Skip to main content

View Diary: Federal Judge John Roll killed in Arizona shooting (134 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's time to be strict constructionist (5+ / 0-)

    and take the Constitution at its word that only a "well-regulated militia" should have the right to bear arms. I've never been particularly against gun ownership, but the more absolutist the gun nuts become about how anybody should be able to own any gun with no limitations, requirements, restrictions or permits, the more I want to see gun ownership ended. And it can be argued that the Constitution supports me.

    Jennifer Brunner for Governor of Ohio 2014

    by anastasia p on Sat Jan 08, 2011 at 03:05:42 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  SCOTUS Struck Down That Clause of the Amendment (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      arpear

      to my eye, by ruling that gun ownership is a fundamental right.

      You can argue all you want but for the coming 15 years BARE MINIMUM that the Court is ultrarightwing, there's no way to win the argument.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sat Jan 08, 2011 at 03:13:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's more than an argument (0+ / 0-)

      The historical record is clear that the founders intended to protect the right of the states to maintain militias, to serve as a counterweight against a national army.  During the Articles of Confederation, there were two separate attempts by officers of the national army to stage coups, and the founders hoped that state militias could stop a coup if loyalist federal soldiers could not.  After the Civil War, when militias entered the Union Army with weapons made only in their own states with weird calibers for which ammunition could not be obtained, and uniforms that often looked like the enemies, Congress standardized armaments and uniforms by transforming the militias into the National Guard.

      Stevens noted all this in his dissent, but Scalia-Thomas-Alito-Roberts-Kennedy could care less.

      "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

      by Navy Vet Terp on Sat Jan 08, 2011 at 03:23:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It can be argued (0+ / 0-)

      But it is clearly false. The amendment refers to "the right of the people", and in no way limits it to "only" the militia. There is also ample historical and linguistic evidence that "well-regulated" means "properly functioning".

      As troubling as the gun otaku* may be, especially in light of current events, it has always been a non-starter for gun opponents to argue that the second amendment means something other than what it says.

      If you want to repeal the second amendment, you have an uphill battle, to say the least. What is possible, Constitutional, and achievable, is to impose reasonable restrictions on gun ownership in a balancing act between the right and the compelling government interest in maintaining order. For example, repealing the odious Arizona law allowing concealed carry without a permit.

      Feel free to mince words, tilt at windmills, or HR my comment, as you see fit.

      * The last time I got in a discussion about second amendment rights on this site, I said that I would use this term instead of "gun nuts", so I am.

      It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so. — Will Rogers

      by dconrad on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 01:36:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site