Skip to main content

View Diary: What is it about guns, anyway? (116 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Any other rights (16+ / 0-)

    you want to require licensing and registering for?

    "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

    by kestrel9000 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:30:14 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Driver's; Vehicle; Occupational Licences (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dianegsocialist, glorificus

      "Rights" ok we know where you're going with this.

      Is Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Hapiness a Right?

      Why would the GOVERNMENT dare trample my Right to LL&P by requiring licensing of my occupation?

      Notice: This Comment © 2013 ROGNM

      by ROGNM on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:43:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Driving (8+ / 0-)

        is a privilege, not a right.

        "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

        by kestrel9000 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:52:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  there are lots of (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ROGNM, Back In Blue

          rights that are regulated and require a license.

          I want to hold a rally, I have to get a permit, and often even insurance, but your 2nd A out trumps my 1st A.

          Most people have to get a business license and follow various regulations. In fact, many regs are intended to KEEP people out of an occupation, DR, ATTY, CPA.

          So if other rights are not absolute, NEITHER are your gun rights!

          When you say it is "common sense" what you are really saying is "I don't have any evidence to back up my argument", because it is quite often neither common nor sense.

          by kaminpdx on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:50:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  In modern America (0+ / 0-)

          It's a prerequisite for exercising a great many other rights -- like the right to eat.

          That argument is nonsense, and has been so for as long as I've been alive -- and Eisenhower was President when I was born.

          •  well, that makes 2 of us, demimondian (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher, gerrilea, fuzzyguy

            but we don't have to agree on everything just 'cause we're of a particular cohort, temporally, do we?

            Here's the deal:

            The founding fathers -- and contrary to popular diaries here on DK they weren't trying to shore up slavery by writing the BoR -- had firsthand experience with all the ways it can go bloody damned wrong to be the guy stuck with a rock in a gunfight. They wanted to ensure that "the people" suffered no legal barrier to being equally well-armed when asked to turn out in defense of their homes, farms, families, communities, or states. They wanted all the people so charged with responsibility for that defense to have similar equipment and proficiency therewith.

            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

            by BlackSheep1 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:55:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's not what I'm talking about here (0+ / 0-)

              The issue was "is there a right to drive a car".  I was pointing out that in most of America, not being able to drive is a significant impediment to exercising other things which are unquestionably rights.

              As far as the argument about RKBA itself goes, I don't care one way or another why the Second was passed. I think we should repeal it and move on; it is fatally flawed.

            •  The USSC has ruled that guns can be regulated (0+ / 0-)

              without violating the 2nd.

              End of story.

              The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

              by Back In Blue on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 05:21:23 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Right to Free Speech: Why should radio (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dianegsocialist

      transmission be licensed?

      Notice: This Comment © 2013 ROGNM

      by ROGNM on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:44:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •   avoid (7+ / 0-)

        interference to other channels. Don't equate that with free speech. that's bullshit and you know it.

        "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

        by kestrel9000 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:53:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Freedom of speech (7+ / 0-)

        is not the same as freedom to operate a radio station. The latter is not a constitutional right.

        Radio stations are licensed because it's a privilege to use the publicly owned airwaves.

        "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

        by happy camper on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:58:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  1st amendment: (0+ / 0-)
          the right of the people peaceably to assemble
          Why are municipalities allowed to require "parade" permits, etc for the people to assemble?

          Notice: This Comment © 2013 ROGNM

          by ROGNM on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:59:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  a parade's not an assembly (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher, gerrilea, fuzzyguy

            http://www.thefreedictionary.com/...

            http://www.thefreedictionary.com/...

            You can assemble without a permit -- people do it all the time at churches, townhalls, pep rallies, schoolboard meetings, the county commissioners' courts' sessions, birthday bashes, the mayor's cornbread-and-beans lunch, the Lions' pancake breakfast, etc.

            Parades, now -- traffic control and crowd protection and so forth, yeah. I can see the need to let the responsible government have notice of the event so they can plan for a proper response.

            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

            by BlackSheep1 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:10:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're talkin' like the Man! dKos has been (0+ / 0-)

              infiltrated!!!!!!

              Notice: This Comment © 2013 ROGNM

              by ROGNM on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:47:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Proper response. (0+ / 0-)

              That's a perfect argument for regulating guns.  National registry, no exceptions.  You could take it further with all the regs the president put forth today.  I'd take it further to require knowledge and skill test.  In fact, I'd take it a lot further, but that would just make us tired.  

              Point is, the responsible government would then know how to plan for a proper response if they had the data to know what they were up against.

              As for freedom to assemble. Um, "free speech zones" have become de rigur.  Noise ordinances are enough to have the cops break up your assembly.  Calls to police from neighbors or passersby can get the police to visit you and end your assembly.  

              And, though I've posted this before, the USSC has ruled that the government does have the right to regulate guns.

              The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

              by Back In Blue on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 06:01:23 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Right after you apply all those rules... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gerrilea

                to the First Amendment.

                We'll take this in numerical order, Okay?

                •  That's my point. We do apply it to the 1st. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ROGNM

                  The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

                  by Back In Blue on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 05:38:52 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Not to mention that fact the USSC ruled that (0+ / 0-)

                  the government can regulate guns.  Funny how you don't hear anyone calling for lifting the ban on machine guns.  I guess fully automatic weaponry is just beyond the pale.

                  The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

                  by Back In Blue on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 06:42:35 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  The second amendment states (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      luckydog, ROGNM

      that the right is extended to a "well regulated militia."  We are discussing how to regulate gun ownership, as called for in the Amendment.

      Here's my take on it - the revolution will not be blogged, it has to be slogged. - Deoliver47

      by OIL GUY on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:12:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "rights" like the one where a man gained (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      detroitmechworks

      control of a woman's property after marriage? Pretty much gone.

      The "right" to stone a woman for adultery or pre-marital sex? Gone in this country.

      The "right" to own slaves?

      Did you read the piece where someone stated the Second Amendment was included to induce the slave states to sign the Constitution?

      Does it make you feel more righteous knowing your 'right' to a gun was predicated on maintaining slavery?

      Society adapts over time. Maybe it's time the 2nd Am was modified for the 21st Century.

      And I still think the 500 + people killed since Sandy Hook had rights, too, that were stolen from them because of misplaced devotion/interpretation of the Second Amendment.

      **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

      by glorificus on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:21:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  None of what you said (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gerrilea, BlackSheep1, PavePusher

        changes the fact that gun ownership is a Constitutionally-protected right.

        "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

        by kestrel9000 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:27:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  None of what you said makes that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ROGNM

          'Constitutionally-protected right' infallibly correct into perpetuity. See the 13th Amendment.

          KV and you keep saying just repeal it, and "Good luck with that."

          Repeal isn't necessary. Modification is, and that can be done legislatively and judicially. Executive orders work, also.

          I know you say you favor expanded background checks at least. However, your continued intransigence on other aspects is disappointing.

          **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

          by glorificus on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:40:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  kestrel9000: not to mention this: (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PavePusher, gerrilea, fuzzyguy
          Does it make you feel more righteous knowing your 'right' to a gun was predicated on maintaining slavery?
          which is sheer unadulterated inflammatory South-bashing BS, and will therefore become heroic defense of the truth at DK.

          LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

          by BlackSheep1 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:11:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks, BlackSheep1. (0+ / 0-)

            But I doubt anyone else will ever repeat it, since the efforts by the President have been announced.

            Although if I wanted to bash the South, I'd use much more current and pointed arguments.

            However, since Mississippi, Missouri and Florida are all making Texas look almost-kinda-sorta-not-quite-so-regressive I won't.

            This week, anyway.

            **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

            by glorificus on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 04:30:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I had to register to vote (0+ / 0-)

      I had to register to vote, and had I not registered, I would not have been allowed to vote.

      In order to represent me in a court of law, my attorney must pass a competency test (for which she must pay a fee) and be certified to practice by the state (requiring a second payment).

      I had to register and pay a fee to receive a document certifying my citizenship (a passport).

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:26:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Registering to vote (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        annecros, gerrilea, fuzzyguy

        is so you can only vote once.
        The other two examples you give have nothing to do with rights.
        Any more specious comparisons you want to waste time with?

        "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

        by kestrel9000 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:28:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have a right to an attorney (0+ / 0-)

          I have a right to an attorney, but only if that attorney registers with the state.

          You have a right to a gun, but you must register with the state.

          My passport documents my right to enjoy those protections of the US constitution.

          And afaik, no one is suggesting that you have to register your gun ownership more than once.

          Yes, we register to enjoy some of our rights, be they right to bear arms, right to an attorney, or citizenship rights.

          And you are the one who brought up the issue of registering, so if the argument is specious, you only have yourself to blame.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:10:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's for your benefit and protection. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher, gerrilea, rockhound, fuzzyguy

            You have a right to a lawyer. Implicit in that is that the lawyer BE a lawyer and not some guy who writes "lawyer" on a nametag before chasing ambulances.

            The requirements placed on a lawyer are to make sure YOU receive the benefit of your right to an attorney.

            Much like the requirements placed on a gun manufacturer regarding quality control are for MY benefit in assuring me that my right to a self defense handgun is not stripped from me by some fly-by-night workshop selling poorly made products.

            Get it?

            It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink. The answer is not gun control, it's people care.

            by JayFromPA on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:32:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So we agree (0+ / 0-)

              So we are in agreement: there are times and circumstances where "registering for your rights" is not only appropriate, but beneficial.

              "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

              by Hugh Jim Bissell on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:51:36 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I am not the one registering. (0+ / 0-)

                The person who claims the ability to act in court in my defense registers as an attorney.

                The person who claims the ability to act in the world in my defense registers as a cop.

                It's not me being required to register, hughj   imbissel.

                It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink. The answer is not gun control, it's people care.

                by JayFromPA on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:17:51 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  So we agree, part II (0+ / 0-)

                  So we agree: in some circumstances, it is necessary and proper to register for a right.

                  Now should there ever be a time when the law requires you to register your gun ownership with authorities, you always have the option of disposing of your gun(s) and walking away.  You will then be spared the odious necessity of registering your gun ownership, and no one will then bother you further about registering your gun ownership.

                  The other guy I know named Hugh is Hugh George Reshon, but everyone calls him Hugh G. Reshon (grin).

                  "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                  by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 07:28:25 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No agreement with you. (0+ / 0-)

                    It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink. The answer is not gun control, it's people care.

                    by JayFromPA on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 03:34:47 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Actually, not true. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea, fuzzyguy

            You can be your own council even if not admitted to the bar.

            I thought you could also have any other advisor you wished, but they could not argue in your place unless so qualified.

            But I admit I might be wrong....   8>)

            •  True, I can act as my own counsel (0+ / 0-)

              Yes, the law allows me to act as my own counsel.

              However, my right is that I may have an attorney defend me.  (Remember, for centuries before the constitution, individuals were brought before the king and were forced to defend themselves against any and all accusations, and pretty damn near 100% of those cases were decided against the defendant.  The founding fathers thought this was a raw deal, and thought that all accused persons should have a person defending them.)

              And for me to exercise my right, my atorney must first be registered in a variety of ways with the state.

              "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

              by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 06:59:25 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Your passport? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea, fuzzyguy

            What does that have to do with your Rights?

            Does someone without a passport not have those same Rights?

            •  The right to leave and re-enter the country? n/t (0+ / 0-)

              "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

              by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 07:06:11 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  There is no right to leave and re-enter (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PavePusher

                the country. There is only a right to freedom of movement between the states as implied by the privileges and immunities clause in the constitution.

                The US may be a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which would guarantee freedom of movement to and from one's home country, however the declaration is nonbinding.

                While I think such a right does exist, and so did FDR, unfortunately US law currently doesn't prevent the government from infringing upon that right.

    •  The USSC ruled that the government can regulate (0+ / 0-)

      guns.  Can we drop this now?

      The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

      by Back In Blue on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 05:23:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site