Skip to main content

View Diary: Assault weapons ban moribund. Will only be offered as amendment in package of gun-control bills (577 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But a real Bingo player can reload in 0.001 milli- (5+ / 0-)

    seconds!  Don't you get it?

    1. Nothing will ever work

    2. Banning AWs will not do anything because the majority of the 100k plus people shot annually are shot with handguns.

    3. Handguns cannot be regulated at all! Not even to try to stop the millions of guns that are converted from legal to illegal every year by straw purchasers and unscrupulous dealers.

    4. ANY regulation is the same as stripping me of every constitutional right!

    5. There is no right in our Country that even comes close in stature to my right to own guns without any meaningful/effective regulations.

    6. Anything else that comes up, go back to 1 above and start again.

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 12:54:16 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  How about going after the criminals, first and (4+ / 0-)

      foremost,  with mandatory sentences for any gun crimes?  Why isn't this the first conversation and the first round of pending bills?  If we really want to stop gun crime....then let's bury those who commit such crimes under the prison doors.

      Why are we choosing to go after law abiding citizens first?

       

    •  Can you name a single enumerated... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annecros, SquareSailor, ancblu

      ...right in the Bill of Rights which, to exercise on private property, requires government pre-approval or registration?

      Sure, to vote requires registration, but that's not actually an enumerated right in the BoR and it's a right that requires government involvement (as that's how we determine who we are governed by).

      Would you be okay with every enumerated right being subjected to the same level of government regulation that firearms are subject to?

      For example, there's no doubt that some "religions" are harmful to their participants in various ways (for example, by urging/requiring their followers to eschew medical care, by restricting the use of contraceptives, by filling their followers' brains with creationist mush, or by sucking their followers' money from their wallets). Should we therefore extend First Amendment privileges only to those religions that Congress deems "acceptable"?

      If you accept a restriction on the Second Amendment, it may well set precedent for adopting similarly intrusive restrictions on other rights you hold near and dear - be careful what you wish for.

      Fortunately, we are in the infancy of Second Amendment jurisprudence - perhaps around where Civil Rights jurisprudence was prior to Brown. In fifty years, if the Second Amendment is not repealed, I think we will look back at the current level of interference in the RKBA much as we look at segregation today.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (143)
  • Community (68)
  • Media (33)
  • Elections (33)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (31)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Environment (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Culture (27)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Climate Change (22)
  • Science (22)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Labor (21)
  • Marriage Equality (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site