NRA, Gun Owners, 2nd Amendment Fans: What is your plan?

    By erica20 on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 4:31pm |

    I think it's important to find out from gun proponents whether they believe that each day's gun deaths are:

    1) simply an unfortunate side effect of Life In a Free Country Among Sometimes Not Very Smart People, or

    2) something that the law ought to actually try harder to prevent.

    Position number 1 is not a very popular or defensible position these days, although gun proponents are doing their best to make the case. So far, serious gun advocates, in response to the Newtown and Webster, NY killings, have suggested more concealed carry, armed guards in schools, and a return to the death penalty for any offense that looks like murder, presumably to take care of the problem of "bad people getting hold of guns" without having to actually strengthen the background check requirement. For various reasons having to do with Science and Facts, I view these suggestions as variations on the "Life in a Free Country" position from the do-nothing gun crowd, as none show much promise for changing the current situation even if adopted.

    Gun owners of a more reasonable mindset understand that something must be done. While it's true that people kill people, it's pretty obvious that too many people are killing people these days, and far too easily. However, whatever laws do get made are going to have to pass muster with gun owners--I'm pretty sure that's how things work in a democracy. 

    Where I'm going with this is that while gun advocates can say what they please, and those who might like to get rid of guns entirely can say what they please, the real work will get done with laws that remove guns from the hands of those who would actually use them to do dangerous things. It would be helpful if gun advocates would stop talking about the Second Amendment and talk much more about how to make sure that ONLY "responsible, law-abiding" people can purchase and use guns, and that reasonable precautions are taken nationwide to keep the wrong fingers off those triggers.

    Come on, folks, this should not be that hard.

    Comments

    Yeah sure, the death penalty will certainly curb the number of suicidal shooters.

    This is nuts!

    First, most shooters kill themselves; following some massacre or they just shoot themselves before they cause other people problems.

    Second, a lot of shooters will kill members of their families and then shoot themselves.

    Third, rage ignores legal 'niceties'. ha

    Innocents are not just killed in massacres. Innocents become collateral damage in gang wars.

    Innocents die in 'postal' situations because shooters miss their 'marks'.

    I am heartened by gun proponents who have recently stepped back a little; like the Senator from West Virginia.

    Let us attempt to work with them.

    They are the only ones we can work with.

    Oh and thanks for keeping this issue alive!

    See, I am shedding tears again just thinking of that Sandy School massacre.

    And yet other children besides other innocents have been killed every day since that massacre.


    by Richard Day on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 6:21pm

    Come on, folks, this should not be that hard.

    It's not about difficulty.. for starters, I think you're giving too much credit to many gun proponents-- i.e. they actually have a social conscious. I think the opposite is true-- some are actually amused by the carnage.


    by demunchained on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 6:30pm

    It's hard because it was learned as a fundamental right. It's hard because most gun owners will never do anything criminal or even stupid with their guns. I keep seeing the sentiment, "why do you want me to register my guns or to allow you to tell me what guns I can and can't have just because of crazy people and criminals?"

    They view the measures that you suggest for public safety as harassment. I just don't know how to argue with it. It's turned emotional.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 7:24pm

    If one is to judge the matter by what is written on sites like the NRA, the answer to the choice between your #1 and #2 is yes and yes. No gun related tragedy is counted as too high a price to pay for the right to own guns without restrictions and more efforts should be made by the government to keep them out of the hands of criminals and nut jobs.

    That is why "Wayne's" message includes calls for a national register for crazy people and more strenuous efforts to stop criminals but no offer to have a national register of gun owners or acknowledge that extensive time consuming background checks have been treated by them as a camel's nose under the tent that would give the government the means to disarm them. 

    So the problem of reaching a common ground on a rational policy that would help reduce the harm caused by guns really is difficult.

    The Second Amendment refers to a right assigned to a group that also conferred a very specific privilege of private ownership. The reluctance to state that privilege in clear terms makes balancing its prerogatives against a common good much harder than if the right to defend oneself with deadly force (that is how the NRA interprets the language) was actually written that way in the Constitution. The Supreme Court decisions made in regards to the amendment since it was penned replicate the initial reluctance to clarify what the affirmation of the right meant when the work that gave it cover had actually been given to other people.


    by moat on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 8:16pm

    I wonder if Wayne realizes that a serious national effort to register crazy people might catch some prominent gun owners?  :^)


    by erica20 on Fri, 01/04/2013 - 2:21pm

    He probably feels pretty secure that no one will call him on his bluff since developing consensus on what comprises "mental illness" is an even more contentious field of discourse than interpretations of Constitutional law.

    However genuine Wayne was in proposing the idea, it is an instance of ironic hypocrisy to have one group fighting for "limited government" in defense of their own agenda while shaking Big Brother's pom poms when the hammer falls on somebody else.

    But the lack of concern about overlapping zones created by the Venn diagrams in Wayne's message actually points to another element worth consideration; the preservation of privileges that are maintained under the guise of universal rights.

    The confidence expressed that mostly "normal" people collect arms is better understood by considering recent history than restricting the conversation to documents that set up our Republic. This article by Jill Lepore underscores how little the NRA concerned itself with government overreach before the struggle for Civil Rights came to a head in the Sixties. On one hand, you had black militants citing the Second amendment as justification to protect themselves "by any means necessary" and on the other hand, you had movements that strived to dismantle the traditional limits that restricted the number of pools powerful fish were permitted to spawn within our body politic. The surge in the number of people who suddenly believed that the social contract had been reneged upon since then corresponds closely to those who lost special unwritten benefits when these changes in our society took effect.

     


    by moat on Sat, 01/05/2013 - 8:20pm

    You have missed the point completely.  Have you noticed that things like this didn't happen, say 20 years or so ago?  Now why is that?  There were guns, there were assault and automatic weapons available.  But people didn't do go out and shoot groups of helpless kids.  

    The problem is a society with to many people.  With people that are fed god knows what, with people that grew up playing video games that the goal is to see how many people you can kill...

    Guns aren't the problem.  If you don't see the real problems, you are going to screwed.  Be ready and prepare 4 survival

    But if I have to make a choice, its #1


    by Stan (not verified) on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 9:31pm

    Mmm kay. I'll put you down as a Yes on 1) and a No on 2).  You'll just have to hope that the SHTF before "they" take all your rights away. Whoever they are.

    I think "things like this" have always happened, including 20 years or so ago. But two historical tracks have come together: one is that we've run out of uncharted wilderness to send our rageful people out to, and the other is that technology has advanced to the point where civilian killing is easier than it used to be. Jack the Ripper now has high-capacity magazines, and if there's a way for law-abiding society to dial it back, I'd like to find it, with or without your help.

    Anyhoo, best of luck with your preparations; while you're looking out for number one, remember not to step in the number two! Cheerio.


    by erica20 on Fri, 01/04/2013 - 12:35am

     while you're looking out for number one, remember not to step in the number two!

    I rise to urge a tip of the hat to Rodney Dangerfield, who delivered this line in a movie that should enshrine him forever in the "Respect" hall of fame.


    (Disclaimer: I have seen this movie more times than I wish to confess.  My secret shame: On more than one occasion, it has brought tears to my eyes, in two of the scenes: 1. The "Triple Lindy Dive,", and 2.The Dylan Thomas recitation.  You're right, I'm no Jonas Mekas...) 


    by jollyroger on Sat, 01/05/2013 - 7:54am

    Rats--I thought I came up with that line all on my own! But now I hear the Dangerfield cadence. 

    Tip of the hat duly accorded.


    by Erica (not verified) on Sat, 01/05/2013 - 9:29am

    Please tell me the # of murderers who got their idea from video games, vs. the number of killers who grew up on "government is bad, the feds are wrong, Washington is taking away our freedoms, shrink it to drown it in a bathtub, have to fight them any way we can...."?

    We have a propaganda machine in right-wing media that describes liberals daily as traitors, and suggests a number of violent options for both domestic and foreign policy. How "real men" should behave. This machine has grown mostly in the last 20 years.

    I grew up on Death Race 2000, running over people in a virtual environment - don't know anyone who confused that with how to drive a car in real life. But I do know people who think it's their right to burn as much gas as they can and own the hugest car they can drive, and those people are quite likely to be oblivious to anyone smaller on the road - car or pedestrian.

    In the last 20 years, we've come to glorify the military over civilian life - for some reason the guys holding weapons improve our well-being more than the people who produce things that give us a strong, secure, dynamic economy. Who pays for all those weapons? What's a soldier without a machine gun and drone cover? Is it a coincidence that as the EU gets more prosperous and cooperative, the threat of war goes down and the quality of life goes up? But in US circles, that's European socialism, a threat to our existence, more than crazed bastards with guns who think they're somehow saving me and my kin from Godzilla and the Russians/Muslims/North Koreans. We'd rather spend $800 billion a year on our military/security complex than say half of that on social services - that's for pussies.

    The sheer paranoia of it all is amazing. I've been in some weird situations all around the world, but can't think of 1 where having a gun would have helped me. Though having quick wits and an ability to think and persuade? Yep, that's a handy tool in the toolkit.

    In fact, most of the danger to our freedoms has come while we were parading the importance of the military, of being real men, of letting everyone fend for themselves, of laughing at international police methods in fighting terrorism, of "only criminals need the Bill of Rights"- so we do have government intercepting all our communications, codifying indefinite detention, buying drones for domestic use - under the guise of tea party conservatism. (Ron Paul being one of the few consistent conservatives in this regard, consistently speaking out against the surveillance state and loss of individual rights).

    And as no one's seemed to notice, how much of the resistance in Afghanistan and Iraq involved guns, and how much involved unsophisticated people making homemade bombs and doing sabotage? More than 60% of US casualties are from IED's. 19% are from non-combat causes. But gun freaks see some Rambo type with a gun fighting off $800 billion/year of sophisticated weaponry and tracking systems. 


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 01/04/2013 - 5:07am

    WOW!  there is so much garbage in your comment it's hard to

    know where to start digging out.  my favorite has to be "as the

    EU gets more prosperous"   Maybe we should send you in to

    the next hot situation.  With your 'quick wits,' and your 'ability to think

    and persuade,'  i am sure you will diffuse the situation.   btw, history

    doesn't show good results when it is pure evil waiting in there.


    by barney (not verified) on Fri, 01/04/2013 - 2:08pm

    Barney, if you could provide a handy rundown on how to identify "pure evil" and nip it in the bud, it would be most helpful.

    I'd be particularly interested in knowing how to differentiate between pure evil and impure evil; a lot of us get tripped up on that one. Also, does impure evil get more pure over time, or does pure evil tend to break down into impure evil as time goes on?

    Thanks in advance for your work on this.


    by erica20 on Fri, 01/04/2013 - 2:27pm

      there is so much garbage in your comment it's hard to know where to start digging out.

    And so you decided to not even begin?

    With your 'quick wits,' and your 'ability to think and persuade,'

    rotflmao. Insults aren't an effective rebuttal. You should try actual debate and discussion. As a response to PP this reply is lacking, but as self analysis of your comment you're right on.

     


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 01/04/2013 - 2:50pm

    Guess you don't like well running governmental systems that still have a functioning judiciary.

    Certainly not responding to the Rhine occupation or the Munich Agreement were not "quick wits". Nor was inaction in Rwanda. Not sure what else you have in mind in terms of "pure evil", and how our stupid gun laws have prevented any of this pure evil. Charles Manson anyone?


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 01/05/2013 - 6:20am

    I agree that what actual living parents and educators tell kids about their environment is in most cases more powerful than the environment created by video games or the media. (There is significant evidence to back this up.)

    1. I also agree that the paranoid gun fantasy is a classic marketing ploy--create a need and supply products to fill it. (Antiperspirant, designer kitchens and certain feminine hygiene products come to mind as other examples.) In this case, the tying of patriotism to product and branding failure to buy as "Socialism" has been brilliant but ultimately not good for the country.

    And yes, ultimately resistance to an overweening govt in the digital age will probably not be accomplished by use of guns. I might go so far as to say it might best be accomplished by running for office oneself. But I'm old school that way.

     


    by erica20 on Fri, 01/04/2013 - 2:54pm

    EU more prosperous???  Come again?  Outside of Germany (the historical hotbed of liberal thinking and tolerance) who is doing well?  Spain?  About ready to become Greece....the UK?  Look at their currency over the past 5 years.  France?  Just raised taxes to 70 percent and unemployment is worse than the US.  Italy?  Take a look, it is a mess.  Without Germany, the Euro would be over as would the whole EC.

    I'm not saying our gun laws are fine tuned, but seriously if I was in a dark ally with a gun pointed at me and I had a choice between my hand gun or your quick wit, I am taking my hand gun (no offense).

     


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 12:10am

    Sorry, there's more to life than currency exchange.

    The average person in Europe lives a much better existence than in the US. Even poorer "East Europe".  Deal with it. Check out how the French live, and then speak. The 70%/Depardieu case will pass - yes, Hollande got over-exhuberant. But that doesn't mean life in France is hard.

    We design a shit system in the US to make everyone struggle, and surprise surprise, they do. To us, shopping at Wal-Mart is the ideal - showing we're all equal, that no one is getting ahead. The poorest people in Spain wouldn't be caught dead wearing that shit. Yeah, they have a housing down-turn, just like in the US. Compare Detroit with Spain and tell me which is worse.

    Too much of America is about staring at the stock exchange as if Dow Jones makes all of us happy. If they talk about health care, they focus in on some overhyped prescription drug or MRI's, rather than access to normal regular care across the board. Sure, if you dig down, you can find some horror story, just like there's no shortage of waiting 5 hours in a hospital emergency room in the US- and being stuck with a huge bill for crap service.

    If it's a dark alley with a gun pointed at me, sure. But I've walked home through dark alleys with heroin dealers in Amsterdam, and surprise surprise, they weren't interested in a gun fight or me at all - they just want to sell their drugs and go drink. The sign of macho in Europe is not going out and shooting someone.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 6:43am

    A good post describing difference in work environment between EU & USA.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 7:00pm

    Well, 20 years ago you couldn't order thousands of rounds of ammunition on line and you shouldn't be able to now.  If I go to the West Coast and forget to tell my credit card company they often decline my third or fourth purchase just to make sure someone isn't using it fraudulently. If THAT is possible, then surely someone stockpiling ammo through on-line sales is also preventable. 

    Yes, guns ARE a problem, and so are raging people.  Most of these horrid events are done by people with no violent history, and as DD said, they often kill themselves, so the Death Penalty is no great deterrent. 

    The 2nd Ammendment refers to a well- regulated militia. "Regulated" requires regulations, no?  Get rid of all Internet sales, and all gun show loop-holes just for starters. 

    I have more to say but I have to go to work, hopefully to help some people have the babies they so desperately want.  


    by CVille Dem on Fri, 01/04/2013 - 7:07am

    I see this one as being difficult to accomplish politically because of the perception of surveillance--it might work if lumped in with better information-sharing between agencies.

    (Maybe credit card companies would do it if they realized that ammo stockpilers might kill themselves before the bill was paid?)   ;^)

    Yes, I think part of the messaging here is to let the militia know that they haven't done much of a job at regulating themselves.

     


    by erica20 on Fri, 01/04/2013 - 3:05pm

    I noticed that these things have always occurred, even 20 years ago, or say nearly 33 years ago when Brenda Spencer on January 29, 1979 carried out a shooting spree from her home in San Diego.

    During the shooting spree, she killed two people and injured nine others at Cleveland Elementary School, which was located across the street from her home. Spencer showed no remorse for her crime, and her full explanation for her actions was "I don't like Mondays; this livens up the day."


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 01/04/2013 - 12:31pm

    Don't let resistance fool you. He doesn't represent the majority of gun owners. If you look at the polls he's a fringe element. Nor does the NRA's views represent the majority of gun owners. The NRA is a special interest group mainly representing the gun manufacturers. There are about 100 million gun owners and only 4 million NRA members. In fact even most NRA members don't agree with the all positions the NRA supports.

    Responsible gun owners don't laugh about the antics of the irresponsible gun owners. I grew up in Pennsylvania. Responsible gun owners in the rural areas would arm up and patrol their land, especially on the first day of deer season, because the idiot drunks with guns were so dangerous. It wasn't a joke, people would invade private land and shoot towards houses. All the gun owners I knew would complain about it constantly every deer season.

    I'm a gun owner, I hunt deer, jack rabbit, javalina, cottontail, squirrel, ducks. I also support reasonable gun control. I agree with most of the points you've made in your posts on this subject. We need to get guns out of the hands of those who aren't responsible. We need to change the idea the we have a right to bear arms to we have a right to bear arms responsibly. If a person can't act responsibly they don't have a right to have a gun. That cultural change is the most important aspect.

    I also support banning large capacity magazines, bullets that fragment in the body and bullets with explosive charges. I support an assault weapon ban.I support closing the gun show loop hole and a 7 to 10 day waiting period. Yes, a waiting period would inconvenience me but its a small inconvenience and worth it imo.

    I actually think most of these changes would be supported by a majority of gun owners.


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 9:54pm

    Thanks, ocean-kat. I hope your thoughts will help turn the tide, especially the notion that there's a right to "bear arms responsibly." Among other gun owners, are you seeing efforts to  make it happen?

    I do think it's important to build the vision of what a "responsible gun owner" really does (and doesn't do) and use that vision to tailor any new Federal rules. That way, people all over the country will have a pretty good idea of how the rules work, who's following them and when to say "That guy shouldn't have a gun."


    by erica20 on Fri, 01/04/2013 - 1:18am

    Make it happen? No, I don't think we're going to see any gun owners for gun control groups. But I do believe that gun owners won't punish politicians for reasonable gun control legislation.

     


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 01/04/2013 - 2:46pm

    reasonable

    Using the term "reasonable"  is how they incrementally take away your rights

    It is now reasonable to check school lockers and use dogs; so now a new generation of citizens, who grew up with locker searches and dogs, doesn't think twice about illegal wiretaps. or any other violations of the 4th amendment.

    That's how governments take away, your rights.

    It's how governments take control over it's subjects. 

    Every step, to deny the American people of their rights, begins with, a small reasonable step.

    Look it up  ... The frog in the pot parable.


    by Resistance on Sat, 01/05/2013 - 1:29pm

    Uh, look it up - frogs don't sit around in steadily hotter pots waiting to die, urban myth or not. And boiling crabs don't pull the escapers back down in the pot.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 6:24pm

    We need to change the idea the we have a right to bear arms to we have a right to bear arms responsibly. If a person can't act responsibly they don't have a right to have a gun. That cultural change is the most important aspect.

    That sums it up the best.  If those who seek to change the gun laws in this country would just focus on this cultural change, then we might actually make some progress on this front.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 01/04/2013 - 12:37pm

    If you look at the polls

    Let me guess, a few Eloi’s took a poll, and they decided for everyone else  they would give up their natural born rights of self protection and they thinking themselves wiser, they thought  that everyone else should give up their rights too?

    GET THIS STRAIGHT ..... The Second amendment did not grant us a right to bear arms.

    Under natural law, every person has a right to defend themselves.

    GET IT? You cant pass laws denying that right.  

    Do you suppose the Constitution granted us the right to breathe, because it talks about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

    The right to bear arms is not to be infringed, by laws of men.

    It is a natural right, since the founding of the World , to protect oneself and their families, despite the well intentions of others.

    Others who at the first sign of trouble, will abandon you.

    Some would let you drown, or be mugged.

    Some shutting their windows, so that they don't have to hear the screams, in some New York alley as someone; maybe you're being attacked, and when asked why they or anyone else didn't help, they said it was none of their business.

    It is also said of the Eloi , “They are of sub-human intelligence, though apparently intelligent enough to speak, and they have a primitive language. They do not perform much work, and in the book and 1960 film when Weena falls into the river, none of the Eloi help her.

    Here is the link for those who don’t want to toil  

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eloi


    by Resistance on Sat, 01/05/2013 - 1:15pm

    I am even less than not at all interested in what imaginary semi-humans of the future have to say on this subject.

    But feel free to beaver away at explaining your point.


    by erica20 on Sat, 01/05/2013 - 2:09pm

    I anticipated that you couldn't care less. 

    Your blog; yet you failed to keep an objective criteria. 

    You failed to ask, who took the poll that was mentioned and who was the target audience.

    We will never find a solution to the problem if those who will fabricate polls are given equal footing. We don't compromise truths with falsehoods.

    We stay firm to the Constitution, we swore an oath, to defend.

    I made an illustration of a Group (a possible subset of like minded individuals, the basis of Oceans poll numbers? )

    But it appears, whatever  poll justifies the gun nuts position,  should be regarded as facts? (Gun Nuts: those who aren't satisfied, until they take away the Constitutional Rights of gun owners)

    It appears, blind and faulty reasoning from some, who want to infringe on the rights of others; (the right to self defense) , is not to be challenged, even if the so called facts are merit less?

    No matter that our Supreme Court continues to shed light for the blind and those ignorant of our secured rights   

    Good luck finding a solution, which is made, much more harder because some refuse to take off the blinders. 

    Have those who want to infringe on the Right to Bear arms  ever considered,

    joining the other Loyalists, who returned back to England; since it appears; they too, abhor the Rights "WE" secured?


    by Resistance on Sat, 01/05/2013 - 6:11pm

    Nonsense. There is one natural law. To the victor belongs the spoils. All rights come from men and women gathering together and insisting on them. If there is a sufficiently large and vocal group insisting on some right they can overcome that natural law. Look at nature. The stallion gets as many mares at it can gather together and defend from the weaker stallions. The biggest apes get the best food and all the females. It was only when the smaller apes joined together in sufficient numbers that the idea of universal rights began. All the guns in the world won't change that.

    Rights don't come from a creator either. That's just poetic language designed to inspire people to fight a war against England. You can believe any fairy tale you want and go through your pretend drama of talking to your invisible guy in the sky, though the Grim Brothers write much more believable fairy tales than those religious books so many believe, but no one is required to believe it and we're allowed to laugh at your foolishness.

    Rights come from man, or men and women in concert insisting on them. And then, only if there are enough of them to overcome the powerful.


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 01/05/2013 - 2:57pm

    You’re sadly misinformed, or worst yet  

    I don't know whether to laugh or to cry at this.

    Did you go to school in America?

    All rights come from men and women gathering together and insisting on them…… Rights come from man, or men and women in concert insisting on them.......but no one is required to believe it and we're allowed to laugh at your foolishness

    Are you an American citizen;  and if you are;  YOU DONT KNOW  what is written?

    "to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,"

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed",

    Unalienable right ... to life... includes; self protection

    If you don't like the way our forefathers established our foundation, you can with/without my permission leave, (I and others will grant you that right)  and don't let the door hit you on the way out.


    by Resistance on Sat, 01/05/2013 - 7:04pm

    How come you don't know the difference between the Constitution of the United States of America, the basis of our legal system, and the Declaration of Independence? Did you go to school in America? why don't you know the Declaration is just a piece of propaganda and nothing more.

    Hey Resistance why are you always telling people to leave this country just because they disagree with you? What kind of argument is that? It's lame. I will await with baited breath your response which will amount to you making the claim you are being bullied again.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 01/05/2013 - 8:10pm

    Resistance may be confused as to the repository of sovereignty under our system of government.  Or, he may find it convenient to ignore the actual declaration in the  Constitution, which clearly adheres to Ocean-K's formulation: "We the people,...do ordain"; the pamphlet to which he professes adherence, which you correctly characterize as propaganda, viz, the Declaration of Independence, makes reference to rights endowed by a higher power as apologia, not political science, and in riposte to a system of government then busy crumbling, Divine Right of Kings.


    by jollyroger on Sat, 01/05/2013 - 11:58pm

    Yes! Thanks for reminding me. I had forgotten the preamble to the constitution.

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

    Even then, what followed failed those noble aspirations. Yet over the years we the people expanded both the size of what was meant by we the people and the number and extent of those blessings of liberty. Mostly.....Still a ways to go.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 1:00am

    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    'We the People of the United States,' it says, 'do ordain and establish this Constitution.' Ordain and establish! These are definite words of enactment, and without more would stamp what follows with the dignity and character of law."); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886) ("Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts."

    Do ordain and establish THIS Constitution  

    The Second Amendment of this very, ordained and established Constitution, states clearly : 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.

    What part of “shall not be infringed”  do the usurpers of freedom and liberty, not understand?

    It matters not, how many voters, whose intent is the taking back the guarantee, or to question it’s continuation, no matter that I should be in the minority.

    This Constitution which included the Second Amendment; guaranteeing an individual’s rights, was ordained and established for the benefit of Americans, who value our sacred documents. Willing to defend and die in order to protect it, from a new generation, unworthy of the sacrifices made.

    As some would spit on the soldiers and trample and burn the flag, remember those who died, knowing they did so to protect the second amendment. 

    So you all can stop your whining. Maybe you all can move to Jonestown, start your own colony, make your own Constitution?   

    ps . To answer a question posed earlier, about what to do.

    Execute any, who use a gun in the commission of a violent crime.

    If you use a gun, you forfeit your life. For it is clear, those who would use a gun should have known a death could occur.

    They are correct, the death will be of the one who used the gun in the commission of the crime.

    IMHO gun violence, would go down dramatically.

    Punish those who abuse the right to own a gun, not those who own them.


    by Resistance on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 2:00am

    I'm not at all surprised to see your "solution" to the problem. I think I see who you are very clearly. Just as you and I and many constitutional scholars and historians disagree about the interpretation of the second amendment, you and I and many constitutional scholars disagree about the meaning of the eighth amendment to the constitution, i.e. exactly what is meant by cruel and unusual punishment.

    I'll once again remind you. Even Scalia, the most conservative Supreme Court justice in decades, believes the Second Amendment is not unlimited and reasonable gun control legislation is constitutional.

    From Scalia's opinion, DC v Heller

    Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 4:39am

    Thank YOU NRA, for fighting to protect our rights.

    Interview: The Way of the Gun   

     http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2007/02/robert_levy.html

    Page 2

    “Even the NRA concedes that you can’t have mad men running around with weapons of mass destruction. So there are some restrictions that are permissible and it will be the task of the legislature and the courts to ferret all of that out and draw the lines. I am sure, though, that outright bans on handguns like they have in D.C. won’t be permitted. That is not a reasonable restriction under anybody’s characterization. It is not a restriction, it’s a prohibition.”

    Page 3

    RL: The laws ought to be changed so that people are able to defend themselves. There will be clamor from the usual suspects to go in the other direction, to have tighter laws……..Democrats, who tend to be in favor of stronger gun controls—first of all I think they’re wrong, but even if they’re right—they don’t have the courage of their conviction, because they are politically craven

    Does it change the equation in the sense that it convinces people to go for tighter gun laws when the guy’s already violating several gun laws that already exist. I mean, what’s another gun law? He’s violated the law against carrying a gun on campus, violated the law by obliterating the serial number on his gun, and he has violated the law against murder. None of those laws seemed to matter to this guy. So another law is unlikely to make any difference.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

    Decision

    The Supreme Court held:[43]

    (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm ……….lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

    (a) .. it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

    (b) .. to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms,

    I wouldn't trust any of you Dagbloggers, arm chair lawyers , to protect anyone’s rights.

    Thank YOU again NRA, for fighting to protect our rights against foolish people.


    by Resistance on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 10:14am

    We should move to Jonestown to start our own colony? LOL, where did that come from? Jim Jones was quite fond of weapons, or have you conveniently forgotten that fact? You are a comical but angry man who can't seem to figure out that not all Americans believe as you do. Here is the thing, you need to Get.Over.It. However, you are the perfect example of why we can't get anything done in terms of sane gun control.

    Did you know the LAPD had a gun buy back program recently, and that two of the weapons handed in were rocket launchers? Do you think American's need rocket launchers?

    Where does that kind of madness end? Does it end when everyone has their own anti-tank weapons? You can't seriously believe that you and your buddies with your super keen assault rifles can take on the US Military if suddenly you found yourself at odds with them, you can't believe that, and if you do, then that is kind of daft. All American's do with these weapons is kill each other, and every once in a while they kill something to eat. Kat seems to be the only real hunter at DAG, who actually hunts for food. But he doesn't seem to believe he is going to have to take on the US government someday, because he isn't going to have to do that.

    What it comes down to with you gun nuts, who continually state the need for weapons to use against our government in reality is to be able to use those weapons against a legally elected government with which you disagree, in order to take power from the legally elected government. There hasn't been a need since 1860 for our government to take up arms against fellow citizens.  But rest assured if you did take up arms against our government you would lose.

    I do believe in firearms regulations. And let's recall the word regulated is in the 2nd Amendment,  there will be a time in the future with a more moderate court that will allow more firearm regulation than there is currently in this country. Far too many Americans have far too many weapons and ammunition, which makes the country less than safe.  We have to quit killing each other and ourselves, because that is all we are doing, killing each other and ourselves.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 9:14am

    What do think a rocket launcher would bring on the black market and you believe someone turned them in for two AMC movie tickets, maybe popcorn and a drink included   

    Someone peddled this crap for a political agenda and some swallowed it, hook line and sinker.

    Do you like drinking the koolaid, the Gun control democrats, keep giving the electorate. They tell you "Disarm, we'll protect you, we'll preserve the safety net, you thought your were entitled to"  

    Ask those who almost got denied reconstruction money for the Sandy relief, what would have happened if the money didn't come. But Congress need not worry, the people are disarmed?   

    Wait for the next disaster and see if people will be kind to one another, when aid doesn't arrive.  

    As for Jamestown;  the victims wouldn't have had to drink the koolaid, if the victims had been armed, in order to protect themselves from a mad leader.

    Do I need to point out the lessons that should have been learned, for you?


    by Resistance on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 10:35am

    So now you are on to Jamestown and not Jonestown?  You know the difference right? Resistance, you can't keep you own insults straight, it makes it very difficult to have any kind of crazy discussion with you.  So what has any of this got to do with hurricane Sandy? Your endless bizarre screeds are comical, and it seems like you might be drinking something much stronger than kool-aid.  Oh and by the way dufus, I have never been so scared of anything that makes me feel like I need a weapon, I've been walking around unarmed my whole life! OMG, and the gubmint has never come after me either.  I will tell you what is scary, the likes of people like you walking around armed and scared of everything. There is nothing scarier than that, cause it seems like you'd shoot anyone, (me) just for disagreeing with you. But then you don't even consider me a "real American" like you, because the only real Americans carry guns and are ready to fight the gubmint if necessary. 

    #loon


    by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 8:37pm

    So I messed up; in my haste to shoot off a response to you, before leaving for the afternoon.  I wrote Jamestown instead of Jonestown, 

    I didn't mean to confuse you and bring out another of your traits.

    I suppose it makes you feel superior, when you call others dufus or loon?

    In my months of absence, I noticed you were constantly involved in heated exchanges. Do you ever give anybody a break?


    by Resistance on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 9:16pm

    I have never been so scared of anything that makes me feel like I need a weapon, I've been walking around unarmed my whole life! OMG, and the gubmint has never come after me either.

    There is the crux of the matter. I just don't get the fear people like resistance live in. I've actually had a gun for the last 30 years when my father gave me his shotgun. But since I wasn't  hunting I never even bothered to buy bullets for it. I just stored it in the closet, unloaded without a single shell in my house.

    And, OMG, I never was afraid, never thought I'd need it so I better get some shells just in case. And I never needed it. Two years ago I moved to Arizona where I can hunt a little now and then, so I bought a box of shotgun shells.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 10:00pm

    Resistance is a LOON.

    I'd like Resistance top ten list on who he thinks he is going to have to shoot "when (the) next disaster (occurs) and see if people will be kind to one another". Pull his gun on his neighbors? After a disaster?

    When 'the next disaster hits' the loons will forget their guns. Why? They'll need food, shelter, and medical care. Not guns.

    Real life 'disaster' experience will teach the loons a lesson. That neighbors, first responders, and even total strangers are going to be a helluva lot more of a factor for their survival and recovery than a loaded gun.


    by NCD on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 11:02pm

    If you read the story which you linked to you should realize that the two "rocket launchers" turned in were not weapons at all. That is, unless they were used to hit someone over the head.
     What was turned in was the remnant of a one shot weapon which had already been fired. They no longer were loaded with a rocket. They were like the spent cartridge that is left after a bullet is fired except they could not be reloaded even if a rocket were available.

    Several military experts said one of the weapons was probably a version of the AT4, an unguided antitank weapon. It's a single-shot weapon that a soldier fires and then discards the tubing.

    My guess is that some soldier or Guardsman slipped them off a training range after they were used and brought them home as a souvenir and the folks who ended up with them took advantage of an opportunity to get rid of them. They might likely have been paranoid for some time to throw them in the trash and end up having authorities kick down their door looking for other illegal contraband. I imagine the guy who turned them in was questioned thoroughly, as he should have been, and his record checked, but it would be counter-productive to otherwise penalize him for participation in the program even if he was the original culprit.

     


    by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 1:03pm

    But rest assured if you did take up arms against our government you would lose.

    Concord Bridge Massacre,

    Kent State massacre, victims unarmed

    Chicago Democratic Convention riot. because we wanted to end the war

    The zealous cop on campus spraying mace, because the unarmed students protested.

    Your probably correct, we don't stand a chance against a tyrannical government.


    by Resistance on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 1:23pm

    There are ways and means to fight back against our government's abuse of power. You see only one, armed revolution. Unfortunately not enough people are willing to fight in any way against government abuse of power.

    If there were sufficient numbers to fight a credible revolution we wouldn't need to because that would be sufficient numbers to create change in government through voting and peaceful protest.

    If there's not sufficient numbers to create change with votes and peaceful protest all the guns in the world would be inadequate because there wouldn't be sufficient numbers to mount a credible revolution.

    But you can try to stockpile your arsenal and see how armed revolution works for you.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 2:04pm

    The thing is,  YOU just don't get it.

    You keep putting forward strawmen so you can knock them down

    I am not in favor of insurrection.

    I'm in favor of having citizens, being able to self protect themselves, when this government fails, like all the others in history.

    But I don't think you can see that; IMHO I believe you've been blinded by the American exceptionalism propaganda.  

    Voting has become corrupted, all that is left are the guarantees our forefathers secured.

     


    by Resistance on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 5:41pm

    I am not in favor of insurrection

     

    Someone has hijacked your account, then, or you are slipping into fugue states...


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 7:19pm

    I don't favor it;

    It wouldn't be my first choice.

    I'm not so sure of others, who'll lose hope, when the fairy tale ends and the reality sets in. 

    I'd prefer Washington would solve our problems, so "WE the People" wouldn't have to become victims of ineptness, corruptness and apathy. 

    JR... Is that too difficult to understand ?


    by Resistance on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 8:40pm

    I already granted that you may pack (It would be hypocritical of me not to....).

     

     But this fantasy Red Dawn redux that you invoke to justify the proliferation of free lance armories (eg,  Mary  Lanza's...) is not only toxic, it is smooth fuckin' NUTS!  


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 3:04pm

    Execute any

     

    Just in passing: No!  It sets a bad example.  Life without parole will do quite well, thank you. 

     

    Jesus will supervise the repentance-he don't need no stinkin' badge...or your help

     


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 3:14pm

    Just another of your proven failed opinions.

    Violent crimes have increased, despite your leniency

    The example to be set is: You use a gun, you die, if you dont want to die, don't use a gun in the commission of a crime.

    Crazed shooter William Spengler, 62, spent 17 years in jail after killing the 92-year-old in 1980 in a horrific attack.  Spengler killed his grandmother and was released to kill again. The mad dog should have been dealt with long before 17 years .

    Let God sort things out, Let God forgive him, if he deserved it.  

    The problem that creates our societal ills, is because the bleeding hearts have watered down justice. They let the evil doers off lightly

    Because justice is slow, the evil ones don't fear, justice.

    I suppose, you'd give these life sentences, to be served in a prison, with all the amenities of home, too?  

    Would you tuck them into bed and read them stories. telling them "I know, I know, it isn't your fault?

    If you use a gun in the commission of a violent or a felony crime  you receive the death sentence.  Simple, not complicated.

    Instill that into the hearts of the Nations youth and maybe they'll think twice before using a gun?

    No need for god, except by those asking, to be remembered by him. 

    Society is sick of those, who use guns illegally.   I don't think you'll find many among gun owners or the NRA who disagree. Get rid of the evil doers.


    by Resistance on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 6:20pm

    Please use the Google & stop talking stupid shit.

    Violence is not up - it's quite down - in 2011, down for 5 years in a row. 

    And 2009 rates were 1/3 of 1994 rates.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 6:46pm

    Check out this story.

    http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline?...

     


    by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 7:02pm

    I remain skeptical (and I tend to have a visceral dislike for Kevin Drum, or maybe it's based on actual readings, not sure)

    China only removed lead from gas in 2000, and still have huge amounts of lead poisoning from other sources. But if you think about crime increase there, much is about increase in rural areas, other is about the huge wave of migrant workers, some is opportunistic towards foreigners.

    Did India's big cities undergo a huge violent bubble, vs. say smaller Pondicherry showing the highest increases in violent crime?

    Somehow there'd have to be a behavioral sampling to hint at mechanism for me to believe it. Yeah, lead can make you stupid, but does it make you more aggressive and violent? More than a bunch of crack or just living in a crappy neighborhood where you get to fight for space every day?

    Not dismissing its effect, but still think it's too much of mating like graphs on top of each other.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/07/2013 - 1:43am

    There is no denying a sort of efficiency in what you propose. The plan would certainly stop the problem of criminals repeating their crime by definition.

    But the proposal does run into the problem of some of the other things promised by the Bill of Rights than the ownership of guns; the right to a fair trial, habeas corpus, that sort of thing.

    It is hard to go from certainty that a certain person should be killed for what they have done to appreciating that we live in system where making that sort of judgment is done with great reluctance. But that is what our system is asking of us, everyday.

     


    by moat on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 6:50pm

    Well I figured, if the folks who want to change the Second Amendment to fit their agenda, maybe they would change their minds, when seeing another group, who feels strongly about another amendment, they'd like to see changed.

    Heck who needs a Constitution anyway, if every group gets to change it every time they get a majority.


    by Resistance on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 7:47pm

    It gets so tiresome. No one is suggesting we change the Second Amendment. No one is suggesting we change the constitution. All we are discussing is some reasonable gun legislation. We don't need to change the Second Amendment or to change the constitution to enact reasonable gun laws. Even Scalia, the most conservative supreme court justice in decades, believes some gun limits are constitutional.

    From Scalia's opinion, DC v Heller

    Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 9:50pm

    Amen. I wish that every time someone started screaming on television about how somebody wants to take away their rights, this was calmly explained to them. Indulgently, even


    by Orlando on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 10:29pm

    I agree Rog, Resistance is very confused and very Republican in his demand that if people disagree with him, they move out of the country. Can you imagine being that afraid of a discussion that you simply insist that person leave the country? It is the type of discussion I think we would find at the comment section of foxnews.com or redstate.com, but it shouldn't pass for legitimate discussion here.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 8:43am

    Well of course we should leave the country. We're not "real Americans." Its the Palin method of determining citizenship. If you  like and agree with Palin you're a real American. If you don't like or agree with her you're not and you should leave the country. Funny, by her standard most American citizens aren't actually real Americans and should leave the country.

    Resistance uses a similar measure. If you agree with him on the Second Amendment and guns you're a patriot. If you disagree you're not a real American and you should leave the country. Funny again, how most American citizens don't agree with him and by his standard aren't real Americans.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 5:04pm

    I think his point was more that the Declaration of Independence is basic principles of incorporation. For folks here to dismiss it as "propaganda" is a bit disturbing, since I thought it was considered one of the more enlightened documents of all time. So if you have problems with the DoI, you just might have problems with basic principles of the US of A, not that we follow any of that anymore.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 6:06pm

    the Declaration of Independence is basic principles of incorporation. For folks here to dismiss it as "propaganda

     

    If  only...bear in mind that the injuction for "equality of birth" was not only pissed upon by the
    newly formed states as soon as independence was achieved, specifically countermanded in the founding document of the subsequent union (the Constitution) but dishonored by the very fuckin author of the screed,.  Yeah, I think we may safely dismiss it as agitprop...


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 7:05pm

    Get real Jolly,  Rome wasn't built in a day

    We started with the cornerstone and continued building upon the foundation and built something.

    Our brothers, might have found their freedom earlier, if they too, could have been armed.

    Looked at what happened when the slaves got armed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)

    "Dissatisfied with the pacifism encouraged by the organized abolitionist movement, he said, "These men are all talk. What we need is action—action!"

    John Brown, had it right all along, taking another vote wasn't going to work.  


    by Resistance on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 8:37pm

    As usual, you are carried away with your own rhetoric...It was exactly another vote, ie, the one for Lincoln, that worked.  The Harpers Ferry raid, how some ever it tickles your adolescent fantasies (which are as ludicrous in a man your age, as they are charming in a 16 year old) notwithstanding.

     

    I suggest you have a Red Dawn viewing marathon, and get this shit out of your system.


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 9:52pm

    As Resistance noted, it was a cornerstone to build on, and as I note below, this equality was the self-referential principle that's allowed the Constitution to be reviewed and reinterpreted to allow for greater freedoms and equality than the Founding Fathers wrote in, amending it only rarely. "No man is above the law" is not written in the Constitution either, but it's an important principle supposedly underlying American jurisprudence, whether it's followed well or not in any given era. Occasionally in the hands of an outraged judge, it provides for some amusing exacting justice for those who thought they were immune. Whether Cap Weinberger or Scooter Libby were pardoned, they still live & die knowing they were fingered, and Nixon's last years were all about trying to self-excuse. Which is why I'm so chilled with liberals dumbing down equality from "right" to "you get what you fight for". And often victims can't fight.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/07/2013 - 5:37am

    No it isn't, the Declaration of Independence is a letter calling King George a dick, that is all it is, it's called propaganda because it was and is propaganda.  It has nothing to do with law or how our government runs.  Why do you think the Articles of Confederation were written? The Articles are our first governing documents.  And it is the height of ridiculousness to assert that if we don't consider the DoI the basic principles of incorporation that we might have a problem with the principles by which we were founded, such total BS.  The fact is theDoI isn't that, never was that, and never will be that.


    by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 01/07/2013 - 12:54am

    The red queen has spoken, off with my head. Guess Martin Luther's 95 theses were just propaganda too - had nothing to do with law or how the country ran, Reformation was just people's overreaction to propaganda. Next week: Shakespeare, greatest propagandist of his time.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/07/2013 - 2:01am

    Hah, true kat, very true. 


    by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 8:39pm

    Whatever. Jefferson was a man. He wasn't some imaginary omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent guy in the sky. As a consequence of being human he was sometimes wrong. He certainly was wrong when he decided to F his 13 year old slave girl. He was wrong when he bought and sold slaves and didn't even have the tiniest amount of  decency or compassion to free them at his death but instead bequeathed them to his heirs. So don't expect me to say amen just because you say Thomas Jefferson.

    But he was of above average intelligence and could turn a clever phrase now and then to inspire the populace. Some of his writings are valuable and some are complete nonsense, as are the writings of all men and women. Unfortunately, clearly and objectively, it is self evident that all men are not created equal. Biologically, intellectually, physically, in every way they are born unequal. Then the circumstances they are born into are decidedly unequal. Some to rich parents, some to poor, some to kind, some to brutes and abusers, some to well educated, some to morons.

    For most of American history half of "man," wo-man, had no rights at all. If the guy in the sky endowed women with rights at birth he sure didn't pay much attention to make sure they didn't lose those rights the second after birth. Slaves and even free born blacks had none to few rights.

    While the "creator" was endowing American white men, not women or colored, with some inalienable rights he didn't seem to give a damn about all men of the planet earth. People of other nations didn't seem to be endowed with nearly the rights endowed on the American white male.

    Rights exist as a social compact that the people of each individual culture decides upon. They are neither god given or natural. They are agreed upon by men usually and exist only in so far as there is a sufficient majority willing to demand them from the rich and powerful.

    The American Indians might have claimed some natural law rights but the American immigrants came into their land and taught them about the only natural law that exists. To the victor belongs the spoils. No matter how many guns the Indians might have acquired it would have made no difference. They were numerically overwhelmed.

    The Japanese Americans in 1942 might have imagined they had some natural law rights, or that a creator endowed them with some rights, or that as American citizens they had some constitutionally protected rights. They didn't and off to the internment camps they went. Had they possessed infinite guns and bullets the result would have been the same, excepting the before they were carted off to the internment camps many of them would have been killed. They too were numerically overwhelmed.

    Rights come from man and woman, only in so far as they are willing to insist, agitate, politic, or fight for them and then, only if a sufficient number agree. Negroes finally got their rights because they were willing to agitate for them and because a sufficient number of whites decided that keeping them oppressed with lynchings, beatings, and murder was distasteful. Gays are finally getting their rights because they are willing to agitate for them and a sufficient number of non gay Americans have decided to, at long last, give them equal rights.

    Over the centuries most nations have enlarged their social compact and agreed to increase the rights and freedoms of man and woman. I support that increase. I believe I, we, should have more rights and freedoms than currently exist. Unfortunately, the "we" does not agree with me. Ranting about natural law, creator endowed, or that god told me that I, we, should have those rights and freedoms will do no good. When enough minds change and we agree that we should have some right or freedom we will change the social compact and the law.

    That's all there is. No natural law, no creator endowed, no god given rights. Just a social compact hashed out and agreed upon then enshrined in law. That law is enforced only as long as that majority social compact continues to exist.

     

     


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 01/05/2013 - 11:25pm

    I swear, this is one of the stupidest responses I've ever seen on this site, despite its length and equivocation. Or maybe because of it.

    You've taken one of the greatest serious proclamations ever, that of innate equality, and dumbed it down to "you get what you fight for or inherit". Really, you belong in 2013 - you are the future of our dumbed down bi-partisan agreement on fucking over the average person.

    Go to your corner, weep in shame.

    Occasionally people hit above their weight class - you'd have them drown in mediocrity.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 6:12pm

    Usually I ignore comments like this rather than dignify them with a reply. But I see this all the time on the internet, even here, and it has me puzzled.

    Do you really think tossing out a bunch of insults without a single rational argument will sway anyone's mind?

    Do you get a rush off of tossing out insults?

    Do you think it makes you one of the cool kids?

    I don't even know you nor have you earned my respect, why would I care about your opinion without the inclusion of a single rational argument?

    Are you just trying to start a flame war where we toss out insults at each other?

    Why, just why, would you waste your time for no purpose other than to insult someone? I'm serious, I'd really like to know what motivates people to waste time shouting insults at strangers without even the limited justification of being nasty in the midst of a reasoned argument.

    The DoI is just an eloquently written piece of propaganda. Perhaps someone could make a reasoned argument that would change my mind but PP, you haven't convinced me. Perhaps if you put stupidest in bold and underlined greatest serious proclamation.Or maybe if you  repeated, "you're stupid" three times thereby invoking the Bellman's rule I just might be convinced.

    But, you know, I don't think so. My post could not possibly be the stupidest post on this site because no reasoned argument, no matter how erroneous or poorly argued, could be as stupid as shouting insults at a stranger on the internet.

     


    by ocean-kat on Mon, 01/07/2013 - 12:04am

    You might as well say "philosophy is just propaganda".

    In one fell swoop you negate much of the purpose of the United Nations, liberal democracy, rights of man.

    Yet you folks have no problem calling Resistance a "loon".

    Your piece goes on and on like Emily Litella - ignoring that of course there's no physical law of equality, that it's a moral principle that's guided the last 240 years of world development and advancement. It's the driving principle behind the evolving social compacts that led to the French Revolution, the end to feudalism, the dismantling of slavery, the push to improve women's rights, the evolving acceptance of gay rights.

    The Declaration of Independence (and similar spirit of inclusion at the time) is the only thing that made the United States exceptional, that gave some slight better light to business as usual politics and money thievery.

    That spirit also informed the writing of the Constitution, the balance of the branches to avoid tyranny, the Bill of Rights to clear up any doubts, that contains recursive self-referential understanding to allow women's rights and racial equality to retrofit with no contradiction.

    But "all beings are equal" is just propaganda. Whatever.

    The strange thing is that everyone's extremely insulting to Resistance, whether they use direct pejoratives like "stupid shit" or just insulting patronizing language expressing extreme condescension. I guess you figured calling the Declaration "propaganda" was the ultimate takedown on his ass.

    But please feel free to ignore when someone calls you on it - after all, we only come here to have like-minded people applaud our sensibility and cleverness.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/07/2013 - 12:56am

    Yet you folks have no problem calling Resistance a "loon".

    I didn't call resistance a loon nor have I engaged in any name calling in this blog.

    The strange thing is that everyone's extremely insulting to Resistance, whether they use direct pejoratives like "stupid shit" or just insulting patronizing language expressing extreme condescension.

    I didn't call resistance a "stupid shit" and I don't think I have used any patronizing language. I've been quite matter of fact and straight forward with my views on the issues I've discussed with him.

    I guess you figured calling the Declaration "propaganda" was the ultimate takedown on his ass.

    No. I've been discussing the issue of creator endowed rights, natural law rights, and god given rights for the last 15 years with rainbow gatherers and the constitutional issues we are dealing with. In that case freedom of assembly and the permit required for large groups gathering in National Forests. Some who attend rainbow gatherings also believe simply claiming some natural law right, DoI creator endowed right, or god given right is a sufficient analysis of the First Amendment constitutional issues and should silence all dissent. I've made similar arguments on rainbow blogs for years. As nasty as some can get there no one has ever sunk so low as you have here.

    As for the rest of your analysis of the DoI, you've lost the option of being treated as a person capable of civil rational discourse. I lost quite a bit of respect for you in this blog.

    http://dagblog.com/link/black-cnn-staffer-taunted-nuts-rnc-14606

    I've been avoiding you since then, and now, I have no intention of ever engaging you further.

     


    by ocean-kat on Mon, 01/07/2013 - 2:18am

    Expressing extreme condescension.

    “we're allowed to laugh at your foolishness.by ocean-kat 1/5/2013 - 11:57 am (re: Resistance)

    My impression of that remark:  because you’re a member of a select group, that is allowed, like some mythological gods, looking down upon the foolishness of mortal man?   

    Of all the ridiculous things you have posted here this is one of the most silly….If I were so inclined I could find your name and create a website listing any and all information on you that is in the public domain. by ocean-kat 1/3/2013 - 1:29 am (re: Resistance)

    My Impression: Do not threaten the Gods, for if they ever get pissed off, or if you should question them,  they might be inclined to cause you pain.

    Do you think any of those statements, particularly the last one; is conducive in promoting good will and civil discourse?  

    These are just a few recent ones; if I were so inclined, I could further prove a case of YOUR  extreme condescension.

    "I've been avoiding you since then, and now, I have no intention of ever engaging you further."

    I think it best you should, I only wish you would leave me alone too.


    by Resistance on Mon, 01/07/2013 - 3:33am

    I simply won't waste time with out of context quotes that distort the meaning of my posts. If you wish to discuss something I've posted in another thread include the whole quote.

    I think it best you should, I only wish you would leave me alone too.

    If you don't want to debate with me you, of course, will never post to any of my comments here and I will agree to the same. Do we have an agreement?


    by ocean-kat on Mon, 01/07/2013 - 12:00pm

    You deliberately misread Resistance earlier on the thread & teamed up with TMac and JollyRoger. Whether you used "loon", they did, and it's all a huge pile-on every time Resistance posts.

    Whether human equality is based on God, nature, or just an intelligent made-up moral principle, it's one of the most basic drivers of our system. Otherwise, what principle do you have for pushing for equal rights for women, for gays, for blacks? If they're not presumed equal, isn't it stupid to just give in because they fought harder? How should a judge evaluate this arbitrary code?

    Funny you've avoided me for not piling on a bunch of assumptions on what 2 assholes were thinking, rather than just supporting the obvious penalty for their stupid actions - being thrown out of the convention. Because they were Republicans, a bunch of Dems wanted them followed & shamed. You didn't respond when a black woman told you, "The person directly impacted appreciated the RNC's response as supportive, and I agree with her"

    Sadly, many of the same Dems don't see this need for public shaming when a drone kills 20 civilians, or when a Wall Street banker makes off with $1 billion in taxpayer money, or when we torture an inmate to death at Gitmo, or when Obama's DoJ helps banks robosign illegal mortgages, or when the DoJ protects banks that funneled money to terrorists. Because those are Democratic actions, and our first duty is to support the Prez against the other pack, no matter what he does. And it's apparently more racist to make animal comments about brown people than to bomb them to death.

    So sorry I'm too divisive - I'll let you get back to the kumbaya party and ignoring me and my disruptive points of view. Resistance doesn't seem to mind my tone, mainly because I give him credit and take him seriously as much as I disagree.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/07/2013 - 6:22am

    I teamed up with no one. Just because by coincidence you and I were in agreement much of the time  on the Snowden/NSA threads doesn't mean you're responsible for every comment I posted nor are you tarred if I have a moment of anger and post something I later regret. Nor do I accept any responsibility for anything you posted in those threads.

    If you're not capable of remembering who posted what in a thread or of keeping track of several simultaneous separate conversations than I suggest you limit your debate to just one person in a thread.

     


    by ocean-kat on Tue, 07/23/2013 - 1:42pm

    You're answering a 6 month old thread.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 07/23/2013 - 2:05pm

    The death of Trayvon Martin has energized a core of young Americans of all races. there were multi-city protests over the weekend. The pro-Stand Your Ground Governor of Florida will be replaced. The case of another unarmed Black male will shine further light on the legalized murder authorized by the law. Change will come.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 07/22/2013 - 8:19pm

    Actually, o-k made a very salient point, which I'll excerpt here since it's possible you missed it:

    You ask what Zimmerman should have done, when should he have withdrawn? As Bruce pointed out legally it doesn't matter. All that matters is that at the moment the shot was fired Martin was on top in the fight. But by Zimmerman's own account during the police interview he had several occasions to introduce himself to Martin and tell him he was with the neighborhood watch. By his own account he never did. Serino or one of the other police interviewers asked him why he didn't introduce himself as neighborhood watch. He pointed out that if Zimmerman had done so at any of those opportunities before the confrontation we wouldn't even be here.

    Where the bold was my modification to what o-k wrote.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 07/23/2013 - 7:56am

    Somewhere I agreed with O-K on that. Though he was on the phone with the dispatcher & in the car most of the time, still on the phone as he walked/trotted/ran up the path- probably could have called in at first and then got off the phone - but I don't know what the "several occasions" missed were if not for that. AFAIK, the introduction in the back didn't go very well.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 07/23/2013 - 11:31am

    What is it you all don't understand. George Zimmerman had NO intentions of ANY confrontation, not even face to face contact or conversation with Trayvon. By Zimmerman's own actions or lack of action;  he proved he was only interested in an observation capacity. Proving once again, Trayvon was the confrontational one. Trayvon attacked Zimmerman immediately after asking George "You got a problem" and George  responding " No, I dont have a problem: and Trayvon immediately said "You got one now MF" It was Trayvon who caused his own death, when he attacked an armed individual who feared for his life. Trayvon went looking for trouble and he found it.  But we're all supposed to ignore those details because of Trayvons baby pictures?  BS  ........The lesson to be learned by everyone in the United States; the Second Amendment grants citizens the right to bear arms. Assume everyone is exercising that right ..... Avoid Confrontation. 


    by Resistance on Tue, 07/23/2013 - 2:58pm

    The only person Trayvon Martin , unarmed African-American teen, had to fear was an armed vigilante who would be backed up by the justice system when the vigilante committed murder.The solution, teach your formerly unarmed teen how to shoot under stress. Kill the next vigilante  before he has a chance to kill you. Keep your child alive by teaching him self-defense. Let your child be the one left alive to tell the story about the person who assaulted a police officer and had a restraining order filed against him.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 07/23/2013 - 9:03pm

    I hear Zimmerman didn't clean his plate as a child - truly an evil person.

    You keep repeating this bullshit as if Zimmerman had his gun out walking the streets looking for a victim, rather than calmly replied "OK" when a dispatcher said "you don't need to do that" and seemed to stop running. [this part is fact - we have a recording]

    Perhaps it would be simpler to teach your child not to punch an adult stranger in the face, or that if you're going to smoke dope, be careful wandering around unknown neighborhoods in the dark in the rain. Or if you see a scary stranger, run home rather than hang out waiting around the corner for the stranger to catch up to you. These little details of child rearing that parents often neglect.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 07/24/2013 - 12:52am

    Zimmerman did say Ok and he did seem to stop running. But he did not stop following Martin. He continued walking in the direction Martin had run. He claimed he was not following Martin, just walking in the same direction Martin was going.  Serino laughed and said, that's following. He claimed it was to look at the street sign.

    Or if you see a scary stranger, run home rather than hang out waiting around the corner for the stranger to catch up to you.

    Martin did run, and the person following got out of his car and run after him. So Martin hid. Like a scared little rabbit he ran. When the guy following him ran after him, like a scared little rabbit he hid and froze. The guy continued walking in the direction of his hiding place.

    Or why do you think Martin ran? Not scared, maybe a clever ploy to draw Zimmerman out of his car?

     


    by ocean-kat on Wed, 07/24/2013 - 3:05am

    Z says M ran at 7:12:08 and ran himself for about 20 secs then slows down to finish his call. From same link, fight would have started about 7:15:30  (his guess that T-Mobile's net shows ~30 seconds delayed to actual; time is after Zimmerman hung up with police at 7:13:51).

    So that's about 3 1/2 minutes M had to go down this path. Maybe he hid. Maybe he just waited. What he didn't do is get very far away running from a doughboy running out of breath while talking on a phone and then walking while talking calmly on the phone. Here you can see the path (4th button under "trailing Trayvon"). Not very far to get there & past 1 door to the right in 3 1/2 minutes. Dee Dee/Jeantel didn't mention Trayvon hiding.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 07/24/2013 - 8:19am

    Martin should have shot the scary guy following him for no reason. Zimmerman was an armed stranger who did not identify himself as neighborhood watch. Hopefully the next Zimmerman will be gunned down.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 07/24/2013 - 9:17am

    Martin had a right to Stand His Ground


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 07/24/2013 - 11:48am

    So if I'm walking down the street and someone scary is behind me for a total of 4-6 minutes, I can just shoot them, and if they're packing heat, I win! Yay! If it's a cop, well, he didn't identify himself, his tough luck.

    And a woman walking alone can just shoot these scary guys behind them in the park or in the parking garage - presumably they've got at least knives.

    Hey, from what you say, if Martin had a weapon, Zimmerman could have shot Martin for staring and coming up to his car and not identifying himself as a guest or what not. New ways of looking at this story every day.

    Non-emergency call:

    Zimmerman:

    Zimmerman:

    We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there’s a real suspicious guy.

    This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about. [00:25]

    Zimmerman:

    Yeah, a dark hoodie like a gray hoodie. He wore jeans or sweat pants and white tennis shoes. He’s here now … he’s just staring. [00:42]

    Zimmerman:

    Now he’s staring at me. [00:48]

    Zimmerman:

    Yeah, now he’s coming toward me. He’s got his hands in his waist band.

    Zimmerman:

    He’s got something on his shirt. About like his late teens.

    Something’s wrong with him. Yep, he’s coming to check me out.

    He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is. [01:20]

    Zimmerman:

    He’s running. [2:08]

    Dispatcher:

    Are you following him? [2:24]

    Zimmerman:

    Yeah. [2:25]

    Dispatcher:

    OK.

    We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]

    Zimmerman:

    OK. [2:28]

    Dispatcher:

    Alright, sir, what is your name? [2:34]

    Zimmerman:

    George. He ran.

    Dispatcher:

    OK, what’s your apartment number?

    Zimmerman:

    It’s a home. It’s 1950 – oh, crap, I don’t want to give it out – I don’t know where this kid is [inaudible] [3:40]

    Dispatcher:

    OK, no problem. I’ll let them know to call you when they’re in the area. [4:02]

    Zimmerman:

    Thanks.

    Dispatcher:

    You’re welcome.

    Call ends 4:07


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 07/24/2013 - 12:23pm

    Welcome to Stand Your Ground. If Martin shot Zimmerman, we would have a dead, armed stalker and a teen who was alive.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 07/24/2013 - 12:42pm

    Accepting, for the moment, your version of 'natural law', the question becomes how far civil law can go to avert the war of all against all.

    To quote John Locke:

    No man in civil society can be exempted from the laws of it. For if any man may do what he thinks fit and there be no appeal on earth for redress or security against any harm he shall do, I ask whether he be not perfectly still in the state of Nature, and so can be no part or member of that civil society, unless any one will say the state of Nature and civil society are one and the same thing, which I have never yet found any one so great a patron of anarchy as to affirm.

    I doubt anybody is confused about the notion that protecting oneself is central to our experience as living sentient beings. Locke and his rivals entertained the idea that something other than the state of war was possible to nourish and reside within.


    by moat on Sat, 01/05/2013 - 8:42pm

    Some help from actual experience

     

    “A society that is relying on guys with guns to stop violence is a sign of a society where institutions have broken down,” said Rebecca Peters, former director of the International Action Network on Small Arms. “It’s shocking to hear anyone in the United States considering a solution that would make it seem more like Colombia.”


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/06/2013 - 7:15pm

    Wow--I'm both proud and horrified at how many comments this thread has generated.

    Let's try again to solidify actual suggestions on a new thread.


    by erica20 on Mon, 01/07/2013 - 1:16pm

    If, as some may argue, that the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning, is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms. The only way to describe one’s right as a private individual, is not as a “militia” but as a “person” (“The individual personality of a human being: self.”). “Person” or “persons“” is mentioned in the Constitution 49 times, to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a Constitutional legal standing as to a “person”, his or her Constitutional rights. Whereas in the Second Amendment, reference to “person” is not to be found. Was there are reason?. The obvious question arises, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey same legal standard in defining an individual’s right to bear arms as a “person”?

    Merriam Webster “militia”, “a body of citizens organized for military service : a whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

    =

    Article 2, Section 2 “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States;…”

    =

    In the whole of the U.S. Constitution, “militia” is mentioned 5 times. In these references there is no mention of person or persons. One reference to “people“ in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons, in describing a “militia”. “People” is mentioned a total 9 times.

    =

    It’s not enough to just say that “person(s)” is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times. But to see it for yourself, and the realization was for the concern envisioned by the Framers that every “person” be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these rights were to be applied to that “person”.

    　

    “..No Person shall be a Representative..”

    “..whole Number of free Persons,..”

    “..three fifths of all other Persons…”

    “..No person shall be a Senator…”

    “..And no Person shall be convicted…”

    “..no Person holding any Office…”

    “..Names of the Persons voting for…”

    “…of such Persons as any of the States…”

    “…not exceeding ten dollars for each Person…”

    “…And no Person holding any…”

    “…or Person holding an Office of Trust o…“

    “…and vote by Ballot for two persons,…”

    “…List of all the Persons voted for,…”

    “…The Person having the greatest Number of Votes…”

    “…and if no Person have a Majority,…”

    “…the Person having the greatest Number…”

    “…No person except a natural born Citizen,…”

    “…Any Person be eligible to that ….”

    “…No Person shall be convicted of …”

    “…except during the Life of the Person attainted….”.

    “…A Person charged in any State…”

    “…No Person held to Service…”

    “…The right of the people to be secure in their persons,…”

    “…and the persons or things to be seized….”

    “..No person shall be held to answer…”

    “..nor shall any person be subject for the same offense….”

    “…they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President,…”

    “…the person voted for as Vice-President,…”

    “…all persons voted for as President,….”

    “…all persons voted for as Vice-President…”

    “…The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, …”

    “…and if no person have such majority,…”

    “..the persons having the highest numbers …”

    “… The person having the greatest number of votes…”

    “..and if no person have a majority,…”

    “…But no person constitutionally ineligible…”

    “…All persons born or naturalized …”

    “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,…”

    “…nor deny to any person within …”

    “…number of persons in each State,….”

    “…No person shall be a Senator or …”

    “..and such person shall act accordingly….”

    “…of the death of any of the persons from…”

    “…death of any of the persons from…”

    “…No person shall be elected to the office…”

    “…and no person who has held the office of President,…”

    “..to which some other person was elected…”

    “…shall not apply to any person holding the office…”

    “..prevent any person who may be holding…”

    =

    Excerpts in reading Emerson v. United States (1999), or Miller v. United States (1939), one can be struck with the many thoughts, interpretations of what the second amendment means, but more important how it came about and ended. However, even still, I am left with the thought if the Framers had treated Amendment 2 with the same obedience, and reverence to explain the 49 Constitutional references to “person”, there would be no controversy in what is perceived as a right to bear arms.

    =

    MEMORANDUM OPINION

    1

    United States v Emerson

    “The American colonists exercised their right to bear arms under the English Bill of Rights. Indeed, the English government's success in luring Englishmen to America was due in part to pledges that the immigrants and their children would continue to possess "all the rights of natural subjects, as if born and abiding in England."

    =

    “A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny.”

    =

    “The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights" which he proposed to be added to the Constitution. HALBROOK, supra at 223 n. 145 (citing James Monroe Papers, New York Public Library (Miscellaneous Papers of James Monroe)).”

    =

    307 U.S. 174 United States v. Miller
    Structural Analysis

    “Furthermore, the very inclusion of the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights shows that the framers of the Constitution considered it an individual right. "After all, the Bill of Rights is not a bill of states' rights, but the bill of rights retained by the people." David Harmer, Securing a Free State: Why The Second Amendment Matters, 1998 BYU L. REV. 55, 60 (1998). Of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, only the Tenth concerns itself with the rights of the states, and refers to such rights in addition to, not instead of, individual rights. Id. Thus the structure of the Second Amendment, viewed in the context of the entire Bill of Rights, evinces an intent to recognize an individual right retained by the people.”

    =

    After debating by the Framers on the proposed right to bear arms, from these few references, some credence is given to the “intent” to “to bear arms”. Analysis of structural statutory construction, “..viewed in the context of the entire Bill of Rights,..” individual citizens, a person, to “bear arms“ however proposed and debated, there is reference to “person” mentioned 49 times, is this not to be considered when looking at the context of the entire Bill Of Rights? Right to bear arms was debated and proposed, but the Second Amendment remains silent.

    =

    Jones v Smart [1785} 1 Term Rep.44,52 (per Buller, J.) “[W]e are bound to take the act of parliament, as they made it: a casus omissus can in no case be supplied by a Court of Law, for that would be to makes laws.” (Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts) Antonin Scalia/ Bryan A. Gardner .West.

    =

    What am I missing?


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 1:45pm

    Thank you.

    307 U.S. 174 United States v. Miller
    Structural Analysis

    “Furthermore, the very inclusion of the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights shows that the framers of the Constitution considered it an individual right. "After all, the Bill of Rights is not a bill of states' rights, but the bill of rights retained by the people." ....... Thus the structure of the Second Amendment, viewed in the context of the entire Bill of Rights, evinces an intent to recognize an individual right retained by the people.”


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 3:02pm

    Anonymous is not arguing your point of view, Resistance, he/she is trying to prove that if the writers of the 2nd Amendment wanted it to be an individual right, they would have used the word "person" as the Framers did in a whole lot of other places, and  that they didn't do so meant they didn't intend it as an individual right:

    Excerpts in reading Emerson v. United States (1999), or Miller v. United States (1939), one can be struck with the many thoughts, interpretations of what the second amendment means, but more important how it came about and ended. However, even still, I am left with the thought if the Framers had treated Amendment 2 with the same obedience, and reverence to explain the 49 Constitutional references to “person”, there would be no controversy in what is perceived as a right to bear arms.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 3:06pm

    You're going to base your opinion on ?

    However,   even still,

    Did you conveniently disregard the other pertinent information the Justices use in dealing with these 2nd Amendment rights  

    Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny.”

    =

    “The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected.


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 3:38pm

    Whatever it is, I'm missing it too.

    Are you suggesting that the right to bear arms is a community right but not a personal right?

    Please clarify.


    by erica20 on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 2:52pm

    I think Anonymous did an excellent job of showing how the language of the Second Amendment entangles a personal right with a collective practice. Whether one infers the meaning of the amendment to support one or the other perspective, it is odd that it requires so much inference. The list of examples where personal rights are clearly delineated raises the question of why the language of the Bill of Rights was so ambiguous in the matter of bearing arms.

    Anonymous is pointing to the elephant in the room: What purpose does/did the ambiguity serve?


    by moat on Sat, 01/19/2013 - 7:51pm

    From this piece by Digby, the ambiguity may have served to allow white in-state militias to police & hold captive black slaves even if opposed by northern federal forces.

    Long before the concern about "the government wants to take our guns away" there was the fear that "the government wants to take our slaves away".


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 01/20/2013 - 2:46am

    Digby makes a good argument.

    His focus on the change in language of the amendment from "country" to "State" reminds me of the Federalist papers #27 to #29, where Hamilton dismissed concerns that the Constitution would provide the opportunity of having a national government gathering one group of state militias to move against another group of state militias.

    One "group" of states was more worried about that possibility than the others.


    by moat on Sat, 01/26/2013 - 5:50pm

    Latest Comments