Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun-sales background check bill needs all Democratic senators on board. Four are still hold-outs (180 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I wouldn't call people (0+ / 0-)

    who are subject to restraining orders quite innocent.  Nor crazy people, who my be innocent in a legal sense but not in the sense of needing protection from us rather than vice versa.  In terms of rights, and playing on Heller's artificially narrow turf, I think the process by which guns are confiscated has to respect the 5th amendment property interest, but we have forfeiture proceedings already.  There is no second amendment right to keep military weapons, per Heller, and I'd venture no second amendment right to keep arms without bearing them.  It's keep and bear arms, not keep or bear arms, speaking of illiterate. And the amendment itself says the interest to be protected is the security of the free state.  The first clause isn't just about the militia, and the militia makes a cameo in the second clause.

    Oh, and what's the polling on background checks?  That's the issue.  That's what Coburn is objecting to, a mechanism to make them effective. I simply say what's a bug is actually possibly a feature.  People who stockpile assault rifles and ammunition and indulge fantasies of the federal government simultaneously being unable to keep order and suppress them are fellow citizens only in the most narrow, legal sense.  That's a "right" you enjoy only by virtue of the federal negligence you cynically wish to perpetuate.  (It's a vicious cycle where the more the more gun crime, the more guns, and therefore the more gun crime.  Crime goes up, we need more guns.  crime goes down, its because of all those guns.  its like republicans and tax cuts.)  Your transparent attempts to derail that fact don't alter anything.  Focus on the criminal?  When, and how?  Your answer is better the criminal commit his crimes than you should be minorly inconvenienced -- suggests the real objection is just the standard anti-government paranoia (any background check is presumptively bad) behind the gun purchase in the first place,  and that's why I think the gun nuts are basically illiberal and thus not credible when they claim to tell Democrats how to govern as if you share our best interests.

    Also, hunters, single-action rifles, I don't give a shit; and I think those guns actually are constitutionally protected -- by the 9th amendment.  The right is also properly limited and regulated so long as the guns are in interstate commerce.  It's a handgun problem and an assault weapon problem, the very guns that are not part of the hoary "passed down tradition."  So, lets be clear about who I disdain.  It's not the gun owners who agree with me about background checks and the AWB.  It's you.

    Oh, and only a total fucking moron could look at that chart and conclude the crime problem isn't a gun problem.  Firearms are roughly 10x anything else, and the crimes committed with assault rifles are the most horrific and the most avoidable, by the very things I suggested and which most NRA members, even support.  That's why I don't think you guys have credibility - unique combinations of the inability to understand legal texts (rule of thumb: the better interpretations are the ones that use all the words and don't make the founders into rigid sadists) and simple charts.  

    Got you mixed up with the other poster, though I know you travel in packs. Sue me.  And it would be "who" is illiterate, not "whom."

    I do respect your first amendment rights to advocate for conditions making the next mass shooting an inevitability. And for that reason, countries with both speech rights and limits on the practical ability to slaughter each other are freer than America.  

    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

    by Loge on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 09:12:06 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site