Skip to main content

View Diary: Colorado town officials prepare to quit en masse after council votes for guns in hearings (291 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Speaking as a licensed gun owner (4+ / 0-)

    in a highly restrictive Northeastern state, it strikes me that the free-for-all gun crazies view the Second Amendment (out of focus, through the bottoms of their beer bottles) as the ONE 'free pass' for dolts that exempts them from even the most rational, socially responsible regulation of dangerous weapons... the kind of regulation they accept without protest when it concerns their right to drive a ton-and-a-half mobile 'weapon' on public streets and highways.

    There's a male-inadequacy thing operating just beneath the surface (including female gun crazies), their one perceived shot at playing cowboy, without credentials and with abandon, that shot guaranteed — in their selective, edited interpretation of the Second — by the Founding Fathers themselves.

    •  Driving is not a right (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose, Crookshanks, CarlosJ

      Driving is not a right.  It is a privlege.  Something to be earned.  The 2A is a right, and in America, something you are born with.

      •  ... and that's my POINT! (3+ / 0-)

        When viewed through clear eyes — and weighing the potential consequences and danger to society (seen the statistics lately?) — gun ownership SHOULD be a privilege.

        Don't let yourself get hung up on the first HALF of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

        Y'know, written back in the day when they had NO organized military and NO H&Ks with 15-round magazines.

        •  And dog shit (0+ / 0-)

          Should taste like pate' too, but it doesn't.

        •  The right to effective self-defense predates (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CarlosJ, KVoimakas, FrankRose

          the 2nd Amendment, and is not dependent upon it.

          There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

          by Crookshanks on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:41:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  By all means, (0+ / 0-)

            defend yourself! Just stand up (as I did), submit to a background check and register the handguns you'd be using, should that remote circumstance arise.

            ... Y'know, so the REST of us have some assurance that you're not an armed head case.

            •  To carry my gun anywhere but my home... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas, Crookshanks, FrankRose

              To legally take a loaded gun outside my own property or a shooting range I submitted to a background check by my state bureau of investigations (TBI), got finger printed, and attended an 8 hour in person training class.

              •  Since the 'TBI' (0+ / 0-)

                didn't "[predate] the 2nd Amendment" — as you initially asserted concerning 'self-defense' — it appears you and I don't have an issue.

                Refer to my original comment regarding the armed yahoos presently walking the streets who haven't stood up as we have.

                •  Because some reasonable restrictions are allowed (0+ / 0-)

                  Reasonable Time and place restrictions on firearms are a constitutionally allowed limit on my human right to self defense. I accept some restriction for the public good as a condition for receiving the benefits of living in this society.

                  It comes back to the premise, which I believe is correct (along with virtually every constitutional scholar) that the US constitution does not grant me any rights. My rights are not the federal (or state) government's to grant. The constitution explicitly states certain rights the government may or may not infringe. Any right not specifically addressed is assumed to be mine.

                  We have determined over a couple of hundred years of court cases that certain minor infringements like requiring a process to certify I have not lost my rights by a due process conviction for a crime or involuntary hospitalization is acceptable. Not allowing me to own or keep firearms in my home, or providing me no mechanism to be able to carry one on my person if I feel I need to are not.

                  •  Since you opened that door... (0+ / 0-)

                    The "mechanism to be able to carry [a gun] on my person if I feel I need to" is exactly what we're discussing... background checks and LICENSING!

                    At the risk of belaboring my point, "armed yahoos presently walking the streets who haven't" submitted to reasonable 'carry' licensing pose a threat to ALL of us, and they act on that threat every day!

                    ... and I would remind you that the revered Constitution is subject to amendment27 of them, so far — including abolition of slavery, Prohibition and its repeal, Presidential term limit, abolition of poll taxes and suffrage for 18-year-olds.

                    How many of them do you consider 'over the top', illegitimate and an infringement on your rights?

                    As a licensed owner of registered handguns (both of which I consider my protection if one or more are stolen and subsequently used in a crime) — and, in my present circumstances, don't even qualify for 'concealed carry' — I don't want assholes with manhood or anger issues running the streets with unlicensed semiautomatics, any more than I do those same assholes sneaking around with radioactive dirty bombs or chemical weapons.

                    If you do, which of us is crazy?

            •  I don't have an issue with background checks (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas, FrankRose

              for concealed carry, along with reasonable training requirements, provided that the criteria for approval are plainly spelled out, not left to the whim of a local official who will let his politics (pro or anti) enter the decision making process.

              Registration is a non-starter for me, for reasons I'm not going to dwell on here, because I doubt we'll see eye to eye on them.

              There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

              by Crookshanks on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 12:22:30 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Rights vs. Means (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber, Oh Mary Oh

        There is a constitutional right to travel, but owning cars and driving are privileges.

        There is a constitutional right to self-defense but owning guns and carrying them in public are privileges.

        Mandatory Gun Insurance would provide for victims, encourage safety and not be an excessive burden on gun owners. How to do it at Gun Insurance Blog. I also make posts at Huffington as Tom Harvey.

        by guninsuranceblog on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 04:31:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Many would say there is a constitutional right to, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose, CarlosJ

          if not "own" a gun, then at least to "keep" a gun and "carry" a gun-- at least that's how "bear arms" might well be interpreted.

          That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

          by concernedamerican on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 05:00:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Crookshanks, CarlosJ

          Keep and bear = posess and carry.  That's the right.  The subsequent court infringements have unconstitutionally transformed this right into a privlege.

          •  I agree it means this, BUT (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber

            That was written almost 230 years ago. A few things have changed since then and law has changed with them. Unfortunately, the founders saw fit to enshrine this bit of law as a Constitutional right, which makes it impossible to amend in the modern era.

            I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. - Susan B. Anthony

            by pajoly on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 06:51:12 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Wonderful isn't it? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Crookshanks, Angryallen, FrankRose

              You really don't get that was EXACTLY their intent...
              The winds of politics and public opinion blow this way and that way. They gust and die down. The system is structured so that a vast majority of people have to want a change for a prolonged period of time before it comes to pass.

              •  Perhaps. Too bad we have to endure thousands (0+ / 0-)

                of senseless deaths until that MIGHT occur. Check out this graph that provides the public's answer to the following question: "Do you think there should or should not be a ban on the possession of handguns, except by the police or other authorized persons?"

                In 1959, fully 60% of Americans polled thought there SHOULD be such a ban. That number has steadily fallen over the decades to the 2011 number of 26% and still falling.


                So the 50+ plus year trend in a massive swing against strict gun control. I'd argue it even goes back further, since in the late 1800s the AGs in bright red states like Texas and Tennessee were PRO gun control.

                In other words, what you think is a good thing I'd argue is not so great. At a rough pace of 30k deaths per year due to handguns (1999-2010 at least ), we've suffered surely over 1 million deaths in the U.S. while watching support for strict gun control crater.

                No, I doubt the founders would have wanted that result. That's not a deliberate system, that's an anemic, failed structure.

                I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. - Susan B. Anthony

                by pajoly on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 08:19:44 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Again... (0+ / 0-)

                  So you really don't get that the support for gun control in red states (like my own Tennessee) in the post civil war 1880's had everything to do with making sure blacks remained disarmed....

                  Your talk about how the attitudes have shifted over time exactly make MY point, not yours. Attitudes change, so the founders made it take a long time to do something we might regret. They wanted us to take plenty of time to be sure we really wanted to change something so fundamental.

              •  Maybe, (0+ / 0-)

                when a "vast majority" of Americans have experienced a family member or close friend shot by some unlicensed, unvetted psych-case, they'll "want a change for a prolonged period of time". Looks like we're in for an extended wait.

                Besides, why bother repairing the leaks in your roof when any fool can see it ain't raining... today.

    •  So you're saying that all females who choose to (0+ / 0-)

      have a different view on their rights than you do must be judged to have male-inadequacy issues?

      I just want to make sure I read that completely degrading and sexist comment correctly.

      •  I'm saying (0+ / 0-)

        that female gun crazies are no different than male gun crazies.

        It's specifically my abiding concern for gender equality that caused me to include that parenthetical.

        Ironic, ain't it?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site