Skip to main content

View Diary: AHSA at the Supreme Court, a unique approach to the DC gun ban case (26 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Simple solution to the 2nd Amendment (0+ / 0-)

    People are allowed firearms, Thats a given. If you want to control that but you run into the 2nd Amendment, just go around it. Tax bullets. Put "deposits" on the shell casings. You dump a load of bullets in the woods, you don't get your deposit back. Lead leaches into streams and creeks, and you just created an environemtnal issue. You return the shell casing, you do. Tax the hell out of bullets while you still allow people the right to bear arms.

    •  Like they do with abortion (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ER Doc

      via TRAP statutes (targetted regulation and something or something).  I find both disingenuous, though I can appreciate the creativity it takes to grind a nominal constitutional right into dust.

      "[G]lobalization is...increasing the efficiency of resource allocation through stronger capital markets" - Barack Obama

      by burrow owl on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:21:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well a strict interpr of the consitution (0+ / 0-)

        should only allow muskets and 1780 vintage weapons. Machine guns didnt exist in the late 1700's so the constitution really didn't deal with that issue.  Where does the right stop? A tank in every driveway? A machine gun nest? AK-47? What's your interpretaion of where the limit is?

        •  This is foolish (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fightorleave, redcardphreek, ER Doc

          Does this idea apply only to the Second Amendment, or the whole Bill of Rights?
          Does freedom of speech not apply to computers or the web? They didn't exist in 1776. Does the right against unwarranted search and seizure apply to cars? Are you really ready to say you have no expectation of privacy on a phone since they didn't exist back then either. Can we please put this pathetic line of "reasoning" out to pasture? Please do it quickly before someone someone drops the classic "so i should be able to own an atomic bomb, line" that one usually isn't far behind owning tanks.

          •  Well we agree (0+ / 0-)

            WMD are off the list. You still didn't answer about AK-47, a machine gun, or a tank. Where is the line? Simple question. Just asking your opinion on what is an "arm" and what isnt. Everyone seems to have different ideas on this

            •  Ok (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              fightorleave, redcardphreek

              I didn't answer your question because of the ridiculous context in which you couched it. I didn't think you were serious about it. Your flip attitude about it being a "Simple question," with your "3" choices makes me think you still aren't too serious. So, I didn't answer, and i don't intend to produce my thesis in this area on your unserious whim. I will say I'm ok with the fact that the general public can't get machine guns or larger (or tanks) but smaller arms: rifles, pistols, shotguns, are "Arms" in my opinion.

              In the #2 clause, in the us bill of rights, with 27 carefully chosen words, what does this crucial one mean in todays context. Oh yea right, that's a simple question.

        •  Good point... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fightorleave

          Well a strict interpr of the consitution should only allow muskets and 1780 vintage weapons. Machine guns didnt exist in the late 1700's so the constitution really didn't deal with that issue.  Where does the right stop? A tank in every driveway? A machine gun nest? AK-47? What's your interpretaion of where the limit is?

          The Bushies will certainly be glad to hear that the First Amendment does not apply to the Internet (Hello Kos!) and that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to telephone calls (Hello Wiretaps on Everyone!).

          Isn't Strict Constitutional Interpretation fun?

    •  That was Chris Rock's solution (0+ / 0-)

      Yeah, that was Chris Rock's solution to gun violence. So I assume you're kidding.

      If you're serious, it won't work. Casings only need to be bought once, then reloaders will just make their own after that, reusing the casings. It all happens under the radar now and, if outlawed, would just take off like bootlegging. Then you're just alienating hunters and other sports-shooters, who aren't a threat to anyone most of the time.

      I don't buy the argument that familiarity with firearms helps the military much. Very few members of the navy or Air force need to know anything at all about shooting. Even in the Army, the majority of troops won't be using a rifle...and you can train a rifleman to shoot pretty quickly. People who've never held a weapon in their lives are sometimes the best students. They listen carefully and aren't full of lessons to be unlearned.

       

      "A clown is like aspirin, only he works twice as fast" - Groucho Marx

      by Morpheus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:10:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  that's an old Chris Rock comedy sketch... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fightorleave

      "I'm gonna kill you...as soon as I get my bullet out of lay-a-way"

      :-)

      funkify your life...

      by YatPundit on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:05:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site