Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama pulls out the stops in weekly address to urge curbs on gun violence (88 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Did you ever consider that it is because of the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Boris49

    fact that people have a right to own what you call "assault" rifles that you are able to live in a free society?

    •  Nope (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueness

      I hire an army to protect me from foreign enemies, because I know that marauding fellow citizens displaying their guns willy-nilly would be basically useless in a real military fight.

      It's the laws and the courts that keep me free.  That and a divided government, with three branches at the federal level, and a clearly delineated separation between state and federal powers.

      Here, try reading this book.  It explains it all.

      Get back to me when you understood the American system of government.

      When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

      by litho on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 10:37:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I understand it. Apparently better than you. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Boris49

        If you understood how the govt works half as well as you claimed you would understand:
        1) that the bans some states have started imposing using late night sessions and bypassed procedures are probably illegal
        2) you would understand that actions being proposed by the President are causing states and other municipalities to threaten rebellion against the union.
        3) you would understand that congress makes and passes the laws and congress hasn't even had a chance to do anything.
        4) you would appreciate that the courts need to weigh in on the matters
        5) and most importantly you would understand that just because you don't like something doesn't give you the right to dictate terms to someone else by fiat.  You have every right to petition your legislators and representatives.  Perhaps you may even convince enough of them to support your cause and even repeal the 2nd Amendment (I highly doubt it).  

        •  No you don't get it (2+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          blueness, Sharon Wraight
          Hidden by:
          Boris49

          The Founders specifically wrote the Constitution in such a way that the threat of military force by an armed citizenry would not be necessary in order to guarantee freedom.  Rather, the structure of the government itself would, by balancing power among the different institutions and interests in society, ensure that no single group would be able to accumulate enough power to threaten the freedoms of the others.

          The Second Amendment was written specifically to ensure that the states would be able to defend themselves in the absence of a federal standing army.  It was not written, despite the beliefs of idiots like you, to guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms.  In fact, no court ever prior to the twenty-first century held that the Second Amendment ensures such a right.

          What has happened in this country over the past thirty years is a quiet coup, in which extremist rightwingers like yourself, who barely understand the concept of the separation of powers, and certainly do not share a belief in it, have coopted the federal judiciary to such a point that the very meaning of the Constitution has been distorted by rightwing activist judges.

          The president has declared war on the extremists like you.  And he will win.  Because Americans of good conscience, who do understand the Constitution as it was actually written, stand behind him full force.

          It took twenty dead babies in Connecticut, but we will not back down to the likes of you ever again.  You are an abomination on democracy.

          When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

          by litho on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 11:25:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Abomination on democracy? Too ad hominem. (0+ / 0-)

            You have a point of view that is only partially supported by SCOTUS decisions.  

            •  No shit. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              blueness

              I reject Heller and McDonald, because in my view they undermine the very foundation of the balance of powers.

              Introducing a unregulated and disorganized militia into the body politic upsets the balance between factions and institutions Madison theorized was necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of the minorities.  A minority with guns can simply impose themselves on minorities without guns, setting off an arms race among all factions within society and destroying the very fabric of democratic sociability.

              So, yeah, Heller and McDonald are wrongly decided.  They violate the very spirit of the Constitution itself.  They are the result of an extremist rightwing coup at the heart of American democracy.

              They are an abomination.  And anyone who agrees with them is an abomination as well.

              Hit me again.

              When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

              by litho on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 11:34:44 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It is the law, darling. (0+ / 0-)

                Whether you agree with it or not, isn't the point.

                If you don't like it, work to change it.

                Until then, quit being an asshole.

                •  That's exactly what I'm doing (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  blueness

                  working to change it.

                  By attacking the extremist forces that brought it into being in the first place.

                  The NRA is anti-democratic.  It is extremist.  It is dangerous.

                  And it needs to be smashed until it is no longer a danger.

                  Sugar-coating it doesn't cut it.

                  When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

                  by litho on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 11:38:51 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Massachusetts has a very low homicide rate. (0+ / 0-)

                    In the most recent statistics NO homicides were accomplished with a rifle of any kind.

                    I've heard today that Mass is proposing to reduce magazine size from 10 to 7 rounds.

                    Looks like your state is working the process.

                    I'm not a member of the NRA, but what you "and your ilk", as you refer to people in a pejorative manner, are doing is pushing moderates and independents to the right.

                    You are betting the progressive agenda on gun control and will put other things you'd like to see implemented on hold.

                    Take away a moderate's firearm and you expect them to vote with you on other issues?  NFW.

                    I hope you think it's worth it...in a state with a low homicide rate, it doesn't appear to be a worthy tradeoff.  But that's just my view.

              •  Folks, we have a winner (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Boris49
                I reject Heller and McDonald, because in my view they undermine the very foundation of the balance of powers.
                Under the rule of law that you claim to value, you don't have that option.
          •  No, the founders wrote the consitition hoping that (0+ / 0-)

            the people would never need to defend themselves in the absence of a standing federal army.  They also were wise enough to empower the people to be able to do so should that need ever arise.  

            There is also the fact that the 2nd amendment includes the rights of self defense and this in turn is part of the right of self determination under the pursuit of happiness.  Don't believe me?  Then read some of the rulings from the Supreme Court and other circuit courts.

            I find the shooting in Newtown as abhorrent as you.  The difference is I am not screaming to impinge upon everyone else in the victim's names.  That is not a proper way to honor or respect their memory.

            •  The president has it exactly right (0+ / 0-)

              Reasonable common sense measures to restrict access to guns is absolutely necessary.

              People who object to the president's approach, like you, simply misunderstand the danger our society is under.

              I'll go a step further and say people like you are actually responsible for the danger our society is under.

              When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

              by litho on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 11:42:17 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I would suggest that the president either doesn't (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                noway2

                understand small arms lethality or he's using Newtown to back away from promises he made in his campaign.

                The most dangerous small arm out there is a shotgun.  It has always been the most dangerous firearm in the hands of a civilian.

                Even Germany in WWI complained about the use of a shotgun by American forces.

                I like the president, but what he knows about guns comes from limited experience.  Very limited.

                •  Seeing as Obama comes from Illinois, Chicago (0+ / 0-)

                  in particular with both the most draconian gun laws in the nation and about the highest gun violence rate of any part of the nation, I think he is about the last person I would want to talk to about either gun rights or preventing gun violence.

                  A serious discussion is required.  Of that he is correct.  So far, there has been little to no discussion.  Just screaming, knee jerk reactions, and committee facades to create a smoke screen to pull a 20 year old policy proved to be failure.

          •  Tks! Join us? (0+ / 0-)

            Join us at RASA: Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment. (Repeal will not ban guns, just help regulate them.)

            by Sharon Wraight on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 03:17:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site