Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't think we've ever had that right (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero

    I think the SCOTUS decision was wrongly decided.

    And we're not dealing. I'm expressing what I want and you can express what you want. Laws will change as enough people decide they want the same things, like less gun violence.

    We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

    by i understand on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 09:25:37 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Did you read this diary? (4+ / 0-)

      You think the 2nd Amendment doesn't grant an individual right, and SCOTUS is wrong.  Great, that's your right to believe that, but I disagree 100%, so we're at an impass.

      But look at what you wrote.  You want less "gun violence", not less violence.  So yes, if guns were banned we may very well have less gun violence.  But if knife violence increases by the same amount that gun violence drops (and it probably will), then what has been gained?

      You think that eliminating gun violence and eliminating all violence is the same thing.  It isn't.  Stop worrying about the gun, and as Twigg said, focus on stoping the desire to kill, no matter the weapon used.

      A woman in Naperville, IL stabbed two children to death last week.  But a gun wasn't used, so is that murder acceptable?  It wasn't gun violence after all....

      •  Sorry... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        burlydee, coquiero

        But do you really think knife violence will "fill the gap" left by the absence of gun violence?

        And we will never eliminate all violence. I never said such a thing, nor would anyone.

        We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

        by i understand on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 09:42:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If a person wants to kill, they will kill (5+ / 0-)

          With regard to that Naperville woman, I have no doubt that if she had shot the two kids with a gun, that you and others would claim with absolute certainty that if we had only banned guns, those kids would still be alive.   The exact same false argument Costas used.

          But since the woman killed with a knife, suddenly it's "well, we can't eliminate all violence".  So be consistent and apply that same reasoning to gun violence.

          Guns don't make people kill. People want to kill, then they go get a gun, or failing that, something else.

          Unless you can explain why the lack of a gun didn't keep those kids alive, you don't have much of an argument.

          •  Not a lot of "drive by knifings" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coquiero, cany

            Or headlines that say "Mass murder with knife".

            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

            by i understand on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 11:52:09 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You must have missed the recent (5+ / 0-)

              mass knife killings in China, or the Osaka School Massacre that was committed with a survival knife, or the Rwandan Genocide way back in 1994 where about 800,000 people killed with machetes.

            •  Like I said, not much of an argument (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rockhound, fuzzyguy, 43north, PavePusher

              This isn't kindergarden.  You don't get to punish 300 million people for the actions of a few psychopaths, and I will not trade my freedom for the illusion of security.  I know you don't respect the 2nd Amendment, but I do.  My civil rights are non-negotiable.  

              Yes I understand the points you make.  But gang members who commit drive by shootings already don't care about the murder laws.  They don't care about the gun laws either and most drive bys use guns that aren't legally owned.  Every single legal gun owner can be disarmed, and we will still have drive bys.  Address the root cause, or plain and simple you are not serious.

              As for mass murder with a knife, are you familiar with serial killers?  Most don't use guns.  Yes, I admit that it is much easier to comitt a spree killing with a gun over a knife.  But it doesn't make spree killings impossible.  It doesn't make mass murder impossible.  And it still doesn't stop someone from having a gun illegally.

              Any proposed solution to the issue of violence that starts with "First, take away freedom..." is dead on arrival.  You will simply create a large uncontrolable black market in guns, and those who want to kill will still kill.

              Guns are not the root cause of violence, and as long as you keep this approach, you will accomplish very little.  First respect freedom, and work from there.

              I have to go, thanks for the discussion.

              •  Where did they get those illegal guns? (0+ / 0-)

                And how do you know they're illegal?

                The root cause is simple, there are too many guns in the United States.

                I absolutely do see the incredible extent to which gun proponents will rationalize their position though.

                We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                by i understand on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 01:35:28 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  My position is civil rights (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  KVoimakas

                  You believe there are too many guns.  Fine, the problem is there's nothing you can do about it.  Our civil rights under the 2nd Amendment say that yes, each citizen is allowed to own at least one gun.  To be denied gun ownership we must be deprived of our civil rights via due process in a court of law.

                  So there's the rub.  If there are too many guns, and we're each allowed one, then to get rid of the guns, you must take our rights away.  (I know, I know, you don't recognize our rights, just like Conservatives don't recognize gay marriage rights.  Doesn't put you in good company)

                  Stop bashing your head against the Constitution, trying to make it go away, and find a different approach.

                  •  There is something I can do about it (0+ / 0-)

                    I can advocate changing the Constitution. And that is what I will do.

                    And the false equivalence of a wrongly decided SCOTUS case to marriage equality (with the "good company" jab thrown in for extra measure) isn't helping your argument.

                    We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                    by i understand on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 07:09:28 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I don't believe it was wrongly decided (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      KenBee

                      I believe in the right to own a gun, the right for a woman to get an abortion and the right of gays to get married.  And I believe SCOTUS is correct when it affirms individual rights in all cases.

                      If gun rights can be taken away by changing the Constitution, then so can all the other rights.  ALL the other rights.  

                      I'm sorry, but your actions to deny gun rights put you squarely in the same company as those seeking the Personhood Amendment to ban abortions, and those seeking a defense of marriage amendment to ban gay marriage.  Then we have all the southern racist rednecks who want to overturn the 13 and 14th amendments and take away even more rights.

                      Don't think the 2nd Amendment is written on toilet paper but the 14th is sacred.  They're all equal, all equally vulnerable.  Sorry, but I like the Constitution the way it is.

                      •  That's nonsense (0+ / 0-)

                        You know, we've amended the Constitution quite a few times in the past to great affect. Even the 2nd amendment is, you know, an amendment.

                        Liking something the way it is because you fear change rather then seeking out improvement and progress is the very definition of "Conservative".

                        See, I can do that too.

                        We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                        by i understand on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 08:31:26 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I don't fear change (0+ / 0-)

                          I fear the loss of individual rights.  I don't want to be forced to join some fascist goverment militia made up of segregationists, just to be able to own a gun under your new amendment.  I don't care how "well regulated" it is.

                          This isn't about change, it's about a loss of civil liberty at your hands.  And that loss of liberty won't stop with the loss of gun rights.  If you succeed, other rights will fall as well.

                          Sooner or later, a right you actually care about will fall. Get it yet?

                        •  Did those amendment expand, or restrict rights? (0+ / 0-)

                          The Bill of Rights, and the other amendments mostly expand individual rights, not take them away.  You're on the wrong side.

                          •  Both (as you say as well) (0+ / 0-)

                            That said, I'm not talking about restricting any rights. I'm talking about changing the 2nd amendment. How about this for language:

                            The right of a well regulated Militia to keep and bear arms in defense of the State shall not be infringed.

                            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                            by i understand on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 09:41:16 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So my right to keep and bear arms as (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Norm in Chicago

                            an individual would be still free and clear? I wouldn't have to be part of the militia?

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

                            by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 10:03:11 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't think you've ever had that right. (0+ / 0-)

                            Notwithstanding a recent wrongly decided SCOTUS decision.

                            So this change would not alter that one bit. If an individual right to keep and bear arms pre-dates the Constitution, then you would still have that right and you should have no concern. If it doesn't, then you wouldn't have that right, and good and proper regulation would be allowed.

                            Which do you think it is?

                            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                            by i understand on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 10:06:43 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Depends on who's enforcing it. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Norm in Chicago

                            Some people think that the government can limit anything that isn't explicitly designated as a right or freedom in the Constitution.

                            Others think the ONLY things the government can limit are the limits placed in the Constitution.

                            Oh, and you're wrong about the SCOTUS decision. The Founders meant for it to be an individual right to bear arms. If a part of the Constitution needs to change with the times, amend it.

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

                            by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 10:09:28 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't agree with you on the SCOTUS decision. (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't agree it was ever an individual right. I think we've had this discussion before.

                            I agree we need to amend the Constitution in this case, and I have proposed (rough) language for that above to replace the 2nd amendment.

                            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                            by i understand on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 10:17:32 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We've had the discussion before. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound

                            I've not seen anything from contemporaries of the Founders or the Founders themselves that has disabused me of that notion.

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

                            by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 11:44:42 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Do I get to find out ahead of time? (0+ / 0-)

                            Whether the individual right pre-dates the Constitution.

                            And "should" have no concern?  Please, don't make me laugh.

                          •  So you're not sure (0+ / 0-)

                            eom

                            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                            by i understand on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 10:55:48 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I meant in your opinion (0+ / 0-)

                            Since you're the one trying to take away individual rights, it does matter if you think that right existed before the Constitution or not.

                            But really, it's a trick question.  Once the Constitution was adopted, that became law of the land and what was law before doesn't apply now.

                            You're going to change the 2nd Amendment to remove individual rights, and then maintain those rights based on stuff before the Constitution?  On what legal basis?

                            You can't change the Constitution to take away a right but at the same time say we still have it.  Doesn't work that way.  I'm keeping my individual right, thank you very much.

                          •  I'm not trying to take away individual rights (0+ / 0-)

                            As I don't think you've ever had that right. I get how it helps your argument to keep repeating it though.

                            The Constitution is not an exhaustive list of your rights (read: Right to Privacy). If you have a right regardless of it being enumerated in the Constitution, you would still have that right if it is no longer enumerated.

                            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                            by i understand on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 12:01:30 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Explain the necessity of the 19th Amendment (0+ / 0-)

                            Wouldn't the Right to Vote be something that would come naturally with a deomocracy?  Seems to me the right of women to vote would be something you would claim women have always just had.  I claim women have always held the intrinsic right of self-determination.  So why did that right need to be specifically enumerated?  Why didn't that right always exist?

                            But you're wrong, there is no absolute Right to Privacy, because it isn't specifically enumerated.  The Right to Privacy is inferred.  But my privacy can be violated repeatedly by legislation.  I can sue to get it back, but I will then depend on the judgement of SCOTUS to agree that I still have it.  The Right to Privacy is entirely subjective.

                            Fortunately the 2nd Amendment isn't.  My right is specifically enumerated.

                            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 doesn't say the right of militia members, or military or police.  It says PEOPLE.

                            Which is exactly why you need to change the Constitution to take that right away.  Will you at least be honest with yourself?

                          •  Whether voting was a right or a privilege (0+ / 0-)

                            Was not settled when the Constitution was adopted. I understand there was much debate on it at the time.

                            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                            by i understand on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 12:57:53 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Right..... (0+ / 0-)

                            So you'll understand why I choose to keep the 2nd Amendment the way it is.  No need to go back to debating what was a right or a privilege before the Constitution, and whether I do or do not still have said right.

                          •  Given your reliance on a wrongly decided SCOTUS (0+ / 0-)

                            case. I can understand it completely.

                            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                            by i understand on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 01:34:41 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Think about it this way... (0+ / 0-)

                            If a sentence means the same thing to you even after you chop half of it away, you're probably not understanding the whole sentence.

                            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                            by i understand on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 12:59:14 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nope. I'm reading it right. You're wrong. (0+ / 0-)
                            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
                            The first part explains the second part, but does not qualify it.  It sets no requirements on the part of the people.  The first part does not change the meaning of the second part at all.

                            Where does the militia come from?  It is mustered from citizens who all individually own their own weapons.  Citizens who have their arms with them in their home.  Who have them at hand when and if the call to muster a militia comes.

                            The second amendment doesn't say the militia owns the weapons and keeps them.  It doesn't say membership in a militia is required to bear arms.

                            The 2nd Amendment says that a well regulated militia is necessary, and to be able to muster that militia, the free citizens who would make up that militia must be free to keep and bear the arms they would use.  The rights are given to the people, not to the militia or the state.

                            And that's it.  All your claims that gun rights belong only to the State militia are made up out of whole cloth.

                          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)
                            Every word must have meaning and force. There can be no large or small chunks of meaningless text. This means that the more excess words created by a particular interpretation, the less it could be relied on as accurate.
                            States had militias, what we now call the National Guard.

                            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                            by i understand on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 01:31:37 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Then rights should have been given to the militias (0+ / 0-)

                            Your quote is exactly why I think the first part should be removed, but you're still wrong.  Let me make it clear, this is the way you read it:

                            A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the State Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
                            But that isn't what it says!  The right to keep and bear arms wasn't given to the State Militia, it was given to the People.  Stop making shit up.

                            If the Founding Fathers wanted to give 2nd Amendment rights only to the militia, they would have done that.  Words do have meaning and force, and the right was given to the people.  There were many other ways that a strong militia could have been guaranteed.  But the method that was chosen was:
                            The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

                            Maybe some basic sentence structure would help?  A local zoning ordinance says:

                            To allow people to walk through neighborhoods safely, every house shall have a sidewalk along the street.
                            The first part of the sentence makes no sense on its own.  It states what goal shall be accomplished, but says nothing about how to accomplish it.

                            The second part of the sentence stands alone.  There is no need to state why sidewalks are required, in order to require them.

                            There is also nothing that says people must actually walk on the sidewalks in order to maintain the requirement.  Nothing that says only homeowners may use the sidewalk.  The first part of the sentence explains only why the requirement exists.  It imposes no conditions, gives no requirements of its own.

                            Why must every house have a sidewalk?  So that people can walk around safely.  But nothing says that is the only use for the sidewalk.

                            And why does the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms exist?  So that a militia can be mustered to defend the state when necessary.  But nothing says that gun ownership only exists for militia members, or that the militia must be mustered or well regulated for a citizen to bear arms.

                            SCOTUS agrees with me, everyone who understands the Constitution agrees with me, and you are dead wrong.  Give it up.

                          •  You're just reacting, not considering. (0+ / 0-)

                            Even looking at your example:

                            To allow people to walk through neighborhoods safely, every house shall have a sidewalk along the street.
                            Forget about how you're interpreting this using modern language conventions rather then the way it was used when the document was written. Forget that your wording does not even match the wording of the amendment.

                            It would seem pretty clear that if putting a sidewalk along the street did not allow people to walk through neighborhoods safely, the sidewalk mandate would not be serving the purpose of the amendment and not be required. Indeed if putting in the sidewalk actually made walking through the neighborhood even more dangerous it would be quite reasonable to determine it would be contrary to the amendment to put in the sidewalk.

                            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                            by i understand on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 06:48:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh, and here's my proposed Amendment (0+ / 0-)

                            I do think you're right though, the 2nd Amendment could use a change.  How about this:

                            The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
                            That way we can dispense with all of your militia nonsense.  It is free men using their individual rights to bear arms who make up the militia that defends the free state.

                            But once the only ones with guns are the militia members?  Then the state is no longer free.  It is owned by the militia and the politicians who control it.  Turn away from facism and embrace individual freedom, I beg of you.

                          •  Great, you propose your version (0+ / 0-)

                            And I'll propose mine. At least we agree now that an amendment is needed.

                            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                            by i understand on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 12:56:25 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't want to join with neo-nazis (0+ / 0-)

                            Who do you think is going to be in this Militia defending the State?  And defending the State from what?  From who?  Well regulated by who?  For what purpose?  Have you even thought ahead to what a South Carolina or Alabama militia would look like?  That's your gun control plan?  Disarm everyone but the crazies who join up?  And who ensures that this militia respects civil rights?

                            You say you don't want to restrict rights, so answer this question.  When I take posession of my grandfather's handgun, will I be required to surrender my weapon if I refuse to join the neo-nazi skin head militia?  Or is that just the price of freedom to you?  What if I don't want to be a militia member defending just my State?  I'm a citizen of America, not of Illinois.

                            Are you going to restrict the number of militias and militia members to get the reduction in the numbers of guns you want?  Or does every gun member automatically join one militia or another, thus accomplishing none of your goals?

                            Well regulated militias are required to be equiped and train.  Who pays for that?  Are you really going to set up a system of taxpayer funded shooting ranges and ammo supplies?  Are you going to make us all pay to train the secessionists to be better shots, and buy them better guns?

                            No, I will not surrender my individual right for a group militia right.  You are trying to steal a right that does not belong to you, and will make America worse in the process.  You are leaning dangerously close to facism now.  I will not live under the tyranny of armed State militias and whatever "solutions" they choose to pursue.

                            You would trade the lone gun nut for a militia full of gun nuts, who can go crazy all together.  And then what?  Your amendment accomplishes little and has the potential to do grave harm.

                            And P.S.  Under your amendment cops will still shoot unarmed teenagers.  Off duty cops will still shoot their kids sneaking in through bedroom windows.  Kids of cops will still find loaded guns and shoot themselves.

                          •  huh? (0+ / 0-)

                            I have no idea why or how a neo-nazi skin head militia would qualified as a "well regulated militia".

                            And why do you think this change would surrender any rights? Do you believe the only reason you have this right is due to its presence in the Constitution?

                            And your "PS" arguments, all of that is completely up to the People to decide and regulate. We can make those choices. The 2nd amendment has wrongly taken that choice away.

                            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                            by i understand on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 10:47:43 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Of course you don't (0+ / 0-)

                            You're completely clueless as to the reality of what you propose.  After the citizenry is disarmed, and gun ownership is restricted to the "well regulated" militia members, what prevents that militia from abusing its power and taking rights away from minorities, gays, women?

                            Rights not in the Constitution get taken away.  But maybe this will explain it to you.  If individual gun rights existed before the Constitution then surely individual freedom and self-determination existed as well.

                            So after the Civil War, why was an Amendment needed to outlaw slavery?  If men were free before, then they were always free.

                            #1) Explain then how slavery was ever legal to begin with.

                            #2)  Explain why Congress didn't just pass a law outlawing slavery.  Why was a Constitutional Amendment necessary to return the individual rights you saw we've always had?

                          •  Look up the Michigan "militias" (0+ / 0-)

                            Look at the crazy right-wing nutjobs who are trying right now to create their own militias to defend the state from everyone not white.  Right now they're marginalized crazies.  You however want to give them sole gun ownership rights and real authority.  And who would qualify a skin head militia as "well regulated"?

                            Oh I don't know, how about Gov. Jan Brewer (R), Gov. Rick Snyder (R), Gov. Rick Scott (R), Gov. Scott Walker (R), Gov. John Kasich (R)?  Do you want to trust those people and give them more power?

                            They won't even have to try anymore to disenfranchise voters.  You'll give them their own personal State militias to use.

                          •  And don't forget who controls the militias (0+ / 0-)

                            Militias organized to defend the State (from minorities) will be organized by the State, and run by the politicians in control.

                            So how would you feel to be living in a Red State, when the GOP controlled legislature, under the power of your new Amendment, announces the creation of new militias, with membership of course limited to white Christian males who vote Republican.

                            One of the duties of the militia will be to guard poling places during elections and "True the Vote".  The other duties will be rounding up brown skinned people for deportation.

                            And who's going to stop these Republican controlled State militias?  The federal government?  Congratulations, you just started Civil War II!

                            How about you just leave America if you hate it this much?

        •  One need only look at the increasing... (0+ / 0-)

          knife violence in Great Britian to know that it can happen.

          And likely would.

      •  Technically, the Constitution does not "grant"... (0+ / 0-)

        any Rights to Citizens/Residents.  It delegates certain powers to government, and enumerates a number of pre-existing Rights of the People that are (theoretically) inviolate.

    •  Concealed carry (6+ / 0-)

      has not led to increased gun violence. Getting rid of it will not decrease gun violence.

      "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

      by happy camper on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 10:09:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site