Skip to main content

View Diary: The Stunning Ignorance of Kossacks About Guns (848 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You know (7+ / 0-)

    it isn't a questionable right. It is pretty definitive. Right there. Yes guns kill. The framers knew that. Which is they wrote it the way they did. What guns are designed or war? The same ones the police have? I say that's a pretty fair definition. if the police have them so can their rulers we the (the collective "we") civilians.

    •  To be fair (11+ / 0-)
      Yes guns kill. The framers knew that. Which is they wrote it the way they did.
      They wrote a constitution largely designed to appeased slave-holders. It does not directly confer a single human right.



      Denial is a drug.

      by Pluto on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 07:51:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, the framers didn't know the extent (13+ / 0-)

      to which guns kill, so arguing original intent gets a little pointless, since people aren't running around with muzzle-loading muskets that use paper cartridges and couldn't really be concealed while carrying.

    •  Give me a break. (10+ / 0-)

      The police as a rule, DO NOT run around with assault weapons.  Your average cop wears a pistol on his hip.  Nothing like what Adam Lanza used at Sandy Hook elementary.

      And what do you mean about why the founders wrote the constitution the way they did? They referred to a "well regulated militia."  Do you think they meant the citizenship? And what do you think they meant by "well regulated?"

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

      by StellaRay on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 09:58:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Well regulated" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mister T

        means supplied. It's a logistics term.

        •  Since when does "regulated" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          amsterdam

          mean "supplied?"  Perhaps you have a link that proves that the word "regulated" meant something entirely different back then?  

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

          by StellaRay on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 10:15:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Regulated, around the time of the 2nd Amendment's (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            StellaRay, Mister T

            writing probably meant something like the following (from the ever-helpful authoritative source, the complete O.E.D. -- which we use for word etymology to determine historical use):

            1. Properly controlled, governed, or directed; subject to guidance or regulations. Also: adjusted in response to, or in order to conform to, a principle, standard, set of circumstances, etc.
            Freq. with modifying word, as badly-, best-, ill-, well-regulated, etc.
            So regulated can be meant in terms of oversight, but it can also be meant in terms of a sense of correctly fighting with, or working well with, some circumstance. It's ambiguous at the definitional level.

            Historically:

            a1704   T. Brown Ess. Satire Antients in Wks. (1730) I. 16   These [verses]..had regulated forms, that is regular dances and musick.
            1731   tr. Winter Evening Tales xvi. 238   Even in the best regulated families some petty Quarrels will arise.
            1766   Compl. Farmer at Surveying,   Then may you measure all the whole chains by your regulated chain.
            1784   A. Smith Inq. Wealth of Nations (ed. 3) III. v. iii. 110   When those companies..are obliged to admit any person, properly qualified,..they are called regulated companies.
            1828   J. M. Spearman Brit. Gunner 336   They are fired with a regulated charge of powder and shot.
            1730 example -- refers to conformity to set expectations and/or proportionality
            1731 example -- refers to effective governance, not governmental
            1766 example -- refers to proper measure and proportionality
            1784 example -- refers to governmental oversight
            1828 example -- refers to conformity to need, proper measure, and proportionality

            Thus the confusion surrounding the term. I would say that since a militia is something which is not regulated, by definition, by Government, the term probably would have meant internally-effective governance (like the 1731 example); however, due to the military context, like in the 1828 example, it may have also had some connotation that it was proportionate, well measured, and conformed to the militia's need.

            Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

            by mahakali overdrive on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 12:05:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Let's see what the guys who wrote it have to say (0+ / 0-)

            The Federalist #29

            To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
            and
            This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
            Read the whole thing if you can. And at that site, you can read many more thoughts of the people when they were writing these things.
      •  police are no safer than civilians (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mahakali overdrive

        they just have better lawyers.

        Want to talk about LEOs and their practices that endanger civilians, or how they can walk away from murder charges even when documented on film?

        I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not.…We're better than this. We must do better. Cmdr Scott Kelley

        by wretchedhive on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 03:07:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  who says they do? (0+ / 0-)

        They can and sometimes do. And the well regulated militia means just that. You also have to consider the 3rd amendment too. And the carefully worded language i the 2nd:

        A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

        There's not a lot of ambiguity. There're no "hunting" provision, or "sportsman" provision, or any other provision.

        "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

        An yes I used an ellipses. The people being armed is part of a well regulated militia (see third amendment) to the security of free state.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site