Skip to main content

View Diary: Jon Stewart blasts Republicans over gun hypocrisy and the Constitution (27 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  re: Read History (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    True enough, but that militia was to be equipped with the standard military arms of the time and consisted of every able bodied male between age 17 and 60 (ages varied with each militia act).
    In essence, the majority of the male populace.

    Thankfully, we don't quite do that today, as the militia was split in 1903 into the National Guard and every able bodied mail between age 18 and 45, as well as prior service men to age 60 and later, women in the National Guard.
    Today, those who can afford the additional cost, the $200 tax stamp and pass an SSBI can acquire military arms within some modest limitations (WMD's are forbidden, but artillery isn't).

    Still, this multiple firearm owner would not object to restricting firearms derived from military service rifles and pistols whose magazine protrudes more than one inch below the edge of the magazine well under a new class, with lower requirements under the NFA.
    Something along the lines of requiring a NACLC for acquisition of such arms.
    Wouldn't have helped with the Navy Yard massacre, but it'd have stopped Sandy Hook Elementary in its tracks.
    We also have to fix our horrifically and embarrassingly broken mental health care system.

    •  Couple of points. (0+ / 0-)

      First of all, I tend to agree that the language of the Second Amendment doesn't lend itself easily to the current interpretation of an individual right.

      Secondly, the Amendment needs to be seen in the context of the times. You had muskets which took some time to reload, not assault weapons with expanded mags and high-velocity rounds that kill even with normally non-lethal hits. As already pointed out, it was a concession to southern states for control of slave populations. Also, back then, people used guns to protect themselves from wild animals, marauders and Native Americans, as well as to provide food for their families. Today, we have police, the National Guard and the world's most powerful military. We need no longer rely on firearms to provide food. While one could argue that guns can help protect people from crime and even deter it, the sheer amount of guns in our society and the ease in obtaining them actually makes us all less safe in the end. I'm not opposed to sportsmen having firearms specifically for that purpose, provided they passed a rigorous background check. And for a start, I would be satisfied with just reasonable gun control legislation that is consistent on the national level.

      Finally, I see our Constitution as a living document, not a rigid, inflexible structure we are doomed to live by forever. If the latter, we would still have slavery and women wouldn't have the right to vote. Times change, and it is the core principles of equality and human and civil rights that will always withstand the test of time, not some superfluous, out-dated "right" to bear arms.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site