Skip to main content

View Diary: This will be short. I think. (80 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I can't talk openly either (19+ / 0-)

    I'm for banning assault type weapons, and strengthening laws to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable. (That may reduce, but not completely stop these awful killings)  I understand all too well what it is to grieve. But - there really are cases where a gun was used in a desperate act of defense.  I've lived that, too.
    I feel very very sorry for anyone who has to cope with the terrible loss of a loved one.

    •  Short of a near-total ban on guns, (19+ / 0-)

      which I personally would favor, I don't see why we don't at least treat guns as seriously as we do cars. I'm hardly the first to have said so. But why not:

      -require (not advise) people to take some sort of course before using a gun;
      -require the passing of an exam;
      -require regular registration of all guns;
      -require regular insurance for every gun and every user;
      -severely limit the type of gun that can be used by the average citizen (without more, heftily expensive training programs);
      -require permits for specific uses (hunting, etc.), which would also require courses, exams, etc.,
      -roll back all these concealed carry laws, and severely restrict where and when guns can be carried;
      -vastly tighten up the laws around where/when guns and ammo can be purchased (gun shows, online, etc.).

      etc., etc.

      And my baby's my common sense, so don't feed me planned obsolescence.

      by vadasz on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 01:59:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  you can not do that unless the 2nd amendment (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lakehillsliberal, pixxer

        is removed. Then you can mandate more rigorous controls. As is the assumptions that the right to own a gun is the starting point then we are limited as to what we can demand in terms of regulation.

        •  The second amendment does not prohibit (20+ / 0-)

          those controls, to my reading of it. The well-regulated militia concept suggests many of those things, in fact.

          We all understand that freedom isn't free. What Romney and Ryan don't understand is that neither is opportunity. We have to invest in it.
          Julian Castro, DNC 4 Sept 2012

          by pixxer on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 07:36:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  exactly . . . (6+ / 0-)

            I know the 2nd amendment is a great one for parsing words, but "well-regulated" is right there in the text. I don't see "regulating" as equating to "infringing," but I'm not a lawyer or Constitutional scholar by any stretch.

            But I'd be happy with another post I read (I think by L. Lewis) suggesting overturning the 2nd A and replacing with a much more modern, specifically worded alternative that still protects the right, but severely limits, regulates, taxes it.

            And my baby's my common sense, so don't feed me planned obsolescence.

            by vadasz on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 07:43:52 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  But that is not how the Supreme Court has (4+ / 0-)

            ruled in the last two gun cases. Heller and Washington ignore the well regulated militia part completely and finds a right to private ownership for any reason. In other words the only reason you need to have a gun is to simply want a gun.

            •  Well quite a few (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bleeding blue

              hundred more innocents will doubtless die before Antonin Scalia's tenure on the Court and perhaps on this planet come to an end.  The dam will burst eventually.  Change comes; sometimes it takes 30 years before the Supreme Court catches up.

              “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

              by ivorybill on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 02:02:42 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Laws can be enacted that restrict the ownership (0+ / 0-)

              of the types of guns and accessories. Laws also prohibit who can even possess firearms. We disallow guns in some places, and also where they can be discharged.

              Clearly we regulate firearms now. It's simply a matter of who we vote for, and what we demand that they do. How far we want to regulate is up to us.

              The SCOTUS often makes terrible rulings. Those should be, and often are, overturned as society's views evolve.

              IMHO the "well regulated militia" part is not being addressed....it's in there for a reason. The Founding Fathers did not put into the constitution a requirement that we maintain an army. They DID require that we maintain a navy, however, to protect our coasts. I believe the Founders expected that if we needed to raise an army, it would come from civilians, and disbanded at a conflict's end.

        •  Bull puckey. (7+ / 0-)

          The 2nd amendment gives the right to bear arms, but does not prohibit common sense regulation of that right.  We have many rights that are regulated and it's insane that this one isn't too.

          "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

          by StellaRay on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 08:12:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Again read Scalia's majority opinions on gun law. (0+ / 0-)

            That is the binding law of the country. Not how you read the 2nd amendment but how he reads it is what matters. And if the Supreme Court could overturn quickly and ignore precedent here then they can do the same to Row v Wade. Which is highly unlikely. And if it were to happen it would be Roe that would be overturned before Heller or Washington.

            •  um, scalia? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              StellaRay

              whatever, I don't think you're thinking quite broadly enough, that is not the only case

              Scalia's militia... hahahahahahah

            •  Sorry, but this is silly: (5+ / 0-)
              "if the Supreme Court could overturn quickly and ignore precedent here then they can do the same to Roe v Wade. "
              Scalia is not the leader of this country.  He's one judge on the SCOTUS.  Other judges opinions have been overturned, and/or mitigated and his can be too, and without it being a threat to Roe Vs. Wade.

              We don't start at the SC.  We start with initiating sensible gun laws, and first on that list should be regulating assault weapons and ammunition.  Then if gun nuts want to take it to the SC, they can. But the idea that we should be intimidated to initiate the legislation because, "Scalia, Roe vs. Wade" is nonsense.

              "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

              by StellaRay on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 08:56:58 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  We did have strong laws. IN Washington, DC and (0+ / 0-)

                Chicago. Both were declared unconstitutional by a majority of the Supreme Court in opinions written by Scalia. Those opinions are now the binding law of the land. Hand gun bans were overturned. Licensing requirements were eased. And since the hand gun controls in Chicago were thrown out Chicago has become the most violent city in America. My point is that the way around the SC is through a constitutional amendment that would repeal or modify the 2nd amendment.

        •  The Second Amendment: A liberal reading (0+ / 0-)
          Blah well regulated blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

          --- Keep Christian mythology out of science class! @cybersaur1

          by cybersaur on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 08:38:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I am pro-second amendment (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ivorybill, bleeding blue

            but I do not want to live in the wild wild west.

            Well regulated is right there in the amendment.

            Conservative reading of the second amendment:

            Blah blah blah blah blah blah the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

            "I watch Fox News for my comedy, and Comedy Central for my news." - Facebook Group

            by Sychotic1 on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 01:46:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Quite the contrary (0+ / 0-)

            We all twist into contortions to assure RKBA folks that we respect their right to hunt, etc.  But there are a lot of proposals out there, a lot of policy, a lot of thought on how to regulate weapons, license them, control them, and restrict them in ways that preserve legitimate use.

            And we, the people, eventually get to say what is and is not legitimate use.

            For the thousandth time, you can keep your rifle and hunt.  But I'm not OK with concealed semiautomatic handguns in my office building or on the streets of my city.  We're going to start debating this.  Without apology. No more pulling punches and deferring to this sick lust.  

            “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

            by ivorybill on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 02:08:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I am a proponent of a living Constitution. (4+ / 0-)

          The Second Amendment does not neet to be removed, it needs to be reinterpreted to fit our modern society, with its access to modern technology.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site