Skip to main content

View Diary: I don't give a flying f*@k about your "right" to keep and bear arms. (333 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Or amend it to say that (10+ / 0-)

    you have the right to keep and bear arms WHILE SERVING IN A MILITARY UNIT (I don't want to say Militia because toomany kooks would say their "militia" is covered."  It clarifies the original meaning and actually lets these dumbasses know they should grab a musket and get down the village green for training.  

    The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion. Molly Ivins

    by MufsMom on Tue Jun 10, 2014 at 11:25:06 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  That might work. Still, why have it at all? (12+ / 0-)

      We're just one of two nations that do.

      We don't have set aside rights to own or buy Ipads, HDTVs, houses, food, water, etc. etc.

      Why pick deadly pieces of metal, out of all the consumer goods possible?

      The founders would have been far better off guaranteeing access to safe food, clean water, a healthy environment, shelter, quality education and healthcare instead.

      That would have been the sane, humane thing to guarantee. Not the right to own deadly pieces of metal.

      •  I agree, but I don't think we could (15+ / 0-)

        repeal it completely.  I'd like to be proven wrong, but given that 20 dead babies did not even get us background checks, I am not hopeful.

        The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion. Molly Ivins

        by MufsMom on Tue Jun 10, 2014 at 11:31:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        caul
        The founders would have been far better off guaranteeing access to safe food, clean water, a healthy environment, shelter, quality education and healthcare instead.
        I believe that's covered under "general welfare", for all the good it's done us. That's part of the Constitution, too.

        "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

        by sidnora on Wed Jun 11, 2014 at 05:06:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  True. But they should have spelled it out. (0+ / 0-)

          They left so many things all too vague in the Constitution. And that vagueness helps spawn major divisions in our society.

          I think real scrutiny over our "founding documents" tells us they fucked it up pretty badly, but we're not supposed to say that. It's not "politically correct."

          •  I don't agree. (0+ / 0-)

            I understand where you're going with that, but I think the vagueness you bemoan is its strength. Scalia and his ilk aside, that vagueness has functioned as flexibility most of the time, allowing it to be modified and modernized as the times have required.

            I'm not saying it's always worked perfectly - there was that thing with Prohibition - but generally the Constitution's improvements have really been, well, improvements, things that extended the franchise or that made the government more responsive to the people.

            "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

            by sidnora on Wed Jun 11, 2014 at 07:26:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  why would such an amendment be necessary? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Heart of the Rockies

      Obviously people who Congress wants to arm don't need an amendment preventing Congress from disarming them.

      222 house republicans support the Ryan budget that would convert Medicare to a premium-support program. In other words, they want to repeal Medicare and replace it with a system that works just like Obamacare.

      by happymisanthropy on Tue Jun 10, 2014 at 12:45:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The premise of the Second Amendment was to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        diomedes77

        establish a National Defense, relying on the military force that could be trusted not to be a threat to gov't.

        It secured the right of the state -- gov't -- to keep its well regulated militia, which it had already all along had, against infringement by the Federal gov't.

        It also more firmly established the Congress' control of the state's militia within the state.

        And SUBSEQUENT to ratification of the Amendment, Congress enacted a lengthy series of Militia Acts, regulating the SUBJECT of the Second Amendment:

        Well regulated militia.

        This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

        by JJustin on Wed Jun 11, 2014 at 06:13:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Right to Self Defense (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sacrelicious, drmah, diomedes77

      Repeal and replace with:

      The right of the people to self defense shall not be infringed, except by due process of law.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Tue Jun 10, 2014 at 01:59:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We need to stop capitulating to the lie that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        diomedes77

        "people" is spelled "individual".

        We need to stop capitulating to the lie that the Second Amendment not only protects an "individual" "right," but also prohibits regulation of whatever "rights" are said to be "protected" by the Amendment.

        The subject of the Amendment is well regulated militia.  A militia is not an imdividual.

        This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

        by JJustin on Wed Jun 11, 2014 at 06:15:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Militia Argument (0+ / 0-)

          The reason the militia is tied to the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms is that the militia was expected not to be armed by the state. The people in the militia were expected to bring their own weapons. The militia was expected to draw on demand in emergencies from the people, apart from the army and navy which the state would arm.

          The militia argument is actually a sound one, if the Constitution of 1789 is considered in a partial vacuum: also selectively including the surrounding debate that makes the "bring your own" rationale clear, but excluding the parts of that debate that demonstrate they're posses for suppressing slave rebellions and encroaching further on tribes despite treaties.

          The reason the militia argument is wrong is that its premise is proven wrong by history. A BYOG militia hasn't been used for centuries, yet states have remained free despite many challenges including invasion (1812) and attack (2001). Further, our governments (at various levels) have turned to tyrannies multiple times in our history, yet the people have never come close to using their own guns in militias, whether government militias as the Constitution describes or private ones as have always been maintained.

          In fact, the people keeping and bearing arms - especially those active in militias, but even those unorganized and 2nd Amendment fundamendalists - are always on the side of tyranny. The Civil War was fought by traitors their confederacy of traitors didn't have to arm: well regulated militias protected their slaveowning states in vast and existential insurrection against the Constitutional government.

          Of course, these are precisely the reasons gun fetishists insist on their guns. They identify with the slaveowners, with the tyrants. Many want the puny power to shoot someone, because they have lost most other power in our society by backing the tyrants. And their corporate sponsors like nothing more than that trade.

          The people, whether as individuals or in groups separate from government, have the right to self defense. The specific means are no more a right than an actual printing press is a right - they're privileges that can be controlled to protect other people's rights, so long as the government protects free expression and self defense rather than violating them.

          The Second Amendment is wrong in many ways, as history and current events prove. It's logic is invalid. It's just a cover for violating rights, not protecting them. Such a travesty must be removed from the Constitution, and the actual right to self defense finally enshrined where the government can properly protect it.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Wed Jun 11, 2014 at 06:49:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The state mandated BYOG. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DocGonzo

            That's far from being this right-libertarian vision of loose association and "freedom and liberty for all" nonsense.

            It was a mandate imposed on white males of a certain age BY the government. Subject to legal sanctions if the people did not comply.

            The real purpose of the state-run militias, contrary to that right-libertarian and conservative myth was to suppress rebellion, not enable them.

            The whole SA is nuts, totally unnecessary today and never should have been in the BOR in the first place.

            Guaranteeing access to clean water, safe food supplies, shelter, quality education and health care -- those should have been in the BOR. Not protecting deadly pieces of metal.

            •  I Agree (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              diomedes77

              In fact, you summarized what I posted.

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Wed Jun 11, 2014 at 02:28:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Militia duty was a DUTY, not a right. That means (0+ / 0-)

                the requirement that one own a gun for that purpose -- which is not how the law remained -- was a requirement, not a right.

                All the fuzzy talk about "militia" by gun-nuts is simply another layer of self-justification.  They don't actually know -- or care about -- the actual law.  They are bullshitters.

                This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                by JJustin on Wed Jun 11, 2014 at 04:42:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  You should know better by now, because I've (0+ / 0-)

            substantiated otherwise --

            The reason the militia is tied to the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms is that the militia was expected not to be armed by the state. The people in the militia were expected to bring their own weapons.
            That was true very early in the 17th century foundings of the militia.  

            BUT: if one didn't have a gun, one had to pay a fine.

            Think about it: if you couldn't afford a gun, then could you afford the fine?

            In time, those who couldn't afford a gun were provided them by the gov't.  And in time that was how the militia was armed, a fact I've repeatedly substantiated before now:

            At a General Assembly begun and held at the Public Buildings in the City of Richmond, on Monday the 21st day of October, in the Year of our Lord 1782.

            Chap. XII.  

            An act for the recovery of arms and accoutrements belonging to the state.

            I.  Whereas sundry arms and accoutrements belonging to the public in the hands of individuals, who have neglected to return them to the proper officers; and it is necessary that such arms and accoutrements should be recovered as speedily as possible: Be it enacted, that the Governor do, on the passing of this act, issue his proclamation, enjoining all persons having in their possession any arms or accoutrements whatsoever, belonging to the state, to deliver them without delay to the Lieutenant or commanding officer of the county for the time being; and the sheriff of each county within this commonwealth, shall cause copies of the said proclamations, which shall be transmitted to him by the Executive, to be fixed up in the most public places in his county, and if after one month from such public notice having been given, any person possessing any such public arms or accoutrements, shall be convicted of having failed to deliver them up as aforesaid, such person shall, upon every such conviction, be liable to the penalty of twenty pounds, to be recovered by action of debt, bill, plaint, or information, in any court of record within this commonwealth, one half of which penalty shall go to the informer, on conviction of the offender, and the other half shall be applied in aid of the county levy where such offender shall reside.  And the Lieutenant, or commanding officer of each county, shall make returns from time to time, to the Executive, of all arms and accoutrements so delivered to him, and also deliver them to the order of the Executive, under the penalty, if he fail in all or any part of his duty, of fifty pounds, to be recovered as aforesaid, and applied in diminution of the county levy.  Provided always, that where muskets and bayonets have been by order of government placed in any county on eastern or western frontier for defence against incursions of the enemy, it shall be lawful for the Lieutenant or commanding officer to return such muskets and bayonets to the militia, taking a receipt from each person for what shall be so returned.

            A Collection of All Such Public Acts of the General Assembly, and Ordinances of the Conventions of Virginia, Passed since the year 1768, as are now in force; With a Table of the Principal Matters (Richmond: Thomas Nicolson and William Prentis, 1785); The First Laws of the State of Virginia (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, Inc., "The First Laws of the Original Thirteen States," 1982), Compiled by John D. Cushing, at 176.

            Then came the Constitution, in which are four (counting the Second Amendment) Militia Clauses.  The second Militia Clause reads, in relevant part:

            Art. I., C. 8., c. 16.  The Congress shall have Power To provide for . . . ARMING . . . the Militia.
            And as Constitutional provisions are implemented by means of regulations called statutes --
            Chap. LXV.--An Act providing Arms for the Militia throughout the United States.

              Section 1.  Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be provided, at the charge and expense of the government of the United States, thirty thousand stand of arms, which shall be deposited by order of the President of the United States, at suitable places, for the purpose of being sold to the governments of the respective States, or the militia thereof, under such regulations, and at such prices as the President of the United States shall prescribe.
              Sec. 2.  And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby authorized to cause all or any part of the arms herein directed to be provided and deposited for sale, which shall, at any time, remain unsold, to be delivered to the militia, when called into the service of the United States, proper receipts and security being given for the return of the same.
              Sec. 3.  And be it further enacted, That the monies arising from such sales shall be paid into the treasury of the United States, and the amount received shall be annually reported to Congress.
              Sec. 4.  And be it further enacted, That for the purpose of carrying this act into effect, the President of the United States shall be, and he is hereby authorized to draw from the treasury of the United States, a [577] sum not exceeding four hundred thousand dollars, to be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.
              Approved, July 6, 1798.

            The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, from the Organization of the Government in 1789, to March 3, 1845., Vol I. (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1850), By Authority of Congress, Edited by Richard Peters, at 576.

            And this:

            Chap. XLII.--An Act authorizing the sale of public Arms.

              Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby authorized to cause to be sold to individual states, which may wish to purchase, any arms now owned by the United States, and which may be parted with without injury to the public: Accounts of such sales shall be laid before Congress, and the money arising therefrom be, and the same is hereby appropriated, under the direction of the President of the United States, to the purchase or manufacture of other arms for the use of the United States: Provided, that such arms be not delivered to any state or their agents until the payment of the purchase money be first made into the treasury of the United States, in money or in the stock of the United States, at its value, as established by an act, intituled, "An act to repeal so much of any act or acts as authorize the receipt of evidences of the public debt, in payment for the lands of the United States, and for other purposes relative to the public debt."  Provided also, that this provision shall not extend to any purchase, not exceeding five thousand stand of arms, which shall be made by a state to which the United States by existing engagements are bound to pay a sum of money, equal to the amount of such purchase.
              Approved, April 2, 1808.

            The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, From the Organization of the Government in 1789, to March 3, 1845, Vol. II. (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1845), By Authority of Congress, Edited by Richard Peters, at 481.

            In short, militia law, including how the militia would be armed, evolved.

            This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

            by JJustin on Wed Jun 11, 2014 at 04:40:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I Should Know Better By Now? (0+ / 0-)

              Why are you being obnoxious when you're agreeing with me? Or even if you weren't?

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 08:57:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Did you emphasize that one was required to (0+ / 0-)

                provide one's own gun for militia service?

                If one isn't careful how one deals with that fact one can readily be mistaken for supporting that which isn't true:

                that an obligation, a requirement, imposed by law, is not a "right".  That one was required -- at the very beginnings of the colonies -- to have a gun for militia purposes was not a right.

                Obnxious?  I realize that my provision of substantiation of the facts I state is troublesome for some; but I don't think it qualifies as being "obnxious," else we'd be demanding that those who make statements of alleged fact without backing them up please be obnxious.

                Rather, I think statements of alleged "facts" without backing them up is being obnoxious.

                This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                by JJustin on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 09:24:09 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (137)
  • Community (59)
  • Elections (39)
  • Civil Rights (36)
  • Culture (32)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Law (27)
  • Economy (26)
  • Texas (26)
  • Baltimore (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Bernie Sanders (23)
  • Labor (23)
  • Hillary Clinton (22)
  • Republicans (18)
  • Health Care (18)
  • Barack Obama (17)
  • International (17)
  • Rescued (17)
  • Freddie Gray (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site