Skip to main content

View Diary: White House task force reviewing gun violence options pushes to meet end of month deadline (235 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The right to drink a big Coke is not in the Bill (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fuzzyguy, FrankRose

    of Rights. The right to own a gun is.

    •  Um hmm (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tytalus, glorificus, Womantrust

      But the right to own any kind of firearm whatsoever is not in the second amendment. The right to own any kind of ammunition whatsoever is not either. Neither is the right to carry a gun anywhere and any time. Nor is detail on whom constitutional limitations on firearm ownership may be placed.

      The Constitution is silent on these matters.

      I think my analogy holds.

      •  Well to put it this way, do you feel like your (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose

        rights to a speedy trial, or freedom to pick your religion, or rights to protest or rights to come on Daily Kos and say whatever you like....do you feel they should be up for local, state or federal regulations or a perhaps even "more defining or details" in which some would say the Constitution is a bit silent on.  What about limitations?  Who has the power to "define it" and what if the people were against it?  To what extreme would you allow "defining" before you felt like your rights were being disturbed?

        Basically, do you think the 2A is just as important as the others?

        Again, buying a big coke is a right in the way my owning a gun is.  My right to own a gun is a guarantee and is the 2nd right I have under the American Constitution and  it is as valuable a right to me as typing this is and posting it to this forum.

        •  Answers (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tytalus

          1.  Note my use of the term "constitutional":

          Similarly, if a new law prohibiting that "something" comes into being that is constitutional (as some limits on the second amendment are, according to Heller), then it's not infringing on a right.
          So -- in response to your question, if a constitutional restriction on the laundry list you've included in your response is passed, then I'm OK with it.  

          2.  I believe the second amendment is one of the Constitution's fatal flaws. Slavery and withholding voting rights from women were others. Those two have been corrected. We now need to correct the second amendment, to the degree possible in this deeply flawed nation.  

          So -- in response to your question: I absolutely and positively do not believe the flawed, anachronistic, and frankly stupidly and opaquely worded second amendment is as important as other rights.

          I know there are those who think otherwise. Some of the them are honest and well-meaning.  Some of them are as stupid and frankly deranged as this Alex Jones character, to whom I would have preferred to not have been introduced. But I disagree with both.

          We need better gun laws. We need to reduce firearm violence in our nation. There are far too many homicides, accidental shootings, and suicides by firearm in the USA.

          In short, we need to grow up as a nation and disabuse ourselves of the foolish notion that, in this society, widespread firearm ownership is both positive and non-correctable.

          •  Ok, thanks for answering. I disagree but respect (0+ / 0-)

            your view.

            To me, is part of the Bill of Rights and I want it to stay that way.  Until it is changed, it is as much my right as any of the others....and I value it just as much.  As 40% of gun owners are also Democrats, I am certain I am not the only one on this site who feels this way.  

            Again thanks for the discussion.

            •  A thought experiment (0+ / 0-)

              You are a farmer in 1828 Maryland.

              With respect to the question of slavery, do you believe that "until it is changed, it is as much my right as any of the others?"

              Or do you feel that it is wrong and less than, say, freedom of religion or freedom of speech?

              Again, I'm not equating slavery and our nation's current concept of gun ownership. I'm merely using examples of two institutions that are arguably anachronistic.

              •  Well as I am black and a woman, I can answer (0+ / 0-)

                with some emotion and forethought in regard to some of the anachronistic principles in the Constitution that have morphed over time for various reasoning.

                Slavery was obviously barbaric and went against every other freedom that was guaranteed by the Constitution to American citizens, even though a black man or woman was not considered at the time to be anything remotely equal and free or even a real citizen. Never was slavery a right that anyone could argue had a place in society or should have been protected.  It was present at that time, but even then it was known to be wrong...they just ignored that part of their conscience.  Times changed, however, and enough people decided a change was necessary and a war evolved and changes to the document reflected that our country would be free of slavery.  The process was followed and thus we began a nation free of slavery. Slavery should have never existed in our society and its place in our history ended.

                The issue of women and their right to vote, same principle, in some regard. It took years of dedication, women protesting, modernization of times etc and in time...the Constitution was changed. Women not being able to vote had no place in our society anymore, and thus the change happened.

                With guns, however, there was a real purpose, a real need and that purpose and need still exists today. Anti- gun advocates tend to believe they serve no purpose, because in their eyes and experiences, they are unwanted and unneeded but to those of us who do use them...and I say "use" because they are a tool...guns can and do still have purposes in our society.

                 How and why? The obvious are police and military uses...those are a given...and any other occupation that would mandate a firearm.

                 Farming and ranchers are definitely hindered greatly without a gun.  I know this as I grew up on a farm.  Not only are they needed to protect livestock from predators but also for family working in the fields who might encounter the same such issues.  I never worked in the field without one.  Also, when we harvested our food for the year, a bullet was the most humane way to put down the animal for processing.  There really is no other way that is as quick and painless for the animal.  So again, these are givens.

                People who just live in rural areas and yet have no farm or ranch, what about them?  Yes, they all have guns...why? Again predators is a given but also the sun would set and rise again in my area before our lone sheriff could make it to our place, if there was an emergency. This is common in rural areas and so guns are needed here for protection...just in case.

                Women who have been abused or who are being stalked or have left a violent partner, do they need guns?  Maybe, and they have a right to protect themselves with them.  Guns and training in self-defense might save a woman's life in these circumstances.  My first marriage was abusive.  I left and he knew I was armed.  It might have saved my life a time or two....can I prove that?  No one really could but I am still here and he left me alone.

                The elderly who might not be young or able enough to fight off an attacker, should they be allowed to protect themselves?  A gun and training for the elderly can and does save lives.  It has happened many of times that an elderly person saved their own lives from attack because they were armed.  Had they not been armed, they might not have survived the attack. Many people like to say that you have more of a chance of the attacker taking the gun and using it on you...but really how does one prove that?  The attacker is already attacking you...even with no guns in the equation, the attacker is still there to harm you....and likely will.   I would rather have a 50/50 chance than none.

                Hunters...now here is the one that most people like to focus on.  Why?  Well, this is one argument that people can say is must be a sport or hobby and thus it's easy  to argue that surely we, as a gentler society, can "live without”.  Most people picture hunters as lily white middle aged men who go on winter deer trips to brag about how many Bambis they wiped out in a weekend.   So surely most people do not have to hunt to survive anymore, right?...Well, perhaps, unless you are in the Appalachian Mountains or parts of Alaska or Montana or in the Louisiana swamps or the plains of Texas or in West Virginia and you are very poor and this is the way you get food for your family.  Oh wait a minute...hmmmm... maybe there is a lot of people who need guns to hunt for this purpose.

                What about those urban dwellers...surely they need no gun?  Well, what if you lived in a crime ridden area with bugler bars on every window and door and you had no right to possess a gun to protect yourself anymore but yet you knew every criminal outside still had theirs.  Would you sleep easy?  Would you feel comfortable knowing that?  See, pass all the laws you want, 310 million weapons are still out there...and those who want them, will have them....especially the criminals.  It's just now the law abiding gun owners will be defenseless.  No one really know how many lives might be saved every day because a criminal decides not to break into one home or another because he or she decided the gamble of walking in on an armed homeowner was just too great.  No one collects data for that....and home robberies that were stopped by a law abiding gun owners, don't seem to make the news as often as the other way around.  Maybe one of these criminals saw one of those signs that says “Robbers will be shot, survivors will be shot again” and decided to move on down the line.  He won’t answer a poll later about his malice activities, so we will never really know how many times that may happen.

                 Not one single thing talked about lately as a solution to mass murders, would have stopped Adam Lanza from killing those children that morning. He could have used a different type of guns, a shrapnel bomb, a chemical bomb or drove his car into the building.  He could have set it on fire or simply did what the Columbine murderers did during the last assault weapons ban and bought them illegally.  Evil minds will find a way....throughout history we know this as fact and it will continue until the end of time.  We must try to lessen it by going after the real evil and the people who would harm others and why they would do so....not just one weapon they might choose to use.

                So no, I don't see the 2A as anachronistic; I actually see it as a right that should be protected.  See, guns still have a purpose in today's society for law abiding people and that need is not going away anytime soon.  In time, the 2A and the need to have that right might even become stronger and stronger as no one knows how society will change. If there really is a time in our history when guns are completely unneeded and the people are ready to be disarmed and ready to change the Constitution, it will happen as it did before.  Hence the reason it takes so much to change the Constitution ….so our rights would be protected and deserve as much process as it would take.  Since Progressives and Liberals are minds that seek to preserve and protect the rights of others....sometimes I am at a real loss as to why the 2A is not seen in this light by some.  I certainly see it that way...and I know plenty of others who are just as left as I am politically and yet value the 2A as much as every other part of the Bill of Rights.

                I ought to make a diary of this comment as I put a lot of thought into it....I know you will disagree with most of it but thanks for listening, I tried to answer the best way I could.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (125)
  • Community (63)
  • Elections (24)
  • Media (23)
  • Environment (23)
  • Culture (22)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Law (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Labor (18)
  • Economy (17)
  • Ireland (16)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • Marriage Equality (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Hillary Clinton (15)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • Health Care (14)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site