Daily Kos: Why Liberals Should Love The Second Amendment

[Atypical Liberal]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/21/19133/5152

"Liberals love the Constitution. They especially love the Bill of Rights. They love all the Amendments.

Except for one: the Second Amendment."

[aikoaiko]

1. A timely reminder of that piece.

I don't agree with a few details, but I do agree in principle.

[Kolesar]

2. When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check at the door their ability to think

Fuck Kaili

Kaili Joy Gray's diary :: ::
In discussing the importance of any other portion of the Bill of Rights, liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.

So why do liberals have such a problem with the Second Amendment? Why do they lump all gun owners in the category of "gun nuts"?
Fuck Kaili

Why do they complain about the "radical extremist agenda of the NRA"? Why do they argue for greater restrictions?

A collection of unsubstantiated, slanderous horse shit. Fuck Kaili

[X_Digger]

3. Struck a nerve, eh? n/t

[virginia mountainman]

5. Easy their !!

As long as you place your faith in it, your dogma is still safe!!

ROFLMAO!!!

"Dogma" is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or by extension by some other group or organization. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioner or believers.

[cleanhippie]

24. The truth hurts, does it?

I think we all can undersatnd the anger one feels when reaching an understanding of an idea because it conflicts with a previously held opinion. It will pass and you will actually have a better understanding. Welcome to the wonderful world of reality. Its a nice place, you will like it here.

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. I really think you're overanalyzing this, and need to put more emotion into it.

If there's one thing that political discourse in the US is lacking, it's spittle-flecked wharrgarbl!

[badtoworse]

106. LOL. He was talking about the likes of you. - nt

[texshelters]

144. Again with the lies about guns and the second amendment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf6LLRYLMnI

Liberals have the sense to know tools of mass murder should be regulated, as in "a well regulated militia".

Other people are too stupid to see the connection between guns and killing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf6LLRYLMnI

Peace,
Tex Shelters
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/

[friendly_iconoclast]

150. I'd venture to say you aren't aware there *is* a "well regulated militia"...

...and many gun owners are members. Hell, even a lot of people that absolutely hate guns are members:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

If you can give a cogent explanation why you believe only those described above should be able to own guns, I'd

very much like to hear it...

[maxsolomon]

4. the essential question

is how to keep advanced, modern arms (and i'll put 33-round clips in that category) out of the hands of the undiagnosed insane without vioating their rights. the insane don't meet MY definition of an "able-bodied male".

[shadowrider]

6. Chime in here

It addresses your exact question.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=361566&mesg_id=361566

[maxsolomon]

8. 2/100 posts actually offering workable solutions.

the rest is invective. typical.

[shadowrider]

9. 2 out of 100 is much better than insults being thrown (by both sides) n/t

[john donathon]

16. maybe

The government should assume at the age of 18 that everyone is insane, and must pass a rigorous and thorough evaluation, in order to live with society. All in favor say I

[shadowrider]

18. All male babies should have an involuntary DNA sample taken

in case, at some point in the future, they commit a rape, or are falsely charged with rape etc. The "authorities" will know who to arrest.

All in favor say AYE.

(I'm agreeing with you using this ridiculous example)

[john donathon]

19. LOL

thanks man, glad to have some support, every time I show I support the 2nd amendment I am labeled as a repuke. Nice stereotyping people. Appreciate it

[shadowrider]

20. Get used to it.

Some here actually consider anyone who supports the 2A to be a knuckle-dragging, Limbaugh listening, Tea Party fanatic.

[one-eyed fat man]

23. Undiagnosed insane?

What about all those folks who are coming out of the woodwork: girlfriends, classmates, teachers, friends, professors, campus police and telling anyone who will listen how they knew he was crazy all along?

Didn't one acquaintance get quoted as saying as soon as he heard the news on the radio he "knew it was Jared?"

Now if any, one or all of those people had done something then, the shooter would either be in a psych ward someplace or on medication. In either case, his mental health history would have been in the FBI database so that when some store clerk phoned in the background check NICS would have stopped him?

Should they be absolved of any blame?

Yet some here are absolutely convinced and steadfastly maintain if the assault weapons ban hadn't expired in 2004 that none of this would have happened.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[one-eyed fat man]

59. There is still a problem.

Certainly I agree with you that it should take more than the word of someone with a grudge to get someone committed. Even crazy people deserve due process. Privacy laws for persons who voluntarily undergo treatment for mental health problems prevent some really dangerous people from being in the system.

The shooter in the Standard Gravure shootings in Louisville was diagnosed a danger to himself and others. He was voluntarily undergoing treatment and absent a court order of his mental state was not a reportable public record.

I can think of no society which kept closer tabs on its citizens than the East Germans. The Ministry for State Security had one informant for every seven citizens. Despite that level of scrutiny, over a 1000 Border Guards, who had already been screened by the Stasi for political reliability, defected to the West.

The approach that some espouse is akin to dealing with drunk driving by taking the keys away from sober people.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shadowrider]

65. Keep in mind, in Japan

If a father goes crazy, kills his 5 kids and his spouse, then offs himself, it's counted as 7 suicides, NOT 6 homicides and 1 suicide.

It's all in the reporting.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Katya Mullethov]

73. He finally got one right last night

Scares called it on Japan , "What is the deal with japan? " .

Basically , he said they had " Pride , Honor , and a Sense of Duty . I am jusy paraphrasing , and not only did he nail that shit square , he was summarily dismissed ! lol

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Glassunion]

75. We do indeed evolve differently.

I call it my theory of chili.

A country like Japan, was pretty much left alone throughout its history to gather local ingredients for their chili. They did have a bit of Zen Buddhism added to their chili from China, but they decided not to add anything that the Mongols wanted to bring to the party. Some of the chefs fought for a bit over who the executive chef should be, but the chili was left alone on the stove to stew and the flavors to marry. The Dutch showed up one day, and they brought some minor ingredients, but mostly they brought kitchenware and did not interfere with the chili to any great extent. America, France, Russians and British eventually showed up, but they all just wanted a bowl of chili. Later in their history, they decided that they would open franchises all over the Pacific. It was a dismal failure. But that entire time, the chili was still on the stove, flavors slowly marrying.

All of the Americas, from Canada to Argentina, have almost been forced into a weird progression over the past 300 years. It's a huge party, everyone is welcome(at least in my kitchen, I think Palin has a 40ft wall and razor-wire around hers), and everyone brings something to add to the chili. The problem this causes for evolving is that something new is continually getting added to the chili before the flavors can marry. Another issue is that some of the flavors don't work well with the newer flavors right away. We do evolve for sure, but nowhere near the way any other culture in the world does. We have that son of a bitch on high and we are dumping stuff in left and right. I hope in the end the chili is good.

[Pancho Sanza]

85. Mmmmmm....chili!

Recently I was honored to be selected as an outstanding Famous celebrity
in Texas, to be a judge at a chili cook-off, because no one else wanted
to do it. Also the original person called in sick at the last moment,
and I happened to be standing there at the judge's table asking
directions to the beer wagon when the call came. I was assured by the
other two judges (Native Texans) that the chili wouldn't be all that
spicy, and besides they told me I could have free beer during the
tasting, so I accepted. Here are the scorecards from the event.

Chili # 1: Mike's Maniac Mobster Monster Chili

JUDGE ONE: A little too heavy on tomato. Amusing kick.
JUDGE TWO: Nice, smooth tomato flavor. Very mild.
FRANK: Holy smokes, what the hell is this stuff? You could remove dried
paint from your driveway with it. Took me two beers to put the flames out.
Hope that's the worst one. These people are crazy!

Chili # 2: Arthur's Afterburner Chili

JUDGE ONE: Smoky (barbecue?) with a hint of pork. Slight Jalapeno
tang.
JUDGE TWO: Exciting BBQ flavor, needs more peppers to be taken
seriously.
FRANK: Keep this out of reach of children! I'm not sure what I am
supposed to taste besides pain. I had to wave off two people who wanted
to give me the Heimlich maneuver. Shoved my way to the front of the
beer line.

Chili # 3: Fred's Famous Burn Down the Barn Chili

JUDGE ONE: Excellent firehouse chili! Great kick! Needs more beans.
JUDGE TWO: A beanless chili, a bit salty, good use of red peppers.
FRANK: This has got to be a joke. Call the EPA, I've located a
uranium spill. My nose feels like I have been snorting Drano. Everyone
knows the routine by now and got out of my way so I could make it to the
beer wagon. Barmaid pounded me on the back; now my backbone is in the
front part of my chest.

Chili # 4: Bubba's Black Magic

JUDGE ONE: Black bean chili with almost no spice. Disappointing.
JUDGE TWO: Hint of lime in the black beans. Good side dish for fish or
other mild foods, not much of a chili.
FRANK: I felt something scraping across my tongue, but was unable to
taste it. Sally, the bar maid, was standing behind me with fresh
refills so I wouldn't have to dash over to see her.

Chili # 5: Linda's Legal Lip Remover

JUDGE ONE: Meaty, strong chili. Cayenne peppers freshly ground, adding
considerable kick. Very impressive.
JUDGE TWO: Chili using shredded beef; could use more tomato. Must admit
the cayenne peppers make a strong statement.
FRANK: My ears are ringing, and I can no longer focus my eyes. I
farted and four people behind me needed paramedics. The contestant
seemed hurt when I told her that her chili had given me brain damage.
Sally saved my tongue by pouring beer directly on it from a pitcher.
Sort of irritates me that one of the other judges asked me to stop
screaming.

Chili # 6: Vera's Very Vegetarian Variety

JUDGE ONE: Thin yet bold vegetarian variety chili. Good balance of spice
and peppers.
JUDGE TWO: The best yet. Aggressive use of peppers, onions, and garlic.
Superb.
FRANK: My intestines are now a straight pipe filled with gaseous
flames. No one seems inclined to stand behind me except Sally.

Chili # 7: Sam's Screaming Sensation Chili

JUDGE ONE: A mediocre chili with too much reliance on canned peppers.
JUDGE TWO: Ho Hum, tastes as if the chef threw in canned chili peppers at
the last moment. I should note that I am worried about Judge Number 3. He
appears to be in a bit of distress.
FRANK: You could put a grenade in my mouth and pull the pin, and I
wouldn't feel it. I've lost the sight in one eye, and the world sounds
like it is made of rushing water. My clothes are covered with chili
which slid unnoticed out of my mouth at some point. Good! At autopsy
they'll know what killed me. I've decided to stop breathing, it's too
painful, and I'm not getting any oxygen anyway. If I need air I'll just
suck it in through the 4 inch hole in my stomach.

Chili # 8: Helen's Mount Saint Chili

JUDGE ONE: A perfect ending, this is a nice blend chili, safe for all, not
too bold but spicy enough to declare its existence.
JUDGE TWO: This final entry is a good, balanced chili, neither mild nor
hot. Sorry to see that most of it was lost when Judge Number 3 fell and
pulled the chili pot on top of himself.
FRANK: -------(editor's note: Judge #3 was unable to report)

[Starboard Tack]

116. And what do we call it here?

Family planning? Or just part of our 2A rights

[shadowrider]

7. The funny thing is

many liberals, yes, even on this board, will dis the liberal writer as a non-liberal for defending the 2nd.

[maxsolomon]

10. we currently have extremely liberal gun laws

so that would not be me dissing someone for advocating liberalism.

i dis the writer for saying that liberals "LOVE" a malleable text composed of compromises & written by humans. i don't LOVE the constitution, or the flag, or america any more than i LOVE the bible or the koran.

i love people and not things.

[tyne]

11. Outstanding

article. Let's hope liberals read it and understand.

[Starboard Tack]

117. I totally agree

Read it and understand that the 2A is as obsolete as the Edsel.

[X_Digger]

119. By what definition do you claim it's 'obsolete'?

"no longer in general use; fallen into disuse" ?

"of a discarded or outmoded type; out of date" ?

"effaced by wearing down or away" ?

You might wish it were obsolete, but that doesn't make it so.

[Starboard Tack]

122. What do I mean by obsolete?

Out of date. No longer relevant in today's society.

[X_Digger]

124. Then find a better word, because obsolete, it isn't.

Something that is out of date has been supplanted by a newer model, like an 'obsolete' battleship.

What do you think is the newer model of the second amendment?

[Kolesar]

12. it's time for batshit crazy "gun-grabbing" (4+ / 1-)

Response by alizard:

Democrats to join Nader's Greens.

I know that the thrill of winning elections has worn off for those of your ilk. The rest of us don't feel that way.

Democrats have been trying to live down the "Democratic gun grabbers" tag the GOP / NRA has given us with your help for a generation. As far as I'm concerned, you're just another GOP enabler and the place for people like you and Lieberman are in somebody else's political party.

Ask guys like Senator Tester what use people like you are to real Democrats.

[Kelvin Mace]

13. I, an unapologetic liberal

will trade an amendment to the Constitution unambiguously establishing people's right to own ANY firearm, bolt-action, semi-automatic, automatic, whatever, in exchange for a complete ban (excluding law enforcement) of ALL firearms under 36 inches in length.

I am not opposed to the 2nd amendment, just the current absolutist interpretation it enjoys in some quarters (see laws against shouting "fire" crowded theatres for an example of a sensible restriction on a Constitutional right).

[MicaelS]

14. And I, an unapologetic populist

Will trade an amendment to the Constitution unambiguously revoking a woman's right to abortion except in the case of where a 3 doctor panel has judged the woman's life in danger. Yes even in the case of rape and or incest.

I am not opposed to the right to choose, just the current absolutist interpretation it enjoys in some quarters.

See how easy that was?

[maxsolomon]

15. what? re-read your hypothetical

i think you meant revoking, not establishing.

[MicaelS]

25. Ouch, you're right. Thanks n/t

[Kelvin Mace]

26. Not a valid comparison

First, you are not giving me anything in the trade. You ask me to accept the amendment, but offer nothing sensible in return, just a completely draconian death sentence to women.

Second, there is no abortion amendment in the Constitution with which you could make any trade.

Third, how is anyone's life placed in jeopardy by my proposition?

[MicaelS]

30. Perfectly valid.. What are you giving me in trade?

You are taking the bulk of my rights away under the 2A, and giving me what in return? The "sensible" "Right" to keep whatever guns you approve of? Until someone uses a long gun in a crime, and you came back to take those away too?

You place people's lives in jepropary who believe they have a need to carry a handgun for self-protection. Like cab-drivers, night store clerk, those who carry large amounts of cause for deposit or transfer.

And as for the abortion amendment, then I'll propose it.

[Kelvin Mace]

42. Hmmm

I have given you the right to own military-grade weapons, and prohibited weapons that are less accurate, and more prone to use by simple criminals, by depressed people, and in domestic disputes.

Under my proposal you can't own a Glock with a 30 round clip, but you can own a M-16 with a 30 round clip.

Lots of firepower for when that evil government comes knocking, but really hard to carry around unnoticed.

But, as has been pointed out elsewhere. I do not understand why folks who favor guns everywhere for everyone get upset by little posts like mine.

You guys won the debate, we are the most heavily armed democracy on the planet. Of course, I would argue we stopped being a democracy around 2000 (elections in 2008 not withstanding)

Me? I'm just counting the bodies.

[john donathon]

17. when was the last time

somebody went through with a terrorist attack armed with a 36 inch rifle?

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. The Beltway snipers, Charles Whitman, Brenda Spencer, et al.

Let us know how your proposed ban on certain inanimate objects will change the human heart, and we'll talk.

[shadowrider]

22. Pssst. He's on our side n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. Ah. My apologies. n/t

[john donathon]

57. why not

ban all the steak knives while we are at it, Oh and anything else that can cause bodily harm to another human being?

[shadowrider]

58. In that case

Let's ban cars
Baseball bats
Screwdrivers
Ex-wives
Stiletto heels (Wait, forget that one)
Daggers
Alcohol
Motorcyles

etc. etc. They can ALL cause physical damage to another

:shrug:

[Kelvin Mace]

87. Where have I proposed banning everything that can causes damage?

I am asking you to ban all weapons smaller than 36" except for police and military use. Are you telling me you are incapable of hurting someone with an AK-47? An SVD? An M-60?

Last time I looked, those things cause WAY more damage than your average 9mm round.

[Kelvin Mace]

83. Why?

I have not proposed banning "all" of anything, just a particularly dangerous subset of firearms.

I have made a modest proposal which allows people to keep powerful military grade firearms, but banned a subclass of firearms mostly used in criminal activities, domestic assaults, and suicides. Your proposal is not a valid analogy or counter-proposal.

How many mass killings have occurred using knives in the U.S. in,say, the last 100 years?

[Kelvin Mace]

32. I am banning a subset

of a class of objects.

It will in no way change the human heart, just reduce the conditions (easy access to easily concealable weapons with high capacity magazines) which are favorable to mass deaths.

People will still kill people. My proposal just makes it a little harder without leaving people with no defense against "a tyrannical government."

Just trying to cut down on the body count.

[Kelvin Mace]

28. Missing my point

Gun owners claim that liberals wish to take away their guns, and cite the 2nd amendment as a right. The text of the amendment is ambiguous, and always has been.

My proposal establishes the right unambiguously, while outlawing a class of firearm that causes more death every year than multiple 9/11 terrorist attacks.

[cleanhippie]

34. I have the feeling that you, in fact, did not read the DailyKos article in the op.

Did you really read the blog post linked in the op? Really? If you had, you probably would not have made the statement "The text of the amendment is ambiguous, and always has been." If you had read it, you would know just how ridiculous that statement is after having read the blog post.

[Kelvin Mace]

37. I'm afraid I stopped reading at the point

where the poster spoke in terms of absolutes, which were simply wrong.

So why do liberals have such a problem with the Second Amendment? Why do they lump all gun owners in the category of "gun nuts"? Why do they complain about the "radical extremist agenda of the NRA"? Why do they argue for greater restrictions?

It goes on like this for most of the post. He ascribes views to ALL liberals, which are simply not true.

I know many liberals (and am) who own guns and favor private ownership. But most of the ones I know, also favor reasonable restrictions on their ownership.

Also, I do not question whether the 2nd Amendment was speaking collectively or individually of rights. I accept that it was speaking individually, but that the ambiguous part is whether that individual needed to belong to a militia.

Sorry, I view the wording as ambiguous in that context.

I really wish people would be as rabid about our 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendment rights as they are about their 2nd.

All these guns and yet we still became a police state.

[cleanhippie]

46. So because you disgareed with it, you just stopped reading?

How do you ever get exposed to differing opinions if you stop reading as soon as you don;t like what you see?

[Kelvin Mace]

72. Because I have read it all before

Your questions is like asking me why I would turn off the TV before the end of Star Wars, well because I have seen it about a hundred time, I KNOW how it ends. Now occasionally, something novel changes, but so far it has always been for the worse (Han shot first, Lucas, ya damned revisionist!).

I am never going to be convinced since I have lived in countries with much tougher laws about handguns, and they have ostensibly remained democracies, yet their per capita firearms deaths is a fraction of ours.

One of the Kos poster's main points was that most everyone has to have guns in order to protect the right of revolution. Really? And at what point are they going to start? As I see it, folks are willing to fight for one, and only one right, the right to own a gun. As long as the government allows that, the champions of the Constitution are perfectly happy to surrender every other right they have.

Freedom of speech? People have been sent arrested/harassed for what they have said by the government.

Freedom of religion? People have been sent arrested/harassed for their religion by the government.

Freedom of the press? Been keeping up with Wikileaks news lately?

Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? Hmmm... illegal wiretaps, "no knock" warrants, the Patriot Act, TSA, "Homeland" security, Arizona's "paper's please" law, etc.

Right to habeus corpus? Gone.

Right to due process? Ask people in Guantanamo. Don't think it matters because they are not citizens? Then remember that Obama has said he has the right to murder anyone, citizen or not, without review. The entire "war in drugs" has been a virtual rape of the entire concept of "due process".

Freedom from self-incrimination? Not since they legalized torture.

Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment? Not since they legalized torture.

Right to speedy trial by a jury of your peers? See Guantanamo. Once the government designates you an "enemy combatant", that right goes away.

Right to confront witnesses against you? See Guantanamo.

As I see it, the only rights the government has not violated so far has been the 2nd and 3rd.

All of this prattle about needing guns to protect us from losing our rights is laughable. Other than being allowed to have as many guns as I can eat and not having to provide room and board for Gomer Pyle, there are no rights left to protect.

[cleanhippie]

77. You make a good point regarding other rights.

But I think the DailyKos blog stated that we HAVE been losing those rights and we HAVE been vocal (with poor results, I might add) in our opposition.

Perhaps the point the blogger is trying to make is that ALL of our Rights are being trampled on, and we will continue to fight for those rights, but if the day comes when the right to own guns is taken away, so is our LAST resort to restore our rights.

[Kelvin Mace]

82. Again,

I would wish I had an ACLU, NAACP, GLAAD, EFF, EPIC, etc, 1/100 as effective as the NRA.

but if the day comes when the right to own guns is taken away, so is our LAST resort to restore our rights.

So, what is the final line that must be crossed? To my reckoning, we crossed all of the lines that triggered revolution in the past.

The government has judged, correctly, that by leaving gun rights alone, it gets to take all the others. Why would the government come take your guns when it gets what it wants without firing a shot?

The police state began when people stopped worrying about the First Amendment, and fixated on the 2nd.

Divide and conquer. Works every time. Fear is a wonderful tool, it keeps people wanting weapons to protect themselves from imaginary threats (rapacious minorities, drug addicts, hoards of rapists, murderers and terrorists), yet blinds them to the real threat posed by those stoking the fear.

You kind of have to grudgingly admire a government that pulls off a police state while leaving the citizenry heavily armed, posing no threat except to anyone, except themselves.

[SteveM]

141. I see some of your points...

"The government has judged, correctly, that by leaving gun rights alone, it gets to take all the others. Why would the government come take your guns when it gets what it wants without firing a shot?"

You may be right here.

"The police state began when people stopped worrying about the First Amendment, and fixated on the 2nd."

Not so sure about this, your position may be undercut by:

"You kind of have to grudgingly admire a government that pulls off a police state while leaving the citizenry heavily armed, posing no threat except to anyone, except themselves."

I don't think our government -- or any government -- which purports to be a police state will not long be comfortable with a heavily-armed population, and will move against it when the frogs get too hot.

I think the reason why the groups you listed (and others) don't have the clout of the NRA is because defense of civil liberties has in recent decades been the "provence" of the Democratic Party. Now, the Party has pretty much closed ignored that forum, and is not at all comfortable with anyone to the left of JFK. One of the advantages the NRA (and others) has is the singularly "material" aspect of the right: "arms." There is little ambiguity as with the other rights (the "press" has faded to the ambiguity of social networking). The problem with our politics now is that we are NOT truly polarized: there is one party, that of the Far Right. The Democrats, Obama, and MSM don't want anything to do with the "Left" (whatever that is), and in the name of a sprawling false equivalency, have distanced themselves not only from liberalism, progressivism, or whatever label they eschew, but jettisoned their concerns about the Bill of Rights. In short, little remains of a lobby for the BOR, sans the Second.

Incidentally, I think the complex of GLBT organizations, operating at different levels with more complex issues, is the equivalent of 2A groups in terms of accomplishments.

[beevul]

96. Allow me to remove the ambiguity for you.

The second amendment is a restriction on government power.

It says so in the bill of rights itself:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org

The reason that this restriction was placed upon government?

Because the framers thought that a well regulated (equipped) militia was necessary to the security of a free state.

[tortoise1956]

98. Try reading this,

It is an excerpt from a previous post someone else tried to use to present the "Group Right" argument, but it works just as well for showing what the militia referred to in second amendment consists of:

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."


So, Slick, does this clear up for you who is in the Militia? As a matter of fact, I would argue that the militia's ranks have been swelled by more than 100% from the original body by the simple addition of all females physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

Heck, someone needs to let Sturm, Ruger know to ramp up production in order to adequately arm all female militia members!

[Surf Fishing Guru]

104. Dangerous line of thought . . .

KELVIN WROTE:

The text of the amendment is ambiguous, and always has been.

My proposal establishes the right unambiguously,

Your line of thought here is dangerous and is one of the reasons why the Federalists argued against adding a bill of rights to the Constitution.

What's not ambiguous is that the right is not created, given, granted or established by the 2nd Amendment. This is the most fundamental ideal of the principle of conferred powers; ALL NOT SURRENDERED IS RETAINED . . A principle that SCOTUS has endorsed many times, that the right to arms is not dependent in any manner on the Constitution for its existence.

It is a pre-existing right that the people retained as no power was ever granted to government to impact the personal arms of the private citizen. The 2nd is a redundancy, it forbids the government to exercise powers that were never granted to it.

Please stop reading it as a permission slip that is deficient in precisely laying down what the right to arms is. If you want to learn what the full and complete extent of the citizen's right to arms is, inspect the body of the Constitution for a specific grant of power allowing the government to act.

[Euromutt]

148. Mumbai, November 2008?

Beslan, September 2004?

Yeah, okay, an AKM is actually 34 and a bit inches, but that's pretty darn close to 36.

[MicaelS]

27. Well that still let's Oswald shoot JFK, with a rifle..

And someone shoot MLK with a rifle, and Byron De La Beckwith shoot Medgers Evers with a rifle.

[Kelvin Mace]

35. No solution is perfect

But please compare the number of people who die every year, (or over the last 50 years) by firearms under 36 inches in length, and those 46 and over (in essence, hand guns versus rifles/shotguns/assault weapons).

We'd still be one Kennedy, one John Lennon and one Phil Hartman to the plus by my quick count.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[friendly_iconoclast]

78. And we do not tape the mouths of theatergoers shut because they *might* yell "Fire!"

But that is what some want to do with currently legal weapons...

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kelvin Mace]

86. *sigh*

Again, my proposal allows you to keep military grade, fully automatic, assault rifles, with clips as big as you can carry.

Yet, you persist in objecting to the banning of firearms used mostly by criminals, suicides, and in domestic violence situations.

Again, in the theoretical revolution people keep claiming they need guns to wage (that would be the revolution against the police state that already exists despite all the guns), which is more effective? A weapon with a muzzle velocity of 1400 fps, or one with a velocity of 3100 fps?

Simple physics provides the answer.

[friendly_iconoclast]

90. "...firearms used mostly by criminals, suicides, and in domestic violence situations."

Are the rest of your posts this accurate?

[Kelvin Mace]

92. Most people

do NOT shoot themselves with rifles, shotguns or assault rifles. Nor do they shoot other people with such weapons while committing crimes. I'll go out on a limb and say that 90% of people who decide to shoot themselves do so with a handgun, since it is easier to manage. Yeah, you get the occasional oddball who will use a shotgun, but handguns are just too damned convenient.

The weapon of choice for criminals is a handgun, not an M-16, or other long arm.

Criminals choose to use this type of weapon because it is easy to hide, which is kind of important when you wish to commit a crime and draw as little attention on your way to and from the scene.

This is simple reality.

[friendly_iconoclast]

94. You claimed handguns are "used mostly by criminals, suicides, and in domestic violence situations."

Which, on the face of it, puts you in the same league as the poster that claims large-capacity magazines are only useful to

spree killers. Be that as it may, I note a logical fallacy in your reply. You describe handguns as the weapon of choice for

suicides and criminals. Granted, that is true in many cases- but you claim these as the majority of users,

which clearly is untrue, given that there are tens of millions of handguns owned by private citizens in the US.


God knows we have our problems in this country, but if what you said was true the place would resemble Ciudad Juarez writ large.

On the contrary, crime and murder rates have decreased at the same time the number of handguns in private hands has skyrocketed.


So, you clearly fail at: A. logic B. factual accuracy, or C. grammar. Which one is it?

[Kelvin Mace]

109. My point was (and I made it poorly

so, I apologize for my inartful expression), when handguns are fired (excluding law enforcement and military use), it is usually in these circumstances (criminal violence/suicide). People rarely hunt with handguns. And I don't count "sport shooting", since, again, people rarely hunt with handguns, and long arms are FAR more effective in case of insurrection (more accurate and better "stopping power"). People can still engage in "sport shooting" under my proposal, they would just do it with far more accurate and powerful weapons.

As to murder rates "decreasing" with increased handgun ownership, when it gets to a rate on par with Switzerland, instead of on par with Mexico and Estonia, call me.

Again, Switzerland makes my case. The country is up to its eyeballs in military grade assault weapons, yet handguns are very difficult to obtain, and it has a death rate 40% LOWER than the U.S.

I keep asking the same question and not getting an answer.

Folks keep telling me they have to have guns to protect us from tyrannical government. The DailyKos poster said it was to preserve the right of revolution.

I have documented how with the exception of the 2nd and 3rd Amendment, we have demonstrably LOST the rest of the Bill or Rights.

So, what exactly are the guns for? The government has figured out that by keeping folks fixated on the 2nd Amendment, it can abridge all other rights, even with a populace armed to the teeth.

I have made a sensible proposal which addresses this whole "guns are the last defense against tyranny" argument, and allowed people to own guns which are far more effective "when come the revolution" (a revolution we already lost anyway), yet would save more lives by removing the subclass of firearms most responsible for tragedy.

Imagine, we could have a death rate like Switzerland, 40% LOWER than what it is currently.

[Straw Man]

105. Most people...

Most people

do NOT shoot themselves with rifles, shotguns or assault rifles. <...> I'll go out on a limb and say that 90% of people who decide to shoot themselves do so with a handgun, since it is easier to manage. Yeah, you get the occasional oddball who will use a shotgun, but handguns are just too damned convenient.

Most people don't shoot themselves at all. (Sorry for being nitpicky, but I couldn't resist.) Most suicides, but only slightly over half. I'm sure substitutions would be made in the absence of handguns. I don't think you'll make an appreciable difference in the number of suicides by eliminating handguns.

The weapon of choice for criminals is a handgun, not an M-16, or other long arm.

Make the handguns disappear and I think you'll see that change, for criminals as well as suicides. See the UK, where sawed-off double-barrel shotguns are becoming the stick-up man's weapon of choice.

Criminals choose to use this type of weapon because it is easy to hide, which is kind of important when you wish to commit a crime and draw as little attention on your way to and from the scene.

Well, if your proposal came true, criminals might just blend in with all the other people carrying their legal, full-auto military grade weapons around. People would be allowed to carry them, right? Otherwise it's a pretty crappy compromise.

[Kelvin Mace]

110. That's OK, I'm used to picky

Most people don't shoot themselves at all. (Sorry for being nitpicky, but I couldn't resist.) Most suicides, but only slightly over half. I'm sure substitutions would be made in the absence of handguns. I don't think you'll make an appreciable difference in the number of suicides by eliminating handguns.

Again, I will clarify. When firearms are discharged by folks other than law enforcement and soldiers (and I don't count "sport shooting" since my proposal still allows people to do this, albeit with more accurate and powerful firearms), it is usually in a criminal/suicidal manner.

Suicides account for 20% of all firearms death according to the CDC, which works out to about 6,000 a year. Using your number (50%) would save 3,000 people are year.

Yes, there are other means of killing oneself, but all are way less effective than a gun to your head. That's over in a second. All other forms of suicide (save jumping off a building/bridge which is rare) are less effective, and have a greater chance of being detected and deterred.

Make the handguns disappear and I think you'll see that change, for criminals as well as suicides. See the UK, where sawed-off double-barrel shotguns are becoming the stick-up man's weapon of choice.

And yet, despite this wave of crime by sawed-off shotgun, the UK has a firearms death per capita of 0.38 (Wales), 0.46 (England) and 0.58 (Scotland). Thus you are offering as an example as to why my plan wouldn't work, the country with handgun laws far stricter than the U.S., and a death rate about 1/20th that of the U.S.

You make my point elegantly.

Well, if your proposal came true, criminals might just blend in with all the other people carrying their legal, full-auto military grade weapons around. People would be allowed to carry them, right? Otherwise it's a pretty crappy compromise.

Certainly, otherwise I wouldn't be respecting the Constitution. But people carrying an AK-47 still attract notice. I don't care how common the site is, I keep track of people with guns. And as gun rights advocates love to point out, since I get to have an M-16 (or an M-60 under my law), I am not too worried about the guy with the sawed-off or even his own assault rifle. After all, he would think twice about committing a crime when he is likely to be outgunned as soon as pointed his weapon at anyone.

I am reliably informed that "an armed society, is a polite society".

Well, I just made everyone EXCRUCIATINGLY polite, what's the problem?

The worst thing that could happen is we would get a firearms death rate on par with the Swiss, which means 12,000 fewer dead people a year.

This is a problem, why exactly?

[Euromutt]

151. I'm seeing some highly dubious claims in your post there

Suicides account for 20% of all firearms death according to the CDC, which works out to about 6,000 a year.

I don't know where you got that "20% according to the CDC" bit, but it's wrong. Suicides typically account for 55-60% of death by gunshot wounds in any given year, and if you check WISQARS Fatal Injury Reports (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html), you'll see that for the years 1999-2007, that averages out to just under 16,900.

Yes, there are other means of killing oneself, but all are way less effective than a gun to your head. That's over in a second. All other forms of suicide (save jumping off a building/bridge which is rare) are less effective, and have a greater chance of being detected and deterred.

That sounds like a teaching from the College of It Stands To Reason to me (see my sig line to get the reference), because the empirical evidence doesn't support it; the United States' suicide rate is quite unremarkable compared to that of other wealthy industrialized nations, and some not-so-wealthy ones, which indicates that methods of suicide other than shooting are quite effective. From 1990 to 2006, Germany (http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/germ.pdf) had a slightly higher suicide rate than the U.S. (http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/unitstates.pdf), the French rate (http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/fran.pdf) has consistently been around half again as high as the American, and Poland's (http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/pola.pdf) went from slightly higher than the American rate in 1990 to half again as high by 2006.

By way of a more extreme example, in Russia it's impossible for a private citizen to legally purchase a handgun capable of firing live ammunition; the only way a private citizen can own one is if it's given to him by the government (e.g. a retiring army general might be given a commemorative service pistol, and I suspect there's no shortage of former KGB/FSB members who own handguns). Nevertheless, the Russian suicide rate is triple the American one (as is the official homicide rate, which at most recent count is the lowest it's been since 1990). Similarly, the Japanese suicide rate* is more than double the American one, even though it's completely impossible for a Japanese subject private citizen to legally own a handgun.

In short, seeing as how people in other countries manage to kill themselves as frequently as, or more frequently than Americans despite not having ready access to handguns, it is highly implausible that banning handguns would result in fewer suicides. Fewer suicides by firearm, yes, but method substitution would probably compensate for a very large percentage of those. Self-strangulation (primarily by hanging) is the most common means of suicide in the rest of the world, and that tends to work over 70% of the time. Jumping in front of an oncoming train is about as lethal as shooting (estimated 90% "success" rate).

And since suicides make up ~55% of GSW deaths, rather than 20%, method substitution would take a severe chunk out of your estimated prevented deaths.

And yet, despite this wave of crime by sawed-off shotgun, the UK has a firearms death per capita of 0.38 (Wales), 0.46 (England) and 0.58 (Scotland). Thus you are offering as an example as to why my plan wouldn't work, the country with handgun laws far stricter than the U.S., and a death rate about 1/20th that of the U.S.

You make my point elegantly.

That is, if it weren't for the fact that the British homicide rate was markedly lower than the American throughout the 20th century, including the two decades during which the UK had practically no gun control at all (a license to carry concealed in public was required, but that could be bought for ten shillings at any post office). Moreover, the highest recorded homicides rates in the UK in the 20th century came in 1998, 1999 and 2000, after the imposition of the complete ban on private handgun ownership.

The long and short of it is that I suspect your notion of banning handguns saving 12,000 lives annually is entirely too optimistic.

* - It should be noted that the Japanese suicide rate is somewhat padded, and the homicide rate concomitantly reduced, by the Japanese policy of counting all victims of muri-shinju--"forced suicide," or in English "domestic murder-suicide"--as suicides, including the ones who didn't actually kill themselves.

[Kelvin Mace]

84. And those firearms were damned inacurate and under-powered

A person is, in my opinion, a 2nd Amendment "absolutist" when they object to even sensible restrictions which in no way detracts from a law-abiding citizen's rights to own firearms.

Yes, handguns existed in the 18th century, but they were of little use beyond ten paces, and took a LONG time to reload.

I'll take a Springfield .30 caliber bolt action and go up against any "tyrannical" government with a Glock any day.

However, the issue is moot.

The problem is, you see, the police state is here, and in charge. And despite people having guns out the ying yang, it is ruling effectively, thank you very much. As I point out in other posts, while everybody was fixated on the 2nd Amendment, all the other rights disappeared.

[friendly_iconoclast]

97. You can hardly be expected to propose something you *didn't* believe to be sensible

Oddly enough, I find those restrictions that I approve of to be sensible as well....

[AtheistCrusader]

152. Girandoni Repeating Rifle. Pick up a history book and READ.

A lot of dead French can attest to it's power.

[DissedByBush]

80. Notice the "fire" exception is in how the right is used

The use of firearms is heavily restricted in many ways the few people oppose. For example, it's illegal to shoot in the middle of a city.

Same as yelling "fire" because your method of exercising the right is an IMMEDIATE DANGER to those around you.

That's the criteria for being able to limit a right.

There is NO firearm where ownership alone is an immediate danger to anybody.

I could have a fully auto MAC-10 with a 40-round magazine sitting right here. And it would not a danger to anybody, much less an immediate danger.

[GreenStormCloud]

91. No Deal.

You aren't giving up much of anything that we don't already have, while we lose all of our handguns. Forget that.

[Kelvin Mace]

111. And as I point out in other posts

you lose a subclass of weapon that would realistically cut firearms related deaths by about 40%, while preserving your right to own military grade assault rifles.

The reasons I see offered for keeping handguns is:

1) Self-protection

2) Stopping tyranny.

3) Slippery slope argument

If handguns are banned outright (except for police and military use), and the mere possession of one can get you 10 in the slammer no parole, criminals will be less inclined to carry them. This translates into a safer society. Also, since you can have any rifle or shotgun you wish, you can still protect yourself from .

As to stopping tyranny: M-16 muzzle velocity - 3100 fps. 9mm muzzle velocity - 1400 fps. Advantage: Citizen patriot with the the rifle. (Also, see my other posts which explain that the police state is here, and has decided to let you keep your guns while you surrender all other rights. This deal has already been consummated, so the "tyranny" argument is moot).

And finally, the slippery slope argument: If handguns are banned, then the next step is all firearms.

But with my proposal. as you are getting a Constitutional amendment EXPLICITLY granting you the right to military grade assault weapons, there is no "slope", slippery or otherwise.

[GreenStormCloud]

132. No deal.

Handguns are what I use most. I carry one every day, for self protection. So does my wife. It would be rather difficult to carry around a shotgun.

The slippery slope holds. I don't trust your side. You side will try to find an interpretation of the new amendment to allow further restrictions.

Also, you aren't giving us anything that we don't already have. The collectivist interpretation that you are surrendering is already dead.

[Kelvin Mace]

133. Hmmmm

Seems to me that my proposal offers far greater protections, since it EXPLICITLY grants you rights. Why you would want to distrust an explicit granting of rights is beyond me.

So your responses to my questions are:

1) It would be inconvenient.

2) No answer, as I don't want to disturb the illusion that having a gun is protecting rights I already gave away.

3) I refuse to accept rights explicitly and unambiguously granted to me.

[shadowrider]

135. No one "grants" rights, whether it's an individual or government

That's akin to asking permission to get a right. Ain't gonna happen.

[GreenStormCloud]

137. We are simply going to completely defeat your side. N/T

[Kelvin Mace]

139. Oh, you have already won.

I just count the bodies of the innocent who pay for your right.

But in the meantime, humor me.

As the government has demonstrably and egregiously abridged the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments, when are you guys going "protect us from government tyranny" with your guns? What line is there, that the government must cross which will be cause you to make use of all that fire power you insist your need to protect youself from the government.

Please be specific.

So far, the only line I see, is if they try to take your guns.

[GreenStormCloud]

140. I am not one of those who believes that our guns would enable us to revolt.

I have my guns for personal protection, and for the enjoyment of informal target shooting.

It would be impossible to revolt against our modern government. Not because of the disparity of armament, but because of the government's ability to spy on citizens. We would never be able to form the organization needed for revolution.

I do believe that guns owned and carried by citizens have a net effect of reducing the crimes of murder, rape, burglary, and robbery. In every state that has gone shall-issue, the crime rate for that state has dropped shortly after the new law went into effect.

[Kelvin Mace]

147. OK, I appreciate your honesty

we have now dispensed with the one completely fake argument (protection from tyranny) and distilled it down to having unrestricted access to handguns to protect you and yours, regardless of the other innocent lives lost in the process.

Cool.


As to CCW leading to drops in crime, I assume you are relying on the Lott study, which has been challenged on its sample size. But even granting that it was accurate, way more people are still dying in our country than in others with more sensible laws. The fact that we are killing a few percent less, while other democracies are killing 40%-90% fewer people than we are is what matters to me.

So, let us me assume that CCW results in a 20% reduction in murder and rape in the U.S., an incredible number if it were actually true, so let's assume it is, and compare it to the actual number of the Swiss, who have guns laws on par with what I am proposing (military grade assault rifles in almost every household, handguns VERY hard to get).

(All numbers per 100,000 population)

This would translate to:

2.25 people murdered with a firearm (US). versus 0.5 (CH)
28 raped women (US), versus 5 (CH)

So even IF, you cut rape and murder by 20% in the U.S. with CCW, you still have 4 times the murders, and 5 times the rapes than you would in a country with sensible laws that still allow its citizens to be heavily armed.

While this may not matter to you, I would think matters to extra people dying and the women getting raped.

(Stats are from biennial analysis of crime by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime)

The evidence is compelling. The kind of proposal I made would save many lives, and would arguably lower rape, yet, stubborn the "my gun cold dead fingers" view prevails.

So, as I said. You guys won.

Congratulations! This is a rare accomplishment.

You have a police state, guns by the bushel, and bodies everywhere

[SteveM]

142. These arguments I find puzzling...

"As the government has demonstrably and egregiously abridged the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments, when are you guys going 'protect us from government tyranny' with your guns? What line is there, that the government must cross which will be cause you to make use of all that fire power you insist your need to protect youself from the government."

It is puzzling that many gun-control advocates somehow "expect" 2A defenders to defend against government tyranny. Problem is, most folks, guns or no, don't want to "cross that line" because the conditions don't warrant such. The possession of firearms, even in large numbers, by the population is not a constant check or continuous counter-veiling force, but a measure of last resort. Frankly, if some kind of civil insurrection occurs it will probably be because of economic dislocation, the break-down of services, and other more prosaic conditions, and not "government tyranny." Who knows where the line will be? One of the purposes of bearing arms is to provide a better chance at protection, not a guarantee one will succeed. Certainly, general gun confiscation may be that "line," but I don't know.

It is also puzzling why, if government has "egregiously abridged the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments," why would you engage in fine-tuning some gun-control policy? It strikes me as counter intuitive and small potatoes. To paraphrase Rhett Butler as Scarlet O'Hara bitched about her luggage while Atlanta burned: "Such great concerns at a time like this."

I had to use that instead of the Titanic's deck chairs.

[Kelvin Mace]

149. The answer is easy

I am tired of watching the corpses stack up.

My question about revolution is in response to the constant mantra from gun advocates that the 2nd Amendment is the last defense against tyranny. All I am doing is pointing out that the argument is moot.

We live in a police state in which the government has allowed the citizens practically unlimited access to firearms, no matter the consequences. This is a safe policy for the government, since as long as this segment of the populations gets a gun with their Cracker Jacks, there seem to be a mutual understanding that all other rights will be surrendered. Violence only occurs against government when its does something vile, like try to enact fair taxes, health care for the poor, or provide contraceptive services to women (Known as "confiscating wealth" "establishing death panels" and "murdering babies").

Even when citizens gun down members of the government, the right is maintained, since all other rights have been ceded to the state. Also, there's a Hell of a profit to me be made with all those guns and ammunition.

Fear is power.

Fear is profit.

Fear is misdirection.

Fear is control.

This leaves those of us who believe that there are such things as rational restrictions on firearms that do NOT compromise the illusional "rights" on the 2nd Amendment, living in a police state, and getting gunned down by people with no business having firearms.

We get to be injured/murdered by both sides, and we find it just a tad annoying, and depressing.

A nine year-old child is dead, and this is considered an acceptable price to pay for the right to buy a 30 round clip for a pistol.

Damn, life is cheap.

[cleanhippie]

33. That is a powerful, powerful post. It should be required reading for all.

Certainly helps to give a better perspective. And debunks all the common arguments.

[Kolesar]

41. did you read the whole Dailykos post? eom

[cleanhippie]

45. I did.

[Bonhomme Richard]

36. Not saying anti-gun groups are correct but I think gun owners brought

a lot of this on themselves.
Let's face it. A lot of people fear guns. That is reality. Not so much the hunting variety that most are familiar with but the handguns and what some call the assault type of weapon. It's understandable because the fear levels in our society have been ramped up out of proportion.
The reason I lay a lot of the fault at the feet of gun owners is because so many on the conservative side have gone out of their way to be "in your face" about their right to have them. A good example is the ass that stood with his weapon outside the Obama town hall or the guys with their "assault rifle's" on full display at rallies. Was it their right? Yes. Was it any way to win friends? No, and they knew that.In my view they knew that they were intimidating and they wanted to stir up the nest. They did this while most average gun owners, in my opinion, remained silent. Rather than saying that they shouldn't have done that or that kind of behavior was in bad taste, it seems to have gone directly to "it's my constitutional right and that is that". Vocal minorities, on both sides, have started this debate but it didn't happen in a vacuum. It was helped along by the constant "in your face" attitude demonstrated primarily by the far right and a pervasive fear that things are changing in this country and a lot of people (both sides) don't think it's for the good. Is it any wonder that gun control has moved up in the line of concerns that people are discussing? Not to me. When you have one group waving their weapons around and using the language of weapons against proponents of an ideology then I am not surprised when someone from the other ideology gets shot there is a lash out. The "in your face" crowd should have been shunned by the gun community....not embraced.
If you are anti gun, most gun owners are like yourselves and you wouldn't know they are when you meet them. They aren't crazy and they aren't a threat.
If you are a gun owner, keep it to yourself, your forums, and your close friends.

[Kolesar]

40. That was insightful

Look at the original post linked from DailyKos.com for an example of in-your-face weapons-activism.

[cleanhippie]

50. While I may TEND to agree with you, I would like to comment on your statement.

I would say that yes, "A lot of people fear guns. That is reality." But I would ADD to that, that is is an irrational fear, based on ignorance.

"Not so much the hunting variety that most are familiar with but the handguns and what some call the assault type of weapon." Would that be because they do not KNOW the difference, and thus have a fear based on ignorance?

"It's understandable because the fear levels in our society have been ramped up out of proportion." Agreed, it again is due to ignorance.

[Bonhomme Richard]

55. "an irrational fear, based on ignorance" I think that goes....

for both sides to some extent. Whether it's fear of some crazed person with a gun doing harm at random or some perception of being attacked by someone on PCB's or some kind of civil war.

[cleanhippie]

60. What do you mean when you say

"I think that goes for both sides to some extent"? I would say that while exaggerated, the fear of "the government is coming to get your guns" is not entirely irrational, as that IS the agenda of the anti-gun groups, no?

What else on the side of pro-2A would you consider an irrational fear?

[Bonhomme Richard]

68. Don't put words in my mouth. I never mentioned

anything about the Gov. taking guns one way or the other. Would I let them take mine? Not on your life. Do I think the Gov. has some great agenda to take them? Not at the moment. It's one thing to present arguments when confronted with questions about the 2A. It's another thing entirely to strut around with guns in full view, knowing full well that you want a reaction and then get defensive when the people do react. Rationally or irrationally. I'm also not going to say that gun proponents are all rational and anti-gun proponents are all irrational. I see it coming from both sides. Maybe you were one of the ones that said that the guys strutting around with their guns at rallies were out of line........maybe you weren't.

[cleanhippie]

76. Sorry, I was using that as an example, not as something you said.

Did not mean it to come across that way, either.

[Kolesar]

100. "Irrational Fear"? My neighbor was shot and two of my classmates were killed

Irrational?

[Euromutt]

153. A good friend of mine hanged himself

Curiously, I'm not advocating the outlawing of rope.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bonhomme Richard]

56. There is thought that is reasonable and thought that isn't.

You give an example of both.
I am not talking about the reasonable on both sides. Reasonable people didn't get us where we are today.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bonhomme Richard]

70. that you find bad in regards to right to carry and crime" Did I

say I found something bad in right to carry or reduced crime? What I did say was that the "in your face" display of weapons at rallies or political events did not help the cause.....that is unless the reason is just that...to be in the face to start to move an agenda forward. Yes there needs to be some change. I would love to see one law regarding carry so I can cross state lines and carry legally.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[left is right]

38. Not against guns

just want gun owners to have the same restrictions as car owners/drivers. Car owners/drivers have to be responsible, licensed, insured, and trained. We also require dog owners to be responsible for their dogs and to license them. Many dog owners have opted to have home owner insurance to cover dog bites. Doctors also are required to have training, license and insurance. Even hunters are required to obtain a license. We register bikes. We register to vote. Why shouldn't’t gun owners be subjected to the same requirements? Even without guns we would still be one of the most violent nations on earth. But a rageaholic with a knife kills far fewer people than one with an automatic rifle or handgun.
And since I am on the subject. In many states, or so I am told, a person hunting quail can only have two shots in his barrel and yet that nut in Arizona was able to get off 31 shots.

[Atypical Liberal]

39. The same as cars.

just want gun owners to have the same restrictions as car owners/drivers. Car owners/drivers have to be responsible, licensed, insured, and trained.

Did you know that if I operate a car on private property I don't need a license, registration, tags, or insurance?

Firearms are much the same way.

[left is right]

48. That is exactly my point. That car only driven on

your own multi-acre land is of no danger to anyone else. I don’t care if it is licensed or insured. But a gun out on the street, just like the gun could very well be a danger to me and other innocent bystanders. I want to be safe from stray bullets just as I want to be safe from drunk drivers or rageaholics. And if I can’t be assured of 100% safety, I at least hope that I will be able to be compensated for my medical bills and loss of my own transportation. If I die, I want to know that my family will also be compensated for the loss of my sparkling personality.
I realize that driving a car is an inadequate analogy to carrying a gun in public. There are no right wing pundits touting 2nd amendment solutions using cars. No one is using language that might cause a lunatic driver to drive his car into a gathering of liberal constituents. But does anyone honestly believe that if the 2nd amendment was about car ownership that we would not see a need to license and insure them?

[Atypical Liberal]

54. But firearms are already that way in most places.

You said that you wanted firearms to be like cars. But in most places, firearms are already like cars. You can own a firearm and use it on private property without any paperwork whatsoever. It's only if you want to carry it in public to most places require you get a CCW permit.

[one-eyed fat man]

112. If you believe that

"No one is using language that might cause a lunatic driver to drive his car into a gathering of liberal constituents."

Nope, mass killers have anything but a fertile imagination.



Of course having a driver's license from any of the states lets me drive my car in any other state. If you change the law so that my concealed carry permit from Kentucky is good in Wisconsin and Illinois I would be able to travel to North Dakota without stopping at the state lines.

[Kelvin Mace]

43. Plus, I don't accidentally shoot myself

while "cleaning" my dog.

My cat now, is a different story.

[cleanhippie]

61. No one "accidentally" shoots ones self...

while cleaning a gun, they NEGLIGENTLY shoot themselves. You will be hard pressed to find a gun owner that will agree that there is EVER an "accidental" discharge. I know that I do not.

[Kelvin Mace]

66. No argument from me

just repeating what I read in the newspaper.

In my view either you mean to shoot someone (self included), or you're an idiot who shouldn't be allowed to play with firearms.

[cleanhippie]

67. On that we most certainly agree.

[Kolesar]

101. Linguistic BFD

That sounds like something a fat grandpa would say to cow the little children under his wing.

[cleanhippie]

113. I guess it is unfortunate that your grasp of vocabulary limits your ability to express yourself.

Knowing many words and the differences between them is an important skill when having a discussion.

[Euromutt]

154. And *that* sounds like something...

...some clueless twat would say when he doesn't have anything constructive to add to the discussion and so decides to take a dump over as much of it as he can.

[tortoise1956]

99. THANKS (!&$$#%!)

Now I have to go to bed with that post resonating in my head...
MOMMY, MAKE THE BAD PICTURES GO AWAY!

[Upton]

44. There used to be a time when the Left supported the Bill of Rights..

Now, not only are many ready to trash the Second Amendment but they don't seem too fond of the First Amendment either. Complaints about hate speech, porn, this is offensive, that's offensive..PC speech to the max.

I've come to the conclusion that these kind of folks aren't true leftists. They may call themselves liberals, but they're anything but LW.

[Kolesar]

47. I feel like I am reading a forum with global-warming-deniers

Dodge tough questions
Don't acknowledge that they have lost the arguement
Insult
Repeat

[cleanhippie]

62. Are you saying that you are doing those things on your list?

If you, in fact, did NOT read the entire article in the OP, aren't you are dodging the tough questions, not acknowledging that you lost the argument, insulting and repeating, no?

[Kelvin Mace]

88. Despite the fact that people are allowed to have practically all the guns they can eat

all our other rights are pretty much gone. By my count, the only ones left are the 2nd and 3rd.

[Tejas]

89. DC, Chicago........ (sigh)

[Kelvin Mace]

93. London, Dublin

Zurich, and Tokyo.

Very, very unlikely you die courtesy of a firearm in these places.

Hell, Switzerland makes my point perfectly. Handguns damned hard to own. Yet, military grade weapons everywhere.

Firearms death per capita:

U.S. 10.2/100,000
Switzerland 6.4/100,000

Ireland, a country still awash in military grade weapons from its "Troubles"?

1.2

UK?

Between 0.38 and 0.58.

Tokyo?

.07

As for Chicago and D.C., (I assume your point was that despite stricter gun laws, they still have a high murder rate) it is of little use to have tiny islands of strict regulation, when you are surrounded by an ocean of permissiveness.

[friendly_iconoclast]

95. Mexico, Jamaica, South Africa..... How are those tough laws working in those places?

[Kelvin Mace]

107. Hmmmm

Two governments completely overrun by drug cartels (courtesy of the U.S. war on drugs) and one country recovering from almost a century of apartheid government, with civil wars on almost all of its borders. So, you're saying the United states is more like Mexico, Jamaica and South Africa than Ireland, England, Japan and Switzerland?

[Tejas]

103. "I assume your point was" No, try reading your own subject line again.

Despite the fact that people are allowed to have practically all the guns they can eat



my response: People in Chicgo/DC are not "allowed to have practically all the guns they can eat".

*sigh*

[Kelvin Mace]

108. And as I pointed out

Having little tiny islands of tough gun laws, when you are surrounded by states with permissive gun laws (Virginia, j'accuse!) undermines the law and any beneficial effect, i.e. high murder rates despite local restrictions on guns.

[Tejas]

134. Your point was and still is irrelevant to "enough guns to eat".

*yawn*

[Starboard Tack]

120. There used to be a time when the left was progressive and not holding on to so-called

rights that have no place in a civilized society. Check out the rights to bear arms in other democratic nations, most, if not all of which are left of the US politically.

[virginia mountainman]

121. So you admit it is a "Right"?

That is a good place to start from..

Because if you can get rid of a right, just to be "civilized", you can do it to ALL of them..

Is that what YOU want?

[Starboard Tack]

126. No just the ones that no longer have a need to exist, because we

outgrew them, like the right to own slaves. It's called progress. Challenging, isn't it?

[PavePusher]

123. How does self-defense "have no place in a civilized society"?

This should be good.

[Starboard Tack]

127. Self-defense does not mean shooting someone with a gun

What's wrong with martial arts, tasers, pepper sprays, stun guns?
Get rid of the guns and what do you need to defend against?

[shadowrider]

129. 82 year old woman beaten with her own cane, until she pulled a gun

Funny, but I've put this up several times this past week and asked the anti involved HOW this woman could have used martial arts or her fists. Not surprisingly, not one answered my question.

Video at link:

http://www.kvoa.com/news/82-year-old-fights-off-attacker/

[PavePusher]

136. This one won't either. I'll put $5 on it. n/t

[PavePusher]

138. Did you think that through at all before posting it? Serious question... n/t

[spin]

81. I love the conclusion ...

What is the point? Is this a rallying cry for liberals to rush right out and purchase a gun? Absolutely not. Guns are dangerous when used by people who are not trained to use them, just as cars are dangerous when driven by people who have not been taught how to drive.

No, this is a rallying cry for the Constitution. For the Bill of Rights. For all of our rights.

This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "I just don't like guns."

This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "No one needs that much ammunition."

This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "That's not what the Founding Fathers meant."

This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "Columbine and Virginia Tech prove we need more laws."

This is an appeal to every liberal who supports the ACLU.

This is an appeal to every liberal who has complained about the Bush Administration's trading of our civil liberties for the illusion of greater security. (I believe I’ve seen a T-shirt or two about Benjamin Franklin’s thoughts on that.)

This is an appeal to every liberal who believes in fighting against the abuses of government, against the infringement of our civil liberties, and for the greater expansion of our rights.

This is an appeal to every liberal who thinks, despite some poor judgment on the issues of, say, slavery or women's suffrage, the Founding Fathers actually had pretty good ideas about limiting government power and expanding individual rights.

This is an appeal to every liberal who never wants to lose another election to Republicans because they have successfully persuaded the voters that Democrats will take their guns away.

This is an appeal to you, my fellow liberals. Not merely to tolerate the Second Amendment, but to embrace it. To love it and defend it and guard it as carefully as you do all the others.

Because we are liberals. And fighting for our rights -- for all of our rights, for all people -- is what we do.

Because we are revolutionaries.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/21/19133/5152

[Kolesar]

102. Yeah, I hear the fife and drums

:sarcasm:

[cleanhippie]

114. I understand how frustrating it is to have your viewpoint totally demolished by facts

and a well thought argument. But hey, the anger will pass. Just give it time.

[Kolesar]

128. I hear your mother calling ... eom

[cleanhippie]

130. Thats all you have? A childish insult? Pathetic.

So very expected.

[Starboard Tack]

115. So what she is saying is the 2nd Amendment trumps the Ist

...the right of the people peaceably to assemble.

Did it never occur to you that what might have made some sense 200 years ago is absurd today. Time to grow up people.

[spin]

118. If the founders would have felt that the Second Amendment ...

was more important than the First, they would have reversed the order.

Without the freedoms listed in the First Amendment, the right to own firearms is irrelevant.

[PavePusher]

125. "the 2nd Amendment trumps the Ist"

I'm not sure how you interpolate that, or what mechanism you see at work to make it so.

[cleanhippie]

131. It is obvious you did not read the article.

Try and not let your ignorance do you posting for you, its embarrassing.

[texshelters]

143. Again with the lies about guns and the second amendment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf6LLRYLMnI

Liberals have the sense to know tools of mass murder should be regulated, as in "a well regulated militia".

Other people are too stupid to see the connection between guns and killing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf6LLRYLMnI

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[shadowrider]

145. Again with the misinterpretation of "well-regulated"

I just gotta shake my head

[X_Digger]

146. Doesn't matter how many times you regurgitate that..

doesn't make it any more correct.