Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Because (10+ / 0-)

    our Framers were smarter.

    "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

    by kestrel9000 on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 02:30:05 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Glib and unresponsive. I thought you were (6+ / 0-)

      smarter than that.

      "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 02:35:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't care (6+ / 0-)

        what other countries do in that respect.

        I like my rights  the way they are, I understand them, and I'm not worried about what anyone else does.

        "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

        by kestrel9000 on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:07:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're not the least bit curious as to the (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueness, poco, luckydog

          reason why so many countries which have used the US Constitution as a model for their own, should choose to omit the 2nd Amendment?

          'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

          by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:38:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You'd have to actually read some history (6+ / 0-)

            to get a better understanding of the rise of gun control on this planet.

            The Powers That Be were afraid of the masses and their newly awakened "collective power".

            The 1918 Blackwell Report makes this very clear and it also serves as the basis for other countries following suit.

            And then you'd have to understand that our Military Industrial Complex will not tolerate competition.  

            And then you'd have to understand that the Oil Baron's of old haven't really left us.  We can't have people fighting back at us when we rape & pillage their nations, now can we?

            -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 06:05:19 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  actually, (0+ / 0-)

              you'd have to read some real history.

              The historian David Hackett Fischer traces the divide back to the British settlers of colonial America. The North was largely settled by English farmers, the inland South by Scots-Irish herders. Anthropologists have long noted that societies that herd livestock in rugged terrain tend to develop a “culture of honor.” Since their wealth has feet and can be stolen in an eye blink, they are forced to deter rustlers by cultivating a hair-trigger for violent retaliation against any trespass or insult that probes their resolve. Farmers can afford to be less belligerent because it is harder to steal their land out from under them, particularly in territories within the reach of law enforcement. As the settlers moved westward, they took their respective cultures with them. The psychologist Richard Nisbett has shown that Southerners today continue to manifest a culture of honor which legitimizes violent retaliation. It can be seen in their laws (like capital punishment and a stand-your-ground right to self-defense), in their customs (like paddling children in schools and volunteering for military service), even in their physiological reactions to trivial insults.

              Admittedly, it’s hard to believe that today’s Southerners and Westerners carry a cultural memory of sheepherding ancestors.  But it may not be the herding profession itself that nurtures a culture of honor so much as living in anarchy. All societies must deal with the dilemma famously pointed out by Hobbes: in the absence of government, people are tempted to attack one another out of greed, fear and vengeance. European societies, over the centuries, solved this problem as their kings imposed law and order on a medieval patchwork of fiefs ravaged by feuding knights. The happy result was a thirty-fivefold reduction in their homicide rate from the Middle Ages to the present. Once the monarchs pacified the people, the people then had to rein in the monarchs, who had been keeping the peace with arbitrary edicts and gruesome public torture-executions. Beginning in the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment, governments were forced to implement democratic procedures, humanitarian reforms and the protection of human rights.

              When the first American settlers fanned out from the coasts and other settled areas, they found themselves in anarchy all over again. The historian David Courtwright has shown that there is considerable truth to the cinematic clichés of the Wild West and the mountainous South of Davy Crocket, Daniel Boone and the Hatfields and McCoys. The nearest sheriff might be 90 miles away, and a man had to defend himself with firearms and a reputation for toughness. In the all-male enclaves of cattle and mining towns, young men besotted with honor and alcohol constantly challenged one another’s mettle and responded to these challenges, pushing rates of violence through the roof . . . .

              But then why, once stable government did arrive, did it not lay claim to the monopoly on violence that is the very definition of government? The historian Pieter Spierenburg has suggested that “democracy came too soon to America,” namely, before the government had disarmed its citizens. Since American governance was more or less democratic from the start, the people could choose not to cede to it the safeguarding of their personal safety but to keep it as their prerogative. The unhappy result of this vigilante justice is that American homicide rates are far higher than those of Europe, and those of the South higher than those of the North.

              •  Thanks but that doesn't address the issue (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Robobagpiper

                of why other nations don't have a 2nd Amendment.

                What's quoted is more personal opinion than fact.

                I presented a fact that establishes why governments moved to control guns, in their own words. Fears of the Russian Revolution spreading throughout Europe.

                The English Bill of Rights of 1689 made that perfectly clear.  We followed suit a little over 100 yrs later.

                It's an evolution of Common Law Rights being specifically identified and enumerated as time went on because common law could be changed at the whim of a potentate.

                http://www.pierrelemieux.org/...

                Constitutionalists might argue about whether in Britain, Statute law can over-ride the basic principles of the Common Law, but in 1920 the Government of Britain was in fear of revolution and documents such as the. Cabinet Diaries reveal debates about the number of aircraft available for use against insurgents within the British Isles. In that climate, the registration of firearms (other than shotguns) was imposed for the purpose of “ensuring that all arms are available for redistribution to friends of the government”.
                http://mainelaw.maine.edu/...
                In 1870, there were no laws regulating the possession, purchase, and peaceful
                carrying of firearms in Britain.6 Anyone, child or adult, could buy a pistol, load it, and
                carry it under his coat with no legal consequences. As late as 1920, the law presented
                no obstacle to an adult without a criminal history purchasing a rifle, shotgun, or pistol,
                and carrying it concealed upon his person.7 Yet today, Britain has some of the most
                restrictive gun control laws in the world.8

                -cut-

                Yet, examination of the Cabinet papers declassified in 1970,12 and Cabinet Secretary Thomas Jones’s
                diaries,13 shows that all of these other concerns were insignificant compared to the fear
                of Bolshevik revolution.

                So, thanks for trying to present to me an opinion dressed up as a physiological analysis and presented as historical fact.

                Please review links provided for an accurate historical perspective on the evolution of gun control and why many nations today do not list it as an unalienable right, the fear of being overthrown during a populist movement or uprising.  

                -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 10:09:01 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  of course (0+ / 0-)

                  it addresses the issue. It describes a millennium-long arc, and provides an understanding of why the United States is deranged with firearms, while other Western nations are not. You are not able to see this, because you perceive the world through a very narrow straw, one thoroughly clogged by your prime directive: gunz iz gud.

                  •  That particular user (3+ / 0-)

                    has more of an interest in Constitutional law in general than gun rights specifically.

                    "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

                    by kestrel9000 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:11:11 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I have no opinion on gunz... your derogatory term (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    theatre goon

                    I don't own any.

                    I do however support the entire Bill of Rights, not just a select few interpreted to the benefit of another "select" few.

                    So, in your opinion, the British Rights of Man that predates our Constitution by 100 yrs is an anomaly?  The fact that we've based our entire system on Common Law is another, anomaly?  

                    -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 Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:36:17 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  you persist (0+ / 0-)

                      in confining your gaze to one branch of a single tree. Read the piece again. Regard the forest.

                      •  ROFL, I read it twice, sometimes I miss the (0+ / 0-)

                        point but not this time.  The claims made are not what I've witnessed in my own upbringing here in New York.  If you were disrespectful to your elders, you got backhanded.  If you were disrespectful to your neighbors, you'd most likely get beat up, If you were disrespectful in class, you got the ruler slammed down on your fingers.  And you never brought dishonor to the family name or be "excommunicated".

                        Making claims like this:

                        It can be seen in their laws (like capital punishment and a stand-your-ground right to self-defense), in their customs (like paddling children in schools and volunteering for military service), even in their physiological reactions to trivial insults
                        And in one broad stroke applying it to one group occupying a geographic area is dishonest story telling.

                        When the conclusion is this:

                        The unhappy result of this vigilante justice is that American homicide rates are far higher than those of Europe, and those of the South higher than those of the North.
                        It belies the reality of our Nation today, not just one geographic area.  We've always had "vigilante justice" or "the wildwest" mentality AND our Supreme Court has ensured this mentality will continue with their decision thatthe Police Have No Duty To Protect Any Of US.

                        These "opinions" ignore the reality that we don't have a "justice" system but a corrupt "system of law".  See Foreclosure Deal, See the Banker Bailouts, See the racist 3 Strikes your out Sentencing Laws, See the HSBC "Fine" announced yesterday.

                        The "vigilante justice" mentality comes AS a result of institutional corruption and is a symptom revealed, NOT the cause.

                        What is truly odd here, the authors you quote ignore the reality that most of the "Western" World is considered Europe and countries still part of the British Crown, countries where the people have been subjugated for millenia and still are subservient to said authorities.  They compare apples and oranges and then say Americans aren't oranges, how terrible!

                        The authors ignore America's true history of conquest and imperialism, where might makes right! This mentality is nationwide from top to bottom.  It's reflected in our "conquest" of the Wild West. It's reflected in our "international" policies in South America. It's reflected in our "international" policies in the Middle East even to this day!

                        As I stated previously, it ignores the question asked as to why other nations do not have a 2nd Amendment.

                        -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 Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:17:08 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  so (0+ / 0-)

                          small and parochial. To rebut a piece that describes a 1000-year arc in Western civilization, you deploy "my own upbringing here in New York." Who cares about "[your] own upbringing here in New York"? You do. So sad. So American.

                          You then proceed to make the piece's case: Americans are violent and lawless, and so is their nation.

                          That you apparently believe the peoples of Europe are more "subjugated" and "subservient" than Americans is highly amusing.

                          As I stated previously, the piece absolutely answers "the question asked as to why other nations do not have a 2nd Amendment." But as I stated previously, the very narrow straw through which you perceive the world is so clogged with gunpowder you can't see it.

                          Apparently said gunpowder also renders you unable to cogently read and comprehend Supreme Court opinions.

                          There on Planet Gun, you are the very definition of Barney Frank's "dining room table."

                          •  When presented with an opposing view you (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            delve into personal attacks and continue them, how revealing.

                            I do not own a firearm, never have. You're labeling me in such manner shows you do not want "honest" discussion unless we agree.

                            Maybe you can discount reality, I do not.  We only know what others have claimed to be truth.  I do not accept their interpretation, I present actual first-hand experience and you (and your quoted authors) ignore it for your predetermined intellectually dishonest esoteric exercise meant to befuddle and obfuscate history.

                            The whole difference between the United States and "other" Western Nations is that our rights are not granted by our government.  We grant specific limited authorities to our created government.

                            When you and your authors come to accept this founding principle, then you'll understand how it effects every person in America.

                            A fish rots from the head down.  Reality is that our leaders can influence public behaviors.  President Wilson proved that by firing every black person in government when he got elected.  I blame him personally for making it "socially" acceptable to discriminate and pushing our social evolution back 300 years.

                            President Bush did the same thing, his personal "faith" pushed others to attack & kill doctors and the ever increasing violence I live with every day as a member of the LGBT community.  

                            It has nothing to do with "southern upbringing" and in fact, the 2nd A was not included in our Bill of Rights because of the Southern States.  It was included because of New York, Vermont, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Virginia & Pennsylvania's demands they be included.  In fact, the actual wording of the 2nd A was copied from Pennsylvania's Ratification Documents.

                            How southern is that???  

                            The "straw" you reference is clearly of your own making because you refuse to accept historical fact.

                            How does your "southern" mentality  explain New Hampshire's position:

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            XII. Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.
                            How does it explain away the majority of States having that right specifically protected in their State Constitutions?

                            How does it explain Alaska and Hawaii, the two most recent additions to our United States that include, verbatim, the 2nd Amendment into their State Constitutions?

                            Your indignant "moral superiority" is flawed and so are the claims put forth.

                            Apparently said gunpowder also renders you unable to cogently read and comprehend Supreme Court opinions.
                            http://www2.law.ucla.edu/...

                            -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 Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 10:24:41 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ah yes, (0+ / 0-)

                            Volokh. As I suspected. Chief of a clutch of funny little Fear people; entirely consistent with what you have manifested of your Reality. And, as you demonstrate, one does not actually need to own a gun, to be blinded by gunpowder. As I've said, you are the quintessence of Barney Frank's kitchen-table: you cannot be helped. I have only lingered this long because sometimes it is amusing to descend into these diaries to interact with scared-of-the-dark flintlocks-and-breeches people from out of the 18th Century. A sort of time travel. And now: adieu.

                          •  LMFAO, there was no conversation here, just (0+ / 0-)

                            your demagoguery and failure to actually address legitimate historical facts that disprove your theories.

                            Keep repeating your BS and I'll keep refuting it...

                            Have fun!

                            -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 Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 11:08:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  As awesome as Hackett is, the core of the (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                theatre goon, kestrel9000, gerrilea

                2nd derives from the sentiments of Puritan New England, not the slave south nor the Appalachian backcountry.

                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 04:56:02 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Well, if aren't going to try to answer the... (0+ / 0-)

      question, and simply fall back on the framers of the Constitution, would you care to explain the intent of the Second Amendment considering the context at the time?

      'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

      by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 02:57:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Smarter, hey? I only have this to say: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      newpioneer, poco
      Citation(s) from the GunPolicy.org literature library
      Print Close
      Krug, E G, K E Powell and L L Dahlberg. 1998. ‘Firearm-Related Deaths in the United States and 35 Other High- and Upper-Middle-Income Countries.’ International Journal of Epidemiology; Table 1 (27), p. 216. Atlanta: National Centre for Injury Prevention & Control, Centres for Disease Control & Prevention / CDC. 16 April.
      Relevant contents

      Table 1: Violent death rates for 36 selected high- and upper-middle-income countries

      High-income countries, Firearm Homicide, Rate per 100,000 population:

      Country (data year): Firearm homicide, crude rate - Firearm homicide, age-adjusted rate

      High-income countries:

      United States (1993): 7.07 - 7.11
      Northern Ireland (1994): 5.24 - 5.07
      Finland (1994): 0.86 - 0.84
      Switzerland (1994): 0.58 - 0.57
      France (1994): 0.44 - 0.40
      Canada (1992): 0.76 - 0.68
      Norway (1993): 0.30 - 0.26
      Austria (1994): 0.42 - 0.37
      Israel (1993): 0.72 - 0.70
      Belgium (1990): 0.60 - 0.53
      Australia (1994): 0.44 - 0.41
      Italy (1992): 1.66 - 1.47
      New Zealand (1993): 0.17 - 0.15
      Denmark (1993): 0.23 - 0.22
      Sweden (1993): 0.18 - 0.18
      Kuwait (1995): 0.36 - 0.34
      Germany (1994): 0.22 - 0.20
      Ireland (1991): 0.03 - 0.03
      Spain (1993): 0.21 - 0.19
      Netherlands (1994): 0.36 - 0.30
      Scotland (1994): 0.19 - 0.18
      England/Wales (1992): 0.07 - 0.08
      Taiwan (1994): 0.15 - 0.12
      Singapore (1994): 0.07 - 0.05
      Hong Kong (1993): 0.12 - 0.09
      Japan (1994): 0.02 - 0.02

      Upper-middle-income countries:

      Brazil (1993): 10.58 - 9.59
      Mexico (1994): 9.88 - 10.35
      Estonia (1994): 8.07 - 7.73
      Argentina (1994): 2.11 - 2.10
      Portugal (1994): 1.28 - 1.17
      Slovenia (1994): 0.35 - 0.30
      Greece (1994): 0.59 - 0.52
      Hungary (1994): 0.23 - 0.22
      Mauritius (1993): 0.00 - 0.00
      South Korea (1994): 0.04 - 0.04

      Last accessed at:
      http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/...
      ID: Q1297

      As many publishers change their links and archive their pages, the full-text version of this article may no longer be available from the original link. In this case, please go to the publisher's web site or use a search engine.

      GunPolicy.org provides evidence-based, public health-oriented information on
      gun violence, small arms policy and firearm-related injury around the world.
      © GunPolicy.org 2012

      Not so smart, I'd say.

      'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

      by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:26:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Damned right. Incomparably smart. (7+ / 0-)

      The Bill of Rights looks up stream and down, most people see a prob with troops kicking in the front door, but don't miss a beat with the potential legislative"camel's nose" of disarming the citizens into peasants,  

      Words carefully selected created this nation; it's funny to me when folks insist the only place the Framers really got off in the weeds was the Second Amendment.

      Edit... nose, not toe. Check.

      Occupy- Your Mind. - No better friend, no worse enemy. -8.75, -6.21<> Bring the Troops Home Yesterday

      by Thousandwatts on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 04:27:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site