exclusive and exclusionary group of white Protestant men, some of whom were slave owners, some of whom were monarchists, and none of whom seemed to think women should be allowed to participate in governance, who lived more than two centuries ago but whose words more than two centuries later are considered sacrosanct for guiding us through the modern world. That doesn't mean that the current interpretation of those vague words always will be the law, but it is the law for now. And while those opposed to regulation of guns can take comfort in the judicial activism of those right wing extremists of the Roberts Court, liberals and progressives and people who care about history and precedent and judicial integrity can find at least intellectual coherence and honor in the words of Justice John Paul Stevens, whose dissent to that extremist right wing judicial activism was joined by the Court's three other honest members:
Since our decision in Miller, hundreds of judges have relied on the view of the Amendment we endorsed there;2 we ourselves affirmed it in 1980. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55 , n. 8 (1980).3 No new evidence has surfaced since 1980 supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to curtail the power of Congress to regulate civilian use or misuse of weapons. Indeed, a review of the drafting history of the Amendment demonstrates that its Framers rejected proposals that would have broadened its coverage to include such uses.

The opinion the Court announces today fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons. Unable to point to any such evidence, the Court stakes its holding on a strained and unpersuasive reading of the Amendment’s text; significantly different provisions in the 1689 English Bill of Rights, and in various 19th-century State Constitutions; postenactment commentary that was available to the Court when it decided Miller; and, ultimately, a feeble attempt to distinguish Miller that places more emphasis on the Court’s decisional process than on the reasoning in the opinion itself.

Even if the textual and historical arguments on both sides of the issue were evenly balanced, respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on this Court, and for the rule of law itself, see Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U. S. 600, 636 (1974) (Stewart, J., dissenting), would prevent most jurists from endorsing such a dramatic upheaval in the law.4 As Justice Cardozo observed years ago, the “labor of judges would be increased almost to the breaking point if every past decision could be reopened in every case, and one could not lay one’s own course of bricks on the secure foundation of the courses laid by others who had gone before him.” The Nature of the Judicial Process 149 (1921).

But until a more honest Court reverses this abominable ruling, the law is the law, and the individual right to bear arms is officially sanctioned. It is, for now, a constitutional right. It also is an anomaly in so many ways, not the least of which is that while so many subsequently written constitutions, for nations all around the globe, have been deliberately modeled on the U.S. Bill of Rights, and its encoding such Enlightenment ideals as free speech, freedom of assembly, a free press, and freedom of worship, they somehow have neglected to include the freedom to own and carry firearms. Similarly, while oppressed people from all around the globe dream of being able to escape to or transform their governments into similarly encoding those Englightenment ideals, those oppressed peoples never seem to clamor after the right to own and carry firearms. Similarly, the people of not one nation that has enacted regulations and restrictions on the right to own and carry firearms clamors for repeal of those regulations and restrictions.

The constitutional right to own and carry firearms, now encoded in the United States thanks to the judicial activism of  the right wing extremists of the Roberts Court, is unique among economically developed democratic nations. It stands in bloody contrast to the evolution of humanity, with all other economically developed democracies strictly regulating private ownership of firearms, and in some cases effectively banning it. But for now, in the United States, the individual right to own and carry firearms is a constitutional right. And yet, even in the United States, it is a unique constitutional right. It is an anomaly both among economically developed democracies and it is an anomaly among constitutional rights in the United States. It is, in fact, an abomination. Because this one constitutional right bears an enormous human cost. A staggeringly mind-boggling human cost. A cost of 11,078 homicides and 19,392 suicides in just the last measured year. A cost of more American lives lost than in all wars Americans have fought in, ever, combined. No other constitutional right comes at such a cost in human sacrifice. No other constitutional right would be allowed to stand at such a cost in human sacrifice.

(More over the fold)

From the most innocent of children to this nation's most celebrated military marksman, the former sometimes dying in accidents and sometimes deliberately slaughtered, and the latter, after surviving four tours of the hell that was the Iraq War, coming home to be with his family only to die in the hell that is America's gun culture, the only two things all the victims of this constitutional right have in common is that they were killed by violence, and that none of them deserved it. From the countless killed by domestic violence to those shot randomly in drive-bys, the only two things all the victims of this constitutional right have in common is that they were killed by violence, and that none of them deserved it. From those murdered while holiday shopping at a mall in Oregon to those murdered attending the opening night of a blockbuster movie in Colorado to those murdered observing their religion at a temple in Wisconsin to those murdered attending a party in Alabama, the only two things all the victims of this constitutional right have in common is that they were killed by violence, and that none of them deserved it. And then there were the students: kindergartners in Connecticut, high schoolers in Ohio, college students in California and Texas— the only two things all the victims of this constitutional right have in common is that they were killed by violence, and that none of them deserved it. And their survivors, too, all of their survivors— grandparents, parents, siblings, children, grandchildren, all friends and loved ones, their lives forever shattered, also victims of this constitutional right, also none of them deserving it. And all of this within just the past year. And the list could go on and on.

Since the incomprehensible horror of Dec. 14, the death toll is 1,803, and rising daily. Free speech doesn't come at the cost of human sacrifice, and yet there are limits on free speech to protect human life. Freedom of the press doesn't kill people, and yet there are limits on press freedom to protect human rights. Freedom of religion doesn't kill people, and indeed, there are limits on religious freedom to protect human life. But there are virtually no limits on the right to own and carry firearms, and to anyone with a basic sense of humanity, the toll in human lives is overwhelming. No other people in the world would consider such human sacrifice. Every other economically developed democracy has the same violent video games, the same violent movies, and the same violent TV shows as the United States, and the population of every other economically developed democracy suffers from poverty and income disparity and mental illness; but none suffers anything remotely similar to the rate of gun-related homicides and suicides suffered by the United States. Little wonder that such large majorities of Americans want that constitutional right to include strong regulations and restrictions. Human sacrifice is too high a price for such an anomalous and archaic value, and the American people, although generally supportive of gun ownership rights, and hesitant about the abstract concept of gun control, strongly support President Obama's specific measures to regulate gun ownership, including bans on high capacity magazines and assault weapons. Even in states with large numbers of gun owners, such as Michigan and Pennsylvania and North Carolina and Colorado and Oregon. Even in Texas, a plurality supports an assault weapons ban.

Public opinion is clear, and demographic shifts will continue to make it even more clear. The United States will catch up to the rest of the economically developed democratic world. No constitutional right should come at the cost of thousands of annual human sacrifices. The American people already understand that, and no longer are willing to accept the price. The American people support the right to own guns, but they want that right strictly regulated. It's time for the politicians to follow. Their failure to do so will be measured in blood.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:00 PM PST.

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

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

  •  The murder of Chris Kyle (45+ / 0-)

    should be a lesson to all the gun nuts: Even at a gun range, there were not enough "good guys with guns" to stop the one bad guy with a gun.

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

    by TDDVandy on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:08:52 PM PST

    •  Twitter Tag #gunfail (21+ / 0-)

      and the 18% accuracy of the NYPD under live fire conditions based on the Rand Study just beating the national average of 17%.

      I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

      by JML9999 on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:12:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  There are no lessons (19+ / 0-)

      that gun nuts understand.  Their love for and dependence on their weapons to validate their man cards supercede all else.

      If the Republicans ever find out that Barack Obama favors respiration, we'll be a one-party system inside two minutes. - Alan Lewis

      by MadRuth on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:25:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Compensating for something else? n/t (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        akmk, MadRuth

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

        by TDDVandy on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:43:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Repubs are big on waving the constituion... except (13+ / 0-)

        When it comes to the Post office...

        Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution, known as the Postal Clause or the Postal Power, empowers Congress "To establish Post Offices and post Roads".

        History

        The Postal Clause was added to the Constitution primarily to facilitate interstate communication, as well as to create a source of revenue for the early United States.[1][2] There were some early disagreements as to the boundaries of the Postal Power. John Jay, in a letter to George Washington, opined that the postal service should not be burdened with the responsibility for handling newspaper delivery, and also suggested that the Post Office be placed under the supervision of the executive branch (a suggestion which later led to the creation of the Post Office Department).[3] Thomas Jefferson feared that the postal service would become a source of patronage and a waste of money. Jefferson also expressed doubt at granting Congress the power to designate post roads, as he considered road building to be a state responsibility.[4]

        Interpretation

        The Clause has been construed to give Congress the enumerated power to designate mail routes and construct or designate post offices, with the implied authority to carry, deliver, and regulate the mails of the United States as a whole. An early controversy was whether Congress had the power to actually build post roads and post offices, or merely designate which lands and roads were to be used for this purpose, and to what extent that power could be delegated to the Postmaster General.[5] The U.S. Supreme Court construed the power narrowly during the early part of the 19th century, holding that the power consisted mostly of designation of roads and sites, but gradually gave way later on, allowing appropriation of land for postal purposes.[6]

        The Postal Power also includes the power to designate certain materials as nonmailable, and to pass statutes criminalizing abuses of the postal system (such as mail fraud and armed robbery of post offices).[7] This power has been used by Congress and the Postmaster General to exclude obscene materials from the mails, beginning with an act in 1872 to ban lottery circulars from the mails, as well as the Comstock laws in 1873.[6][7] These attempts at limiting the content of the mails were upheld by the Supreme Court, but in the 20th century, the Court took a more assertive approach in striking down postal laws which limited free expression, particularly as it related to political materials.[6][7] The First Amendment thus provided a check on the Postal Power.

      •  Gun culture refuses to hear: They just don't care! (7+ / 0-)

        No number of dead children will influnce their arguement for the right to continue to support their killing machines.

      •  Doesn't it though? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        snowwoman, MadRuth, sethtriggs, indie17

        Our lives matter little----compared to the right of gun-nuts to purchase---own---and sell guns.

        What a sad---sad commentary for this country.

        The chief justices who uphold this nightmare should resign in disgrace----and they should.

        They are literally purveyors for this public nightmare---this is absolutely a public health-crisis in this country--- brought about by these gun-friendly rulings.

        This SCOTUS protects the gun manufacturers and the gun buyers---but they have proven themselves unable---or unwilling to protect American citizens.

        This SCOTUS is a threat---an actual danger to all Americans.

        Shame on them---they need to leave.

        There is no sanctity in gun-ownership: we are betrayed as a people.

        A cost of more American lives lost than in all wars Americans have fought in, ever, combined.

         No other constitutional right comes at such a cost in human sacrifice.

         No other constitutional right would be allowed to stand at such a cost in human sacrifice.

        Mayan Word For 'Apocalypse' Actually Translates More Accurately As "Time Of Pale Obese Gun Monsters."......the Onion

        by lyvwyr101 on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 06:50:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  You have over-extrapolated. (6+ / 0-)

      A common failing of would-be gun-banners.

    •  Nor were there enough "good guys with guns" (8+ / 0-)

      at Fort Hood, the most heavily fortified military fortress in Texas.

      Sure wish somebody had brought that up to LaPierre during the Senate hearings, because he's apparently never going to have to answer hard questions from the lamestream media.

      •  My understanding is that unless your in one of (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sethtriggs, wishbone, irishwitch

        a few designated roles that is an exception, soldiers are not allowed to be armed on base.  In addition, many who appear to be armed, may not actually have bullets in their guns.

      •  Fort is not a fortified military fortress. (0+ / 0-)

        Where do you get you information about Fort Hood...from an uninformed opinion?  The truth is that more soldiers would have died that day if combat veterans, who were there and unarmed, had not taken real steps to prevent more death that day.  The murderer was a terrorist, and yeah sometimes the good guys are unarmed.  Where were you that day...listening to your own sounding board? While others...your fellow citizens...were defending your freedom and your right to say what you want, even if ill informed.

      •  Fort Hood (0+ / 0-)

        Only the military police carry guns on Fort Hood. Everyone else only has them during firing practice. Hasan's victims were unarmed up to the point the MPs came on the scene.

        And they stopped his rampage... using guns.

        Do you still want to hold out the Fort Hood example? Because it seems that it really supports the opposite of your stance.

  •  Questions: (7+ / 0-)

    1. What do you mean that no other amendment would be allowed to stand?

    2. Is each justice with the majority in Heller a right-wing extremist?

    I see what you did there.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:09:50 PM PST

    •  As to #2: (22+ / 0-)
      2. Is each justice with the majority in Heller a right-wing extremist?
      With the exception of Anthony Kennedy (on a few issues), the answer is pretty much yes.  

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:13:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

        •  Damn thing reminds me of the famous sci-fi story, (13+ / 0-)

          "A Canticle for Leibowitz," in which a 600-year-old post-apocalyptic grocery list is taken as holy script.

          “pound pastrami, can kraut, six bagels–bring home for Emma.”
          That's about what the poorly worded, widely misunderstood, slave-militia-preserving (as Richard Lyon noted here) Second Amendment represents.

          The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

          A Canticle for Leibowitz

          "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

          by Kombema on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:35:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What do Walter M. Miller, Jr., Joseph Heller, (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kombema, Gooserock, rbird, ItsSimpleSimon

            and Howard Zinn have in common?  All were in B-25s in the Italian campaign of WWII.  And Kurt Vonnegut experienced the bombing from the other end.  Send shivers down my spine to think of it.

            "We refuse to fight in a war started by men who refused to fight in a war." -freewayblogger

            by Bisbonian on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:49:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  2nd Amendent not about slave patrols (11+ / 0-)

            http://www.theroot.com/...

            Please at least not distort history for partisan aims.  

            Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism the roles are reversed.

            by DavidMS on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:51:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sorry, no, that was at least a big part of it. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Blood, a2nite

              Read the following and tell me otherwise. It was slave states maintaining their right to keep armed white slave militias to prevent or put down the many slave rebellions that had occurred by 1792, in large measure to keep the federal government from taking away their arms.

              THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT -- Carl T. Bogus

              The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

              "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

              by Kombema on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 07:07:39 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  cites michael bellesiles (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ancblu, DavidMS

                therefore its credibility is zero.

                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 Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 07:59:19 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Wrong. One discredited academic doesn't invalidate (0+ / 0-)

                  the clear history of the actual principals at the time, whose own words indicate the central role of the slave-state militia issue in pushing for the Second Amendment in the BOR, to enable ratification.

                  "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

                  by Kombema on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 08:22:00 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If one congressman supported a federal highway (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    noway2, ancblu

                    just so he could profit from a real estate deal, this does not prove that the "central role" of graft in creating the federal highway system.

                    You don't get to cite a tiny faction and pretend that their interests are the "central role" of anything.  Especially since the second amendment these people apparently wanted bears ZERO RESEMBLANCE to the second amendment that actually exists.

                    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 Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 09:18:06 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Slave states were not a "tiny faction" (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      a2nite, Kombema

                      of resistance to ratification. They were the largest voting bloc during the Constitutional Convention and the Articles of Convederation period which preceeded it.

                      Slave interests in the north supported this. Financiers, cotton merchants, tobacco brokers, land speculators; as Lincoln said, no region was guiltless. All were complicit in creating an entire continental economy based on jackbooted thuggery and terror.

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

                      by OregonOak on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:04:55 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  everyone supported militias (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        annecros

                        so naming people who supported militias is meaningless.

                        OH NO Hitler ate pancakes.  Pancakes are EVIL.

                        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 Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 12:00:55 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Simply pointing out that.. (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          a2nite, Kombema, indie17

                          NO ONE wanted to really talk about the Slavery Issue in the Ratification Debate. Many items on the agenda were not possible to discuss if the Slavery Issue was brought forward, so the issue was studiously and diplomatically avoided as much as it could be. There are few discussions recorded about it, since both factions knew that emotions around slavery ran high, and yet, many provisions were tailored around the slavery issue without it being explicitly mentioned, for the obvious reason that to do so would have imploded the whole proceeding.

                          People supported militias for their own reasons, north, south, urban and rural, or did not support them, but in any event the issue was profoundly touchy for all sorts of reasons in 1789 and the legacy of such contention is what we have today; a debate ranging all over the map with few terms agreed upon, and people feeling free to claim anything which supports their view. The founders, out of ambiguity in wording and opaqueness in discussion, clearly wanted US to decide for ourselves, because they couldnt do it. It was not part of the politics of the possible then. It may be now.

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

                          by OregonOak on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 12:24:11 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  No, the 13th amendment settled it. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            annecros

                            ...if you want to discuss the way the Supreme Court butchered the 14th amendment at the end of Reconstruction, that's another matter, but then you'd have to agree that Cruikshank was just as bad a decision as Plessy.

                            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 Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 12:51:10 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  The Bogus thesis is completely bogus ... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                noway2

                In order to construct his historically unsupported argument that the 2A was developed to protect slave patrols in the South, he simply wands away the right to bear arms as one of many designed protections against unlawful sovereign rule revealed in the real historical genesis of the English Civil War(s), the Glorious Revolution (1688) and the English Bill of Civil Rights (1689).  

                Carl Bogus butchers history in order to advance his particular political agenda.  The Davis Law Review article and his other work is more ideological polemics than reliably argued scholarship.

                •  Anton.. is that you? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  indie17

                  Invoking the English common law as more important precedent than the Articles or the Constitutional Convention is the trick which Scalia depended upon in his rewriting of the Second Amendment in Heller.

                   Good to know where you stand. Maybe youd like to go back to the Magna Carta as the founding document while you are at it. Then, at least nobles would have the right to talk back to the King.. the NRA.

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

                  by OregonOak on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:08:27 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh ... clever. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    annecros

                    You don't have a clue about the federalist/anti-federalist history and resort to the Scalia slur to disguise your ignorance.

                    Classic.

                    The law and politics of the Articles of Confederation and Constitution are direct and immediate descendents of English political and legal history -- that's why we call it Anglo-American jurisprudence.  Is it really that difficult to grasp?

                    •  Wow. You are wrong in so many ways. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      indie17

                      The founders were, in their view, creating a clean break with the past. They may have been operating in the context of English Common Law, but they saw no value of quoting it, referencing it, referring to it, and basing future developments upon it. That was for later Tories in the US to do, which you have.

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

                      by OregonOak on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 12:29:29 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm certainly not wrong that you're a (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        annecros

                        snide little asshat, Lambchop, so let's move on from there.

                        And in matters of law, are you serious?  The signers of the Declaration of Independence were British subjects until it was signed in 1776 ... their lives were indisputably infused with established English political philosophy, legal theory and precedent and that is exactly what they relied upon in articulating their grievances and declaration of liberty in the that document.

                        So here's what 1 minute on teh Google might have turned up for you to remedy your extraordinary illiteracy on the subject:

                        For example, following the American Revolution in 1776, one of the first legislative acts undertaken by each of the newly independent states was to adopt a "reception statute" that gave legal effect to the existing body of English common law to the extent that American legislation or the Constitution had not explicitly rejected English law.[59] Some states enacted reception statutes as legislative statutes, while other states received the English common law through provisions of the state's constitution, and some by court decision. British traditions such as the monarchy were rejected by the U.S. Constitution, but many English common law traditions such as habeas corpus, jury trials, and various other civil liberties were adopted in the United States. Significant elements of English common law prior to 1776 still remain in effect in many jurisdictions in the United States, because they have never been rejected by American courts or legislatures.[60]

                        For example, the New York Constitution of 1777[61] provides that:

                        [S]uch parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State,subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same.

                        Instead of pretending that you know something in this field, just study up a wee bit.
                        •  So for you.. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          indie17

                          and all your pettifogging contortions to keep your weapons of mass destruction, we are just a little bit different from the English. Just small adjustments. Tweaked a bit.

                          Good to know. We could have saved ourselves a whole revolution or two, a decade or two of wrangling a new Constitution and a whole lot of angst. God Save the Queen, buttercup.

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

                          by OregonOak on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 07:45:44 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

            •  Yes it was, in part. (5+ / 0-)

              Patrick Henry specifically brought up the specter of slave insurrections during the Constitutional Convention, and this fear is one explanation (not the only) for both the need for the Second Amendment and the change from "the security of a free country" to "the security of a free state."

              "If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress insurrections. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress..." (Patrick Henry)

              •  The slave reference (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite

                was illustrative, not explanatory, of the central issue presented in the Virginia ratification debates.

                Henry was addressing a problem with delegating militia authority to the federal government that would preclude the exercise of any pre-existing or retained rights to the states.  Henry and other leading anti-federalists -- in New York and New England as well -- opposed strong central government chiefly because it emulated the tyrannical monarchy against which the colonies and citizenry had successfully rebelled.

                Any form of popular insurrection would serve as a similar illustration -- consider, for example, the Whiskey Rebellion in primarily the northern states during the early 1790s over the Federalist Hamilton's imposition of a whiskey tax to fund federal expenditures.  It had nothing to do with slaves and everything to do with federal authority to raise a militia to suppress local agitation or resistance and irrespective of any state's involvement or particular wishes.

                •  Semantic weaseling... illustrative not explanatory (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Recall, tytalus

                  worthy of Mr. Scalia. Congratulations, you get the Scalia Rhetorical Oratory award of the day.

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

                  by OregonOak on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:10:09 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  ancblu, you are making the argument for a militia (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Recall, indie17

                  But apparently, THAT part of the argument fell off the turnip truck that Antonin Scalia was riding on.

                  Your whole argument is that Patrick Henry didn't want the FEDERAL government to control he army.  Therefore, he insisted that the STATES get to have an army, too.  READ THE 2nd AMENDMENT IN IT'S ENTIRETY.

                  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.
                  Free state, like Virginia, or Massachusetts.

                  Am I missing something??

                  Would that be that the 2nd Amendment DOES NOT support an individual's right to a gun, but rather the right of each state to control its own local army, made up of its own citizens, who get to carry guns when they serve in the militia??

                  "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." -- Patrick Henry

                  by BornDuringWWII on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 12:25:34 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Expanding on the slavery point (10+ / 0-)

            The second amendment's purpose was specifically to preserve state militias.  But far from the theories expressed by the gun lobby, this had nothing to do with allowing citizens' militias to rise up to oppose tyranny.  The whole concept is idiotic -- no nation would build in the right to violently overthrow its own government, and that fact was proven many times over the years, most tragically in the civil war.

            The founding fathers were suspicious of a standing military, which in their experience became an occupying force.  But particularly in the south, the militia was a constantly active paramilitary force that served as the slave patrol that tracked and captured runaway slaves, and of greater concern to the white citizens, was prepared to fight slave rebellions.  In many parts of the South, the enslaved population outnumbered the free whites, and small or large uprisings were fairly frequent.  The constitution gives the President the power to call out the militia, but the South was concerned that a northern president might not be relied upon to act against a slave rebellion.  

            And yet, though this historical link is the underpinning of the Second Amendment, none of it was discussed in Heller.  Scalia's intellectually dishonest and weakly reasoned majority opinion could easily be overturned by a future court, or more likely limited very narrowly to the specifics of the case.  The origins of the amendment as a precaution against slave revolts reveals clearly that the first and second clauses were intended to be read together, with the first limiting the second.  

            •  so, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              noway2, ancblu

              ignore the federalist papers and go with some nuts conspiracy theory.  Got it.

              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 Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 08:00:17 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The Federalists urged supporting it because they (4+ / 0-)

                were genuinely worried the Constitution would not be ratified if the Southern slave states balked. And all you have to do is read the actual quotes at the time, including anti-Federalist, anti-ratificationist Southern slave state firebrand, Patrick Henry's. The history is clear.

                "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

                by Kombema on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 08:17:44 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Patrick Henry - the Wayne LaPierre of his day. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  noway2

                  Yeah, THAT's authoritative.

                  "The bill's sponsor has a better chance of being the next Pope" ~ attributed to Rep. Eric Burlison of Missouri

                  by 43north on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 08:22:51 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Don't be foolish. Twice Governor of Virginia, and (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    indie17, Headlight
                    ... along with Samuel Adams and Thomas Paine, he is regarded as one of the most influential champions of Republicanism and an invested promoter of the American Revolution and its fight for independence.

                    After the Revolution, Henry was a leader of the anti-federalists in Virginia. He opposed the United States Constitution, fearing that it endangered the rights of the States as well as the freedoms of individuals; he helped gain adoption of the Bill of Rights.

                    He was not even close to being equivalent to LaPierre. Nice try.

                    "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

                    by Kombema on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 08:31:08 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Henry according to you was a lose cannon. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      noway2

                      A Wayne LaPierre nutjob, firebrand orator, who inflamed the passions - and did little to bring about a sane compromise.

                      One discredited academic doesn't invalidate the clear history of the actual principals at the time, whose own words indicate the central role of the slave-state militia issue in pushing for the Second Amendment in the BOR, to enable ratification.

                      Twice Governor?  Meh. The Schwarzenegger of his day, riding his notoriety to office.

                      That he, at one time enjoyed a lucid moment, in the view of some?

                      Didn't counter the fact that Henry, Paine and Sam'l Adams were rabble-rousers, who thought best about how to line their pockets, and increase their fortunes, at the expense of the lawful colonial citizens, government and commerce.
                      Oh, they were "invested heavily".
                      Accusations which haunted many of our "founding fathers". Accusations which nearly carried many of them to the gallows, if not for British arrogance, and in some instances, military incompetence.
                      Accusations which nearly got them hung by fellow Colonialists, in retribution for their actions, or appeasement to the Crown by loyalists and those dissatisfied with the course and cost of the Independence movement.

                      So which is it?  The BoR was written to serve the 1%, or the BoR was written with the ideology of serving all?

                      "The bill's sponsor has a better chance of being the next Pope" ~ attributed to Rep. Eric Burlison of Missouri

                      by 43north on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 09:03:05 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  You'd face the same problem today (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  annecros

                  An inability to ratify and amendment to repeal the 2nd.  The demographics may have changed as the nation is a large larger today but the same fundamental problem would exist.  You don't have enough support for this objective.  

              •  Written by just three white guys. Just three. (11+ / 0-)

                The Federalist papers aren't holy writ, even if you believe in holy writ, which I don't.

                Three white guys wrote them, mostly to assuage the fears of the anti-federalists.

                And you think we should be tied to the anonymous writings of three white guys in the 18th century for all eternity?

                How very authoritarian of you.

                Madison, Hamilton and Jay. Do you bow before them? Do you give up your own autonomy to them? Do you stop thinking because of their opinions more than two hundred years ago?

                No sane society would base its laws on the writings of three people who were far from representative of that society at any time during its existence.

                •  I don't know whats worse. That you would discount (3+ / 0-)

                  one of the few resources that helps to explain and elaborate on the thinking behind the founding of this countries highest legal document to fit your perverted agenda, or that the usual group would line up behind you to like the idea.

                  •  Perverted agenda? (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    a2nite, Recall, indie17

                    And that would be, what, exactly?

                    My agenda is to save lives. Yours, if you're in favor of allowing citizens to continue purchasing weapons of mass destruction, based upon a racist, monstrous amendment, is unconscionable. Yours is the "perverted agenda", obviously.

                    This is 2013. I couldn't care less what three white guys (who were trying to protect slavery) had to say more than two hundred years ago. Anyone who thinks we should lock ourselves into their 18th century worldview is a stupid goose-stepper, who can't and won't think for themselves.

                    •  If you redefine "the people" (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      annecros

                      in the bill of rights to mean ONLY "people duly authorized by goverment," you've destroyed most of the bill of rights.  OK, 50% of it anyway.

                      I would indeed call that a perverted agenda.

                      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 Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 12:16:41 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Where are earth do you get that strawman? (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Recall, indie17

                        Seriously, in decades of arguing with right wingers, one major pattern is obvious:

                        They are committed to inventing strawmen and attempting to then knock those strawmen down. Right wingers constantly, predictably base their deductions on things never said, never done, never promoted. Basically, their entire hate machine is based on what hasn't and won't happen. It's really quite amazing.

                        I've never said that the Bill of Rights is talking only about people duly authorized by the government. Of course, the Second Amendment is. That amendment is about state-run militias, set up to enable the crushing of slave rebellions, and other kinds of insurrections. But it's NOT the Bill of Rights. It's merely one very small, very misguided, racist, despicable part of it. Its gravest error, much as slavery and the destruction of the Native Americans were the gravest original sins for our nation.

                        It is, in fact, the true perversion of the idea of rights to begin with. No other nation on earth, beside Yemen, felt it sane to set aside a special right for deadly pieces of metal. Perhaps the fact that we don't have special rights to safe food and water, a clean environment, a roof over our heads, a quality education for all, and medical care for all . . . should have been a big fat hint about our early priorities.

                        Apparently, some Americans, even today, are too dense to see the disgusting, grotesque nature of having special rights for deadly pieces of metal, while having zero rights to the essential necessities of life.

                •  Do you object because they were WHITE? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  annecros

                  If so...sounds like a really bigoted position.  How about articulating your disagreement based on the real merits or lack of merits of their argument?

                  •  Their whiteness is a part of their argument. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    indie17

                    Obviously.

                    All three held slaves at one time in their lives. Their white privilege allowed that. Madison held them his entire life, and what he did, what he wrote, what he thought, was informed by his status as a very privileged white person of his time who happened to own human beings.

                    The 2nd Amendment was set up to protect the institution of slavery, and to assuage the anti-federalists, most of whom were slave holders in the South. It was a twofer. By promoting the autonomy of state militias, the anti-federalists hoped that no federal standing army would be needed, or would be there to stop their slave patrols, which would help their "states rights" ambitions. And "states rights" for the South boiled down to "property rights" and "property rights" boiled down to slaves.

                    The ancestors of today's propertarians and "states rights" fanatics were slaveholders.

                    Madison, who wrote for the federalists, was, in some sense, a double-agent. Not literally, of course. But he was Jefferson's protege, who was a key anti-federalist who eventually came on board to the federalist camp. Federalists who were also southerners tended to be weak federalists with a foot in both camps. That set the table for the original sin of compromise over slavery.

                    The 2nd Amendment is a part of that original sin, totally unnecessary, unconscionable, racist and has the blood of millions on its hands.

              •  The Federalist papers never mentioned it (0+ / 0-)

                The Federalist Papers were written to encourage the adoption of the Constitution.  The Federalists believed that the Constitution itself -- UNAMENDED -- was a sufficient guarantee of individual liberty.  If the Federalists thought the second amendment was necessary they would have put it in the Constitution itself rather than passing it as an amendment after the Constitution was ratified.  

                •  and? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  annecros

                  the Federalist writers assume that individuals will always have the right to keep and bear their own weapons even in the absence of any second amendment, in the same sense that they assumed that free speech would be secure without a first amendment.

                  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 Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 12:19:34 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  that's wrong (0+ / 0-)

                    The Federalist writers assumed that the Federal government did not have the authority to federalize state militias, or replace them with a standing army.  The second amendment conferred no rights vs the state government-- indeed, protecting the state government's authority over the militia was the point, largely so that the militias in the south could defend whites against slave rebellions.  It's interesting to see the contortions people like Scalia go through to read the words "well-regulated" to be a guarantee that there will be little effective regulation.  Of course, none of the founders would have thought the second amendment would affect the power of a state government to enact whatever restrictions it chose on the individual right to own firearms.  

        •  Scalia has surprised me once or twice. (8+ / 0-)

          At least in the Fourth Amendment area.  (See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012).)  But other than that, he's a straight-up right winger whose so-called "principles" of constitutional interpretation will always yield to the result he wants to reach.  

          Heller is actually an excellent example of this.  Scalia, who always decries reliance on legislative history, based his much of his opinion on legislative history. Not to mention his use of post-enactment sources to attempt to bolster his interpretation.  If you have a shred of intellectual honesty, you can't spend decades claiming to abhor legislative history and then try to use it to prove your case.

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:44:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  If by "extremist" you mean (6+ / 0-)

      someone who takes the most wacktastic, fringe-assed positions on an argument and pushes them to the mainstream then I'd say, yep, each one of the five are.

      With the exception of Scalia, though, none meets my personal definition of extremist, which involves more than a bit of insanity. The whole shoulder-harness rocket launchers vs. head axes thing pretty much nailed it for me with little Nino there.

    •  Question in regards to question 2... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laurence Lewis

      Is each justice in the minority a "would-be-gun-banner"?

      Baby, where I come from...

      by ThatSinger on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 08:56:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Speaking of "Rights", (6+ / 0-)

    those poor white people are under assault again.

    What's this world coming to when you can't slap a n****r baby without causing an uproar?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...

    I'm not sixty-two—I'm fifty-twelve!

    by Pragmatus on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:10:13 PM PST

  •  Dual Edge Sword but one edge cuts our way (2+ / 0-)

    Yes you can have a firearm
    There are limits

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:10:25 PM PST

    •  which is of course no different than (5+ / 0-)

      Yes you have free speech.

      There are limits.

    •  Exactly. Heller allows gun control. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JML9999, eXtina, happymisanthropy

      The only thing it blocks is a blanket ban, which everyone says they don't want.

      Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

      by Dogs are fuzzy on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:58:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The restrictions referred to in Heller don't say (0+ / 0-)

        anything about what guns may be restricted.  Only that the possession of guns can be restricted in "sensitive" places, which is not even defined but only has a few examples.  Even those are not absolute as some states allow guns in schools.  More are going that way following the December shooting.

        •  Wrong. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tytalus, indie17

          Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , 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.26

             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.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

              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. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

  •  Some will say these deaths are the price . . . (19+ / 0-)

    we pay for our Second Amendment "freedoms."  Even here on DK people have claimed as much.

    "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

    by FogCityJohn on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:14:41 PM PST

  •  What about the god-given right to RKBM? (10+ / 0-)

    After all, god gave him/herself the right to keep and bear meteors; what the hell is the Republican Congress doing holding hearings on interfering with THAT?

    They're peeing their pants about a random once-in-a-century danger and adamantly ignoring a real and present threat.

    Go figure.

    Too late for the simple life, too early for android love slaves - Savio

    by Clem Yeobright on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:14:53 PM PST

  •  America has a cowardice problem (11+ / 0-)

    Got to maintain that delusion of "Home of the Brave."

  •  Heller (16+ / 0-)

    The Heller decision makes absolutely no sense when examined.

    Essentially, the justification was that when written, the 2nd amendment was intended to make sure that people could 'bear arms' if called upon to serve in a militia. Therefore, 'well regulated militia' applies to everyone.

    Assuming for the sake of argument we accept that, what about the fact that there is no longer any such practice of calling random citizens to suddenly serve as a militia? The decision basically looks at the wording of the amendment, then completely ignores all other issues once they'd found enough to justify what they already wanted to conclude.

    How anyone can actually believe we should base our decisions on documents and systems created to run a government in entirely different times and circumstances, forever, is beyond me.

    •  But We Have Full-Time Militia Now: Nat'l Guard (9+ / 0-)

      plus the standing army. The people are not going to be called to serve with their own arms. When we have a draft we give them GI.

      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 Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:24:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yep (4+ / 0-)

        Pretty much my point. The justification used in the decision makes no sense at all given that we no longer expect citizens to provide their own arms when called to serve, let alone that we no longer call anyone to serve involuntarily anyway.

        •  Have you actually read Heller? (6+ / 0-)

          Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

          by SpamNunn on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:29:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Do you actually have anything to say? (6+ / 0-)

            Isn't replying with questions fun?

            Isn't actually thinking of words that mean something instead hard?

            •  Yes, I do. It's apparent to me that many who (7+ / 0-)

              decry the result in Heller have never read it and that many of those who have are willing to discard the history lesson contained therein because they disagree with the result obtained.  

              I am shocked that so many are eager to leap to ban semi-automatic weapons and extended clips when over 95% of gun related crimes are committed with hand guns and the incidence of young black men killing each other with handguns is much more prevalent than mass killings involving long arms.  

              Why is that not the primary focus of gun legislation?  

              Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

              by SpamNunn on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:36:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  some of us (11+ / 0-)

                will side with stevens. others prefer scalia.

                The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                by Laurence Lewis on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:39:58 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  hopefully most of us (6+ / 0-)

                  can think for ourselves.

                  I see what you did there.

                  by GoGoGoEverton on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:43:31 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  you mean (0+ / 0-)

                  "The Bill of Rights cannot possibly ever be interpreted as taking any legislative options out of consideration" Stevens?  Sorry, I can't remember his exact quote, but it missed that the entire point of a Bill of Rights is to say that certain legislation is out of consideration.

                  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 Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 08:06:41 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You're quoting Stevens? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Laurence Lewis

                    I'd really be interested in the citation.  The Heller opinion can be found at 554 U.S. 570.  Can you give me the page cite for your quotation from Stevens?  Or are you just making shit up?

                    "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                    by FogCityJohn on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 11:58:23 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The exact quote, in context (0+ / 0-)

                      from the very end of his dissent.

                      The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framersmadea choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Court’s opinion, I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.
                      The whole point of the bill of rights is to limit the tools available to elected officials.  Hello?

                      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 Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 12:11:57 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Hmmm (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Recall

                        This quotation doesn't sound anything like your paraphrase of it.  Especially when one considers the actual context of the quotation.  Stevens's point is this:

                        Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia.
                        You'd also do well not to trash Justice Stevens's understanding of the Constitution.  I can say with complete confidence that it greatly exceeds yours.  Stevens served with distinction on the Supreme Court for over three decades.  He graduated first in his class at Northwestern law school.  He is, by any standard, an exceptionally gifted jurist.  I doubt the same can be said for you.

                        "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                        by FogCityJohn on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 07:38:52 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  asdf (0+ / 0-)
                          The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framersmadea choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate the expression of civilian political opinions... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.
                          The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framersmadea choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate the exercise of unpopular religions... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.
                          The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framersmadea choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to arbitrarily search people's belongings... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.
                          The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framersmadea choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to impose cruel and unusual punishments... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.
                          The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framersmadea choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to quarter troops in people's homes... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.

                          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 Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 07:33:21 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

              •  Uh huh. (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TDDVandy, mickT, FogCityJohn, snowwoman, a2nite

                Translation:

                Anything decided by judges is automatically the ultimate, unquestionable truth. Once set in law, a misreading and mangling of history instantly becomes 'a history lesson.' The only possible motives of anyone who disagrees with me must be that they are ignoring facts just because they disagree with the outcome. However, it is impossible that I am ignoring facts simply because I agree with the outcome.

                The number of crimes committed with a type of gun automatically negates and erases the reality of the potential damage one type of weapon can do versus another. The primary focus of gun legislation should be black people. I cannot see in any way how that statement implies targeted racism. Because America.

                •  what's your next step then? (7+ / 0-)

                  just ignore rulings you don't like, and ignore laws you think archaic?

                  I see what you did there.

                  by GoGoGoEverton on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:46:24 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Recall

                  for translating this piece from Wingnut to English.

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

                  by TDDVandy on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:47:14 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Re-Translation: (6+ / 0-)

                  Roe V. Wade- The only possible motives of anyone who disagrees with me must be that they are ignoring facts just because they disagree with the outcome.

                  I didn't know we had gone down to this level.

                  The "history lesson", is that the States still can regulate arms except they cannot ban them.

                  And most know of the "Missing White Woman Syndrome".  The fact that you are willing to ignore the Black on Black crime tells us all we need to know.

                  Call it whatever you like, I call it myopia.  Myopia brought about by wealthy white children being killed in Connecticut.

                  http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

                  Young black men kill each other every day. The problem is particularly acute in cities like Chicago, President Barack Obama’s hometown. Yet, I haven’t seen the president or the mainstream media shed a tear over the fact more than 50 percent of America’s murder victims are black and nearly all of those blacks killed - 85 percent- are young men.
                  As for this:
                  a misreading and mangling of history
                  The States Ratification Documents

                  Show me your history, I've provided you with mine.

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 07:09:25 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Typical. (6+ / 0-)

                    Willfully misrepresenting the comment when you have no capacity to actually address the topic.

                    Not taking the bait to switch the conversation from reasonable gun control measures to the issue of crime among one singled out race = "ignoring black on black crime."

                    Yawn.

                    •  Yawn???? (6+ / 0-)

                      You present an argument that the right-wing's "right to life" supporters do every day and make it your own as an excuse to deny the exercise of a right you don't agree with.

                      You then fail to address the facts of Heller, or the actual history I provided you, proving your position both factually and historically incorrect.

                      Then you say the poster was calling your position/solution racist.  The poster never said that.  Are you feeling guilty?

                      So, as long as we know that you could truly care less about facts or history or legitimate solutions, then there is no discussion to be had here.

                      Good Day!

                      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                      by gerrilea on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 07:48:26 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Sigh. (0+ / 0-)

                        "And most know of the "Missing White Woman Syndrome".  The fact that you are willing to ignore the Black on Black crime tells us all we need to know."

                        "Then you say the poster was calling your position/solution racist.  The poster never said that.  Are you feeling guilty?"

                        One of these things is not like the other...

                      •  ... (0+ / 0-)

                        You tossed roe v. wade into the start of your post, with absolutely zero explanation of why.

                        "as an excuse to deny the exercise of a right you don't agree with."

                        Really? Please point out to me where I have said that, while the laws are as they are, anyone should go out and deny someone the right to bear arms as currently interpreted. I do not recall writing that I personally bar the doors to gun shops, or steal anyone's guns from their homes. Me stating my opinion on the comment section does not 'deny the exercise of a right I don't agree with.'

                        I have addressed 'the facts of heller,' which is a nonsensical phrase in itself. It is a SCOTUS decision that interprets facts. I have clearly stated I disagree with that interpretation.

                        You can shout victory and run away all you like, but your response contains absolutely no truth.

                  •  Myopia!!!!! (5+ / 0-)

                    Easy access to guns like an AR-15 plus large capacity ammo clips provided the fuel for the massacre at Sandy Hook.

                    His mom bought all legally.  If banned, Adam Lanza would not have been able to pull off this massacre.

                    That's MYOPIA for ya.  Got It??????

                    I just bet the authors of the second amendment if alive today would probably take it back after seeing the carnage and senseless killings, suicides, stupid accidents, the gun trafficking, the gun show loopholes, etc in play today.

                    •  Really???? (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      43north, noway2, wishbone
                      If banned, Adam Lanza would not have been able to pull off this massacre.
                      Watch this gentleman change out a magazine:

                      Then tell me that what happened in Newtown is never going to happen ever again when you ban large capacity magazines.

                      If we don't address the people whom do these things, I could give a flying rats ass what you ban.

                      GOT IT????

                      If you don't believe me maybe you should listen to our Vice President:


                      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                      by gerrilea on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 08:01:03 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  A shotgun would have done just as well (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      43north, gerrilea, noway2, snowwoman

                      They are not touched by the proposed ban.

                      Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

                      by SpamNunn on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 08:01:27 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Absolute bullshit... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        mickT

                        You could not possibly kill that many people in that short a period of time with a shotgun...

                        Come on... for fuck's sake...

                        Baby, where I come from...

                        by ThatSinger on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 09:05:38 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I guess you don't shoot. A Remington 870 (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          wishbone

                          pump action shotgun can turn a room full of people into a red mist in seconds.  Please know your facts before you insult someone who does.  

                          Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

                          by SpamNunn on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 07:58:29 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  A room full of people standing in single file... (0+ / 0-)

                            perhaps... please... give me a fucking break...

                            Please try being intellectually honest if you're going to pretend intellectual superiority...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 12:12:27 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not with an open choke. (0+ / 0-)

                            And in certain  instances, like here, I don't have to pretend.

                            Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

                            by SpamNunn on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 04:18:47 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So why then have exactly ZERO of these mass (0+ / 0-)

                            slaughters been committed with a Remington 870 pump action shotgun?

                            I mean, if it's "just as easy" you'd think someone would have done it by now... if you were being intellectually honest, I mean...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 12:33:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Hmmm... no glib, condescending response? (0+ / 0-)

                            What a surprise... not...

                            Your crickets speak volumes...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 06:28:53 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Aurora. Remington 870. Glib enough, genius? (0+ / 0-)

                            Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

                            by SpamNunn on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 06:40:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And the proof you will undoubtedly ask for: (0+ / 0-)
                            But weapons experts said that in a closed, crowded setting like a movie theater, any of the weapons could have been extremely deadly, even in the hands of an inexperienced or inaccurate gunman.

                            If anything, the experts said, a shotgun in that situation might have been the most lethal, since every shell can spray a half-dozen or more pellets, each capable of killing or maiming a person. Twelve-gauge shotguns often fire five shells, and sometimes more, before needing to be reloaded.

                            http://www.nytimes.com/...

                            Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

                            by SpamNunn on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 06:48:03 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Makes Joe Biden's comment today sound like (0+ / 0-)

                            pure genius.  

                            Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

                            by SpamNunn on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 06:48:44 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Only weapon, Einstein? n/t (0+ / 0-)

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 07:52:56 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're not interested in an honest debate... (0+ / 0-)

                            are you?

                            He then fired a 12-gauge Remington 870 Express Tactical shotgun, first at the ceiling and then at the audience.
                            How many people did he take out on the ceiling, smart guy?
                            He also fired a Smith & Wesson M&P15[11] semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round drum magazine, which malfunctioned after reportedly firing fewer than 30 rounds.[11][12][13] Finally, he fired a Glock 22 handgun.[14][1
                            Care to note how many people were actually killed with the shotgun?

                            I'm guessing not...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 07:56:40 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  BTW, you asserted it would be "just as easy" (0+ / 0-)

                            to kill as many people as were killed at Sandy Hook with the 12-gauge Remington 870 Express Tactical shotgun... he didn't even kill half as many in a crowded theater...

                            #gunhackfail...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 07:59:55 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Note to self: Never mud wrestle with a pig. (0+ / 0-)

                            You only get dirty, and the pig likes it.  

                            Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

                            by SpamNunn on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 04:54:02 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Should avoid making bullshit statements too... (0+ / 0-)

                            You only look like a disingenuous boob...

                            Fact is you made an outrageous statement and attempted to back it up with less than even a half truth…

                            If, as you say the 12-gauge Remington 870 Express Tactical shotgun was "just as effective" why then did he feel it necessary to include the Bushmaster with the 100 round drum in his arsenal?

                            A gun hack… How embarrassing for you…

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 06:33:19 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  [kiss] (0+ / 0-)

                            Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

                            by SpamNunn on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 11:02:38 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That doesn't seem at all sincere... n/t (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            SpamNunn

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 11:43:35 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  See, now I like you again, because you have a (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ThatSinger

                            sense of humor.   If you are a musician, you must have a gentle side, too.  

                            Musick has Charms to sooth a savage Breast,
                            To soften Rocks, or bend a knotted Oak.
                            I've read, that things inanimate have mov'd,
                            And, as with living Souls, have been inform'd,
                            By Magick Numbers and persuasive Sound.
                            Peace.

                            Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

                            by SpamNunn on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 11:52:01 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I never didn't like you... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            SpamNunn

                            I just disagreed with your comment...

                            Your screen name makes me laugh every time...

                            I know it's only Rock n Roll, but I like it...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 01:04:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  And no, I don't shoot... (0+ / 0-)

                          does that disqualify me from not wanting to get shot by some asshole with a gun?

                          I know lots of people who have shotguns for any number of reasons... I don't know anyone who has an AK or AR-15 or a Bushmaster who has it for any reason other than killing human beings *if necessary...

                          Bullshit false equivalence...

                          Baby, where I come from...

                          by ThatSinger on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 12:16:50 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  A proposed non-banned Ruger Mini-14 carbine (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      noway2, gerrilea, SpamNunn, wishbone

                      would inflict the same horrific injuries as the differently decorated tactical carbine that Adam Lanza used.

                      There is no data or rational argument to support your contention that AWB2 would prevent mass or spree killings -- and the frequency of handgun use as an alternative firearm in this type of firearm violence would disprove it.

                      •  Nope, there isn't (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        ancblu, gerrilea

                        I am starting to agree with gerrilea that the real issue for a lot of these banners is that a nut used that weapon to kill some upper and middle class suburban white kids so now they want the govt to step in and tell everyone no.

                        •  I have firmly agreed with that suggestion (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          noway2, gerrilea, SpamNunn, wishbone

                          for some time now.

                          The purely emotive banners here will never address the inconvenient data -- assault weapons account for less than 40 firearm homicides per year.  

                          The other 12,000 or so firearm homicides are completely ignored because that would require real thinking and meaningful action about the underlying root causes of firearm violence involving systemic under-privilege and disadvantage.

                  •  We've gone down to this level because it is all (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gerrilea, wishbone

                    that they (those who are opposed to guns and want to legislate restrictions) have left.  It appears likely that they've lost the political game.  There isn't enough support for their position.  They just haven't gotten to the point where they can see the damage they are continuing to do with their incessant push.

              •  why does this read like (0+ / 0-)

                it was written by a wingnut?

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

                by TDDVandy on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:46:55 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  "Why is that not the primary focus of gun (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Marjmar

                legislation?"  Thanks for the suggestion...we'll tackle that next.

                "We refuse to fight in a war started by men who refused to fight in a war." -freewayblogger

                by Bisbonian on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:55:24 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  TDDVandy. Please withdraw your HR. (0+ / 0-)

                It's good form to state a reason.  Do you have one?

                Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

                by SpamNunn on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 07:56:47 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Nope ... the Laurence Lewis (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SpamNunn

                types have no interest in developing any form of rational policy based on actual data or thoughtful cause and effect analysis.  On this issue at least, they persistently prove the point that it's easier to emote than think.

              •  Where do you get this stat? (0+ / 0-)

                "... over 95% of gun related crimes are committed with hand guns..."

                The firearm type is not even stated in 10% of reports on homicides.  

                In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with unspecified firearms.

                http://web.archive.org/...

                http://en.wikipedia.org/...

              •  What makes you think (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dream weaver

                Banning semi-automatics means we can't also ban handguns?

                •  No you can't ban handguns, sorry. (0+ / 0-)
                  •  And why not? (0+ / 0-)

                    Seems like a good idea that would save many lives and prevent many gruesome injuries, at no great cost except to gun manufacturers. Why would you not want that?

                    •  I know we keep going over this but its quite basic (0+ / 0-)

                      There is this thing called the 2nd Amendment and subsequent court rulings that have declared that:

                      1) the RKBA is an individual right (see Heller rulling)
                      2) the RKBA has been incorporated and applies to the states (see McDonald)
                      3) the RKBA is apart from military or militia service
                      4) the circuit courts have now upheld that the right extends outside of the home
                      5) that you can't ban an entire class of firearms, and by definition handguns would most certainly be class.

                      •  Yes, all of the above is true (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        mudfud27

                        but even Scalia admits that the right is not without limit.

                        He didn't specify what limits would pass his tests, but I have to respect that he left that up for Congress and the states to work out.

                        You seem to keep skipping that little detail; the 2A is not without limit. That means society can change the current limits to some other limit consistent with the Constitution.

                        •  No, I am not skipping the part about limitiations (0+ / 0-)

                          If you notice carefully what is specified in the Heller ruling he refers to "sensitive places" not categories of weapons.  I think bans and limits are worthless.  I don't think AR 15 in the hands of someone who understands how it works and how to use it safely are inherently any more dangerous than a .22 revolver.  Just because some nut job used one to commit murder doesn't mean take them away from the millions of other citizens who won't.

                          I would also much prefer that the issue be addressed by congress rather than the courts.  What passed in the wake of the Conn shooting was not honest discussion or realistic.  It was nothing more than political power grabbing.  Hell, even Biden admitted that the proposals from the commission won't do anything.  The 23 executive orders will have much more effect.

                          •  Agree in part (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Recall
                            Just because some nut job used one to commit murder doesn't mean take them away from the millions of other citizens who won't.
                            While I agree with the sentiment, it seems a bit disingenuous because you know very well that those weapons can very  easily be converted to full automatic. A determined shooter who practices doesn't even need any special attachment.

                            That is the reason to outlaw some kinds of weapons in the hands of civilians. Keep them available at licensed, specialty  rifle ranges? Sure, but in someone's home? NO WAY. People like Nancy Lanza should not have rifles like that in their home. And it's too hard to tell who should and should not have them. There are too many young men with temporary fantasies of fame, and poor impulse control. Most of those fantasies will pass if those guns were only available in very restricted places.

                            People like to site Switzerland as the land of armed peace. But they have a registry, the government knows where all those service rifles are. And recently decided the ammo was not accounted for and would be better stored in the nearest armory.

                          •  Agree on this, and do respect (0+ / 0-)

                            that Scalia left it up to Congress and the states to figure it out.

                            I would also much prefer that the issue be addressed by congress rather than the courts.
                            Guns are easily concealed and travel across state lines. The speed of transportation, and the frequency of transportation  was not a factor when the Constitution was written. We have an urgent and growing need to stem gun trafficking.

                            I'm for proficiency testing, licensing, universal background checks, biannual inspections of weapons. Anyone who sells a gun to another person should be required to keep records of that for a number of years, even if the background checks are purged after say 90 days.

                            That means that law abiding gun owners can keep their weapons, use their weapons, enjoy their hobby, feed their family, protect their animals, with only a little inconvenience to prove they still have the weapons they purchased. And lawful gun sales that weren't used in a crime will not bring the police to their door. Since they secure their fire arms no children will accidentally shoot themselves or their friend.

                            We have to give the police some tool(s) to trace guns, possessed by criminals, and guns used in crimes back to the last seller.

                            It means that if I sell my grandpa's gun to someone with a license and certified background check, and I have my sales record, and they later kill someone or themselves it's on them, not on me. But it means that if I "lose" a couple weapons every year, sooner or later, one will be used in a crime. And then I should face fines, and severe restrictions, or loss of RKBA.

                          •  Uh-huh (0+ / 0-)
                            That means that law abiding gun owners can keep their weapons, use their weapons, enjoy their hobby, feed their family, protect their animals, with only a little inconvenience to prove they still have the weapons they purchased.
                            Until that one day they lose control and shoot up the local mall.
                            Since they secure their fire arms no children will accidentally shoot themselves or their friend.
                            Except for that one time when they forget....

                            Sorry, the time for the gun nuts to prove they could be responsible has passed. We know they cannot be trusted. Time to take away their toys.

                          •  Authoritarians come in many forms nt (0+ / 0-)
                          •  Yes. (0+ / 0-)

                            Most of them want to hold us hostage, at gunpoint.

                          •  How do you propose to (0+ / 0-)

                            disarm all the citizens.

                            You seem out of touch with how more than half the country actually lives. When you project your imagination onto them, and paint all gun owners with a broad brush you reveal your tunnel vision and and a few other things about yourself, but contribute nothing to addressing the problems.

                            The problem with guns is not a single problem. It's a couple of overlapping problems, with guns as the central item in common.

                            At one extreme, a significant number of people (who currently have legal rights) should not have the right to keep and bear arms, at all, ever.

                            At the other extreme, some people should have the right to protect their animals and their land, provide food for their families, enjoy their hobby, display their collection of heirlooms passed down from prior generations. A significant number of them will never have an accidental discharge. They might be required to get a license and record any fire arms that they sell or give to others who are licensed and have passed a background check.

                            If you imagine you can disarm the latter group, please propose how you would do it.

                          •  It's been done (0+ / 0-)

                            In many other countries. Buyback and confiscation. Perhaps unpopular among some, but perfectly simple and effective.

                            Reading the newspaper and observing cold, hard statistics is hardly "projecting imagination". But since you're such a savant, maybe you could tell me what you imagine I'm revealing about myself by pointing out the obvious irresponsibility of "responsible gun ownership". Please, be my guest.

                            You admit and yet refuse to deal courageously with the issue.  The problem with guns is a couple of overlapping problems with guns as the central item in common. The solution to anyone with clear vision, then, is to eliminate the common factor. If guns were as important to modern society as, say, automobiles you might be right in proposing to strictly regulate them. But, clearly, they are not; in point of fact they bring nothing significant value to society and put us in quite a bit of danger. They are unnecessary and dangerous. Why is that not a good enough reason to simply eliminate them to you?

                            People can protect their land and provide food for their families without guns. Their hobbies and heirlooms can be discarded (or made nonfunctional) easily enough. You will admit that you cannot identify in advance who will have an accidental or not-so accidental discharge, so there is only one solution. The only thing lacking is the will to actually make a difference instead of proposing weak half-measures.

                          •  I've laid out policy ideas and data that (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Recall

                            support why they would have a positive impact and put some needed tools in the hands of law enforcement. Feel free to peruse my comments.

                            Which, of course, you don't have to do if you only want to take cheap shots, and project your imagination onto large groups of people you don't care to know or understand.

                            If you have policy ideas, that don't require a constitutional amendment, I'm very interested in reading them.

                            Thanks, in advance, if you offer any, I will take a look, otherwise I'm moving on.

                          •  I do agree with this point in your comment - (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Recall

                            The phrase "responsible gun owner" is far to broad, and include a significant number of people who are careless, irresponsible, and sometimes dangerous, and quite possibly sometimes criminal.

                            And if the RKBA group and extreme gun enthusiasts don't wake up and deal with that fact, they will be increasingly mocked and ridiculed as the shooting continue to pile up dead and injured bodies.

                          •  Every 19 minutes (0+ / 0-)

                            There are people just like you who agree that dangerous things should be banned outright because some people are not able to use them without harming themselves or others. There are people, like you, who think that the whole medical machine is one big corrupt honey pot, and everyone who works in that industry directly or indirectly supporting the scam.

                            There are people who believe medicines are bad and that all of big pharma is a racket and that all Doctor's who prescribe medicines are in secret cahoots with big Pharma, all in the name of profit.

                            http://www.drugfree.org/...

                            According to the CDC someone dies from prescription drug abuse every 19 minutes in the US. That's not even counting all the thousands of deaths from medication errors that occur daily in hospitals and clinics and offices, under the direct supervision of highly trained medical personnel.

                            By your logic, because some people can't be responsible with prescriptions, no one should be able to have prescription drugs. Because some people are careless, because some people lie effectively to naive or willing physicians, because some parents leave their left over prescription meds in the bathroom cabinet, because some people divert prescription drugs to make some money under the table...  no one should have the opportunity to treat their condition with medicine as one of their available tools.

                            Your dystopian fantasy would include:

                            In pain?

                            Too bad. No dangerous drugs for that. You have other options. You can do yoga. Pain is all in the brain.

                            Suicidally depressed?  

                            Too bad, you have other options to feel better. You just need a better attitude, or different vitamins, or get out of bed and get a job. You'll feel better right away.

                            You think your partner is psychotic?

                            Too bad, no meds for that. They are too dangerous for the public. Your only options are in private mental hospital or public mental hospital. And then there's electroshock, but sorry no meds. They were banned.

                            High BP?

                            Too bad, no meds for that. You have other options. Just reduce your stress, cut out all salt, and lay off the smoking. And yoga, start doing some walking, 20 min every day.

                            Heart attack?

                            Nope, no dangerous meds for that. You had lots of other options to prevent heart disease. But we'll put you a list for a transplant. The current wait is only 7 years.

                            Inflammation?

                            No, sorry, no dangerous steroids for that. There were too many abusers so the government banned them. But you can try some herbs. They're available over the counter. You have a few to choose from. Just watch out for liver toxicity.

                          •  I think you just like to read your own words (0+ / 0-)

                            I patiently explained to you why this is a silly and invalid analogy in a previous thread. It relates to the relative utility of deadly weapons and lifesaving medications. Feel free to peruse my comments, otherwise, I'm moving on.

                          •  I wasn't writing for you - but for others who (0+ / 0-)

                            will read this thread.

                          •  It was (0+ / 0-)

                            an awful lot of verbiage for no real point, don't you think?

                          •  Chill the fuck out. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            There are much better targets for this type of vitriol.

                            LilithGardener's plans might not go as far as you want, but they're definitely not something a gun nut would suggest.

                            "What victims?" -KVoimakas, RKBA

                            by Recall on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 09:07:40 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Come again? (0+ / 0-)

                            The only one making vitriolic comments was LilithGardner ("When you project your imagination onto them, and paint all gun owners with a broad brush you reveal your tunnel vision and and a few other things about yourself, but contribute nothing to addressing the problems." -- I mean, REALLY?)

                            I've been rather kind. Moreover, I've agreed that I would support her plans were they ever seriously proposed. What more do you want?

                          •  Thank you - (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm getting some flack from the other side too.

                            That doesn't mean I'm right, but hopefully I'm planting some seeds in the middle ground. We didn't get here overnight, and we won't solve these problems overnight either.

                          •  "out of touch" (0+ / 0-)
                            You seem out of touch with how more than half the country actually lives.
                            Yes. So were the abolitionists.

                            I am proud to be "out of touch" with a country that currently allows 300,000 shootings and 30,000+ deaths per year from private gun ownership. Enough is enough

                          •  Glad to have inadverntly given you a compliment (0+ / 0-)

                            So now you've finally written a clear, concise statement of your position and your reasoning.

                            Would you support a significant tax increase to pay for reparations to blacks and First Nations Peoples?

                          •  Yikes. (0+ / 0-)
                            I don't think AR 15 in the hands of someone who understands how it works and how to use it safely are inherently any more dangerous than a .22 revolver.
                            And yet, given that it can fire at a higher rate with a much larger capacity, it clearly is more dangerous. So, again, you're wrong.

                            Not that there is really a "safe" way to use such a weapon.

                            Just because some nut job used one to commit murder doesn't mean take them away from the millions of other citizens who won't.
                            Actually: 1) there have been many, many such "nutjobs" and surely more to come and 2) Yes, it does mean we should take them away, in the absence of a compelling reason to let the other potential nutjobs have theirs. So far, no one has provided a substantial argument as to why a person needs to own a gun in 2013.
                          •  You should quit while your ahead (0+ / 0-)
                            And yet, given that it can fire at a higher rate with a much larger capacity, it clearly is more dangerous. So, again, you're wrong.

                            Not that there is really a "safe" way to use such a weapon.

                            This is absolutely untrue.  Enough said.
                          •  How do you figure it's not true? (0+ / 0-)

                            It can do more damage in less time. It is obviously more dangerous.  

                            Here's a suggestion: make an argument instead of a (false) assertion for a change.

                            P.S. wouldn't hurt for you to learn to master the apostrophe if you want people to take you a bit more seriously either.

                          •  Well for starter, please excuse my grammar (0+ / 0-)

                            as I was commenting at 4am over my first cup of coffee.

                            The idea that an AR15 or other semi-automatic rifle fires at a "higher rate" than other semi-automatic guns is false.  They are all one trigger pull, one bullet.  This idea is nothing more than a scare tactic to push an agenda.

                          •  Maybe you need even more coffee (0+ / 0-)

                            You said:

                            I don't think AR 15 in the hands of someone who understands how it works and how to use it safely are inherently any more dangerous than a .22 revolver
                            Now I may not actively fellate handguns like some folks around here, but I am fairly certain that semiautomatic revolvers are exceedingly rare and were not what you were referring to with that comment. And conventional revolver firing rates are not up to semiautomatic firing rates in the hands of the vast majority of people.

                            We are all well aware that semiautos can all fire at approximately the same rate (ie, how fast one pulls the trigger)-- but it's nice of you to respond to what you imagine I wrote instead of what I actually did.

                            Even if this were not so, however, the revolver in your statement will still need to be reloaded more often than an AR15.

                            The AR15 is therefore capable of doing more damage in less time. Like I said. Do you think the military prefers this style of weapon just because it "looks cool"? Maybe before you go spouting off you could educate yourself a bit about guns.

                            There is no "scare tactic to push an agenda" as the pro death-and-destruction crowd likes to claim. Some weapons have the capability to do more damage in less time than others. This is a fact. In fact, it's a selling point.

                            To me, this is not enough reason to ban some guns as a class preferentially over other deadly weapons; that is to say, I agree with your argument that it doesn't matter so much.  My conclusion, however, is different from yours in that I take the tremendous carnage that it is only possible to wreak with firearms, look at the astounding irresponsibility of the American Public (and gun owners in particular) and conclude that the best course of action is clearly to essentially ban the guns altogether (as is the case in many civilized countries around the world). You and your ilk conclude that the body count isn't high enough and apparently want to give guns out like candy to everybody so that we're all "safer".

                            I like my approach much, much better.

                      •  All of those things can change. (0+ / 0-)

                        And should if we are to progress as a society. Moreover, the situation is not nearly as "basic" as you claim. There are legal limits on entire classes of firearms, for instance, that are constitutional.

                        The goal should be eventual repeal of 2A altogether, but we can take intermediate steps along the way.

              •  No its the GUN CULTURE that is doing the killing (0+ / 0-)

                Not the young black men with their illegal handguns.  A pox on you for spreading such lies!

      •  You missed an entire class of militia. (9+ / 0-)

        Take a look at 10 USC Sec. 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.
        (b) The classes of the militia are -
                (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
                (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
        You are identifying only one of the two classes of militia. The National Guard is part of the organized militia, most of the remainder of able bodied males from 17 to 45 are members of the unorganized militia.
        •  It is the sworn duty of the Commander in Chief (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bisbonian, Poor Grunt, eXtina, akmk

          to uphold the Constitution, and to thereby REGULATE the MILITIA. What he says goes! It is in black and white.

          Why is this not the fulcrum of the entire discussion?

          Regulate the militia! Decide which weapons. Register all militia members. Standardize their responsibilities and rights.

          Why is this so neglected??? It is written! Read the 2nd Amendment from the beginning, not the end.

          skipping over damaged area

          by Says Who on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:55:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  possibly why 2nd was rewritten to refer to states (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Says Who

            instead of keeping the original language that referred to the country as a whole.

            The southern states were afraid that the President could nationalize their citizens into a federal militia and use his regulatory powers to prevent them being used in slave patrols, effectively ending slavery.

            •  Can this one diary shed more light (0+ / 0-)

              than all the judicial minds to date? Are we breaking new ground that must not be ignored?

              Seriously, the phrase "well-regulated militia" is LAW.
              Let's regulate, Executive Branch!

              skipping over damaged area

              by Says Who on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 07:25:19 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  no (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wishbone

                the power to regulate the militia is described under Article I.  The second amendment neither adds nor subtracts anything from that power, except to clarify that neither that nor anything in the constitution empowers the government to take away arms from the people.

                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 Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 08:15:24 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Good lord ... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              noway2

              study the anti-federalist position as the chief driver of the Bill of Rights.  The leading proponents were from New York and New England ... as well as Virginia.

              Their principal political issue was excessive power residing with a centralized federal government that could lead to a form of tyrannical monarchy from which the colonies and their citizens had been recently liberated.

              This 2A slave patrol business is a-historical crap.

              •  Ratifiers worried they'd lose control of slaves (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite

                Perhaps not everyone viewed the 2nd as a way to keep the federal government from stopping slavery, but many did.

                As Patrick Henry put it during Virginia's ratification process:

                If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia.
                •  That is was clearly an illustration (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  noway2

                  and not a principal rationale.  This further quotation from the Virginia Ratification debates makes quite clear that Henry's primary concern was the delegation of powers to the federal government that would preclude the exercise of retained powers of the state -- the classic Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate in a host of issues beyond those simply of standing armies, militias and individual right to keep and bear arms:

                  Suppose an insurrection in Virginia, and suppose there be danger apprehended of an insurrection in another state, from the exercise of the government; or suppose a national war; and there be discontents among the people of this state, that produce, or threaten, an insurrection; suppose Congress, in either case, demands a number of militia,--will they not be obliged to go? Where are your reserved rights, when your militia go to a neighboring state?
                  ...
                  The state legislatures ought to have power to call forth the efforts of the militia, when necessary. Occasions for calling them out may be urgent, pressing, and instantaneous. The states cannot now call them, let an insurrection be ever so perilous, without an application to Congress.
                  ...
                  With respect to the concurrent jurisdiction, it is a political monster of absurdity. We have passed that clause which gives Congress an unlimited authority over the national wealth; and here is an unbounded control over the national strength. Notwithstanding this clear, unequivocal relinquishment of the power of controlling the militia, you say the states retain it, for the very purposes given to Congress. Is it fair to say that you give the power of arming the militia, and at the same time to say you reserve it? This great national government ought not to be left in this condition. If it be, it will terminate in the destruction of our liberties.
                  http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/...
                  •  a concern nonetheless, else why mention it? /nt (0+ / 0-)
                    •  But Carl Bogus and Tom Hartman have (0+ / 0-)

                      bootstrapped an illustration into the central rationale -- which is a demonstrable deceit in support of an agenda.

                      And that deceit has been carried into DK commentary as perpetuation of an historical falsehood.

                      The 2nd Amendment categorically was not designed or adopted for the purpose of protecting slave patrols in the south.  To suggest this is modern day fiction in complete disregard of historical fact.

                      •  I said that played a role, and it undeniable did (0+ / 0-)

                        I wasn't claiming it was the only reason for the 2nd, but you can't deny it didn't contribute to the impetus and wording.

                        In particular, whenever you read a southern concern about "states' rights" you can be pretty sure they especially had one right in mind:  the right to enforce slavery.

          •  Back then, "well-regulated" meant "trained" (8+ / 0-)

            Semantics count.

            Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

            by Tom Seaview on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 07:09:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  The President may regulate the militia (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher

            the 2nd Amendment addresses those who may be drawn into the militia.

        •  Uh huh. (5+ / 0-)

          Which, given that we do not call random citizens to serve in a hastily thrown together militia as we did at the time (which is a good thing, since history shows that when we did, the results were piss poor,) has absolutely no relevance to the reality we live in today.

          Other than as a desperate attempt to justify why we should just keep pouring buckets of guns on the country.

    •  Maybe that is the solution, if you want a gun, you (6+ / 0-)

      have to devote one weekend a month to training to use that gun.  We have bases all over the country so the logistics would be easy.  You want to be part of a militia, you have to march and take orders and train and basically be accountable to the local authorities as the 2nd Amendment clearly intended.

    •  Surprisingly, the originalists (12+ / 0-)

      writing the majority for Heller seemed not to care that the  tortured, ungrammatical-even-by-eighteenth-century-standards clause-laden construction of the Second Amendment as ratified was in every way a compromise. Other drafts, and other founding documents, either leave the militia out entirely or make it distinctly clear that only they may bear arms and only while performing national defense-related tasks.

      The solution as ratified in the Constitution was designed to appeal to no one, to satisfy no one fully, and to offend no one too much.

      Yet Scalia, in his opinion, treats the entire first half of the Amendment as non-operable; that is, it doesn't matter what it says. Out of the truly original position of the Amendment, which was full of compromise, Scalia wrings out an absolutist interpretation that- respectfully for those members of RKBA reading this- had never existed at the federal level prior.

    •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

      the idea was, if we ever suddenly realized we needed a militia, we could form one out of people who already owned guns and knew how to use them.

      Otherwise, it's pretty fucking stupid to think we needed a constitutional amendment to prevent Congress from disarming the people Congress wanted to arm.

      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 Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 08:03:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is getting tedious (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishbone

      The courts have also clarified the meaning of militia which can mean either official militia like the national guard or the civilian militia consisting of all able bodied civilians.  In the courts opinion it is clear and apparent that the RKBA applies to citizens outside of militia or military service.

      So far this diary has done an excellent job of repeating ad nauseum the typical anti talking points, slavery, militia, that the courts were wrong, blah, blah, blah....

  •  Just musing here.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Void Indigo, Gooserock, drmah

    Makes one wonder about the right to "Life," doesn't it?

    What do we want? Universal health care! When do we want it? Now!

    by cagernant on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:19:27 PM PST

    •  Naw (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pluto

      Just that some decide to read it as "the right to YOUR life."

      Should you happen to bother them in any way that is.

    •  The Right to Life Ends at Birth nt (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pluto, drmah, gzodik, hazzcon, a2nite

      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 Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:25:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Where does right to life lead? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DavidMS, noway2

      This isn't a garden path argument, this is a train of thought where you can debark at any stop.

      Does the right to life imply the right to protect life?

      Does the right to protect life imply the right to fight back against attackers when necessary? A pacifist would say "no".

      Does the right to fight back include the right to have the means of fighting back? Some say "no" to this. There are jurisdictions that don't allow pepper spray or stun guns.

      Does the right to have the means of fighting back include the right to have guns for the purpose? Many jurisdictions have said "no" because of the lethality of guns, or just for culture war reasons, or because of a risk assessment about the likelihood of misuse versus the likelihood of protecting the innocent.

      Isn't it possible for a sane decent person to differ from you by answering "yes" to all those questions?

      Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

      by Dogs are fuzzy on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 07:05:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  For conservatives... (0+ / 0-)

      right to life ends at birth.

    •  "Right to life" doesn't count with gun culture's (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite

      collateral damage mentality.

  •  Bravo, Mr. Lewis (16+ / 0-)

    You say it much better than I can.  I want guns to become as socially unacceptable as public smoking and drunk driving.  Right now armed men are allowed to walk through the Oregon Capitol, but would face a steep fine if they lit a cigarette.

  •  Nonsense. It was always there. (10+ / 0-)
    The constitutional right to own and carry firearms, now encoded in the United States thanks to the judicial activism of  the right wing extremists of the Roberts Court....
    Read a history book, please.  

    Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

    by SpamNunn on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:26:25 PM PST

  •  So is the entire constitution invalid? (11+ / 0-)

    because it was written by

    a "... the small, exclusive and exclusionary group of white Protestant men, some of whom were slave owners, some of whom were monarchists, and none of whom seemed to think women should be allowed to participate in governance, who lived more than two centuries ago but whose words more than two centuries later are considered sacrosanct for guiding us through the modern world.
    good grief.
  •  Fwiw, anti-abortion ppl would disagree (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Timbuk3, Tuscarora

    to the tune of 50 million deaths by abortion since Roe v. Wade. Of course we here do not agree with their reckoning.

    YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

    by raincrow on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:31:15 PM PST

  •  Where do you live? (7+ / 0-)
    But there are virtually no limits on the right to own and carry firearms
    There are many regulations with conceal and carry, background checks etc.  Now we can discuss the need for more or maybe more effective, enforcable legislation.....but I disagree with that statement.  I live in CT, we have pretty tough regulations.

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by ctexrep on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:35:59 PM PST

    •  and the loopholes (5+ / 0-)

      have loopholes.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:38:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And you invariably ignore or dismiss (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        noway2

        facts to make your points.  What loophole are you specifically referring to with regard to CT's "assault weapon" ban?  

        •  seriously? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber, a2nite, tytalus

          how about that only very specific weapons were banned, and the manufacturers just worked right around them. the bushmaster .223 was legal. not to mention that little problem that banning a weapon in one state doesn't prevent someone from going to the exorbitant trouble of driving an hour across the state border to buy one, then drive it back in.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 12:36:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Um ... no. (0+ / 0-)

            The Bushmaster AR is expressly banned in CT.

            And differing state laws regarding firearm regulation does not constitute a loophole -- it is called U.S. federalism.

            The better question is are you serious ... or is this just a game for you of persistently throwing non-factual bullshit against the wall hoping something sticks?

            •  tell that (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Glen The Plumber, a2nite, tytalus

              to cbs news.

              http://newyork.cbslocal.com/...

              and states rights doesn't generally sell, among liberals and democrats. perhaps you might like to learn a little about the civil rights era.

              The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

              by Laurence Lewis on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 02:33:21 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Tell CBS to Look Up (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Shamash

                Connecticut Statutes ...

                Sec. 53-202a. Assault weapons: Definition. (a) As used in this section and sections 53-202b to 53-202k, inclusive, "assault weapon" means:

                      (1) Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms: Algimec Agmi; Armalite AR-180; Australian Automatic Arms SAP Pistol; Auto-Ordnance Thompson type; Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type; Barrett Light-Fifty model 82A1; Beretta AR-70; Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol; Calico models M-900, M-950 and 100-P; Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88; Colt AR-15 and Sporter; Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max-1 and Max-2; Encom MK-IV, MP-9 and MP-45; Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FN/FNC; FAMAS MAS 223; Feather AT-9 and Mini-AT; Federal XC-900 and XC-450; Franchi SPAS-12 and LAW-12; Galil AR and ARM; Goncz High-Tech Carbine and High-Tech Long Pistol; Heckler & Koch HK-91, HK-93, HK-94 and SP-89; Holmes MP-83; MAC-10, MAC-11 and MAC-11 Carbine type; Intratec TEC-9 and Scorpion; Iver Johnson Enforcer model 3000; Ruger Mini-14/5F folding stock model only; Scarab Skorpion; SIG 57 AMT and 500 series; Spectre Auto Carbine and Auto Pistol; Springfield Armory BM59, SAR-48 and G-3; Sterling MK-6 and MK-7; Steyr AUG; Street Sweeper and Striker 12 revolving cylinder shotguns; USAS-12; UZI Carbine, Mini-Carbine and Pistol; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson "Linda" Pistol;

                Sec. 53-202b. Sale or transfer of assault weapon prohibited. Class C felony. (a)(1) Any person who, within this state, distributes, transports or imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives any assault weapon, except as provided by sections 29-37j and 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a, shall be guilty of a class C felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which two years may not be suspended or reduced.
                So tell me again what loophole you're actually talking about ... now that we have the facts sorted out.

                And spare me your pathetic lecturing about states rights ... if you want to pretend to be a political analyst, learn to talk about federalism without getting all pissy and squirmy.

                •  tell that to the hartford courant (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Glen The Plumber, a2nite, tytalus

                  http://articles.courant.com/...

                  and yeah, it's so hard to drive a gun over a state line, anyway. and don't blame me for your pathetic states' rights argument.

                  The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                  by Laurence Lewis on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 06:14:29 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I understand that your (0+ / 0-)

                    knowledge or abilities do not include reading or interpreting actual statutes even when I bold the language for you to see that the Bushmaster is specifically identified as a banned firearm ... along with the Colt AR-15.  

                    So just keep believing what you get from the media because it always proves so reliable ... or not.  The characteristics that your cub reporter addressed involved another statutory section that allows to identification of "assault weapons" even if they were not specifically identified by brand or model as the Bushmaster is in fact. So ... fail.  Yet again.

                    And your belief that the political and legal issues of federalism equates with racist states' rights claims only betrays your jaw dropping ignorance on the issues.  

                    How do you remotely merit Front Page responsibilities?

    •  CT's "pretty tough" regulations didn't mean (5+ / 0-)

      much when Adam Lanza decided to sacrifice his mother, 6 educators, and 20 children.

      BoldlyLiberal on Zazzle: Products for proud and pragmatic progressives, liberals, tree-huggers, and loyal Democrats

      by jan4insight on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:43:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Holy shit (4+ / 0-)

        You mean that it's possible to cross state lines and purchase weapons that aren't legal in your own state?

        Next, you're probably going to tell us that Sandy Hook happened because of CT's gun regulations and that if there had been an adult with a gun at Sandy Hook they would have been able to stop Adam Lanza, right?

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

        by TDDVandy on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:50:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  There are no laws or regulations (8+ / 0-)

        that will stop an Adam Lanza - how many laws did he break commiting that masacre?

        Read about our laws and regulations.

        There really are no laws that can stop someone who illegally obtains their weapon - regardless if the laws are tough or not.

        I don't know what the answer is but as much as I wish a law would help - I don't think it will.

        The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

        by ctexrep on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 07:08:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Reducing the number/amount of guns (4+ / 0-)

          especially the military/assault type (or whatever the PC term for those things is now) washing around in our society probably would.

          BoldlyLiberal on Zazzle: Products for proud and pragmatic progressives, liberals, tree-huggers, and loyal Democrats

          by jan4insight on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 09:26:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I highly disagree (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snowwoman, a2nite, CriticallyDamped

          Laws which made the manufacture, sale, and ownership of guns illegal could not prevent any and all gun crime. They very well could, however, make such weapons rare, difficult to obtain, and expensive. It's unlikely that if an AR-15 cost $50,000 that Adam Lanza could have obtained one.

          There really are laws that can stop people from obtaining weapons due to simple logistics. Smuggling and affording rare and illegal things requires a certain level of means and sophistication that many criminals and insane people are simply incapable of.

          •  Setting aside the concept of banning a class (0+ / 0-)

            of weapons, which the Supreme Court has declared is not an option ....

            The fact remains that there are millions of Americans who do not want weapons such as the AR 15 made  rare, difficult to obtain, and expensive.  

            •  The fact remains that (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mudfud27, a2nite

              Those millions of Americans are VASTLY outnumbered, no matter how well funded by arms manufacturers they are.

              There are hundreds of millions of americans that want ar15s to be rare, difficult to obtain, and very fucking expensive, both to buy and to own.

              •  Apparently not enough of them to make a damned (0+ / 0-)

                bit of difference politically because it isn't likely to happen.

              •  Your math's a bit dodgy, I fear (0+ / 0-)

                The US has a population of about 315,527,000. 27% are under 20, so 85,192,290 are mostly minors. Let's be generous and say that 20% of that number are 18- and 19-year-olds. That gives us 17,038,458 voting adults in that number.

                All right, so we take the total population and subtract those under 18, which gives us 247,373, 168 adults of voting age. Let's not even worry about subtracting out those who can't vote (e.g., felons whose voting rights have been stripped away).

                Your assertion is that hundreds of millions of US citizens want AR-15s to be hard or effectively impossible to either purchase or own. That could only mean a number between 200 million and ~250 million, given the population analysis per above.

                So you believe (or at least assert) that at least 80% of that population favors the strict and precise ban on AR-15s. I would be very curious to see if you have back-up for that claim, because frankly that seems way off to me.

                •  I never said a goddamn thing about (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Recall

                  "effectively impossible", now DID I?  Nor did I say anything about a "strict and precise ban of AR-15s".  

                  Why is it that every, single time I'm talking to someone who can't bear the idea of remotely stricter gun control, they start making up straw man fantasies about what I've PERSONALLY said?

                  So I'm not arguing with you, since you're so happy to play my part for me.  Fuck off until you learn some reading comprehension.

    •  nonsense -- CT laws are nearly worthless (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pluto, drmah, mudfud27, snowwoman, a2nite

      As long as convicted felons can drive to another state, buy a truckload of AK-47's at a yard sale and then drive back.

      Without federal registration of guns and federal restrictions on gun sales, states and cities can at best reduce the carnage by a few percent on their own.

      Not to mention that the guns used at Sandy Hook were perfectly legal up until a few minutes before the massacre.

      More legal guns => more children die

      Until they are all banned, the carnage will continue.

      •  That may be true (0+ / 0-)

        but what you will need is a constitutional ammendment to ban the sale of firearms - if it is the will of the people, then it shall happen - it won't be easy, and it's not supposed to be easy to ammend the constitution - but regarless of what anyone thinks or wants - we have a Constitution that protects certain rights - those guys that wrote the constition, for all of their personal shortfalls, were pretty smart people.  

        You're not going to get a ban on weapons - and lets face it, handguns are the killers - sure the assault rifles can shoot up a place pretty darn bad but not too many people get killed by assault rifles when comparing them to handguns.

        So if you're really passionate, start a drive to get the constitution ammended.  That would achieve the goal in you r last statement - everything else won't work.

        But - be sure to build a lot of prisons becasue there will be a large minority of people who will not abide by the new ammendment - so you'll have to be prepared to lock em all up.

        The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

        by ctexrep on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 09:26:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  as I've always said, the gun "debate" is not about (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sven Boogie, a2nite

    guns, and never really has been.  It's one group of people screeching "you can't tell us what to do !!!!" and another group of people saying "oh yes we can".

    That's why it ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS devolves into blithering about "Constitution blah blah blah freedomz blah blah blah rights blah blah blah tyranny blah blah blah".

    It's like a teenage boy whose mom tells him to clean his room, and he stomps his foot and yells "it's a free country and you can't make me !!!!"  Um, yes we can.  (shrug)

    The Second Amendment is no more absolute than the other 26 amendments are.

  •  The 2nd could be repealed. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy

    that would make it very very easy. at that point it would just be up to federal or state authorities who could own a gun and what type.

    I see what you did there.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:37:57 PM PST

    •  That is not going to happen. Instead, we (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      noway2, a2nite

      will legislate a few things. If the popular will exists, we will come up to the SC again and see what happens. Also, the SC is also an authority (as is the Constitution).

      “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

      by jeff in nyc on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:40:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  In Japan more people were killed by scissors (8+ / 0-)

    last year than by guns.  

    Thanks to Japan's firearms and swords control act. Even the Yakuza are reluctant to use firearms because of that law.

    •  But, see (6+ / 0-)

      the gun nuts would argue that the fact that you can kill people with scissors is a reason for why we shouldn't regulate guns.

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

      by TDDVandy on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:51:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Disarming Japanese society (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shamash, noway2

      began over 400 years ago and as a means of controlling the population.

      Having conquered the Japanese, Hidéyoshi meant to keep them under control. On 29 August 1588, Hidéyoshi announced 'the Sword Hunt' (taiko no katanagari) and banned possession of swords and firearms by the non-noble classes. He decreed:

      The people in the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms or other arms. The possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult the collection of taxes and tends to foment uprisings... Therefore the heads of provinces, official agents and deputies are ordered to collect all the weapons mentioned above and turn them over to the Government.[68](emphasis original)

      ...

      True, the Japanese paid a price for their order. Freedom was an alien concept. Interclass, social, and geographic mobility were extinguished. Indeed, as Turnbull points out, (p.35)Hidéyoshi's hunt for swords and firearms marked the end of social freedom in Japan.

      David B. Kopel, Japanese Gun Control, 2 Asia Pac. L. Rev. 26-52 (1993)

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

      •  and now they've modernized their government (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber, a2nite, tytalus

        and like all modern economically developed democracies, continue to ban guns. except ours, of course.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 12:37:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Read the law review article ... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Shamash, noway2

          it discusses the police state ethos and public subservience to authority existing in modern Japanese society as a long standing cultural phenomenon with clear historical roots.  

          You seem to miss the salient point that the demonstrated historical rationale for disarmament around the world is social control, as it was similarly instituted modernly in the Great Britain and its Dominions when implementing the recommendations of the Blackwell Report (1918):

          "3. We regard the whole position as one of considerable gravity. There are two distinct categories of person from whom danger is to be apprehended, viz., (1) the savage or semi-civilised tribesmen in outlying parts of the British Empire, whose main demand is for rifles and ammunition, and (2) the anarchist or 'intellectual' malcontent of the great cities, whose weapons are the bomb and the automatic pistol. There is some force in the view .... that the latter will in future prove the more dangerous of the two. At any rate, his activities will call for unceasing vigilance, and very special precautions will be necessary to control the trade in automatic pistols, which, apart from their extreme deadliness, are, by reason of their size and shape, more easily smuggled than any other type of weapon. As regards the tribesman, he already possesses rifles in abundance, and, desirable as it is to prevent him from adding to their number, it is, in our opinion, of still greater importance to check his supplies of ammunition, without which his weapons are useless to him ....
          These social constructs and policies are anathema (in principle) to our own national liberal democratic tradition.
          •  yes (5+ / 0-)

            tell that to the british, the french, the germans, the south koreans, the australians, etc., etc. not to mention the scandinavians. and once again, 1918 is not today. japan keeps those laws because they work, and the people like them. just as every other economically developed democracy likes their gun control laws.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 02:31:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't want (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              noway2

              Japanese laws for this country ... nor French, German etc., etc.

              We have fundamental constitutional rights that govern here and that are not recognized or respected elsewhere in the world.

              I understand that you prefer to ignore historical evidence and cherry pick Constitutional rights to suit your own particular sensitivities, however that is not enlightened or progressive at all but rather a wretched form of illiberal authoritarianism.

            •  Laurence, that cite is from a right wing ideologue (7+ / 0-)

              ... who works for the Cato Institute. I love the fact that we have people on this site bringing their bullshit NRA propaganda here and presenting it as fact.

              There's another guy downthread who cites the "History of gun control" from a lunatic fringe right wing site.

              Of course, the reason there aren't better studies of the effects of guns and gun violence on our society is because the NRA has successfully shut down any federal funding of such studies.

              •  When all else fails, drag out the NRA, nt (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ancblu
                •  The guy is a right wing tool. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Glen The Plumber, a2nite, indie17

                  Period.

                  His "research" is funded by ALEC.

                  You want to cite right wing tools on this website? Go for it.

                  But it doesn't help your cause.

                •  I was referring to the fact that you were trying (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ancblu, bernardpliers

                  to use the NRA as a trump card in the discussion.   The fact that more issue is made about the NRA then anything else is a lot of why I've come to believe that the issue at hand isn't guns, it isn't about rights, and it isn't about saving lives.  It is about scoring political points against the Conservatives.

                  I would also point out that just because something come from someone whose views are politically Right doesn't mean it is automatically false or without value.  Hell, most of the anti-gun arguments I've seen, each of which has been pulled out yet again in this thread one after another, are based upon lies and half-truths.  The whole gun debate has shown me a lot of truth about the political Left and it reminds me of the ending to Animal Farm.

                  •  Well, you haven't been here long. (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Glen The Plumber, a2nite, Recall, indie17

                    Maybe that's your perception because you only arrived recently (post-Sandy Hook) and all that you discuss is guns.

                    Are you interested in any other political topics?

                    •  Actually Bob You Should Listen Carefully To That (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ancblu, noway2

                      Since you've been enough of a dick to flirt with the ban hammer.

                      There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

                      by bernardpliers on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 07:41:46 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Of course I am interested in other political (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ancblu

                      topics, but this one affects me personally.  Besides, why should you care what topics I choose to partake in?  Unless of course you're just trying to intimidate me into silence because any dissenting opinion is a threat to you?

                      Quite frankly, a lot of these gun topics have gotten pretty boring as they keep coming down to the same groups saying the same things with the followers hitting the like button on the same comments.  For example, Glen The Plumber, a2nite thinking your last comment was somehow profound.  

                      You see Bob, you and those like you are not the object of the discussion.  I know you won't be convinced, nor will you ever change your mind.  Trying to do so isn't important and it isn't the objective.  It is the millions of silent readers who aren't voicing an opinion either way. While these discussion may be getting boring, I am certainly willing to keep going because I refuse to allow the conversation to be dominated by you and your fellow antis and allow the lurkers to think that your anti sentiments are unanimous and representative of Liberals by default.

                      •  My point is that you're seeing only a very narrow (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        a2nite, indie17

                        ... sector of the site and making generalizations off of that:

                        The whole gun debate has shown me a lot of truth about the political Left and it reminds me of the ending to Animal Farm.
                        But, of course, you take my question as some sort of "initimidation" which says a lot more about you than it does about me.

                        And you call me an "anti?" Again, your perspective is skewed. You put everyone into one of only two camps. The "pros" and the "antis." It's simplistic and rather Fox Newsian of you.

                        I support the Second Amendment and I also support additional restrictions on some weapons and capacities.

                        But, apparently, there is no middle ground with you. One is either for or against, kind of how Dick Cheney used to say, "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists."

                        •  Now that's just frick'n ironic. (0+ / 0-)

                          You've been playing the ideological us vs. them like a fiddle here and now you get all personally offended and presume to lecture against simplistic generalizations ... and wait ... by hurling a simplistic generalization.

                          Do you have any self-awareness?

                          •  Oh, I'm not offended. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            a2nite

                            Just making an observation.

                            As for my diaries, they're a different animal. I know you guys are offended by them. But a bunch of you spent weeks talking about the fine points of weaponry and used that knowledge to shut down reasonable discussion of gun control proposals so I skewered you.

                            Surprise. You didn't like it.

                          •  Skewered? (0+ / 0-)

                            Ha.  Not really.

                            And aren't you the one who gets all sensitive with uninformed speculation about who you are and what you believe ... and yet you so casually engage in what supposedly offends you.

                            A bunch of us ... a bunch of me?  Who exactly is shutting down reasonable discussion of firearm regulation proposals?

                            If "you guys" are offended by proffers of technical knowledge when debating regulatory proposals based on technical criteria, don't you think it a reasonable expectation that you have a clue about what you are talking about?

                            But since you don't seem to pay much attention to detail, the fact is that "me" or "us" have proposed many different forms of what "I" or "we" believe are reasonable forms of regulation -- and though it seems to confound your need for binary simplicity, the range of proposals is quite wide and hardly uniform.

                          •  Good example... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            a2nite

                            noway2 in this thread classifies anyone who supports the Second Amendment and limited restrictions on certain types of weapons and magazine capacities as "antis."

                            noway2's position is not unique among many RKBA members here, would you agree? May or may not be your position, personally, but it certainly has been the position of many of the more vocal RKBA members here.

                          •  I consider the mouth-breathing antis (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Bob Johnson, a2nite

                            as those who studiously avoid substance and resort instead to infantile projections about their own phallic insecurities, accuse opponents as being nutters or shills for the NRA and dismiss historical or technical discussion that is over their head as mere semantics or Scalia apologias.

                            There are advocates on the control side of the debate who are genuinely interested in exploring how and to what degree this can be accomplished.

                            But to answer your point, I find most RKBA stridency -- mine as well at this point -- is more a function of exhaustion with the infantile supra than any inflexible views about how reform measures could reasonably proceed.

                          •  Sorry you're so exhausted. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ancblu

                            Hope things settle down here soon.

                        •  Lets ask this. Do you understand what I mean (0+ / 0-)

                          with my reference to the end of Animal Farm?

                          I don't recall the exact wording, but it was something about how the animals looked upon the humans and pigs having their pow wow and couldn't tell the difference between.  

                          What I was getting at was that there is fundamentally little difference between the Left and the Right.  They each have their polar stances on a few issues but otherwise they just mirror each other.  Of course both sides are trying to claim gun rights as their territory, but it is problematic as it is a state vs individual issue which makes it elusive to both sides.

                          It is also ironic that you are trying to claim middle ground while pigeon holing me into a "either or" on the basis that I used the terms pro and anti and then try to extrapolate that into the restrictions debate.  In essence, your trying to use this as defense for the restrictions YOU support.   As ancblue said, "You've been playing the ideological us vs. them" this whole time.

                      •  You should read some of the RKBA diaries (0+ / 0-)

                        from before Sandy Hook.

                        Quite frankly, a lot of these gun topics have gotten pretty boring as they keep coming down to the same groups saying the same things with the followers hitting the like button on the same comments.  For example, Glen The Plumber, a2nite thinking your last comment was somehow profound.  

                        You see Bob, you and those like you are not the object of the discussion.  I know you won't be convinced, nor will you ever change your mind.  Trying to do so isn't important and it isn't the objective.  It is the millions of silent readers who aren't voicing an opinion either way. While these discussion may be getting boring, I am certainly willing to keep going because I refuse to allow the conversation to be dominated by you and your fellow antis and allow the lurkers to think that your anti sentiments are unanimous and representative of Liberals by default.

                        "What victims?" -KVoimakas, RKBA

                        by Recall on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 05:22:27 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  You're well over his head noway2 (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    noway2

                    LL's stock in trade is identifying and demonizing an enemy to avoid any effort at critical reasoning.  

                    The firearm rights/control issue does not conveniently fall into a political right-left binary set, however much our resident banner zealots love to cast it in those terms.  

                    •  You're right. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ancblu, andalusi

                      Indeed, this diary has been giving me some inspiration for another one on the subject of why the Left has lost the gun control restrictions debate.  Much of it has to do with the fact that they are trying to make it into a left-right issue and have trouble accepting dissent from their own side.

              •  that people joined the site (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Glen The Plumber, a2nite, Recall, tytalus

                after 12/14, just to defend their gun ownership, says all that needs be said about their values and perspective.

                The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                by Laurence Lewis on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 06:16:32 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  David Kopel? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite, Glen The Plumber

        The guy from the Cato Institute?

        Look, just because you can cite a study (from a site called guncite.com) doesn't mean the study has any value whatsoever.

        What's really sad and funny about you citing a right wing ideologue as a source is the fact that the NRA has been successful at getting federal funding to actually study the impacts of guns on our society shut down.

        That's why it's difficult to find information that counteracts the kind of crap you cite here which is, essentially, NRA propaganda.

        •  Nice smarmy attack to avoid substance ... (0+ / 0-)

          as usual.

          First published in 1992, the internationally refereed Asia Pacific Law Review is the pre-eminent publication based in Asia focusing on law in the Asia Pacific region.
          Dave Kopel earned a B.A. in history with highest honors from Brown University, and won the National Geographic Society Prize for best History thesis with a biography of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. He graduated magna cum laude from the University of Michigan Law School. He was also a contributing editor of the Michigan Law Review.
          The citations and sources are more than credible ... so what else ya got?  Anything?  
          •  Right, he's a gun backer and Cato Institute fellow (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            a2nite, Glen The Plumber, KenBee, indie17

            Who do you think funds his work?

            David Kopel at the Cato Institute (right wing think tank)

            David Kopel, arguing post-Sandy Hook, that teachers should be armed.

            David Kopel as Research Director at the Independence Institute, another right wing think tank, which is funded by ALEC a right wing organization pushing an anti-worker, pro-corporate agenda and partially funded by the Koch brothers.

            So, no, Kopel isn't credible. He's a right wing tool spouting NRA talking points. And you're citing him here.

            What's next from you? A link to a Wayne LaPierre diatribe?

            •  Avoid the substance like the plague (0+ / 0-)

              and attack the messenger like a witch hunt.

              It's exactly the intellectually lazy and dishonest approach you always do so well.  

              •  You're the one avoiding the facts. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite, Glen The Plumber

                What this guy promotes is bought and paid for by ALEC and the Koch brothers. He is a discredited source whom you choose to cite because he supports your point of view which, ironically on a Democratic/progressive site, aligns with that of the Koch brothers and the nuts at the NRA.

                So you can prattle on and on about the "study" but his study is a load of horseshit.

                It's not a "witch hunt." It's calling a spade a spade. This guy is a right wing tool and you are promoting his agenda which is funded by other right tools.

                So congratulations.

                •  Ah yes ... not yet a single peep (0+ / 0-)

                  from either you or LL about the substance of the Law Review article or the English Commission report I quoted ... but I'm the one avoiding facts.  

                  Thank goodness I can't live up to your and LL expectations of what a democrat, liberal or progressive ought to be.  What a clownish parody of these virtues you two are.  

                  Hilarious indeed.

                  •  Isn't the conclusion of Kopel's article, basically (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    a2nite

                    ... that the societal conditions in Japan are not akin to societal conditions in the U.S., vis a vis guns, thus Japanese-style gun control would not work here?

                    I don't disagree with his conclusion.

                    That said, he's still a right wing tool.

                    So what's your point?

                    •  A point I emphasized (0+ / 0-)

                      both in Kopel's article and in quotation from the Blackwell Report were the motivations underlying these historical cases for disarmament -- pacification and prevention of civil uprisings and disturbances.

                      This has relevance when considering the history behind the 2nd Amendment, especially because several commenters have adopted the Carl Bogus and Tom Hartman thesis that the 2nd Amendment was adopted to protect slave patrols in the south -- a patently incorrect historical argument if one has any understanding of the English antecedents of the right to bear arms and the nature and impact of the anti-federalist arguments during the constitution ratification debates.

                      Again ... I have no idea if Kopel is a right wing tool or not.  Your emphasis on this judgment is unnecessary, IMO, if you can evaluate whether his arguments are supported or not by fact and reason.

                      •  I wonder if he will undertake a study of Somalia (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        a2nite

                        ... and its pervasive gun culture?

                        •  Because Somalia is trying to ban or regulate (0+ / 0-)

                          weapons?  What's your point, besides deflecting from anything relevant or factual?

                          •  Deflection of what? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            a2nite
                          •  Substance just ain't your thing, is it. (0+ / 0-)

                            It was only two comments up ... and in reply to your question.

                          •  It was a rhetorical question. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            a2nite

                            Kopel will study subjects and reach conclusions that support the points of view of his funders.

                          •  Of course it was rhetorical ... (0+ / 0-)

                            anything to avoid dealing with substance.  I get it.

                            And yet the Harvard Journal of Law and Policy recently published his work ... no doubt turning Harvard Law School into another Koch bastion.

                          •  His biases influence his selection of work. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            a2nite

                            Would you agree?

                          •  We are all influenced by our own biases (0+ / 0-)

                            This is a central thesis of the Critical Legal Studies movement ... particularly developed at Harvard Law School.

                            So I would suggest that your biases influence your judgement about his work ... even without, apparently, actually knowing his work.  

                            For you it is enough that he is associated with the Cato Institute founded and funded by the Koch brothers, for whom I also have little regard but make the effort to understand their arguments so they can be refuted, as necessary, with facts and reason.

                          •  Substance isn't his thing but (0+ / 0-)

                            apparently having a2nite up his backside is.

                          •  I don't think that's necessary. (0+ / 0-)

                            People rec for a lot of different reasons ... and not necessarily because of agreement.  Often I let people know I've read their comment by hitting a rec ... though it is a clumsy tool.

                            And even if it's for agreement, that is ok ... Bob does have his fans.  But these exchanges give others an opportunity to evaluate the pros and cons to reach their own conclusions.

                            My issues and disagreements in these threads have been with two people only and for the reasons I've stated -- Bob and LL.

                          •  You're right, I shouldn't have used a move from (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ancblu

                            their play book, by which I mean making a personal statement about a point of view, however, it strikes me that a few of these guys have developed a form of groupie following and that it seems like they could say. "rock and banana" and their followers would still rec click the posts.

                            These gun debates have really become mostly nonsensical and keep coming down to the same old fallacious points.

                          •  Welcome to DK ... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            noway2, andalusi

                            on different issues there are always different constellations of viewpoints.

                            What I find particularly objectionably in the gun rights/control debates is the inclination of control advocates to demonize those who disagree to greater or lesser degree.  For many, we are not real progressives or are shills for the NRA or Scalia clones.  The irony is that advocacy of the entire Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, at its essence a thoroughly liberal project.

                •  And I suppose by your belief system ... (0+ / 0-)

                  not reasoning mind you ... the Harvard Law School is also promoting "his agenda" since its journals are so well known for publishing "horseshit."

                  Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Vol. 35. No. 2. Spring 2012

                  The ignorant prattle award clearly belongs on your shelf.

        •  You fail. (0+ / 0-)

          If you bothered to read the article instead of pissing your pants over the link, you'd know that it was a transcript of a  properly cited scholarly paper written by a well-credentialed legal historian and published in a very reputable and juried law review.  

          I'm all for funded and objective study ... but it doesn't seem you're particularly up to the task.  If you don't like what you see, it's dismissed as NRA propaganda.  Your agenda is just as clear.

          •  "Well-credentialed legal historian" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            a2nite

            No, he's not.

            He's a right wing tool whose "research" is funded by ALEC, as I point out, above.

            So who has an agenda, again?

            Hilarious.

            •  I guarantee (0+ / 0-)

              you couldn't hold his academic jock strap -- since you don't even understand what well credentialed even means.

              But do carry on with your silly knee jerk blather to avoid any of the substance under discussion.  

              •  But you can sniff his academic jock strap. (0+ / 0-)

                That's what you're doing here.

                Do you disagree with the assessment that he is a right wing ideologue?

                •  Ahh ... and your academic credentials are (0+ / 0-)

                  obviously no better either.

                  Instead of resorting to your boring and always lazy personalized attacks to advance your discussion points, try addressing substance.  You pretend to be a political or legal analyst so give it a try.

                  •  I "pretend to be a political or legal analyst?" (0+ / 0-)

                    What are you talking about?

                  •  So would you say that Kopel is a right wing (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    a2nite

                    ideologue?

                    •  I don't know. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      johnel

                      I have read the article I cited and found nothing particularly ideological or objectionable -- and I'll note that I also have history and law degrees and served as a member and editor of law review as well.

                      I also looked at Kopel's academic credentials after you attacked his credibility and they are clearly exceptional.

                      What you object to his association with the Cato Institute that is clearly a libertarian "think tank" funded by the Koch brothers that must ... without any further reflection or consideration ... identify him as a right wing ideologue.  Whether he is or is not, I categorically disagree with the process by which you and LL come to these types of demonizing judgments and without any apparent effort to evaluate the factual, legal or logical merits of the analysis.

                      I am no fan of the Koch brothers or of certain more virulent strains of libertarianism -- particularly in economics and market regulation.  I am, however, a strict civil libertarian and believe that this perspective leads to my unwavering support for matters of civil rights and equality.

                      It is this last point that frames my approach to the "gun rights/control" debate in which I cannot see the justification for banning as an effective policy measure.  Instead, I would direct attention toward the traditional progressive agenda of income and educational equality to correct under-privilege and disadvantage as the better predictors of gun violence offenders.

        •  OMG, the NRA, Run away, Run Away ... (0+ / 0-)
  •  The stupidest thing I have read in a front-page (16+ / 0-)

    post on DK.  Ever.  

    That is the current official interpretation of the meaning of the vague words of the small, exclusive and exclusionary group of white Protestant men, some of whom were slave owners, some of whom were monarchists, and none of whom seemed to think women should be allowed to participate in governance, who lived more than two centuries ago but whose words more than two centuries later are considered sacrosanct for guiding us through the modern world.

    Do you know the meaning of an ad hominem argument, and why it is universally deplored (outside of right wing radio, etc.)?  That's what you're doing there, and I'm disturbed it is being given the credence of a prominent position on this blog.    

    There are things to be said about the Second Amendment, but the race and religious creed, etc., of the people who wrote it (and the First, Fourth, Fifths, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, of which I suppose you approve) should be irrelevant.    You ought to be ashamed of this.

  •  as I read your words... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Timbuk3, hmi, PavePusher, noway2
    "That is the current official interpretation of the meaning of the vague words of the small, exclusive and exclusionary group of white Protestant men, some of whom were slave owners, some of whom were monarchists, and none of whom seemed to think women should be allowed to participate in governance, who lived more than two centuries ago but whose words more than two centuries later are considered sacrosanct for guiding us through the modern world.
    ...

    The first one that came to my mind was George Washington. Without him there would be no consitution, no America. Washington is America. America is Washington!

    I first had the idea of depicting him as he was as a colonel in the French/American Indian war, and surviving many a French and Indian musketball at point blank range, much like our Constitution.

    Well, then there was this time a British sharpshooter --but I have no doubts that many of His Majesty King George III's regulars knew the war was over had they dispatched him -- had him in his sights when he was a General in the American Revolution, but he just felt the need to drop his weapon. Again, survivng volley after volley-much like the Constitution today.

    At any rate, as a colonel, he was ordered to deliver a message by horseback across the battlefield to his acting general. He did so, but not before surviving two horses shot out from under him and three bullet holes through his clothes -- two through his coat and one through his hat!

    Needless to say, that's quite the image of a man having his horse shot out from under him and his clothes riddled with bullets, yet still he doesn't waver, presses ever forward, and survives unscathed! Much like the Constitution!

    Every single enumerated and inalienable right was, is, and is still being written in blood today! And just for the record, I have more respect for the Founding Fathers and our Constitution than to ever apologize for the contempt of some of those who forget the sacrifices that millions have made on this nation's battlefield, are the reason why they don't find themselves standing in front of a firing squad, or in a gulag archepelago for uttering-or thinking outloudly the simple crime of dissent.

    "I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast, for I intend to go in harm's way." John Paul Jones

    by ImpeachKingBushII on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:52:36 PM PST

  •  Yep. And it's a total stretch. (7+ / 0-)
    Thanks to the judicial activism of the right-wing extremists of the Roberts Court, there is an individual constitutional right to bear arms. That is the current law. That is the current official interpretation
    But they hang onto it 'for dear life'. But somehow the Roe v. Wade decision is up for discussion and all sorts of activism is ok, to skirt it and circumvent it. The same should be done to get around Heller vs whoever  

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:56:21 PM PST

  •  When we finally get a liberal court (4+ / 0-)

    I hope they will limit Heller and McDonald with a thousand cuts. The conservatives have done the same thing to 4th Amendment rights in Mapp.

  •  Excellent diary. (6+ / 0-)

    The right perspective on this "God-given right."

    The GOP can't win on ideas. They can only win by lying, cheating, and stealing. So they do.

    by psnyder on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 07:01:50 PM PST

  •  Respectfully Disagree In Part..... (8+ / 0-)

    While the Heller decision recognizes the 2nd Amendment as advancing an individual right to keep & bear arms, nothing in the Heller decision conflicts with gun control measures that places certain limits. The one & only gun control measure that Heller threw out was a complete & total ban on handguns under all circumstances.

    From Pages 54 & 55 of Scalia's Majority Opinion:

    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 on the commercial sale of arms.
    From the New York Times (December 18, 2012): Supreme Court Gun Ruling Doesn’t Block Proposed Controls
    Legal experts say the decision in the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, has been of mainly symbolic importance so far. There have been more than 500 challenges to gun laws and gun prosecutions since Heller was decided, and vanishingly few of them have succeeded.

    The courts have upheld federal laws banning gun ownership by people convicted of felonies and some misdemeanors, by illegal immigrants and by drug addicts. They have upheld laws making it illegal to carry guns near schools or in post offices. They have upheld laws concerning unregistered weapons. And they have upheld laws banning machine guns and sawed-off shotguns.

    Nor does Heller impose any major hurdles to many of the most common legislative proposals in the wake of the Newtown shootings, said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the author of “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.” Among the responses that Heller allows, he said, are better background checks, enhanced mental health reporting and a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips.

    Also, there's a bit of context to go along with the decision, since it centered around Washington D.C. stringent handgun ban which didn't seem to stop gun violence in the city. It should also be noted that the same Washington D.C. government that fought to preclude its residents from legally owning a handgun in their own homes (i.e. we're not talking about concealed carry or people arming themselves with semi-automatic assault rifles), also pushed in federal court the argument the city had "no duty to protect" its own citizens.
    Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is a U.S. Court of Appeals case in which three rape victims sued the District of Columbia because of negligence on the part of the police. Two of three female roommates were upstairs when they heard men break in and attack the third. After repeated calls to the police over half an hour, the roommate's screams stopped, and they assumed the police had arrived. They went downstairs and were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, and forced to commit sexual acts upon one another and to submit to the attackers' sexual demands for 14 hours. The police had lost track of the repeated calls for assistance. DC's highest court ruled that the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals, and absolved the police and the city of any liability.
  •  You've persuaded me (4+ / 0-)
    "vague words of the small, exclusive and exclusionary group of white Protestant men, some of whom were slave owners, some of whom were monarchists, and none of whom seemed to think women should be allowed to participate in governance, who lived more than two centuries ago but whose words more than two centuries later are considered sacrosanct for guiding us through the modern world."
    Clearly, on these grounds we must reject the 2nd amendment. And then, on the exact same grounds, we will reject free speech, separation of church and state, freedom from self-incrimination and those other artifacts of these exclusive and exclusionary monarchist-racist-antifemininsts. Or does Lewis offer a set of principles on which we can excuse these dastardly WASPS on some counts and then separate out the better rights from the worser ones?
    •  Or... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pluto, mudfud27

      It could be that he is implying that we should not refuse to even consider whether everything outlined in documents written in another time for a completely different country and world, by individuals such as those described, is the infallible truth.

      If you have an actual, coherent argument to make about the other points you mentioned, by all means do so. If you are simply saying if one point does not apply today exactly as it did when written, then we should abandon them all, no one has said that, and I'm pretty sure you know it.

  •  Kindercide - The issue is kindercide. The hell (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sven Boogie, drmah, a2nite

    with hobbies.  The hell with paranoid fantasies.  The hell with fractured history stories.

    End the kindercide loopholes.  

    Gun owners need to control their guns.  Period.

    guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

    by 88kathy on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 07:34:00 PM PST

  •  vague words? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jon Says, PavePusher, Shamash

    Hmm... Here's the problem you are gonna have selling that:

    These words "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" are not vague at all.

    Now, I realize the previous clause ("well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State") is used by the anti-2A folks to argue that there is "vagueness," but if you read The First Debates In Congress ON the 2nd Amendment the intent and purpose was very clear:

    This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed.
    Now, you can argue that the 2A is no longer necessary to protect the people against the mal-administration of the Government, and you may or may not be correct in that argument, and truth is, that is open to debate and personal opinion, but any claims about "vagueness" are specious.  

    For the record:

    * I don't own a gun.

    * I've never owned a gun.

    * I support universal background checks and NOT believe that it violates the intent of the 2A.

    * I DO believe an assault rifle ban (or clip limit ban) violates the intent of the 2A, but that does not mean that I am necessarily against such bans.

  •  Here is a series of writings by Robert Parry.. (4+ / 0-)

    ..on the 2nd amendment and its history that is very informative
    The Right’s Second Amendment Lies - Dec. 21, 2012

    The Second Amendment dealt with concerns about “security” and the need for trained militias to ensure what the Constitution called “domestic Tranquility.” There was also hesitancy among many Framers about the costs and risks from a large standing army, thus making militias composed of citizens an attractive alternative.
    How the Right Has Twisted the 2nd Amendment - Dec. 15, 2012
    The intent of the Second Amendment was clarified during the Second Congress when the U.S. government enacted the Militia Acts, which mandated that all white males of military age obtain a musket, shot and other equipment for service in militias.

    The idea was to enable the young country to resist aggression from European powers, to confront Native American tribes on the frontier and to put down internal rebellions, including slave revolts. There was nothing particularly idealistic in this provision; the goal was the “security” of the young nation.

    However, the modern American Right and today’s arms industry have devoted enormous resources to twisting the Framers into extremist ideologues who put “liberties” like individual gun ownership ahead of all practical concerns about “security.”

    The Real Rationale for the 2nd Amendment, That Right-Wingers Are Totally Ignorant About - December 21, 2012  
    More on General Washington and the Shays rebellion

    So James Madison had very different ideas about the 2nd amendment and it has nothing to do with defending against a "tyrannical govt." as todays' right wing GOP would have us believe.  

    Seems like todays' SCOTUS is legislating from the bench perpetuating a lie:

    While it’s absurd to think that the Founders could have even contemplated such an act – in their 18th Century world of single-fire muskets that required time-consuming reloading – right-wing gun advocates have evaded that obvious reality by postulating that Washington, Madison and other Framers would have wanted a highly armed population to commit what the Constitution defined as treason against the United States.

    Today’s American Right is drunk on some very bad history, which is as dangerous as it is false.

    I learned a lot from reading Robert Parry and wanted to share his take - sorry my comment is kinda HUGE

    Thx Laurence Lewis  

  •  A lot of the world would like to see (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Martha, Glen The Plumber, a2nite

    ....Americans armed to the teeth even more so than today. Armed with the deadliest weapons possible.

    Just sayin'



    Denial is a drug.

    by Pluto on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 08:06:36 PM PST

  •  versus - ? (0+ / 0-)

    that is to say:

    "the people" shall have no right to keep and bear arms.

    speculate, and discuss.

    There is no Article II power which says the Executive can violate the Constitution.--@Hugh * Addington's Perpwalk: TRAILHEAD of Accountability for Bush-2 Crimes.

    by greenbird on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 08:08:27 PM PST

  •  Gun fetishists make me sick. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sven Boogie, TDDVandy, Miss Blue

    The gun fetishists on DKos make me even sicker.

    "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." ~ Steven Biko

    by Marjmar on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 08:08:42 PM PST

  •  The 2nd Amendment protects your musket (0+ / 0-)

    An originalist interpretation of the 2nd amendment would require an analysis of "arms" available to the populace in the late 18th century. You have a right to own a black powder musket. Nothing more.

    Why we do not hear this argument in the press or other op-eds is completely beyond my comprehension.

  •  To sum up: the NRA will win. They don't (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drmah, Blood, jayden, mudfud27, Pandoras Box, a2nite

    have to win a single argument, but only outlast the patience of the American people. They are so tireless that they get the last word on every regional newspaper site and everywhere else, including Congress.

    So, congratulations on your coming victory. Now: will you grant us some fucking clue as to what you think this country is for? Why you think so many bloody corpses are worth it for you to play Waco with your buddies? What the hell?  

    Might as well give us some closure before you pop a cap in us all. . .

    “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

    by jeff in nyc on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 08:20:04 PM PST

  •  What will the gun nutz say when a near-future (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mudfud27, a2nite, Recall

    Supreme Court goes back to the traditional interpretation of the Second Amendment?  Try to impeach the Supreme Court justices?

  •  So true. Scalia, Alioto, Kennedy, Thomas and (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Recall

    Roberts are responsible singly and in various combinations for countless deaths starting with Bush v Gore. They are Catholics and will burn in hell for their crimes against humanity according to their own beliefs.

    48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam> "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." Edna St.V. Millay

    by slouching on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 09:00:47 PM PST

  •  Repeal the Second Amendment (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    Since the Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd Amendment as they have; and since the original wording strikes a careful 21st-century reader as fraught with ambiguity and confused logic; and since in the modern world "the right to bear arms" (including explosives, biological weaponry, chemical weaponry, and computer weaponry) must be limited; and since the right to own weapons designed from the projectile up to harm other people is certainly not an inherent human right by my lights, I propose that we begin to consider a movement to Repeal the Second Amendment.  

    Repealing the Amendment, of course, does not mean that guns will be forbidden.  It just means that the Congress and state legislatures can define which guns (and other weapons) are legal and which are not.  (I am, by the way, a gun owner and have been most of my life a hunter.)

  •  Newtown Vs. NRA (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite
  •  20k suicides are not the "cost" of the 2nd (0+ / 0-)

    amendment.

    People who truly intend to kill themselves generally succeed.  In nation where firearms aren't available, they hang themselves or use pesticides - equally effective for those who aren't engaged in parasuicide.

    Unless the problem you're trying to solve is "gun suicides", just because your sensibilities are offended by people choosing such gauche "white trash" ways of killing themselves, suicide is a separate issue we're going to have to solve by separate means.

    The nations with the highest suicide rates on the globe have the least access to firearms.  When Australia enacted stringent regulations on firearms in the mid 90's, for the first few years the overall suicide rate went up due a spike in hangings.

    Only when they funded a national effort focused on mental health care and education did suicide begin to drop.

    Violent crime is another issue entirely.  Guys with knives are far less likely to accidently kill the night clerk than guys with guns, and abusers with fists are a lot less likely to kill their spouses than abusers with guns.

    We need to have adult conversations about guns instead of screeds about how people feel about guns if we're going to get that "well regulated" part respected.

    income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

    by JesseCW on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 12:24:21 PM PST

  •  I wonder if there is an inverse correlation.... (0+ / 0-)

    .....between the level of gun-banner histrionics and the likelihood of their schemes passing?

    Yeah, no I don't.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site