Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun Control ← There, said it - We are going about this the wrong way (619 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That parallel isn't quite right. (6+ / 0-)

    Cars aren't really all the concealable so people know you have them even if you don't have them registered.

    There's been no call for in-city bans of cars or calls for a ban on a certain type of car (like the AWB). In the case of the SKS over in Cali, registration did proceed confiscation. If there was no registration, confiscation wouldn't work nearly as well, to the point that I don't think it'd be tried.

    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

    by KVoimakas on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 07:38:39 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Part of the conversation (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      just another vet, glorificus

      we need to have is what is considered appropriate protection, and what should not be permitted.

      The constitution doesn't address this, we have to work that out for ourselves.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      by twigg on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 07:45:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, the Second Amendment reads as... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        twigg

        "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."

        Perhaps two key points. One being a 'regulated militia' would fall under the domain and responsibility of the government. The government therefore has the right to determine what arms are admissible.

        And two, "being necessary to the security of a free State..." would suggest to me that individual self defense was not part of the granted right.

        Personally, I believe had the United States been limited to the original 13, then eventually arms would have been confined to armories where they could be dispensed if the state was at risk. That it was the constant push into frontier lands and the need for people to defend themselves that pushed the concept of the Second Amendment beyond the right it was originally conceived to grant.

        Vote Tea Party Taliban! Bring the Burqa to America.

        by Pescadero Bill on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 09:09:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree a bit Bill. Way back Brits allowed (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          twigg, oldpunk, PavePusher

          only the lairds & ladies & royalty to hunt.  This severely limited the diet of most poor folk commoners.  In these new lands, a poor guy could feed his family well without ending up in debtor's prison.     Food insecurity can be deadly too.   So even hunting is a type of self defense motive.  

          To other posters, militia was local defense of individuals joining together when facing an outside threat ---- such as attack by natives or by the armies of their official government from England.    

          Declaration of Independence made it pretty clear that we were  claiming a right to defend ourselves, even from our government, if & when it failed to allow our basic human rights.  

          De fund + de bunk = de EXIT--->>>>>

          by Neon Mama on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 11:59:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Arguably, individual self defense.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldpunk

          is the cornor-stone of "the security of a free state".

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site