Skip to main content

View Diary: MAJOR 2nd Amendment victory in the most RKBA-hostile state in America (608 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Wait, so you're saying... (11+ / 0-)

    ...that minorities don't get to have their Civil Rights protected?

    It certainly seems that way, what with references to people having to "bow and scrape" before the desires of minorities.

    That is pretty shameful stuff right there...

    I've always seen it that Civil Rights apply even to minorities.  Clearly, that view is not taken by all.

    And, of course, this little bit of nonsense:

    ...where everyone is armed to whatever level they feel like.
    ...is advocated by no one whatsoever, so it would seem that you can only support your desire to strip rights from minorities is by crafting strawmen to attack.

    That's pretty shameful, as well...

    Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

    by theatre goon on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:31:24 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I'd let the minorities vote on your CONCERN (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ichibon, lyvwyr101

      over what's best for their communities.

      I wouldn't tell them that the "right" that's the agenda for rural whites around the country is the only way forward for them, and then back it up with the opinion of five right wind justices.

      One piece of free advice to the GOP: Drop the culture wars, explicitly.

      by Inland on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:41:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So, would you advocate the same... (11+ / 0-)

        ...for, say, abortion?

        There are a lot of people who believe that it's wrong for their communities.

        So, by your logic, we should let, say, Oklahoma vote to outlaw it, if they so choose.  (This is not, by the way, to pick on Oklahoma unduly, but their voting records seem to indicate that they would do this very thing, if they were allowed to.)

        See, that's exactly why we have certain rights protected from people being able to vote them away.  There are people with a habit of voting away the rights of minorities -- I certainly wouldn't have expected to see someone at DailyKos supporting that.

        It's kind of a disappointment, really.

        Letting people vote away the rights of others is a bad, bad road to go down.

        Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

        by theatre goon on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:47:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What, no slavery question? I'm disappointed! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lyvwyr101

          Only abortion?  

          Fact is, this "right" that is invalidating laws that were the norm just a few years ago is made up bullshit that needed five dishonest conservative votes on the SCt, which is pretty easy to get for the next couple of years.   The desire to take away power from voters is strong whereever conservative causes can be found, but it only lasts so long.

           

          One piece of free advice to the GOP: Drop the culture wars, explicitly.

          by Inland on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:55:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Care to respond... (8+ / 0-)

            ...to the points I actually raised, or are you just going to try to divert the discussion with references to slavery?

            Really, either way is fine, I just need to know if you're here to discuss the issue, or just to throw a verbal tantrum.

            If it's the latter, I won't waste any more time on you -- but, if it's the former, I'll try to give your responses the merit they deserve.

            Granted, with the number of strawmen you're already propping up, that won't be a lot, but something, at least.

            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

            by theatre goon on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 02:04:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I responded: there is no such right. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              emelyn, newpioneer, kirbybruno, lyvwyr101

              Your entire question is premised on there being a right to conceal and carry in the constitution.  There isn't.

              So I'm going to keep my concern for rights that actually exist outside of the parameters of five conservative justices working a conservative agenda.

              One piece of free advice to the GOP: Drop the culture wars, explicitly.

              by Inland on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 02:08:42 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Tantrum it is, then. (5+ / 0-)

                I can see no other way to describe your willful ignoring of facts and a refusal to support your own earlier assertions when called upon to do so.

                You have a lovely evening.

                Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                by theatre goon on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 02:10:58 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Didn't you already say goodbye? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lyvwyr101

                  I know that your goal is to simply announce that I'm not good enough to earn a substantive response, but you had done that.   How many times can you decline to provide me with your own opinion on matters before people figure out that you've got some basic insecurities?  

                  One piece of free advice to the GOP: Drop the culture wars, explicitly.

                  by Inland on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 02:16:41 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  OK, Inland. I'll try to give a substantive answer. (7+ / 0-)

                    The (fundamental, enumerated, individual) right protected by the 2nd Amendment is to both keep and bear arms.

                    There is no coherent way to constrain the meaning of the word "bear" to the private sphere. So, we Americans have a right to armed in public. The means by which that right may be exercised are subject to some degree of limitation by government. Given that that right explicitly "shall not be infringed", allowable limitations are likely to be small.

                    Illinois said "no, you cannot do this at all." That clearly doesn't make the cut. While not yet tested, "only if you can prove that you really, really need to" is also unlikely to pass muster.

                    There is a somewhat relevant precedent from Ohio, where the State Supreme Court basically told the Legislature, "open or concealed, or both, but not neither, and everyone not ruled out by a court (convicted feln or adjudicated mentally incompetent) has to be allowed."

                    Given those two options, the Ohio legislature picked shall-issue, permitted concealed carry as their preferred method of implementing the right.

                    I thnk that's likely to be the outcome in the USA.

                    Given the lack of evidence that this is a danger to safety in the aggregate, and potentially a positive factor for safety in the particular, I think it's a pretty good place to end up.

                    Clearly, you disagree with my assesment in a good / bad sense, but that's not realy the argument. Given the contours of the jurispruence we're seeing develop, where do you think we will (not should) end up?

                    --Shannon

                    "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
                    "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

                    by Leftie Gunner on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 09:09:09 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Indeed, ol' Webster himself, contemporary of (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      theatre goon

                      the Framers, weighed on this in his dictionaries. In his definition of "to bear", he included, "to bear arms in a coat" (coat and greatcoat pockets were big in those days). The definition of "to bear arms" was taken to include individuals carrying weapons concealed in their clothing from the very start.

                      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                      by Robobagpiper on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 05:16:15 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The contrary argument, that he was (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        theatre goon

                        referring to a coat of arms, is questionable for several reasons. First of all, the phrase "arms in a coat", rather than "coat of arms", does not appear to have any currency. Secondly, this usage is given as:

                        3. To wear; to bear as a mark of authority or distinction; as, to bear a sword, a badge, a name; to bear arms in a coat.
                        The fact that he begins his list with a sword, and follows with name suggests that he's using both literal and metaphorical usages, and that weapons were very much on his mind when he composed the list.

                        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                        by Robobagpiper on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 05:45:01 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Of course, "keep and bear arms" isn't private. (0+ / 0-)

                      THat's because keeping and bearing arms is part of being a well regulated militia.

                      The public interest in regulating the keeping and bearing of arms is right there in the statute.

                      Besidies, you're confusing the text with the bullshit loosed upon the court by the Scalia opinion, which found a right to "self defense" with guns. It's got nothing to do with the text.  That's why the decision was so pernicious, and so likely to be overturned the second there's not five people on the court who have a vested interest in right wing agendas.

                       It is the distinction between public and private in terms of self defense that the seventh circuit found to be elusive.  Still, it's wrong: you may need to defend yourself in public, but unlike defense in the home, you're likely to shoot an innocent stranger, whereas allowing guns in the home pose less of a danger to strangers and confine the deaths to invading criminals, friends and family members.  

                      One piece of free advice to the GOP: Drop the culture wars, explicitly.

                      by Inland on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:39:25 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Um, the constitution does not grant me a damn (9+ / 0-)

                thing.  It does give limited authority to our created gov't.

                And your misunderstanding of TG's posting seems a bit intentional to make this discussion into something it isn't.

                Here let me try to explain it better.  Specifically listed in the Constitution are things the gov't can and cannot do.  Society has no power or authority to abrogate certain specifically enumerated rights, we call them the Bill of Rights.  They are non-negotiable, they cannot be voted out of existence, period.  Not without changing the constitution itself.

                 

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 07:05:05 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  I think Oklahoma is well on its way to doing (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon

          that without any outside help.

          "I believe more women should carry guns. I believe armed women will make the world a better place. Women need to come to think of themselves not as victims but as dangerous." Anna Pigeon

          by glorificus on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 02:55:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site