Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun Control Works So Well (228 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  One type? Exactly what type are you planning to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankRose

    ban while still allowing a few hundred other types?

    And unless there is something special and unique about just this one type of gun, why bother banning it?  But if there is something special and unique about it then how can you claim that there is no infringement just because you do not ban all the others?

    •  Ok, how about this then (0+ / 0-)

      The if the Founding Father intended guns, then we collect all the guns and hand out brand new muskets for everyone, as many as you would like. That was their frame of reference that is what you get. The gun manufacturers get to make lots of new toys and you get all the muskets you want. I am good with that.
      Peace and Blessings!

      United we the people stand, divided we the people fall.

      by Penny GC on Wed May 08, 2013 at 09:34:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right. Because freedom of religion only applied (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        andalusi, Sitting Jack Flash

        to religions that the Founders were familiar with.

        Freedom of the press only applied to those presses in use back in the day.

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Wed May 08, 2013 at 09:41:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, see how easy it is to throw strawmen around (0+ / 0-)

          They bounce so easily from topic to topic.

          United we the people stand, divided we the people fall.

          by Penny GC on Wed May 08, 2013 at 09:58:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The topic is constitutionally enshrined rights. (0+ / 0-)

            Bouncing?

            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

            by KVoimakas on Wed May 08, 2013 at 10:16:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You do not have a constitutionaly enshrined right (0+ / 0-)

              to own a gun, they haven't figured out where to put it with birth, just like the parenting manual...

              United we the people stand, divided we the people fall.

              by Penny GC on Wed May 08, 2013 at 10:47:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  See: second amendment. (3+ / 0-)

                Constitutionally enshrined right to keep and bear arms.

                Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                by KVoimakas on Wed May 08, 2013 at 10:52:38 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  For a well regulated militia which was replaced (0+ / 0-)

                  with the military after the civil war.

                  United we the people stand, divided we the people fall.

                  by Penny GC on Wed May 08, 2013 at 11:47:32 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And I think the right to (0+ / 0-)

                    life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is first to owning guns and a little hard to do with being shot...

                    United we the people stand, divided we the people fall.

                    by Penny GC on Wed May 08, 2013 at 11:50:02 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  The right of the people to keep and bear arms (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Sitting Jack Flash, FrankRose

                    shall not be infringed.

                    The well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

                    The prefatory part of the second explains why there is an individual right to keep and bear arms. We might've moved on to the National Guard (organized militia) but we did not remove the unorganized militia (see US Code).

                    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                    by KVoimakas on Wed May 08, 2013 at 01:34:27 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Your opinion and mine: both do not matter (3+ / 0-)

                    At least so far as the law of the land is concerned. The Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment as an individual right, not one belonging only to members of a militia (which most men in the United States belong to anyway).

                    You may argue that their interpretation is wrong, that this wasn't what the writers of the Constitution meant, or that the definitions or placement of commas mandate a certain reading. And certainly you can (and should!) discuss the limits to place upon individual ownership or use of firearms.

                    But what you cannot argue---at least, not without departing from reality---is the plain fact that as of this moment, people in the United States do have a right to firearms. That is the what SCOTUS decided the Second Amendment safeguards and until and unless the ruling is overturned, that is how the law will and must treat the Second Amendment as meaning.

                  •  Militia Act. The Militia was all able bodied men (0+ / 0-)

                    And it's pretty clear from both context and history that "regulated" in the Second Amendment means being able to show up armed and knowing how to use their weapons - regulations as we conceive of them today pretty much did not exist back then.

                    •  well regulated = well trained. (0+ / 0-)

                      So where's the training requirement?  ANY training requirement, even the most basic safety knowledge so idiots don't let their kids play with weapons and kill other kids.  The NRA is even against this!

                      Most people are not talking banning guns.  A few people are, but the vast majority in the center are only in favor of common sense regulations.  All but one of the proposed pieces of legislation went no-where close to banning guns, and the one exception talked about a few specific assault rifles (not banning all guns).  No, I am not interested in getting to a dumb game of defining "assault rifle".  Most of the proposed laws that were filibustered were about background checks (not banning), stopping mentally ill people from buying guns (not banning), closing the gun show loophole (not banning), and stopping strawman purchases to stop guns being bought in large quantities in lax states for sale to criminals in strict gun law states (again, not freaking banning).  So quit the game of but but Second Amendment and freeeeedom.  The Heller case which broke new ground in reinterpreting the "personal right" ALSO stated that gun regulations were allowed.  It's not an unlimited right for anyone to buy any weapon and carry it anywhere.

      •  Good idea - can do the same with the 1st Amendment (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas

        So people have free speech as long as they do not use electronic bullhorns, typewriters, electronic media, the Internet, or any kind of printing technology that did not exist at the time of ratification of the Bill of Rights.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site