Skip to main content

View Diary: Frank Rich "State-Sponsored Terrorism!" (197 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, no ... but, "same as guns" -- they COULD !! (0+ / 0-)

    If they wanted to .  It. Could. Happen.  The British did in Ireland during the Troubles ... confiscate motor vehicles, that is --  as well as non-sporting firearms.

    But here and now there aren't any politicians actually CALLING for confiscation of arms already in the hands of citizens ...  Not that I know of.  Can you name one who IS ?

    What IS being called for ... fecklessly, in my opinion ... is treating the Modern Sporting Rifle   (aka Ugly Gun) much as we already treat automatic weapons,  weapons with explosive or incendiary ammunition  or weapons with greater that .50 projectiles.

    And let's be serious:  if there WAS  Gubberment plot  to Grab De Gunz ...  the starting place would the sporting goods shops and hunt clubs.

    •  Feinstein has said if she could gather the votes, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose

      she'd ban ALL of them.

      •  The B-tch ! (0+ / 0-)

        Considering the source, I think I'd like to see the exact quotation ... maybe a link to the full text.

        Because it really IS pretty obvious ... the outright "banning" of guns ... outlawing their possession ... as opposed to regulating their manufacture and sale of them ... WOULD require a Constitutional Amendment.

        And based on the experience of the Equal Rights Amendment (not to mention the "Money Isn't Speech, Corporations Aren't People" Amendment) -- doesn't "Let's Amend the Constitution"  translate as "Let's Pound Sand and Spin Wheels ?"

    •  Yes there is. The same Senator that introduced (0+ / 0-)

      the Assault Weapons BAN to the Senate for a vote as a matter if fact:

      "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it"--Dianne Feinstein

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 04:14:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you. You're right. She did, didn't she ? (0+ / 0-)

        And that was an exceptionally stupid thing for her to say ... especially if "em" was supposed to mean  "ALL firearms."

        As we know, 51  votes in the Senate won't even pass a law ...  (filibuster, and all that).

         What would be needed would have been a 2/3 vote in both the House and the  Senate and 3/4's of the State Legislatures concurring.

        Could Sen Feinstein have forgotten her High School Civics so completely ?

        Or was she just letting her feelings about mass murder put her mouth into motor mode ?

        •  Pure speculation: (0+ / 0-)

          I think Dianne Feinstein is simply an authoritarian with an authoritarian mindset.
          After all, she had a CCW permit & concealed firearm in the late seventies.
          She seems to have a very "some are more equal than others" mindset.

          Although it is correct that confiscating all firearms isn't going to pass (nor be constitutional), it is the end game for many gun controllers. In fact, here on DKOS there is a group called "Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment".
          If they are willing to ban a firearm that is used in murders less than half as often than even bare hands are used (and six times less than knives), they would be willing to ban even more.....as Feinstein articulated.

          It's a difficult sell to try and argue that they don't want to ban guns during a time when a gun ban is proposed.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 04:46:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What this all tells me is: Dialog (0+ / 0-)

            with Gunners is next-to-impossible --

            Compromise and Concession are pretty pointless ... all it does is weaken your position -- and there will be no reciprocal accommodation.

            I guess that's why President Obama WILL try to negotiate with Vladimir Putin and not with House Republicans. He knows the difference between "unlikely" and "hopeless."

            Similarly: Gunners ...  you can't negotiate with the "One Way, My Way" kind of guy.

            But, just remember:  Anton Scalia can't live forever.

            As of now there  IS an near-absolute and individual right to keep and bear arms  (local government permitting). However, there is NO equivalent constitutional right to manufacture or SELL firearms.

            And THAT's why eventually, ...  and for much the same reasons ...  we'll get the same sort of de facto ban on ugly guns and large magazines that we now have on switchblade knives.  (Local law permitting you can manufacture or own them all you like ... "introducing  (them)  "into interstate commerce" is a whole other kettle of fish.

            There's no reason you  can't hunt deer and bear with bows, knives and bare hands -- like the First Americans did.

             

            •  There's also no reason why one can't hunt with a (0+ / 0-)

              gun.

              Despite........whatever that post is, guns are a Right & hunting with firearms is legal.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 09:36:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (148)
  • Community (70)
  • Memorial Day (29)
  • Civil Rights (27)
  • Elections (27)
  • Culture (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Media (26)
  • Science (24)
  • Law (24)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (23)
  • Labor (22)
  • Economy (20)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Marriage Equality (18)
  • Republicans (18)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Education (17)
  • Climate Change (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site