Shooting In SE Alabama

[Gedankenaustausch]

I'm sure you have heard the news about what happened in the Geneva area. There have been quite a number of posts on forums dealing with the shooting dealing with second amendment rights and southerners, you know, the same 'ol hatred and attitudes we all get from other parts of the US. In case you don't see what I'm getting at: People always criticize the south as being gun-toting, deer shooting, red-neck people that live in trailers and don't have access to paved roads and schools. I was wondering if you fellow Alabamian DUers thought about second amendment rights. Seeing as we are in the "fertile crescent" of gun ownership, and apparently we all identify as democrats (which makes us socialists, communists, crazies, and enablers in alabama right?LOL) I see us as being in quite strange position as far as our opinions go. I know many fellow dem's that are incredibly liberal, but are strong second amendment supporters. Anybody wanna lay their opinion down?

[Syrinx]

1. I favor the Bill Of Rights

I wish the Founders could have been a bit clearer in their language, though.

The second amendment seems quite explicit in that citizens have the right to own weapons.

Yet, it also seems to imply, though not explicitly say, that this right to ownership of weapons is not absolute.

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.

It seems intentionally obtuse, doesn't it?

I'm generally s "small-l" libertarian (NOT a Libertarian, that's a whole other story). So I'll just endorse my interpretation of the second amendment. I generally believe in the right to bear arms, though I think regulation, such as gun registration and the assault-weapons ban, are constitutional. And I haven't owned a gun since two antique rifles that my grandfather left me were stolen.

It's a pretty thorny subject, on the whole.

[trof]

3. I read it a little differently.

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.

"After the American Revolutionary War the Continental Army was quickly disbanded as part of the Americans' distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the sole ground army of the USA, with the exception of one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal. However, because of continuing conflict with Native Americans, it was soon realized that it was necessary to field a trained standing army. The first of these, the Legion of the United States, was established in 1791."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army#History_of_organization_of_armies

The Bill of Rights was written in 1789, when there was no standing army and U.S. 'military' was mainly composed of state militias. Citizen soldiers.
So I read it not as necessarily a 'personal' right.
By reference to the "right of the people" the writers of the bill could have meant the right of the nation, and not the right of individuals.

Having said that, I have no problem with responsible people owning and using guns. The operative word being 'responsible'.
However...I am in favor of firearms use licensing.
In order to get a driver's license, you must demonstrate a certain level of proficiency in operating a motor vehicle in a safe manner.
You don't have to own a car to get a driver's license.
The same should go for gun use licensing.
Anyone who can demonstrate the ability to safely operate a firearm could be licensed.
They wouldn't necessarily have to own a gun.

[Syrinx]

4. actually, I think we pretty much agree

We both agree that American citizens, generally speaking, have a right to firearms, but that the right is not absolute, and that government regulation of firearms is not only acceptable, but also necessary.

I wonder if the founders made the second amendment a tad confusing on purpose?

[mp9200]

2. stupid southerners

bunch of idiotic gun toting fools.

[jody]

5. " stupid southerners" are infinitely more intelligent than those who call southerners stupid. n/t

[terrell9584]

6. Democrats lost Congress in 1994 because of gun control

Leave it as a dead issue. Let the states like Massachusetts pass it on the local level and leave our local Democrats free to be pro-gun and electable

And Gedankenstauch, are you sure you're in Alabama?, because most of the state is Democratic and so this description of liberals as "crazies, communists and enablers" doesn't fit with the actual reality of the state where 75% of all political offices remain in Democratic hands and when our party has a primarily rural redneck base

[Gedankenaustausch]

7. Sorry I haven't been on in a while....just saw your message

ah, yeah I'm in alabama.... have you stepped out onto the street lately and talked to people? Alabama's elected democrats except for a small few of them are what I would consider "actual" democrats. Look how they vote. They align themselves completely with the Republicans. And go out on the street and ask what the common person thinks about Liberals and you will get the crazies, communists, enablers answer.... did you see the 08 election results? if not for the the "black belt" and the counties surrounding Birmingham, hardly no one would have voted for Obama. a handful of counties, i think around 5, voted over 80% McCain. And as far as 75%, I don't understand if your joking or not?