Skip to main content

View Diary: Guns Are Property, Not Liberty (114 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thank you for your diary. I have been exploring (4+ / 0-)

    the word keep.

    RkBAers say that it means keep by the door at the ready. I think it means keep in your possession out of the wrong hands and keep as in don't shoot it by accident.

    Could you talk about that?

    Validate my parking Validate my parenting Validate my politics Validate my religion And I will be happy.

    by 88kathy on Fri May 03, 2013 at 09:31:38 AM PDT

    •  "keeping house" is to take care of (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      88kathy, Catte Nappe, ColoTim, 417els, fumie

      a household. Presumably, keeping arms has a similar meaning.

      We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

      by hannah on Fri May 03, 2013 at 09:51:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I only hear about the bear never about the keep. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ichibon, ColoTim, 417els

        In fact when toters fail to keep they say oopsie, silly me and push the re-set button. All is well.

        Validate my parking Validate my parenting Validate my politics Validate my religion And I will be happy.

        by 88kathy on Fri May 03, 2013 at 10:10:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's "Right To Keep", not "Right To Keep Away". (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          noway2, notrouble, nextstep

          That's where the wheels fall off of your argument.

          It's "Right To Keep", not "Obligation To Lock Away".

          It's the right to keep that is enunciated. It's our cultural mood that adds some varying amount of obligation to secure the gun onto that Right. In places where there is a reasonable expectation that a person who doesn't know any better could get hands on a gun - in those places our cultural mood adds an obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent that - and that cultural mood places such an obligation into the law books. But even then it must still be noted that the obligation is added onto the enunciated Right, and cannot negate that Right.

          That's Heller, where the scotus killed the district of columbia's requirement that guns in the home be stored in such a manner as to be useless for the purposes of the Right To Keep.

          In other areas of the country, with other cultural moods, such "keep away" ideas are not held, and thus do not make it into the law books.

          Since I do not typically have children or other impulse-prone people in my home, I keep my arms however I want. Most are locked up, some are not. The pieces to an actual weapon of war - a rifle that actually is military issue - sit in a box next to the desk while the stock needs some work. I feel no need to play "Right To Keep Away" with it, I am "Keeping" it as I please.

          So what you should do is mentally separate the "Right to keep" from the argument that you have put forth that is more accurately described as "Obligation To Keep Away".


          •  "Other impulse-prone people" - we are all (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hannah, 417els, fumie

            impulse prone, some more than others.

          •  Doesn't your argument make the 2nd Amdt. absolute? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ord avg guy

            If so, Jay, it would be the only absolute Amendment.

            Not even the most conservative member of this most conservative court in decades has ruled so broadly. (Hugo Black was the last basic absolutist, and his "'No law' means no law" interpretation was not the law of the land.)

            You write: "But even then it must still be noted that the obligation is added onto the enunciated Right, and cannot negate that Right." What? Shouting fire in a crowded theatre negates the right to free speech, as do an array of conditions and limitations on other aspects of free speech, not to mention other parts of the Bill of rights. Our "cultural mood" can indeed "negate" a constitutional protection, as it has for a long time.

            Putting constitutional law aside, would you agree that "keeping" your military issue weapon in an open box on your open front porch in Philly would be a bad idea? That local law might reasonably prohibit that?

            2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

            by TRPChicago on Sat May 04, 2013 at 01:08:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  From Webster's 1828, for as close a cite (17+ / 0-)

      to Constitutional language as you're going to get. Only included the transitive form, as that's the version used in the 2nd. Likely relevant usages bolded.


      v.t. pret. and pp. kept. [L. habeo, and capio.]

      1. To hold; to retain in one's power or possession; not to lose or part with; as, to keep a house or a farm; to keep any thing in the memory, mind or heart.
      2. To have in custody for security or preservation.

      The crown of Stephanus, first king of Hungary,was always kept in the castle of Vicegrade.
      3. To preserve; to retain.
      The Lord God, merciful and gracious, keeping mercy for thousands--Ex.34.
      4. To preserve from falling or from danger; to protect; to guard or sustain.
      And behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee. Gen.28. Luke 4.
      5. To hold or restrain from departure; to detain.
      --That I may know what keeps me here with you.
      6. To tend; to have the care of.
      And the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden, to dress it and to keep it. Gen.2.
      7. To tend; to feed; to pasture; as, to keep a flock of sheep or a herd of cattle in a yard or in a field. He keeps his horses on oats or on hay.
      8. To preserve in any tenor or state. Keep a stiff rein.
      Keep the constitution sound.
      9. To regard; to attend to.
      While the stars and course of heaven I keep--
      10. To hold in any state; as, to keep in order.
      11. To continue any state, course or action; as, to keep silence; to keep the same road or the same pace; to keep reading or talking; to keep a given distance.
      12. To practice; to do or perform; to obey; to observe in practice; not to neglect or violate; as, to keep the laws, statutes or commandments of God.
      13. To fulfill; to perform; as, to keep one's word,promise or covenant.
      14. To practice; to use habitually; as, to keep bad hours.
      15. To copy carefully.
      Her servant's eyes were fix'd upon her face,
      And as she moved or turned,her motions viewed,
      Her measures kept, and step by step pursued.
      16. To observe or solemnize.
      17. To board; to maintain; to supply with necessaries of life. The men are kept at a moderate price per week.
      18. To have in the house; to entertain; as, to keep lodgers.
      19. To maintain; not to intermit; as, to keep watch or guard.
      20. To hold in one's own bosom; to confine to one's own knowledge; not to disclose or communicate to others; not to betray; as, to keep a secret; to keep one's own counsel.
      21. To have in pay; as, to keep a servant.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Fri May 03, 2013 at 10:03:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  2nd Amend. guarantees the right to keep and bear (0+ / 0-)

      arms - not acquire them.

      The diarist starts from the wrong premise with this thought game.  While there should be no infringement to keep arms, there is no guarantee to having them in the first place.

      To address your concern, the word "keep" simply means to possess - the word does not need to go beyond that meaning.

      •  In that case, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ord avg guy

        background checks and discrete weapons sales restrictions don't violate the Second Amendment. As the diary explicitly acknowledges:

        Of course the experiment fails if (1) and (2) are not actually infringements of the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, because the premise that gun prices infringe is dependent upon the premise that background checks and discrete weapons restrictions infringe for the reasons stated.
        I guess you skipped over these parts too:
        One of the problems with a thought experiment like this is that sometimes readers confuse a thought experiment -- or the description of a thought experiment ... -- with a declaration of one's actual position or beliefs.


        The purpose is to think through, explore, and understand why they're not, by finding a principled distinction ... in order to deepen understanding of exactly what the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is, and isn't. Knowing that [impediments and limits to gun purchases] are not infringements is one thing; understanding why they're not ... is something else. Thinking they're not for the wrong reason is of no greater utility than thinking they are.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site