View Story | 48 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
The "regulated" militia -- well or poorly.
The NRA and this diary don't seem to envision any regulation of the training or qualifications of this citizen milita.
by Elwood Dowd on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 03:38:56 PM PDT
It refers to a well-"regulated" militia, but then it says the right of "the people" to bear arms shall not be "infringed." Not "abrogated," not "abolished," but "infringed" -- as in, not fooled around with even a little bit.
As a civil libertarian, I want all ambiguities interpreted in favor of individual liberty. The same interpretive principles applied to the Second Amendment will be applied to the rest of the Bill of Rights. Example: Google "Alberto Gonzales."
-4.25, -4.87 "If the truth were self-evident, there would be no need for eloquence." -- Cicero
by HeyMikey on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 03:44:10 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
It was a federalist point: the national government could not disarms the state militias.
by Elwood Dowd on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 03:45:46 PM PDT
Just as the framers intended, I presume.
Narrow readings on constitutionally protected rights invariable move toward grossly overpowering government, at the expense of personal freedom.
Now we can argue about the meaning of the second amendment all we want, but the fact remains that ignorance is shaping the debate about whether or not to narrow liberty for law-abiding people. That's uncool.
Time flies, whether you're having fun or not.
by Kimberley on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 03:55:33 PM PDT
I'm trying to decide whether you're calling me ignorant -- or just people who have a different view than you in general.
by Elwood Dowd on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 04:41:00 PM PDT
for my inadvertent offense in not making that point clearer.
My point was that the advocacy for further gun restrictions is dominated largely by people using emotional arguments, people that either don't know or understand how thoroughly firearm ownership is already legislated.
by Kimberley on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 04:59:54 PM PDT
are united in their general assumption that people who disagree with them are uninformed, emotional, and not very bright.
by Elwood Dowd on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 05:08:46 PM PDT
But poorly informed. It's not a crime but it's irresponsible to whoop and holler for measures that just keep putting the squeeze exclusively on law-abiding people (in hopes of one day hitting the bottom of the barrel users).
by Kimberley on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 05:41:36 PM PDT
(and I've got more evidence of being informed than on being bright ;-))
You are providing a great example of the ad hominem crap of this group.
And this isn't one of my top ten issues.
You folks might as well be screaming "Abortion Is Murder!"
by Elwood Dowd on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 05:45:50 PM PDT
by Kimberley on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 05:46:30 PM PDT
Originally the entire Bill of Rights applied only to Congress -- that is, not to states or municipalities. For instance, the 1st Amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law . . . ." In a series of post-Civil-War decisions, the Supreme Court held most provisions of the Bill of Rights are effective against states and municipalities via "incorporation" through the 14th Amendment (one of the post-Civil War amendments).
by HeyMikey on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 07:46:00 PM PDT
At least until the NRA kicks them out.
Have you read about Jim Zumbo's comments on assault rifles?
He said:
"Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity, ... As hunters, we don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them. . . . I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles."
And he was run out of town.
I happen think it's a bit silly that people expect a few guys with assault rifles to be able to go toe to toe with the US Military. The second amendment isn't about "guns", it's about militias. The modern equivalent of 18th century militias are the many state National Guards. I have no problem with the National Guard having all kinds of arms that aren't accessible to the average person. I'm fine with average people having access to most types of firearms, but there should be some reasonable limits.
-8.63, -7.44
by fuzzex on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 03:51:18 PM PDT
I happen think it's a bit silly that people expect a few guys with assault rifles to be able to go toe to toe with the US Military.
Isn't that what's happening in Iraq right now?
by Rimjob on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 03:56:31 PM PDT
rocket launchers and IEDs and all other manner of medium weaponry.
Most of those weapons are not legally accessible to average citizens in the United States to my knowledge.
And in my mind just because an force too small for the job in a chaotic environment is having a hard time dealing with an insurgent force armed with medium weaponry points poor strategy rather than the type of the arms involved.
by fuzzex on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 04:03:24 PM PDT
you think that the Second Amendment is about car bombs.
by Elwood Dowd on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 05:14:22 PM PDT
What you're witnessing, my friend, is the awesome power of the netroots.
Finding God in a Dog
by maxomai on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 04:26:25 PM PDT
by fuzzex on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 05:25:41 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 48 comments