Skip to main content

View Diary: You NEED to watch this clip of Jon Stewart talk about gun control (406 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Really? Gotcha? (13+ / 0-)

    I am one of those people who thinks that the "well-regulated militia" cause means the National Guard can't be denied weapons, that the individual state can arm people without federal interference.

    If your M-16a3 is stored in an armory vault, cool by me.

    "... the best of us did not return." Viktor Frankl

    by RMeister on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:59:34 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Good for you. (4+ / 0-)

      I am one of those people who am correct in stating that the second amendment enshrines an individual right for a citizen to keep and bear arms.

      Contemporary writings don't agree with you and neither does the SCOTUS, even before Heller/McDonald.

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

      by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 11:02:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am not deluded (10+ / 0-)

        Into thinking you are persuadable, but I'm not sure you're right either.

          The courts have found that there are acceptable restrictions on firearms ownership, but I've never heard of a ARNG unit being denied ordnance because of similar restrictions.

        And if you think the Supreme Court is always right I have two words: Dred Scott.

        "... the best of us did not return." Viktor Frankl

        by RMeister on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 11:09:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Your reading of the 2nd Amendment is convenient (12+ / 0-)

        Especially when the individual right was never in its scope, so it didn't enshrine nor deny the ability for individuals outside of militias to be weaponed-up.

        Heller was a horrible decision and a right-wing wet dream, once again showing Scalia's proof of purpose in creating a reality all his own as a jurist.  Like other poor Supreme Court decisions, I'm hopeful it will eventually be revisited.

        Meanwhile, you do have the Heller decision going for you, but that does not prevent the fight for gun control, registration, supply chain tracking, etc. efforts which are apparently being renewed.

        "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

        by wader on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 11:13:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  How was the individual right never in its scope? (4+ / 0-)

          The right of the people to keep and bear arms...

          Let me just point you to this FP diary.

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

          by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 11:16:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  In that case the 2nd amendment exists to give (4+ / 0-)

          the USA govt the right to arm itself.
          That is an aburdity.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 11:24:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  How is it absurd? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wader
            •  2 primary reasons: (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas, fuzzyguy, happymisanthropy

              1) The Bill of Rights are a listing of individual Rights. The word 'rights' itself means individual liberties.
              2) Because if the 2nd existed simply to allow the government to arm itself, then, by extention, without the 2nd Amendment the govt would have to arm their soldiers with sticks. That an absurdity.

              Honestly, the interpertation that the 2nd amendment exists to give the govt the ability to arm itself is simply silly & not supported by anyone credible (that I know of) on either side of the debate.
              It is asinine.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:51:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  No, it gave state militias the right (3+ / 0-)

            You might recall that there was a bit of infighting on how much power the federal government would have over the states when the whole Constitution thing was being drafted.

            I know, it was long ago and easy to overlook.

            Since then, the role of state militias has been brought under a national wing, but the initial balance was intended to help states realize that they wouldn't be overrun by a newly formed, national military.  At the same time, the states had some assurance that they could prepare themselves in case a tyrannical central army decided to overtake them, for some strange paranoid reason.

            The 2nd Amendment simply let personal gun ownership exist as it was, without effect one way or another - it was left for future legal decisions to affect.  And, Heller was one such means of doing so, but the logic was horribly self-serving and more than dishonest, IMHO.

            "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

            by wader on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:21:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No. None of the amendments existed to (4+ / 0-)

              'kick the can down the road'.
              The Bill of Rights exists to list the inalienable rights given at birth to all people.

              If you want an examle of how they kicked issues down the road, see how they handled slavery.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:44:03 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That seems an odd perspective (3+ / 0-)

                It didn't enumerate all rights conceivable, which is a specific point that even Scalia loves to trot out when he doesn't like a certain rights claim, because he often prefers to act is if the Constitution is not a living document (again, when convenient) and that it has no 9th Amendment, etc.

                To state that it did cover all rights at the time and didn't offer a framework for allowing more detailed rights to be uncovered through the courts and amended by the Congress is willful ignorance in support of a tenuous point about the 2nd Amendment, IMHO.

                Here is my historical derivation, high level, on the 2nd Amendment's history - there's more detailed ones available at the site.  Want more links?

                "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

                by wader on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:05:04 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Quite frankly, (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  fuzzyguy

                  I don't have the slightest clue what purpose you are trying to convey to me.
                  And no, I have done plenty of research of my own. I neither appreciate nor need your transparent attempt at condesending.
                  Make a clear assertion. Then provide supporting evidence.
                  We can move on from there.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:22:37 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Simply because you don't enjoy the point (4+ / 0-)

                    is no excuse to claim that I'm being condescending.  That is a somewhat defensive perspective and offers no substance to the points made except to run away from addressing them, I feel.

                    Sure, let's recap: I made my assertion originally about the original scope of the 2nd Amendment and that it in no way implicitly offered a statement on individual gun ownership beyond state militias, then backed that up in two detailed comments.   And, in that respect, I noted how Heller was a personal win for folks such as Scalia to throw their personal desires into legal effect, as we've seen him conveniently do in Bush v. Gore and various other lousy decisions.

                    You then responded with what I found to be difficult-to-believe rebuttals and claims about the Constitution, itself.  So, I addressed those and offered more details on my original assertion.

                    Therefore, my original point hasn't changed and I've expanded on it with even more background reasoning for your perusal.  I haven't seen you address state vs federal focus of the 2nd Amendment, the quotes I offered in my link of the derivation of its wording which happen to support my original assertion of its scope, etc.

                    If you'd like to examine why you feel Heller was rightfully decided, based on what you've seen of the 2nd Amendment which trumps what I've already offered, please feel free.

                    "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

                    by wader on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:30:34 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Your condensceding was related directly to your (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      fuzzyguy, happymisanthropy

                      offer of links.
                      Your recap is wanting. Quote me about what you disagree about. Make your assertion.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:52:38 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Offering more links because I can easily support (4+ / 0-)

                        My own opinion with those of others, was my point.  That's condescending?  I see it as a show of confidence in support for my historical perspective.

                        Sorry, but I honestly feel as if I've been more than fair in laying things out here, and you're being obstinately obtuse.  Find another playmate for that game, please.

                        "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

                        by wader on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:07:00 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Let's make this simple (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          fuzzyguy, happymisanthropy

                          Quote the statement I made that you find incorrect.

                          I am finding your pointless & rambling posts fairly dull.

                          Your confidence does not interest me & your self-assessment of your historical knowledge does not impress me.

                          Again, quote the statement I made that you find incorrect.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:28:55 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  It's this one (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Vote4Obamain2012

                            Since everything in his/her responses is directly responding to it:

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

                            Honestly, the interpertation that the 2nd amendment exists to give the govt the ability to arm itself is simply silly & not supported by anyone credible (that I know of) on either side of the debate.
                            It is asinine.

                            You made an assertion, with no citations to back it up, as a rebuttal to his/her original assertion. He/she responded with citations that support his/her assertion.

                            It's abundantly clear to everyone else reading the thread, which makes it appear you aren't actually interested in discussion of the history of the issue, but are instead interested in dishing out FUD.

                          •  Yes. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            happymisanthropy, fuzzyguy

                            As I made clear, the Bill of Rights are a listing of American rights.

                            The idiotic attempt to claim that the 2nd amendment that states "the right OF THE PEOPLE.." exists to allow the govt of the USA to arm itself is supported by no one credible....or intelligent.

                            Nothing in Heller supports this nonsense.

                            I can see why you waited so long to actually make this laughable point.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 06:55:40 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm not sure who you're talking to (0+ / 0-)

                            Since that was my first comment.

                            It's clear from your response that you haven't actually read any of the historical information to which "wader" linked, and choose not to read it out of fear that you may learn that you are incorrect.

                            You imply that wader is claiming that the intent of the 2nd is for the "USA to arm itself." This is a significant misconstrual of what he/she wrote.

                            From the context, it's clear that wader claims its purpose was for individual states to be allowed to arm themselves against the federal government. He/she also links to information about the original historical documents from the actual discussion that led to the drafting of the 2nd.

                            There are no claims by "wader" that the supreme court says this, only claims (with citations) that those who wrote the amendment said this.

                          •  but (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose, fuzzyguy

                            rights belong to individuals.  If it isn't an individual human being, it has zero rights.

                            States have never had any rights, and can never have any rights.

                            "The Taibbi article is a defense of status quo" -- citizen k

                            by happymisanthropy on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:38:01 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

        •  Constitutional right means you can have a musket. (0+ / 0-)

          That's it.  Nothing is said that you can shoot off military level weapons not imagined in 1776.  The right to kill little children is not guarenteed by the Constitution.  When wil the gun=nuts figure this out.  Stop killing our children.

      •  enshrines? oh! hahahahaha!!!! (6+ / 0-)

        Let me just wipe the beverage off my screen here and gift you a clue. You don't have any "enshrined" rights, none at all, but George Carlin can explain this so much better than I ever could....

        I shave my legs with Occam's razor~

        by triv33 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:35:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  "right of the people" Sorry, America sucks. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas, fuzzyguy

      Yes. You will never truly cure this country's unique gun sickness because the Founding Fathers stuck that Amendment in there. Nobody else has gun ownership as a right. Nobody.

      They meant well....but they fucked up in the long run.

      "Well, we could repeal the 2nd Amend-"

      ha ha yeah that'd be nice but UK STYLE HEALTH CARE HAPPENS IN AMERICA BEFORE THAT HAPPENS, OK? Mass confiscation/imprisonment mean Civil War II, period. And I still say we lose that fight, seeing as how their side has a monopoly on guns, soldiers/cops, and bloodlust.

      I don't get it. Who are these people that really believe repealing the 2nd Amendment is within 5,000 miles of politically feasible?

      A British journalist summed it up nicely. Strict gun control means NO guns.....but we can never pull that off. We'll just have to settle for doing what we can.

      "See? I'm not a racist! I have a black friend!"

      by TheHalfrican on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 02:41:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site