Skip to main content

Liberals love the Constitution.

Ask anyone on the street. They'll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization. During the dark days of the Bush Administration, membership doubled because so many Americans feared increasing restrictions on their civil liberties. If you were to ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they would invariably say the words "shredding" and "Constitution" in the same sentence. They might also add "Fourth Amendment" and "due process."  It's possible they'll talk about "free speech zones" and "habeus corpus."

There's a good chance they will mention, probably in combination with several FCC-prohibited adjectives, former Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales.

And while liberals certainly do not argue for lawlessness, and will acknowledge the necessity of certain restrictions, it is generally understood that liberals fight to broadly interpret and expand our rights and to question the necessity and wisdom of any restrictions of them.  

Liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founders. They can argue at length against the tyranny of the government. And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.

Except for one: the right to keep and bear arms.

When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check rational thought at the door. They dismiss approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns, and those who fight to protect the Second Amendment, as "gun nuts." They argue for greater restrictions. And they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote for Democrats.

And they do so in a way that is wholly inconsistent with their approach to all of our other civil liberties.

Those who fight against Second Amendment rights cite statistics about gun violence, as if such numbers are evidence enough that our rights should be restricted. But Chicago and Washington DC, the two cities from which came the most recent Supreme Court decisions on Second Amendment rights, had some of the most restrictive laws in the nation, and also some of the highest rates of violent crime. Clearly, such restrictions do not correlate with preventing crime.

So rather than continuing to fight for greater restrictions on Second Amendment rights, it is time for liberals to defend Second Amendment rights as vigorously as they fight to protect all of our other rights. Because it is by fighting to protect each right that we protect all rights.

And this is why:

(Reasons below the fold)

No. 1:  The Bill of Rights protects individual rights.

If you've read the Bill of Rights -- and who among us hasn't? -- you will notice a phrase that appears in nearly all of them:  "the people."

First Amendment:

...the right of the people peaceably to assemble

Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...

Ninth Amendment:

...shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Tenth Amendment:  

...are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Certainly, no good liberal would argue that any of these rights are collective rights, and not individual rights. We believe that the First Amendment is an individual right to criticize our government.

We would not condone a state-regulated news organization. We certainly would not condone state regulation of religion. We talk about "separation of church and state," although there is no mention of "separation of church and state" in the First Amendment.

But we know what they meant. The anti-Federalists refused to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights; they intended for our rights to be interpreted expansively.

We believe the Founders intended for us to be able to say damn near anything we want, protest damn near anything we want, print damn near anything we want, and believe damn near anything we want. Individually, without the interference or regulation of government.

And yet, despite the recent Heller and McDonald decisions, liberals stumble at the idea of the Second Amendment as an individual right. They take the position that the Founders intended an entirely different meaning by the phrase "the right of the people" in the Second Amendment, even though they are so positively clear about what that phrase means in the First Amendment.

If we can agree that the First Amendment protects not only powerful organizations such as the New York Times or MSNBC, but also the individual commenter on the internet, the individual at the anti-war rally, the individual driving the car with the "Fuck Bush" bumper sticker, can we not also agree that the Second Amendment's use of "the people" has the same meaning?

But it's different! The Second Amendment is talking about the militia! If you want to "bear arms," join the National Guard!  

Right?

Wrong.

The United States Militia Code:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Aside from the fact that the National Guard did not exist in the 1700s, the term "militia" does not mean "National Guard," even today. The code clearly states that two classes comprise the militia: the National Guard and Naval Militia, and everyone else.

Everyone else. Individuals. The People.

The Founders well understood that the militia is the people, for it was not only the right but the obligation of all citizens to protect and preserve their liberty and to defend themselves from the tyranny of the government.

And fighting against the tyranny of the government is certainly a liberal value.

No. 2: We oppose restrictions to our civil liberties.

All of our rights, even the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are restricted. You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowd. You can't threaten to kill the president. You can't publish someone else's words as your own. We have copyright laws and libel laws and slander laws. We have the FCC to regulate our radio and television content. We have plenty of restrictions on our First Amendment rights.

But we don't like them. We fight them. Any card-carrying member of the ACLU will tell you that while we might agree that certain restrictions are reasonable, we keep a close eye whenever anyone in government gets an itch to pass a new law that restricts our First Amendment rights. Or our Fourth. Or our Fifth, Sixth, or Eighth.

We complain about free speech zones. The whole country is supposed to be a free speech zone, after all. It says so right in the First Amendment.

But when it comes further restrictions on the manufacture, sale, or possession of firearms, liberals are not even silent; they are vociferously in favor of such restrictions.

Suddenly, overly broad restrictions are "reasonable." The Chicago and Washington D.C. bans on handguns -- all handguns -- is reasonable, even though the Supreme Court has now said otherwise.

Would we tolerate such a sweeping regulation of, say, the Thirteenth Amendment?

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

What if a member of Congress -- say, a Republican from a red state in the south -- were to introduce a bill that permits enslaving black women? Would we consider that reasonable? It's not like the law would enslave all people, or even all black people. Just the women. There's no mention of enslaving women in the Thirteenth Amendment. Clearly, when Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, he didn't intend to free all the slaves. And we restrict all the other Amendments, so obviously the Thirteenth Amendment is not supposed to be absolute. What's the big deal?

Except that such an argument is ridiculous, of course. Liberals would take to the streets, send angry letters to their representatives in Washington, organize marches, call progressive radio programs to quote, verbatim, the Thirteenth Amendment. Quite bluntly, although not literally, liberals would be up in arms.

And yet...A ban on all handguns seems reasonable to many liberals. Never mind that of 192 million firearms in America, 65 million -- about one third -- are handguns.

Such a narrow interpretation of this particular right is inconsistent with the otherwise broad interpretation of the Bill of Rights. And just as conservatives weaken their own arguments about protecting the Second Amendment when they will not fight as vigilantly for protecting all the others, so too do liberals weaken their arguments for civil liberties, when they pick and choose which civil liberties they deem worthy of defense.

No. 3:  It doesn't matter that it's not 1776 anymore.

When the Founders drafted the Bill of Rights, they could not have imagined machine guns. Or armor-piercing bullets (which are not available to the public anyway, and are actually less lethal than conventional ammunition). Or handguns that hold 18 rounds. A drive-by shooting, back in 1776, would have been a guy on a horse with a musket.

Of course, they couldn't have imagined the internet, either. Or 24-hour cable news networks. Or talk radio. When they drafted the First Amendment, did they really mean to protect the rights of Bill O'Reilly to make incredibly stupid, and frequently inaccurate, statements for an entire hour, five nights a week?

Actually, yes. They did. Bill O'Reilly bilious ravings, and Keith Olbermann's Special Comments, and the insipid chatter of the entire cast of the Today show are, and were intended to be, protected by the First Amendment.

Liberals are supposed to understand that just because we don't agree with something doesn't mean it is not protected. At least when it comes to the First Amendment. And one's personal dislike of guns should be no better a reason for fighting against the Second Amendment than should one's personal dislike of Bill O'Reilly justify fighting against the First Amendment.

And yet, when discussing the Second Amendment, liberals become obtuse in their literalism. The Second Amendment does not protect the right to own all guns. Or all ammunition. It doesn't protect the right of the people as individuals.

Liberals will defend the right of Cindy Sheehan to wear an anti-war T-shirt, even though the First Amendment says nothing about T-shirts.

They will defend the rights of alleged terrorists to a public trial, even though the Founders certainly could not have imagined a world in which terrorists would plot to blow up building with airplanes.

But we do not quibble about the methods by which we practice our First Amendment rights because methodology is not the point. Red herring arguments about types of ammunition or magazine capacity or handguns versus rifles are just that -- red herrings. They distract us from the underlying purpose of that right -- to ensure a free society that can hold its government accountable. The Second Amendment is no more about guns than the First Amendment is about quill pens.

No. 4: It doesn't matter if you can use it.

Fine, you say. Have your big, scary guns. It's not like you actually stand a chance in fighting against the United States government. The Army has bigger, badder weapons than any private citizen. Your most deadly gun is no match for their tanks, their helicopters, their atom bombs. Maybe two hundred years ago, citizens stood a chance in a fight against government, but not today. The Second Amendment is obsolete.

Tell that to the Iraqi "insurgents" who are putting up a pretty good fight against our military might with fairly primitive weapons.

The Second Amendment is obsolete?

What other rights might be considered obsolete in today's day and age?

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

When was the last time a soldier showed up at your door and said, "I'll be staying with you for the indefinite future"?

It's probably been a while. But of course, were it to happen, you'd dust off your Third Amendment and say, "I don't think so, pal."

And you'd be right.

What about the Twenty-Sixth Amendment? How much use does that get?

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

We all know the youth vote is typically pretty abysmal. Those lazy kids can barely get out of bed before noon, let alone get themselves to the voting booth. If they're not going to use their Twenty-Sixth Amendment rights, shouldn't we just delete the damn thing altogether?

Hell no. And this is why liberals work so hard to get out and rock the vote -- to encourage citizens to exercise their rights. That is our obligation as citizens, to protect against the government infringing upon our rights by making full use of them.

And yet, when it comes to the Second Amendment, liberals do not fight to protect that right. Instead them demand more laws. Regulate, regulate, regulate -- until the Second Amendment is nearly regulated out of existence because no one needs to have a gun anyway.

And that, sadly, is the biggest mistake of all.

No. 5: The Second Amendment is about revolution.

In no other country, at no other time, has such a right existed. It is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot at soda cans in an empty field. It is not even the right to shoot at a home invader in the middle of the night.

It is the right of revolution.

Let me say that again:  It is the right of revolution.

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.

To alter or abolish the government. These are not mild words; they are powerful. They are revolutionary.

The Founders might never have imagined automatic weapons. But they probably also never imagined a total ban on handguns either.

We talk about the First Amendment as a unique and revolutionary concept -- that we have the right to criticize our government. Does it matter whether we do so while standing on a soapbox on the corner of the street or on a blog? No. Because the concept, not the methodology, is what matters.

And the Second Amendment is no different. It is not about how much ammunition is "excessive" or what types of guns are and are not permissible. Liberals cling to such minutia at the expense of understanding and appreciating the larger concept that underlies this right.

So.

What is the point? Is this a rallying cry for liberals to rush right out and purchase a gun? Absolutely not. Guns are dangerous when used by people who are not trained to use them, just as cars are dangerous when driven by people who have not been taught how to drive.

No, this is a rallying cry for the Bill of Rights -- for all of our rights.

This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "I just don't like guns."

This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "No one needs that much ammunition."

This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "That's not what the Founders meant."

This is an appeal to every liberal who supports the ACLU.

This is an appeal to every liberal who has complained about the Bush Administration's trading of our civil liberties for the illusion of greater security. (I believe I’ve seen a T-shirt or two about Benjamin Franklin’s thoughts on that.)

This is an appeal to every liberal who believes in fighting against the abuses of government, against the infringement of our civil liberties, and for the greater expansion of our rights.

This is an appeal to every liberal who never wants to lose another election to Republicans because they have successfully persuaded the voters that Democrats will not protect their Second Amendment rights.

This is an appeal to liberals, not merely to tolerate the Second Amendment, but to embrace it. To love it and defend it and guard it as carefully as you do all the others.

Because we are liberals. And fighting for our rights -- for all of our rights, for all people -- is what we do.

Because we are revolutionaries.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:00 AM PDT.

Also republished by Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Gods GAY Gun (22+ / 0-)

    It's HAMMER TIME, time to turn wedge issues into wedgies.  Its the KOS given duty of every decent patriotic democratic citizen to push back on the

    "couture" (sp) wars

    (the great UNwashed'  war on everything FABULOUS)

    In the blunt words of politico

    gun control advocacy is akin to political suicide

    http://www.politico.com/...

    Who is Mighty? One who turns an enemy into a Friend!

    by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:05:32 AM PDT

    •  If some wack job racist Congressman (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jaime Frontero

      What if a member of Congress -- say, a Republican from a red state in the south -- were to introduce a bill that permits enslaving black women? Would we consider that reasonable? It's not like the law would enslave allpeople, or even all black people. Just the women. There's no mention of enslaving women in the Thirteenth Amendment. Clearly, when Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, he didn't intend to free all the slaves. And we restrict all the other Amendments, so obviously the Thirteenth Amendment is not supposed to be absolute. What's the big deal?Except that such an argument is ridiculous, of course. Liberals would take to the streets, send angry letters to their representatives in Washington, organize marches, call progressive radio programs to quote, verbatim, the Thirteenth Amendment. Quite bluntly, although not literally, liberals would be up in arms.

      introduced such a bill, that would be one thing, but if there were serious attempts to repeal the 13th amendment that would be quite another.  In the first case we laugh as right-wingers are forever marginalized in American politics.  In the second case we go to war.

      The supremacy of finance capital over all other forms of capital means the rule of the rentier and of the financial oligarchy -- Lenin (1917)

      by GiveNoQuarter on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:32:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Often overlooked... (0+ / 0-)

      ...seems to be the alternate, more poetic meaning of the phrase "to bear arms".

      An old fashioned meaning of this phrase is "to go to war", "to fight", "to go to battle".

      This meaning makes the most sense when considered in the context of the 2nd Amendment.

      Given that colonists were most certainly allowed to possess firearms for personal protection as well as to hunt with, I really do not think that the idea of gun ownership was even an issue.

      What WAS an issue was the right of rebellion.

      I think that the most meaningful use of our collective intellect is come up with ideas on how to better prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals.

      If you ask just about ANY gun owner about licensing restrictions, purchase limits, etc., most do not have an objection to reasonable restrictions.

      The NRA is another story, and they whip up their membership to consider ANY restriction as unconstitutional. This is bunk, of course. We all own property under restrictions of license, title, deed, age, etc.

      I wouldn't mind seeing a shift of focus of gun laws to property rights and, more importantly responsibilities.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." Hunter S. Thompson

      by SNFinVA on Mon Jul 05, 2010 at 07:07:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I can imagine that you will get a different (35+ / 0-)

    opinion here.  My father taught me to shoot because "when the FBI comes for you, you can shoot back".

    I think my .22 was not much use against J. Edgar.

    But this is an important diary because I do think you have captured the intent of the Framers.

    The reality now, though, is that having a handgun is to protect yourself from "those" people, not necessarily to fight another revolution.

    •  I once suggested that (42+ / 0-)

      The reality now, though, is that having a handgun is to protect yourself from "those" people,

      In light of  the shooting at the Unitarian Church in Knoxville, TN, that maybe liberals needed to be prepared for when more people on the right lost their minds.  The conservatives I knew went apeshit at that suggestion.  I honestly don't think they want everyone carrying guns--they want them for themselves so that they can be ready for when the world comes to an end, but they also don't want everyone else to have them so that they can be dominant.

    •  That's also part of the Amendment (9+ / 0-)

      In some of the Federalist Papers that refer to the private ownership of firearms, there is specific language that talks about how citizens must be able to defend their homes against intrusion by criminals. The crime that we call today a "home invasion" is nothing new. They had 'em back in the 1700s.

      And in those writings you see reinforced the idea that if a person cannot defend their home against unwanted intrusion, then that person cannot be said to be "free." So that's part of the 2nd Amendment as well, with respect to what the framers had in mind when they drafted it.

      It covers armed resistance against a despotic government, foreign invasion, and personal defense. The story of Simplicius Simplicissimus was surely in the minds of the delegates, not as fiction but as fact - how in Europe a disarmed populace was helpless against small bands of armed men.

      Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

      by The Raven on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 02:03:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  let's have a link to that part of the (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jayskew, gneissgirl, MichaelNY

        Federalist Papers.  

        Important whining and Red Sox stuff at http://edsbarth.blogspot.com/

        by Barth on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 02:26:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  For a start (9+ / 0-)

          Did I misremember? Self-defense, expressed in the Federalist Papers is usually about defense of the nation, but these may not be indicative of the thoughts of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. The quote I'm looking for was from someone close in the game, but meanwhile...

          Thomas Paine:

          "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside ... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

          On the subject of militias, here's Tenche Coxe writing in The Pennsylvania Gazette, 1788:

          Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

                 
          And there's interesting commentary from several on how the disarming of selected populations in England was punitive in conception, the idea being to leave them defenseless against highwaymen and the like.

          Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

          by The Raven on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 03:52:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Disarming Act, 1715 (6+ / 0-)

            Most people in the late 1700s would have been aware of this from earlier that same century:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            "An act for the more effectual securing the peace of the highlands in Scotland" was passed by the Parliament of Great Britain, coming into effect on November 1, 1716 which outlawed anyone in defined parts of Scotland from having "in his or their custody, use, or bear, broad sword or target, poignard, whinger, or durk, side pistol, gun, or other warlike weapon" unless authorised.

            It didn't work very well, and Britain tried again with another such act in 1725. Which didn't keep the Highlands from rising again in 1745.

            But the point is clear: disarming the highlands of Scotland was intended as a pacification measure to keep highlanders from revolting against the British government.

            After the '45, Britain tried again with the Act of Proscription of 1745,

            http://www.electricscotland.com/...

            which not only prohibited weapons, it prohibited distinctive highland attire, proscribed numerous individuals and shipped many of them beyond the sea, and required children to take oaths to the king.

            Many of those proscribed individuals ended up in America. Some of them were still active towards the end of the century, and they and their children remembered all this.

            No, the second amendment is not just theoretical.

            Oh, and the Act of Proscription of 1747 is related to the fourth amendment, too:

            And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That it shall and may be lawful to and for his Majesty, his heirs and successors, by warrant under his or their royal sign manual, and also to and for the lord lieutenant of any of the shires aforesaid, or the person or persons authorized by his majesty to summon the person or persons aforesaid to deliver up their arms, or any one or more justices of the peace, by warrant under his or their hands, to authorize and appoint any person or persons to enter into any houses, within the limits aforesaid, either by day or by night, and there to search for, and to seize all such arms as shall be found contrary to the direction of this act.

            You see, if you ban guns, you have to go search for them to be sure you succeeded. Sayonara Fourth Amendment.

            (Yes, I own guns, and yes, I'm what some of my redneck neighbors call "a damn liberal Democrat".)

            "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." --Hypatia of Alexandria, c.400

            by jayskew on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 08:46:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  When the Supremes divorced the first part (42+ / 0-)

    of the Second Amendment (the well regulated militia) from the second part (the right to keep and bear arms) they clearly went beyond the "original intent" they otherwise trumpet so loudly, and IMHO, common sense as well.

    I had a brother at Khe Sanh, fightin' off them Viet Cong, they're still there, but he's all gone. The Boss

    by DaNang65 on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:06:06 AM PDT

    •  sorry but no such thing happened. The prefatory (49+ / 0-)

      clause in no way limits.  It gives one possible  reason because it's just a remnant of the og amendment which was more like our states than the current federal.....

      Where is the limiting language in the prefatory clause.  In what way is "the right of the people" not exactly what it says.

      The beginnings of gun control has it's roots in racism.  Cruikshank didn't incorporate the 2nd specifically as it would have allowed people of color the same right to self defense the WASP had.....

      Also remember that the 68 GCA and the Mulford act both had their roots in fear of the Black Panther Party's "Protection Patrols".  In the south, The Deacons of Defense performed the same function as the BPP and saved many lives from the mob.....

    •  Why doesn't the 2nd (23+ / 0-)

      then say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

      If the 2nd were to only apply to a Militia, it would have been wrItten as above.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:21:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If I'm reading you correctly (12+ / 0-)

        you seize on one word while essentially ignoring a whole clause, one that incidentally includes the words "well regulated". Perhaps the Framers just had some extra ink on their quills and used it up writing the first clause before they got to the only part of the Amendment that counts.
        I'm sorry, but that seems to me to be a self serving misinterpretation of the text.

        I had a brother at Khe Sanh, fightin' off them Viet Cong, they're still there, but he's all gone. The Boss

        by DaNang65 on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:30:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  an explanation from Parker v D.C. (22+ / 0-)

          In determining whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee
          is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most
          important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the
          holders of the right—"the people." That term is found in the
          First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has
          never been doubted that these provisions were designed to
          protect the interests of individuals against government intrusion,
          interference, or usurpation. We also note that the Tenth Amendment—"The powers not delegated to the United States
          by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are
          reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"—indicates
          that the authors of the Bill of Rights were perfectly capable of
          distinguishing between "the people," on the one hand, and "the
          states," on the other. The natural reading of "the right of the
          people" in the Second Amendment would accord with usage
          elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.
          The District’s argument, on the other hand, asks us to read
          "the people" to mean some subset of individuals such as "the
          organized militia" or "the people who are engaged in militia
          service," or perhaps not any individuals at all—e.g., "the states."
          See Emerson, 270 F.3d at 227. These strained interpretations of
          "the people" simply cannot be squared with the uniform
          construction of our other Bill of Rights provisions.

          http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/...     warning PDF

          •  I know what the Robert's Court wrote, (4+ / 0-)

            perhaps you'd like to quote some Citizens United as well. I don't happen to agree with either one of them. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, friend.

            I had a brother at Khe Sanh, fightin' off them Viet Cong, they're still there, but he's all gone. The Boss

            by DaNang65 on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:58:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I doesn't matter if we agree or disagree. (22+ / 0-)

              It's never a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with a decision of the Supreme Court. The only issue is whether you agree or disagree with the fundamental concept underlying the very idea of America: Rule. Of. Law.

              Once the Supremes have spoken the debate is over unless and until they speak again and differently. Didn't like Bush v. Gore? Too bad. Neither did I. Get over it. Same for Parker or Citizen's or Roe v. Wade.  

              The problem with our neighbors on the Right is that they don't respect rule of law or other fundamental American values. Dictatorship appeals to them. They'd be happy living in an American theocracy.

              Angry Mouse is right. We won't prevail by being more like the other guys, on gun control or any other issue. Let's be true to our principles and stand up for the Constitution, the entire Constitution.

              "If you are going to tell people the truth, be funny or they will kill you." Billy Wilder 1906 - 2002

              by LeftOfYou on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:19:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well on that we agree. (3+ / 0-)

                Let's be true to our principles and stand up for the Constitution, the entire Constitution.

                My reading of the Constitution includes, and gives meaning to, the well regulated militia clause.

                I had a brother at Khe Sanh, fightin' off them Viet Cong, they're still there, but he's all gone. The Boss

                by DaNang65 on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:37:48 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  What is the meaning? (7+ / 0-)

                  *** My reading of the Constitution includes, and gives meaning to, the well regulated militia clause. ***

                  I'm curious as to how you interpret the meaning of well-regulated militia.

                  My interpretation, based on my understanding of the lingo back in the day, was that well-regulated meant orderly and well-equipped, and militia pretty much meant anybody who was old enough to fight.  

                  Thus, the right of the People to own and bear arms thereby provided the nation with a well-regulated militia.  

                  I do not see the two clauses being mutually exclusive.

                  Obama is not a brown-skinned socialist foreigner giving away free health care. I think you were actually referring to Jesus.

                  by GOPhuckYourself on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 01:03:27 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I think perhaps (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Odysseus, White Buffalo, DaNang65

                    the "well-regulated" clause refers to the necessity of someone, somewhere, have authority and responsibility for militias. Otherwise, you would have had numerous state and private militias with nobody exerting any sort of coordination over them.

                    I can just imagine the chaos of having a militia in South Carolina, claiming to represent the needs of the newly formed country, fighting to preserve slavery AGAINST another militia in Massachusetts fighting against slavery and claiming to represent the needs of the newly formed country. Without some sort of "regulation" of these militias it would be a disaster.

                    I think all of us tend to read too many assumptions into the Constitution or ignore the assumptions they made at the time. No colonies/states were affiliated with each other at that time so there would be no assumption of Virginia's militias protecting Maryland. Ergo, the assumption being that each state would need to raise militias from their own citizenry. Thus, the necessity of the people to own guns. The Amendment applied to the situation as it stood THEN. It doesn't really apply that much to the circumstances we now live in.

                    •  Um, why were they called the United States, then? (0+ / 0-)

                      And there was quite a bit of back and forth of militia supporting different states, starting with Geo. Washington from Virginia going to Mass. to take charge of its militia.
                      He ended up organizing a regular army instead, because the militia kept bugging out when their short terms of service were up, but that's beside the point.
                      Earlier, it was quite common for people from South Carolina to help in fighting the Spanish from Florida in Georgia, and during the war of independance my ancestors left Georgia after their homes were sacked and went back to South Carolina to fight, where many of their relatives fought with Francis Marion, the Swamp Fox, whose militia was not terribly well regulated, considering he had people from 15 to 65 from at least two colonies serving with him.

                      "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." --Hypatia of Alexandria, c.400

                      by jayskew on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 08:56:45 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Perhaps I was a bit unclear (0+ / 0-)

                        The point I was making was that militias were raised by States and individual groups and paid for by States and individual groups. There was no "national" coordination of them. I wasn't suggesting that the didn't fight for anybody except their state but rather that they had no legal responsibility to any governmental group based in law. My suggestion was that this was a reasonable reason for including the 2nd Amdt. since it helped codify the legality of militias and ensure their ability to exist.

                  •  Just read Justice Stevens' dissent in Heller (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    DaNang65

                    then you'll understand exactly what the prefatory language of the Second Amendment means.  He provides an exhaustive historical analysis.

                    Maladie d'Amour, Où l'on meurt d'Aimer, Seul et sans Amour, Sid'abandonné

                    by FogCityJohn on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 09:13:01 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Minority dissent, uh huh! (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      KVoimakas

                      Being that you reference a minority dissent, in reality his opinion doesn't matter, does it?

                      Actually, it is really simple, the basic english sentence structure is called dependent and independent clause. A dependent clause is not a complete sentence or idea and can not stand on its own as such.

                      "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, "

                      Please demonstrate how this is a complete sentence.

                      The independent clause can stand on its own, is a complete idea.

                      "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

                      This sure looks like a complete sentence here.

                      Have at it!

                      •  Your point of view (0+ / 0-)

                        would appear to be that whatever a majority of the Supreme Court declares to be right, is therefore right.

                        If that is your view, then there is no point in debating the merits of any legal or constitutional issue that has been the subject of a Supreme Court decision.  And since you appear to hold that position, we needn't argue about cases like Citizens United, either, since hey, it must be correctly decided, right?  After all, it got the same five votes, didn't it?

                        Maladie d'Amour, Où l'on meurt d'Aimer, Seul et sans Amour, Sid'abandonné

                        by FogCityJohn on Mon Jul 05, 2010 at 09:56:58 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  If you think "A well regulated...etc" (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ER Doc, KVoimakas

                  means The National Guard, I heartily disagree.  That wasn't The People who shot down students at Kent State, or the striking miners in Walsenberg Colo....it was THE STATE!

                  Get it?  Seems pretty clear to me, all of the Bill Of Rights refers to the PEOPLE and their rights, NOT the STATE!

                  "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

                  by leftykook on Mon Jul 05, 2010 at 11:04:32 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Don't agree with this (5+ / 0-)

                Once the Supremes have spoken the debate is over unless and until they speak again and differently. Didn't like Bush v. Gore? Too bad. Neither did I. Get over it. Same for Parker or Citizen's or Roe v. Wade.  

                Not necessarily.  Try applying this to the realm of civil rights.  

                Should gay people have meekly gone into celibacy for 15 years following the misbegotten Supreme Court decision to uphold sodomy statutes in Hardwick Vs Georgia (back in the mid-eighties)?  Should blacks have stayed at the back of the bus and out of segregated facilities until the courts first ruled in their favor?

                Of course not -- because otherwise, those old, discredited court ruling might never have been overturned.

                While the rule of law is, indeed, important, the reality is just a touch more complex at times.

                Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

                by TexasTom on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:58:21 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Read the entire sentence, please. (5+ / 0-)

                  unless and until they speak again and differently.

                  Progress comes when courageous advocates seek modifications or extensions of existing law. Marshall finds a way to overcome Plessy v. Ferguson. "Substantive Due Process" dies a well deserved death after FDR gets his chance to improve the Court. Boies and Olsen overturn Prop 8 (we can only hope).

                  None of that takes away from my basic point that the law is what the law is and that the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, until the Supreme Court says otherwise. To think or act otherwise is to accord the principle of Rule of Law less respect than it deserves.  

                  "If you are going to tell people the truth, be funny or they will kill you." Billy Wilder 1906 - 2002

                  by LeftOfYou on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:30:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  My point is... (5+ / 0-)

                    ...that the Supreme Court won't speak again unless courageous individuals are willing to take the risk of challenging their decision.

                    In some cases, "get over it" is absolutely the right approach to Supreme Court decisions we may dislike.  But not always.

                    Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

                    by TexasTom on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 01:01:16 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Or Congress passes a new law or an Amendment (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    KVoimakas

                    Currently, the courts are trying to say Obama can't ban offshore exploratory drilling because the ban is too broad, but his administration is getting around that by coming up with a more specific ban. And Congress could just pass a law banning it. Doesn't matter whether it's a lower level federal court or SCOTUS for cases like that.
                    For more basic principles, the Constitution can still be amended.
                    And SCOTUS justices retire and new ones are appointed, which can lead to reconsiderations by SCOTUS.
                    Even SCOTUS decisions aren't forever.

                    "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." --Hypatia of Alexandria, c.400

                    by jayskew on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 09:01:55 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Once the Supremes have spoken the debate is over (6+ / 0-)

                wrong.

                There is no place in the Constitution that gives them the final word. None. Quite the opposite in fact.

                All branches of government have the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution. Frankly, all citizens have that responsibility. It is silly to think any other outcome is possible let alone preferable or correct.

                Peace,

                Andrew

                REBOOTNY.org - Time to reboot the New York State Senate

                by Andrew C White on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:04:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's why it is final (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LeftOfYou

                  The fact that the Supreme Court is the final word comes from the decree of the Supreme Court in light of the silence of the Constitution on the subject of whether any 'final word' is possible.

                  And it is not, of course; Congress can continue to write laws and the Executive can enforce them that contradict the Court's decisions all they want.  At what precise point the government breaks down and our nation dissolves would be up to political (and potentially military) contingency, but until then, the Supreme Court has final say over what is the 'correct, absolute, and provisional' interpretation of the Constitution that has to guide both other branches.  The reason is because Congress, when they set up the Court system (as they are required to do in the Constitution) wrote legislation adopting common law.  This provides the court with all of the precedents of hundreds of years of judge-decreed laws that had already been developed.  Part of that precedence is that judges have the final say on who has the final say about what it is the law says.

                  "...if Barack Obama were somehow able to cure hunger in the world the Republicans would blame him for overpopulation" - Rep. Grayson

                  by the tmax on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:18:53 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Uh...no. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                OMwordTHRUdaFOG, Ryepower12

                It's never a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with a decision of the Supreme Court.

                Agreement or disagreement with The Supreme Court (or any other institution, for that matter) informs our actions. For an example (past, and possible future) here's an exerpt from a comment of mine to a recient diary by MB:

                I moved to Baltimore in 1986, the year that Bowers v Hardwick came down. Being so close to DC, I was able to march in the 1987 Gay Rights March on Washington the following year. I was also busted on the steps of the US Supreme Court with several hundred others in a nonviolent direct action in conjunction with the march demanding that Bowers be overturned (which of course didn't happen until 17 years later in Lawrence v Texas in 2003).  

                Depending on what eventually happens with the Prop 8 trial, I may very well be back sitting on those same steps in front of the US Supreme Court some day soon. I'm hoping that it isn't necessary, but if it is, I'm ready. (But please, please schedule it during a break!)

              •  "it's never a matter of agreeing or disagreeing" (0+ / 0-)

                Abraham Lincoln thought otherwise.

                Sometimes, the Supreme Court gets too big for its bridges and needs to be put back in its place. FDR understood that, as well. This Supreme Court needs a serious dose of The Stick. Believe it or not, there has to be checks on the SCOTUS, too. This court needs to be stuffed, badly, or ignored.

                Let's be true to our principles and stand up for the Constitution, the entire Constitution.

                Easy for you to say. I doubt your cousin was murdered on the street because of a concealed hand gun. The Roberts Court is not only wrong, but grossly so. They don't give two shits about the intention of the framers, even if they spin it that way to the GOP base. They've ruled wrongly here (and elsewhere) and need to be rebuked, in the harshest ways possible.

            •  Parker wasn't the Roberts court, It's the (6+ / 0-)

              case decided in the D.C circuit court that led to Heller.

              Judge Silber wrote the opinion for the majority and it's a well written and logical decision. It might even change your mind a bit but either way it's worth the read imo.

              It is a pdf link though but not too huge.

        •  In the eighteenth century (17+ / 0-)

          the term 'regulated' did not mean 'controlled by written rules'.  It referred to equipment; the 'regular' army were the professional soldiers with a complete kit and weaponry.  The 'irregulars' were the 'everybody else' militia, occasionally armed with whatever farm implements they could convert, and a blanket for a bedroll.

          In other words, the phrase 'a well regulated militia' can be most accurately translated as "a well armed populace".

          "...if Barack Obama were somehow able to cure hunger in the world the Republicans would blame him for overpopulation" - Rep. Grayson

          by the tmax on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:01:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The first clause explains the second half (6+ / 0-)

          The purpose: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State

          The right: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

        •  So you think the purpose of (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rockhound, KVoimakas

          the 2nd Amend. is to say that the military can have weapons.  

          This sounds like a joke.  Why not also have an amendment that courts can have judges?

          "well regulated" meant well equiped in the language of the day.

          The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

          by nextstep on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 08:34:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The militias were the military forces... (0+ / 0-)

            of the states.

            Like so much of the text, this right protects the right of the states to keep an armed force which could resist the federal government.

            Check out the militia act that was actually contemporary to the founders:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            The problem with the posters premise is that "the people" is a reference to the individual, which it is not. The people is the collective term, person is the individual term used within the bill of rights.

            Examine more closely the examples raised, the 4th amendment's reference to "the people" protects the collective against arbitrary area searches (i.e. house by house searches of a city), while most of the rights we associate with the 4th amendment derive from this: "... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This is specific and limiting language barring action by the federal power. It doesn't matter to whom the warrant is directed, any warrant must comport with these requirements to be properly issued.

            In the first amendment, the people is explicitly plural: "...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble... " the other particular rights are reserved to the press, and against the legislature. (I suppose you can argue for the existence of an assembly of one, but I'm not going to join you in that debate).

            Where the right is not expressly granted to an individual (for example, freedom of speech) the courts have allowed that those rights can be limited when and where necessary for the right reasons. Classic: you cannot shout fire in a crowded theatre. Practical: you cannot take over a classroom to lecture on the evils of Bush, even in a public school during study hall, the government has the right to reasonably restrict speech.

            Contrast against the explicit personal rights:

            5th amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless..."

            6th amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."

            or the more common limiting language which directs its force to the courts and to the federal powers themselves:

            "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

            Then of course there are the mostly ignored amendments:

            9th: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

            10th: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

            Flawed from the outset, and gets lost from there.

            The supreme court got it wrong. It happens.

            Just because you can doesn't mean you should, but if you can, and you should, then you ought.

            by firant on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:14:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Because the "militia" is the people. (Or, during (9+ / 0-)

        that time, the men of the people.)

        Resist corporate serfdom.

        by Mayfly on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:31:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The Meaning Of The Militia Clause... (7+ / 0-)
        ...is to provide additional context for defining the term "arms" (i.e. weapons of the sort that would normally be carried by militia). Ergo, its only legal significance is to exclude silly strawman arguments nuclear warheads and nerve gas canisters in the garage.

        On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

        by stevemb on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:44:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Uh, because the *people* WERE the "militia"?... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DKinUT, jayskew, Mayfly, KVoimakas

        You understand that, right?  A militia was to be mustered from the average citizenry.  Doesn't mean every yahoo on the block gets to own a nuclear missile.

        People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people. -- "V for Vendetta"

        by Vtdblue on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:53:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

          It's my understanding that there was no provision for a "national" militia specifically because as a collection of colonies of England, they had no authority from the king to raise militias. Amdt. 2 supporters should remember that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written in response to abuses by the Crown and would, of course, enumerate HOW the country would fight back against them. States raised militias at that time. Of course the Constitution would provide for how they were to be raised and "regulated". The words "the People" simply defines from where the militia will be raised from. At that time everybody owned a gun so it would be natural to draw from "the People". It seems to me that they were insuring the possibility to form a militia by ensuring that the people had guns. Otherwise, could not a law have been passed denying guns to people thus disallowing the formation of militias? In current times, such a system is not needed. It's an Amendment that no longer reflects a necessity.

          As a side note, this preoccupation with the Constitution as a sacrosanct document is troubling to me. The fact that something was provided for at the time of it's writing is NOT an indication that they intended for it to be applied widely to other situations. I personally take greater comfort in the laws that are passed a little closer to the time in which I'm living. They have relevance to our current circumstances. The problem here is that we judicially interpret Articles and Amendments in the Constitution to encompass areas not covered rather than simply writing new Amendments to cover those broad subjects. No, we can't write an amendment for every situation but we CAN write in overriding principles that apply to most situations.

          The framers were people with less knowledge of the world around them than any common citizen has these days. What makes us think we're somehow less capable of amending the Constitution than they were?

          •  I would suggest that trying to repeal or amend (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rockhound, Jaime Frontero, buddabelly

            the Second amendment would be a disaster for the Democrats.

            MF and RKBA Member. Share Our Wealth -9.00, -4.05

            by KVoimakas on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:24:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It would almost surely be... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rockhound, KVoimakas

              ...the end of the Party, as any kind of significant player.

              It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you. 6 points.

              by Jaime Frontero on Mon Jul 05, 2010 at 12:07:18 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Far be it from me (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              buddabelly, KVoimakas

              to suggest repeal of the 2nd. I wasn't advocating that at all. I believe in the need for citizens to be able to own guns. My saying the 2nd is unnecessary relates to the point that arming the citizenry is needed to form militias. We no longer form such militias whose usage involves fighting the British, or Mexico, etc....The U.S. Military serves that function now. The need for militias no longer exists. The 2nd should simply be revised to state "The right of the citizens to own and bear arms shall not be infringed." End of story.

              •  So what your saying is... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KVoimakas

                That you have irrefutable proof that our gooberment will never, ever become so tyrannical such that we would not need the right to rebel again right?

                Having been on the inside of the machine, knowing some of the things you people have no clue on, well, lets just say your being somewhat naieve!

                We will be patiently waiting for you to provide this evidence as we just have to see, we are waiting!

              •  Simply because we no longer commonly (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KVoimakas

                do something it means that protections on the rights necessary to undertake that activity should be gone?

                Interesting and dangerous reasoning.

    •  What if the 1st Am. said . . . . (16+ / 0-)

      A well written newspaper, being necessary to the civil institutions of a free state, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . ."

      The preamble would not limit the guaranteed right to  freedom of expression one iota.

      Recall that the Bill of Rights highlights only a few of our many rights that are immune to government intrusion or suppression.  The Bill of Rights does not "give" us rights, it protects us from having the government infringe on the rights that are inherently ours. Some of those rights, however, are enumerated in the Bill of Rights because our founders did not want certain rights, or classes of rights, to be questioned - ever. It does not matter that the Founders did not envision the world-wide-web or television. The fact is, they did envision a class of rights that are inherently non-infringeable regardless of the platform.

      The problem with conservatives (most conservatives) is that they believe government can abridge any freedom or right, unless the liberty in question is specifically enshrined in neon letters in the Constitution. See, e.g., Thomas, Scalia, Alito, who don't even believe we have a right to fuck for g-d's sake.  The fact is, we own every civil right there is UNLESS there is something in the Constitution that allows the government to infringe somehow. A classic example being the taking property, but only with just compensation etc.

      Just as conservatives are wrong when they see rights ONLY if they are expressly written in the Constitution, (except for corporations or armed white people), it is wrong to read the preamble of the 2nd Am. as limiting guns to, for instance, a National Guard or organized militia.  We may not agree with the 2d Amendment's limit on government authority over gun ownership; we do, however, need to acknowledge what the Constitution says and how the Constitution works. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" that we have a right to keep and bear arms.

      sláinte,

      cl

      Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

      by Caoimhin Laochdha on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:06:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because in the 18th Century you would not have (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shadan7, Caoimhin Laochdha, 3CPO

        been called up to be part of a newspaper.  But all able-bodied adult men were expected to be called up to be part of the militia.

        Resist corporate serfdom.

        by Mayfly on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:28:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly. (8+ / 0-)

          My freedom of expression is not contingent on being "called up" to be part of a newspaper.

          It is a right on which Congress may not infringe, regardless of whether there is a preamble before the no-wiggle-words that prevent Congress from making any "law abridging freedom of speech."

          Similarly, it does not matter that, at this point in my life, I am a prosthetically able-ed guy, with enough after market parts to keep me out of the military or through a metal detector. No one is calling me up for duty. So what? I still have a right to own a gun, along with the rest of the people, if I choose to do so.

          sláinte,

          cl

          Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

          by Caoimhin Laochdha on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:05:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nklein

            everyone doesn't have a right to own arms, and nobody has a right to own any arms, so it's all of this just arguing in the margins?

            Fred: Even the psychopath ex-con has a right to a a surface-to-air-missile.
            Max: Even well-trained milita-members hunting deer should be forced to use spears.

            Everyone else is just arguing between those two points, no? Maybe you think that the second amendment extends to machineguns but not nuclear weaponry and I think it extends no farther than muzzle-loading rifles, but we both agree that there are limits. Maybe you think that the second doesn't extend to violent ex-felons not currently taking their meds and I think it doesn't extend to anyone not in a militia regulated exactly as I'd like, but we both agree that we're operating within the same range, no?

            Loving the second amendment has nothing to do with anything. It's like loving the flag--a bullshit phrase.

            "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

            by GussieFN on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 01:58:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Explicitly, SCt ignored language and intent (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mayfly

      of second amendment in the McDonald amendment, finding instead a substantive right of self defense based in history and whatever.  Indeed, the court opinion simply notes that over time, the concern for state militias disappeared and the public became concerned for personal protection.  Presto.

      That anyone still refers to it as "second amendment rights" shows they haven't realized the gun decisions are divorced from anyone's intent and any language. It's neither original intent, or textual.

      Someone on daily kos called me a poopyhead. My life is SO like Nelson Mandela's.

      by Inland on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:10:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I would add, this diary doesn't care about words. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Futuristic Dreamer, Anne Elk

      Once you've declared a right to revolution, any pointy headed judge who tries to take away your guns is subject to armed resistance.  So all the arguments of the first five parts can be as good or as bad as the FPer wants.  If you don't agree with her, tough: she's armed and has a right to use them to settle this issue of rights.

      Someone on daily kos called me a poopyhead. My life is SO like Nelson Mandela's.

      by Inland on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:27:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Pretty sure that "gun nuts" doesn't refer to (28+ / 0-)

    folks who simply own guns. Gun nuts are people who think we should all be able to walk around with AKs etc...

    Rub raw the sores of discontent - Saul Alinsky

    by JayGR on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:06:21 AM PDT

    •  AK is too awkward to carry daily, heck mine is 14 (15+ / 0-)

      pounds plus in full trim with a loaded magazine.

      My .38 on the other hand is 20 oz loaded.

      A tich more convenient..........

      •  I was an (11+ / 0-)

        expert marksman in the USMC. I can still hit you in the forehead at a safe distance while you lob .38 rounds in my direction. If my weapon is bigger and badder than yours is, I win.

        You see, it is an escalation we on the passive side of the left want to avoid. The only way to win is to not play. what part of that logic do you not get?

        -9.75, -7.49 "He that will not reason is a bigot - He that cannot reason is a fool - He that dares not reason is a slave." Sir William Drummond 1585-1649

        by zamrzla on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:51:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  unfortunately not playing can leave you dead. (17+ / 0-)

          Hopefully it never gets to the point of urban combat where an AK or an AR would really shine.

          So far, the ability to carry has not resulted in the predicted "bloodbath" in any jurisdiction that has liberalized the law.

          That's just the reality of the situation.  For 20+ years (Florida 87) we now have almost 40 states with shall issue CCW licenses and only three without some provision for carry.  Millions more guns in circulation and millions of new gun owners.

          Yet all through this period of time, crime rates have been dropping like a stone through good and bad economic times which is even more counter intuitive to me.

          Lets work on the underpinnings of violence in this country, poverty and lack of mental health care. those would save more lives than anything.  Ending the drug war would drop the violent crime figures even more.

          •  playing can leave you just as dead (0+ / 0-)

            See: stolen guns and cops shot by their own weapons, once wrestled away by a suspect.  Because someone looking to do you harm is always going to be more prepared than you are.

            Sorry, CTSH (Concealed Tiger Stone Holders)

            I'm a part of the reality-based community, not the personality-based community.

            by Uberbah on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 01:21:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  We need some common sense gun restrictions (6+ / 0-)

          No guns with a barrel shorter than 4.25 inches. No compelling reason to make guns easy to hide.

          No guns with more than 18 shots in its magazine. No compelling reason to make a gun capable of killing large number of people in a short time.

          These should be federal laws.

          I say this as a gun owner.

          "These old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

          by Lefty Coaster on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:05:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  To gun owner (0+ / 0-)

            We need some common sense gun restrictions

            I agree.  But until the 2nd amendment is modified, the federal laws you suggest are unconstitutional.

            I'd suggest joining  the NRA, and as a member pushing the NRA leadership to support a change to the 2nd amendment to make the "common sense" restrictions lawful.  You'd be in a  minority now, but over time minority views can become mainstream.  Abolition of slavery was once a minority view......

            Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity. -- Alvy Ray Smith

            by John Q on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:28:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not at all unconstitutional (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Uberbah, mamamedusa

              These common sense gun restrictions are compatible with the 2nd amendment. For the same reason laws banning machine guns and grenades pass constitutional muster.

              "These old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

              by Lefty Coaster on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:33:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't agree (5+ / 0-)

                laws banning machine guns and grenades pass constitutional muster.

                I don't believe they should  "pass constitutional muster."  I might think the laws are well advised, but I do believe they violate the absolute right ("the right...shall not be infringed") granted by the 2nd amendment.

                Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity. -- Alvy Ray Smith

                by John Q on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:41:05 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So the 2nd amendment gives me the right (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  eglantine, Uberbah

                  to small tactical nuclear weapons and nerve gas if its absolute right?

                  "These old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

                  by Lefty Coaster on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:55:05 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Absolute right (0+ / 0-)

                    So the 2nd amendment gives me the right to small tactical nuclear weapons and nerve gas if its absolute right?

                    If it's something that you can "bear" (i.e. carry), then yes. Perhaps you might join me in feeling it's time to amend the amendment.

                    Of course, if one is a strict constructionist, and believes that the constitution should be interpreted as the framers viewed things in their day -  then the 2nd amendment right is pretty much restricted to muskets and horse pistols.

                    Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity. -- Alvy Ray Smith

                    by John Q on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:16:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Or, less unreasonably, just guns /nt (0+ / 0-)

                      "...if Barack Obama were somehow able to cure hunger in the world the Republicans would blame him for overpopulation" - Rep. Grayson

                      by the tmax on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:25:34 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Sorry, don't agree (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      GussieFN, rockhound, buddabelly, Uberbah

                      The Second Amendment no more guarantees the right of individuals to own nukes or nerve gas than does the First Amendment guarantee the right to perform human sacrifices in your neighborhood house of worship.  Yes, that's an extreme example...but no more extreme than the idea of allowing individuals to won tactical nukes.

                      Taking it down a level, if I decide that my "religion" requires that I hold loudly amplified worship services at 3 AM in my front yard, my neighbors will likely call the police.  And if I argue that it is my First Amendment right (under both freedom of religion and speech) to continue holding those loud 3 AM services, I don't think that argument will gain much traction in the courts.  

                      Considering that courts have not held that the First Amendment is absolute, I don't think it is likely that they'll do so for the Second Amendment, either.  

                      Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

                      by TexasTom on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 01:13:23 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  this makes no sense (0+ / 0-)

                      I suppose then that you don't believe government has the right to arrest someone for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?  After all, per the Constitution there shall be no law abridging the right to free speech.

                      Courts, however, despite the "absolute" nature of the First Amendment, have found otherwise.  Libel or slander are not protected, my example is not protected, etc...

                      •  I hadn't realized (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Simplify, buddabelly

                        I suppose then that you don't believe government has the right to arrest someone for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?  After all, per the Constitution there shall be no law abridging the right to free speech.

                        that congress had passed a law saying someone couldn't shout "fire" in a crowded theater.  I think that example would come under ordinary tort or criminal law - conduct resulting in harm to others. But gun restrictions are laws.

                        Understand that I'm not in favor of the unlimited bearing of arms:  I just see that as worded now, the 2nd amendment says that the right can't be infringed;  any limitation must count as an infringement.  I'm in favor of amending or repealing the 2nd amendment, but while it's in place, I believe we should respect it for what it says.  

                        Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity. -- Alvy Ray Smith

                        by John Q on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 04:59:28 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  semantics - the law thus restricts free speech (0+ / 0-)

                          Regardless of whether the law specifically says "cannot shout fire in a crowded theater", any law that makes it illegal to do so restricts free speech rights by making them subordinate to others' rights not to be harmed by your actions.

                          This argument brings up two points:

                          - That your rights end where they begin to infringe upon others' rights.

                          - That there is no such thing as a "strict constructionist".  There are situations where courts must determine which part of the constitution and all the rest of our body of law takes priority - and thus their role.

                          If you want a discussion, please stick to arguing the point. If you wanted something else...please exit the vehicle.

                          by robizio on Mon Jul 05, 2010 at 08:53:45 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  Not really, no (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    rockhound, buddabelly, GiveNoQuarter

                    It hardly even needs to be argued that what we now know as 'weapons of mass destruction' don't qualify as 'arms' according to the context or content of the Amendment.  Explosives used to propel slugs, yes; explosives used to directly destroy life or property, no.  You can call the difference academic, if you want, but a gun and a bomb aren't the same thing.

                    "...if Barack Obama were somehow able to cure hunger in the world the Republicans would blame him for overpopulation" - Rep. Grayson

                    by the tmax on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:24:27 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes to a point. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    KVoimakas

                    Arms as defined at the time referred to "weapons used to wage war".  We have used nukes in war, we have not used nerve gas.

            •  Not necessarily... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Odysseus, Uberbah, Dancing Frog

              How far does the Second Amendment extend when it comes to weapons?  Machine guns?  Cannons? Mortars?  Small missiles?

              That might seem like a flip response, but it really isn't intended to be.  My point is that weapons are a continuum from, say, the BB gun on up to nuclear missiles, and there is no clear dilineation that says exactly where we make the transition from "gun protected by Second Amendment" to "weapon of mass destruction not protected by Second Amendment".  Legislatures need to attempt to draw that line somewhere, and the courts will need to rule on those attempts to achieve some sort of legal consensus.  I can't really say where I think they will draw the line -- or even exactly where they should draw the line -- but draw it they must, just as they've had to do so in interpreting other amendments in the Bill of Rights.

              Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

              by TexasTom on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 01:08:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't think that's flip. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Odysseus

                If the intent of the framers of the constitution was to provide the citizenry with the means to conduct armed resistance against the potential tyranny of the government, then all weapons currently used by the US military are on the table, because they are absolutely necessary to give the citizenry a fighting chance against the firepower of the US military.

                That line about Iraqi insurgents in the diary above is complete bullshit, because the Iraqis have and continue to have access to better weaponry than anything available to the average US citizen.

                I don't know where the line should be either. But, I want to make something perfectly clear, I don't support armed insurrection against the government as means of producing "positive" political change. If that ever had to happen, it would be a great tragedy.

          •  We equally limit the First. (6+ / 0-)

            There are reasonable limitations on the First Amendment, there are reasonably limitations on the Second as well.

            Unfortunately for the Left with regards to guns the term "reasonable" is a matter of personal viewpoint and has no objective test.  This puts us at odds with people who might otherwise by on our side as Angry Mouse pointed out very cogently.

            :: Not so hopeful now ::

            by Rick Aucoin on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:40:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I have NO problem with background checks (4+ / 0-)

            and waiting periods.

            I'd be o.k. with mandatory safety training before you get a license to carry,

            IF AND ONLY IF THE TRAINING IS FREE.

            the people with the biggest security needs are the people working the low paying jobs living in unsafe neighborhoods - making people pay $100 or $500 for safety classes = a barrier for the poor.

            I like Washington State's concealed carry laws. Provided you do NOT have any of the following _____________ on your record, they HAVE to give you a permit in 30 days.

            I moved out here in '89 when I was 29 from Massachusetts, ~ 10 years in Boston. MA. gun laws suck.

            rmm.

            Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

            by seabos84 on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:49:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  People who have a history of being mentally (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              seabos84

              unstable, or who have been ordered by a court to attend anger management classes shouldn't keep their right to bear arms.  

              "These old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

              by Lefty Coaster on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:55:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  that 'anger management' label is NOT as (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                buddabelly

                precise as it should be.

                in '93 when I 33 and transitioning from cooking life to bureaucrat life, I went to the north seattle community college ... ended up graduation u.w. in '97 & working in redmond for 5+ years and now in the k-12 business ---

                kitchens ain't offices, and fishing boats are a world of their own, BUT - 1 of the MOST effective methods of silencing anyone with a f'king pulse with anything to say beyond

                "isn't that nice...ummm... isn't that nice"

                is to say someone else has "anger" issues !

                the popular media, when reporting about the latest nutjob-du-jour running around SHOOTING people, likes to find out whether the person and some kind of anger issues ...

                uh...yeah, whatever. I guess "nutjob-du-jour" isn't satisfying enough a description for people trying to understand the NOT understandable.

                I've seen that "anger" label used a lot in the bureaucratic world, and it is towards people who I don't think are gonna try to pop me in the mouth, and or take my wallet, or burn me to death in their car -

                are the people behaving in office nice manner? nope. the manners of the local barroom when arguing Red Sox VS. Yankees ain't office appropriate, BUT

                unless fists are gonna fly, it ain't "anger".

                that "anger Mangagement" label stuff is un-nerving - although it has seemed to tapered off a bit as a tool for the machiavellis and pea brains.

                rmm.

                Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

                by seabos84 on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 01:11:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Thing is, you don't need to own a gun to support (9+ / 0-)

          the right of others to do so. It is IMO one of our individual rights, spelled out in the Constitution and should be protected. We should never willingly give up any individual right, guard them all.

          "Take it back, take it back. Oh no you can't say that. All of my friends are not dead or in jail." John Prine

          by high uintas on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:36:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  This is only true (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas

          for a subset of adversaries.  Those who only want you to be passive because it makes it easier to violate you are not swayed by your sacrifice.  To those who speak force one must reason with them in their own language.

          I think you've watched War Games once to many times.  Self defense is not tic tac toe with a supercomputer.

      •  I may need to trade down (5+ / 0-)

        my Desert Eagle .44 Magnum. I is 8 lbs 2 oz. fully loaded. It is what I carry with my Concelaed HGL. With what I have been through in my life,it is nice knowing I have the firepower to stop a Semi in its tracks from 200 feet away.

         title=

        I may have to go to a lighter weapon. The shoulder Holster I have for it is chafing my shoulder and my side. I am thinking it is due to the weight. So I am considering going to a lighter weapon to carry and keep the DE at home for Home Defense.

        I'm also considering buying a DE 50 Cal for home defense as well, but before I do, I want to test fire one to see how it recoils.

        I agree AK and M-16 and AR-15 are just too bulky and troublesome to carry around. They are fun to fire on my father's ranch though.

        I for one agree with the Diarist and I agree with the USSC on the 2nd admendment.

        The main focus should be Firearm Education.. Safety, Handling, and Usage.. these things should be fundamental before anyone can purchase a firearm, however the person needs to have a non violent criminal record, have adequate IQ, and proper psychological state of mind in order to purchase a weapon.

        "Action, action, gimme action not words" - Def Leppard

        by WackyMojo on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 05:17:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I did but I couldn't pass it up (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rockhound, Jaime Frontero, KVoimakas

          I traded my daily carry gun a Springer 1911A1 milspec for an eeeevulll AK that's about as blactical as I can make it though there's still a couple empty rails, and my new daily carry, a model 60 Chiefs Special.

          That 20oz is so much easier on my trashed lumbar spine than the springer was....At first I didn't  think it would be such a difference but man it is.

          Though granted I did lose some stopping power and ease of reload, +p+ .38 should do the job and this is the most accurate snub I've shot.

        •   you shoulkd stop by our regular rkba diaries (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rockhound, Jaime Frontero, KVoimakas

          we have another DE owner in the group and his is the 50AE.

          Y'all could exchange notes.

          We're here every Tues morning and Thursday evening.

          Search the rkba tag if you want to see what they're like and you can get on the mailing list too if you'd like......

        •  .....? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rockhound, buddabelly

          You've gotta be kidding me. A DE for concealed carry?

          How big are you? I'm 5'10" and 240-250lbs and open carrying my DE is not something I do lightly, much less concealed.

          MF and RKBA Member. Share Our Wealth -9.00, -4.05

          by KVoimakas on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:31:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  is that 8 lbs correct? hell my whole .45 rig (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rockhound, Jaime Frontero

            including the belt, triple retention holster, the 1911, 2 mag holders and 5 mags all loaded was around 7 lbs.

            That gas system must weigh a ton.  You could definitely use it as a club if you run out of ammo.......

            •  Oh man, and I whine about... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rockhound, buddabelly, KVoimakas

              ...my Commander.

              It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you. 6 points.

              by Jaime Frontero on Mon Jul 05, 2010 at 12:10:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Well (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rockhound, buddabelly, KVoimakas

              Mine is the Mark XIX 4.4 lbs empty weight without clip, Steel frame, not Aluminum (some came as Aluminum frames for lighter weight)

              I use .440 Cor-Bon 240 Gr. JHP ammo, it weighs more than the 260 or 305 gr. versions of the ammo.

              Also, the gun has a 9 round capacity, 1 chambered, 8 in the clip.

              Each round weighs .6 oz and the clip is 8 oz. total weight of 13.4 oz

              So fully loaded the gun itself is 5 1/4 lbs. plus the leather shoulder holster and 2 additional clips.. about 8.2 lbs.

              I didn't mean the gun itself wa 8.2 lbs.

              But it is a heavy gun.

              "Action, action, gimme action not words" - Def Leppard

              by WackyMojo on Mon Jul 05, 2010 at 12:47:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  yup that's a beast but a fine piece. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rockhound, KVoimakas

                those or the AMT automag in 44 would be nice one of these days.

                Going to get a 1911 back first, I still have the rest of the rig including the mags, just need to find the right one for the right trade or price.....

              •  Ok, so it's not the .44, but the .440? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rockhound, buddabelly

                See, the problem I have with the DE as a carry piece is that if you ever had to use it, the prosecution would paint such a horrible picture of me/you and use the "He used a DE for self defense! He's obviously a gun nut!" meme. Which is one of the reasons why I carry what local LEOs carry when it comes to ammo.

                "Hey, the police use it" is a good rationalizer.

                MF and RKBA Member. Share Our Wealth -9.00, -4.05

                by KVoimakas on Mon Jul 05, 2010 at 02:49:30 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No it is the .44 magnum, the gun can (0+ / 0-)

                  convert to a 50 Cal or a .357 Mag.

                  Here is the details on the kit.

                  the 6-inch Mark XIX Desert Eagle Component System in the brushed hard chrome finish.

                  Acquire an instant Desert Eagle collection. This stunning package consists of an aluminum carrying case (jacketed in black ballistic nylon) filled with the components of the Mark XIX system to give the option to switch between all three calibers (.50AE/.44 Magnum/.357 Magnum).

                  Example of how the 6-inch component package would come: .44 Magnum 6-inch pistol (with magazine), .50AE 6-inch barrel, .50AE magazine, .357 Magnum 6-inch barrel, .357 bolt assembly and .357 magazine all packaged inside the aluminum carrying case and case jacket.

                  However I purchased the .44 version of the gun only, no conversion barrels.. Didn't have the extra $600 at the time.

                  I use the rounds .440 because of higher muzzle velocity

                  1900 FPS

                  I could go to a standard .44 Magnum shell, but the .440 is more powerful for lesser grain / weight.

                  a .44 magnum 240 grain shell

                  Specs: Caliber - .44; Bullet Weight - 240 Gr.; Muzzle Velocity - 1375 fps.; Muzzle Energy - 1000 ft-lbs.

                  a .440 magnum Car-Bon shell

                  Specs: Caliber - .440; Bullet Weight - 240 Gr.;  Muzzle Velocity - 1900 fps.; Muzzle Energy - 1925 ft-lbs.

                  The Cor-Bon company produced the .440 Cor-bon cartridge in 1998.  This cartridge necked down from an existing cartridge, the .50 AE to accept a .44-caliber (.429 in) (10.89 mm) bullet. In designing the .440, Cor-bon created a lighter recoiling round with as much or greater penetrating power than the .44 Magnum. The round has a flatter trajectory, and leaves the barrel faster than either the .50 AE or the .44 Mag.

                  My gun is a .44 Magnum. I can use either .440 or .44 shells, they are both compatible with my .44 magnum. the .440 has greater stopping force.

                  I can literally blow a good size hole through an engine block with a .440 Car-Bon shell using 240 grain at a range of about 150 meters (maximum effective range accoring to the gun manual is 200 meters, however with the .440 Car-Bon, I am quite sure it is closer to about 350 - 400 meters).

                  So no, I don't have a .440 DE gun.. they done even make a .440 gun that I am aware of (at least not listed on the Desert Eagle Pro web site where I bought my .44 Magnum Mark XIX.

                  The ejection chamber on my .44 magnum is designed to accomodate the 50 Cal, .44 Mag and the .357 mag as is the firing chamber. The gun actually sets the neck of the casing at the edge of the barrel, the slug itself is in the barrel at time of firing. This give the casing a clean exit from the ejection port.

                  The .440 shell is a 50 Cal AE shell necked down to a .44 cal, suprisingly they are not that much fatter than a standard .44 mag shell, as such, I don't lose any clip room and I have yet to have one jam up out of 280 rounds at the firing range. (I keep track for the the replacement of the recoil spring and barrel and pin).

                  Recoil isn't bad, a little more than a .357 semi auto, much less than the .44 mag revolver.

                  Eh.. I like the .440 stopping power. JHPs are great (Jacketed Hollow Points).. Small entry hole, total obliteration out the back side.. that is if you are shooting metal or wood (tree).

                  As for the Self Defense part, They can think what they want.

                  I for one don't have to worry about stopping power if I have to face a gang member wearing a bullet proof vest.. if he is within 200 Meters, the vest won't make a difference. I just hope I am never in a situation where I have to use it.

                  But as I stated, the gun is chafing me when I carry it, so I need to go to a smaller, lighter weight weapon. I just hate thinking about reducing my stopping power because of Physical discomfort, but before the chafing gets worse, I need to do something.

                  Well off to look at the local gun store tomorrow to see what they have to offer, then to the firing range each afternoon to see if someone has something comparable to what the gun store has (Try before you buy).

                  Anyhow. Off for the night. Laters.

                  "Action, action, gimme action not words" - Def Leppard

                  by WackyMojo on Mon Jul 05, 2010 at 04:47:52 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  My DE-fu must be lacking. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    rockhound, buddabelly

                    My understanding was that the .440 Corbon and the .44 Magnum could not be fired out of the same barrel due to the difference in chambers needed.

                    The DE was chambered in .440 Corbon for a very short time period.

                    MF and RKBA Member. Share Our Wealth -9.00, -4.05

                    by KVoimakas on Mon Jul 05, 2010 at 06:03:15 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  can't be interchangeable without changing barrels (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      rockhound, KVoimakas

                      as the .440 is a necked down 50AE they're not even really similar let alone enough to both fire from one chamber.

                      Half of the 44 mag case would be unsupported and she'd be a kaboom in the making. 44 caliber yes but....

                      •  here's some info (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        KVoimakas

                        The Mark VII Desert Eagle .50AE Pistol
                        There is no differences, same as Mark XIX. What happen was when we first produced the .50AE pistols we called them the Mark VII series, but as we changed the .357 and .44 to share the same slide assembly as the .50AE we decided to call this series the Mark XIX.

                        The Mark XIX Desert Eagle .50AE Pistol

                        •Barrel, the six and ten-inch all have a 7/8" dovetail on top with cross-slots for scopes;
                        •Slide Assembly, the slide is physically larger to accommodate the barrels with the 7/8" dovetail;
                        •Frame Assembly, two-stage trigger and plastic grips;
                        •Appointments, safety levers are hook shaped;
                        •Slide release lever has three steps for ease of operation;

                        *The Mark XIX Desert Eagle .50AE Magnum pistols are convertible to other Mark XIX calibers (.440) by simply switching the barrel, to go to the .44 you also need to switch the magazine and to go to the .357 you need to switch the bolt assembly,barrel and magazine.

                        The Mark XIX Desert Eagle .440 CorrBon Pistol

                        •Barrel, the six and ten-inch all have a 7/8" dovetail on top with cross-slots for scopes;
                        •Slide Assembly, the slide is physically larger to accommodate the barrels with the 7/8" dovetail;
                        •Frame Assembly, two-stage trigger and plastic grips;
                        •Appointments, safety levers are hook shaped;
                        •slide release lever has three steps for ease of operation;

                        *The Mark XIX Desert Eagle .440 CorrBon pistols are convertible to other Mark XIX calibers (.50AE Magnum) by simply switching the barrel, to go to the .44 you also need to switch the magazine and to go to the .357 you need to switch the bolt assembly, barrel and magazine.

                        Maybe the.440 is a different barrel? I guess that is what they shipped? funny, but I am able to fire .44 magnum and .440 magnum from my gun, and the book / certification for the gun states it is a .44 magnum, not a .440...

                        I did buy ammo and the gun at the same time, so maybe they did change the barrel to accomodate?

                        I'll have to look into it further. I do know that the 50AE shell won't fire from this barrel and the .357 won't fire.

                        You have me currious now.

                        According to the info given above, I use a .44 magnum barrel and have a clip for .440 ammo, to go to .44 magnum, I just change out my clip. I do remember haviong to do that when I bought it 6 years ago (can't believe I forgot about the difference in clip size, then again I haven't used a .44 magnum shell in years since I found out about Car-Bon).

                        I'll have to call them and find out if they changed the barrel or if indeed I have a .44 magnum barrel.

                        "Action, action, gimme action not words" - Def Leppard

                        by WackyMojo on Mon Jul 05, 2010 at 01:50:23 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  4.5 lbs unloaded (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rockhound

              and that's the .50AE version. I think the .44 version is heavier since it uses the .50AE barrel bored to a .44 'hole.'

              MF and RKBA Member. Share Our Wealth -9.00, -4.05

              by KVoimakas on Mon Jul 05, 2010 at 02:47:24 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  A distinction lost on gun owners within earshot (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sychotic1, Alice Olson
    •  Not just gun nuts (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buddabelly, lordcopper

      Gun nuts are people who think we should all be able to walk around with AKs etc...

      Anyone who respects the Bill of Rights has to accept all of its freedoms.  "Bear arms" is not limited.  You may not think it's a good idea for us to have the right to walk around with RPG launchers or stinger missiles, but constitutionally, we do have the right.  Personally, I think the 2nd amendment should be changed to reflect today's realities, but until it is, we should be as willing to support the 2nd amendment with the same vigor we support the others.

      Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity. -- Alvy Ray Smith

      by John Q on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:20:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas

        ...but THAT fight will be something to behold. Any politico who suggests altering the 2nd amendment would probably be recalled during the presser...

        "Earth First! Make Mars our bitch!"

        by 3CPO on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:00:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  BS: the constitution is not set in stone (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eglantine

        Amendments get made, and REPEALED.   The continual carnage in the US compared to other nations argues for repeal of the 2nd amendment.

        •  There are reasonable gun owners (0+ / 0-)

          I believe they should join the NRA, and vote to elect reasonable leaders in that organization who would support a change to the 2nd amendment.

          Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity. -- Alvy Ray Smith

          by John Q on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:30:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Carnage being what? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rockhound, buddabelly

          The 31k firearm related deaths (and that includes suicides) for the MILLIONS of people in this country.

          Small %.

          MF and RKBA Member. Share Our Wealth -9.00, -4.05

          by KVoimakas on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:33:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Carnage eh.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas

          So based on the 700k doctors who kill 44k-98k per year in the US (Concealed carry licensee's 137 over three years VPC report 2009), then we should be able to easily repeal mandatory health care as doctors are a serious public health risk.

          I mean how can the gooberment force anyone to see a doctor when the doctor is 14,000 to 31,000 times more likely to kill you than a person licensed to carry concealed?

          P.S. Want to see carnage, go ahead and try repealing the second amendment and see what happens. Please let us know where you will be attempting to enforce such an action as seeing brains and blood being splattered tends to make me nauseous anymore and I do not want to be anywhere near you, wouldn't be safe!

    •  On the subject of "gun nuts" (8+ / 0-)

      There are many boards and forums for gun owners. Every state has a dedicated concealed carry forum. There's Defensive Concealed Carry, The High Road, and many other venues where firearm enthusiasts share news and information.

      Members range from those who may carry a small handgun for protection to those who haul around a couple of 1911 .45s for a jaunt down to the corner store. But those aren't gun nuts.

      The guys who never take a gun off except for taking a shower, who have guns stuffed under the sofa cushions, hidden in every room of the house, who feel vulnerable and defenseless at any moment their hands are more than 6 inches from a firearm, those guys are a little nutty.

      But they're also within their rights. For better or worse most of them won't vote for Democrats because they were raised to believe that Democrats are gun-grabbers who want to enact a total ban on all firearms.

      If the republicans didn't own this issue we'd have them so shellacked it isn't even funny. This gun-control business hurt us so bad, it gave so many free wins to the worst people, and it bought us nothing. This diary really nails it - we have to own this one just as we own the rule of law and the concept of civil liberties.

      Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

      by The Raven on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 02:18:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A Liberal Militia: I'm For It. (47+ / 0-)

    Liberals and progressives should not arm themselves because of some looming and nonsensical "endtime". Conservatives and especially the extreme right wing crazies dream their dreams of revolution and the collapse of society and how they will magically be the ones to run things afterwards. Uh, yeah.

    I'll boil it down to this. Nothing bad can come from learning about a thing or protecting yourself. I'm not talking out of my ass when I say that liberals are probably a lot smarter if not just more curious than people on the right. I think gun ownership by people on the left would not only help to demythologize guns but to provide a way for progressive gun owners to have an influence on the debate from the inside. It wouldn't hurt to have the skill to use guns properly and safely either.

    The Modern GOP: A holy pwned subsidiary of the Tea Party.

    by The Lone Apple on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:07:33 AM PDT

  •  the right to stand and fight (41+ / 0-)

    My wife and mother-in-law are originally from Tver', Russia.
    In October 1941, the Nazis came to town on their way to Moscow. Two months later, the Red Army drove most of them out of town... except for the 30,000 invaders who were killed by a determined local insurgency.

    Neither of these women has any problem with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. They are comforted by the revolvers in their nightstands, the Glock in mine, and the Mauser in the closet.

    "She's petite, extremely beautiful, and heavily armed." -1995 Michael Moore documentary Canadian Bacon

    by Tom Seaview on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:08:30 AM PDT

  •  Well said, gives food for thought. (15+ / 0-)

    Well argued diary. Now if only our culture was not so gun-crazy ... perhaps that is not something we can legislate against.

    Listen up, guys! It turns out that if we don't hurry up and change the world, later it's the world that changes us. --Mafalda

    by forester on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:08:45 AM PDT

  •  80ish a day dead in the USA from guns (28+ / 0-)

    300ish a day wounded in the USA
    With rights come responsibilities .

    "I'm not going back there, it's full of jerks." Shahyar

    by indycam on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:09:04 AM PDT

  •  Great stuff, AM (22+ / 0-)

    I totally agree, and have always felt the disconnect that you describe.  Gun ownership is not the reason for our high rates of violent crime; economic inequality is.

    And, even if it was, it would not be a reason to deny the rights granted to us by the second amendment.

    The second amendment gives the people ultimate power; hopefully, we won't have to go there.

    "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

    by La Gitane on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:09:21 AM PDT

  •  Good thing this is frontpaged (35+ / 0-)

    Otherwise it would be HR'ed into oblivion by those who get all squicky when someone suggests that owning a gun might have some wisdom to it.

    If bin Laden owned an oil company, [the GOP would] be wearing long beards and shooting at US troops in Afghanistan.-Geekesque

    by Dr Squid on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:10:03 AM PDT

  •  Very good analysis (18+ / 0-)

    I, for one, never understood the rationale between the total gun bans in DC, New York and Chicago.  To my mind, it's just like First Amendment cases--unless you can come up with a less restrictive method, these restrictions are prima facie unconstitutional.

    Something else we should consider--a national right-to-carry law,

  •  My dad owns 4-5 guns and is no 'gun nut'. (19+ / 0-)

    And he'd be fine with tighter ownership restrictions.

    Freedom of speech has a number of exceptions.

    There is no hypocrisy in loving the constitution and feeling that the second amendment cold be hedged in, even as is the first, with sensible limitations.

    Am I cynical? Yes I am! - Bob the Builder's lesser known brother Pete the Politician

    by Ezekial 23 20 on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:10:33 AM PDT

  •  Perhaps of all days (33+ / 0-)

    this is the best one to repost this, and I thank you for it Ms. Mouse. We should embrace the entire Bill of Rights, not just a select few.

    But excuse me, for it is my birthday, and I'm off to watch "Gettysburg".

    Read or *listen to* my SF novel for free. (-7.13/-7.33)

    by Shadan7 on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:10:42 AM PDT

  •  Hmmm... (8+ / 0-)

    Should we continue to fight to classify African-American men as 3/5 persons?

    I think not.

    The Constitution should be changed when it's wrong.

    The Second Amendment is wrong, as they interpret it.

    •  You're welcome to try to get it repealed. (17+ / 0-)

      Until then, quit threatening my Constitutional rights.

      Are you working to reduce pain, or just distribute it?

      by Liberaltarianish on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:17:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Amendment is ok (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Uberbah, Scioto, allergywoman

      it's the current interpretation of it, pushed by ideological extremists in the NRA, that is totally fucked up.

      That a frontpage writer on DailyKos is channeling the NRA shows just how serious the damage to civil society in the US has become.

      •  Or perhaps (16+ / 0-)

        That a frontpage writer on DailyKos is channeling the NRA shows just how serious the damage to civil society in the US has become.

        Or perhaps it shows that more and more people on the left are beginning to see that supporting all our rights means breaking with authoritarianism from the old line liberals.

        Read or *listen to* my SF novel for free. (-7.13/-7.33)

        by Shadan7 on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:25:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Look, you may want to live in a society (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Odysseus, stevej, FutureNow, Uberbah, nutbutter

          where everyone is constantly peering over the shoulder to see whose packing heat and when it's necessary to pull the trigger.

          You may want to live in a war of everyman against everyman.

          Me, I prefer a civil society.  I pay for a government to collect the garbage, to educate my children, to build and maintain the roads my car needs to drive on, and also to track down and imprison criminals who threaten my life and property.

          That's THE BASIC FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT, as understood by the Founders themselves.

          •  you do realize the police have no duty to protect (11+ / 0-)

            you?  The police perform a needed function but that's not your defense.  You are responsible for that yourselves.  

            That's why many liberals "keep and bear"........

            •  Locke is relevant here (0+ / 0-)

              considering he was the inspiration of the US Constitution:

              he inconveniencies that they are therein exposed to by the irregular and uncertain exercise of the power every man has of punishing the transgressions of others, make them take sanctuary under the established laws of government, and therein seek the preservation of their property. It is this that makes them so willingly give up every one his single power of punishing to be exercised by such alone as shall be appointed to it amongst them, and by such rules as the community, or those authorised by them to that purpose, shall agree on.

              •  It has nothing to do with punishing transgressors (9+ / 0-)

                that is the police's job.

                Personal protection/self defense is what they can not do as there's no possible way to do it.

                Every person has the duty to protect them and theirs, not to seek retribution for a crime committed.

              •  Methinks your interpretation of Locke is wrong (3+ / 0-)

                The way I'm reading it, Locke is pointing out that man is willing to sacrifice certain individual rights--more specifically, rights possessed when one lives outside the bonds of a government--to that government in order to maintain the preservation and protection of their property from other individuals.

                If you would, please explain your interpretation of this quote and how it applies to the Second Amendment.

                Conservative since 1992. Open-minded since birth.

                by ShowMe on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:46:05 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The argument is made (0+ / 0-)

                  that the Founders wrote the Second Amendment in order to guarantee that individuals in society would have the means to provide for their own self-defense.  SCOTUS, for example, suggests as much in McDonald v. Chicago.

                  That argument, however, is completely wrong-headed.  The Founders, overwhelmingly, shared a Lockean view of human nature and of civil society, in which individuals willingly and freely gave up certain of their rights to the government in order to guarantee a more stable and civil life for themselves.

                  Your interpretation of Locke is correct, and matches my own.  What is faulty here is your application of Locke to the question of unrestricted gun ownership.

                  When everyone owns a gun and is responsible for their own self defense, we are by definition in a Lockean state of nature, a state he argues quickly collapses.

                  •  I don't believe everyone is arguing for a (4+ / 0-)

                    state of nature where we all fend for ourselves.  What I think buddabelly was striking at was that the police, while usually assumed to have the task to protect the public and the individual citizenry, are not solely responsible for that task.  One would assume that it falls to the hands of the individual to protect themselves when they are under assault.  And I don't think that view--that one can sometimes be forced to fend for themselves--is incompatible with Locke.

                    Conservative since 1992. Open-minded since birth.

                    by ShowMe on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:57:01 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You need to read Locke (0+ / 0-)

                      in his entirety.

                      It's a short read, not even two hundred pages.  When you're done, you should clearly and easily see the contradiction between unrestricted gun ownership and what he calls civil society.

                      Making people responsible for their own self defense is the opposite of civil society.  The role of the state is to do that for us.

                      •  I've read Locke, (6+ / 0-)

                        several times as a matter of fact.  I (as well as many of the 2A advocates on here and out in society) aren't calling for unrestricted gun ownership.  There are, in fact, some reasonable restrictions--just like there are with freedom of speech (the fire-in-theater exception, for one).  Banning "cop-killer" bullets, no felons with guns, etc.  But the DC, Chicago, New York, etc. bans were not "reasonable restrictions".  If you read the text of the ordinances, they acted as not only an actual ban on handguns, but an effective ban on all firearms whatsoever.  I think what AM and most of the 2A advocates on here are pushing against is the tendency of many liberals and progressives to try and outlaw firearms altogether, not just to push for "reasonable restrictions"

                        Conservative since 1992. Open-minded since birth.

                        by ShowMe on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:04:46 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Elsewhere, you are trying to argue (0+ / 0-)

                          that Locke can be used to support individual ownership of handguns for self defense.  However, he cannot be used in that way.

                          The Second Amendment provides for individual ownership of firearms to support a well regulated (i.e., state-run) militia.  Any other reading of it is tendentious and false.

                          The experience of urban communities in the United States is that too easy access to firearms has led to unsustainable degrees of physical insecurity, especially in poor communities plagued by gang violence.  In such circumstances, an absolute ban on weapons can be an effective measure to help provide for the security of all citizens.

                          •  And how has that been working out? (4+ / 0-)

                            I lived in DC for about a year during the time the handgun ban was in effect.  (Same thing for Chicago as well).  In fact, the handgun ban has been around most of my life, IIRC. And it doesn't seem to have done much.  Crime was still rampant, if not more so than when the ban had not been enacted.  Meanwhile, a great deal of studies are showing a correlation between increased handgun ownership privileges (right to carry, etc.) and a drop in the crime rate.  Granted, correlation doesn't equal causation, but most every single route of evidence would tend to support the proposition that increasing the amount of liberties one has with firearms and handguns tends to decrease the overall crime rate.

                            In any case, I've got to get off here--girlfriend, festivities, and all that.  Enjoy your weekend.

                            Conservative since 1992. Open-minded since birth.

                            by ShowMe on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:15:12 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Now you're delving into State of Nature (0+ / 0-)

                            Eliminate the restrictions on handguns, and you will require all of us to carry one.

                            I prefer to live in civil society.  

                          •  A society that doesn't allow for self defense is (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Jaime Frontero, buddabelly

                            not civil.

                            MF and RKBA Member. Share Our Wealth -9.00, -4.05

                            by KVoimakas on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:02:26 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  NIce Right Wing talking point. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas

                            "Eliminate the restrictions on abortions, and you will require all of us to have one."

                            Typical.

                            It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you. 6 points.

                            by Jaime Frontero on Mon Jul 05, 2010 at 12:42:47 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  your analysis fails (3+ / 0-)

                    when you attribute the constitution to Locke alone. the framers may very well have recognized that he was right. however, Locke talks about the surrender of rights for other benefits and i think the framers rejected that notion in favor of delegating authorities and retention of the rights/responsibilities by the people from whom all authority flows. this theme is rampant throughout the Constitution. glaringly so.

                    your contention that the framers ideas flowed directly from Locke is just wrong. the evidence describes something more akin to a compromise with Locke than anything else.

                    "Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear." Gladstone, Me -8.88/-7.08

                    by zedaker on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:14:37 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  locke (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                buddabelly, 3CPO

                was a brilliant thinker, but just as outdated as the second amendment

                why should I skip over our country's founding document at outdated in order to reach another thinkers outdated principles?

                not did locke sit and negotiate the language in the constitution; certainly an inspiration, but not the actual maker

                and finally, the rest of the world has moved to positive human rights as the basis for rights theory, leading to such wonderful innovations as universal health care - do you really want to argue on a basis of negative rights and give up the opportunity to reorient and expand the rights available to us?

                A health care reform act was only the first in a series of progressive initiatives -- collectively known as "The Big F**king Deal"

                by Taunger on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:51:46 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So much of the argument (0+ / 0-)

                  extremists deploy in favor of unrestricted gun rights is based on what they claim is an originalist construction of the Second's meaning.  Yet an originalist interpretation, I argue, has to take Locke into account, because the Founders in fact not just attempt but in large measure succeeded in creating a Lockean state.

                  The extremist interpretation of the Second is in frank contradiction with Lockean principles, which can be used to demolish their supposed originalist interpretation.

          •  And that's perfectly fine. (6+ / 0-)

            And if you have a problem with the Second Amendment--that is, if you think "shall not be infringed" means "go ahead and infringe away", or that 9 of the 10 BoR amendments protect the individual right but the Second Amendment protects the collective right, or whatever you feel--then work to get it repealed or work to amend the Constitution to be more clear.  You know, that method of changing the Constitution that nobody in this country seems to try because it's "too hard".  Otherwise, tough titties.  We can't pick and choose which provisions we like and will fight for, and which ones we'll ignore.  

            Conservative since 1992. Open-minded since birth.

            by ShowMe on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:39:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No need to amend the Constitution (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              justicemoney

              all we need do is return to its original meaning before the troglodyte neanderthals got their hands on it.

              The Second does provide for individual ownership of arms, but it does so in the context of providing for a well-regulated militia, not in the context of providing for individual self-defense.

              The American courts understood that point well until the NRA -- as viciously a rightwing organization as you could imagine -- began their long campaign of changing Americans' minds about what our rights are, distorting the current popular conception far from anything the Founders ever actually had in mind.

              •  As AM pointed out, (4+ / 0-)

                assuming that you are correct--that the only reason the founders gave the right to keep and bear arms was for militia use--it is still inconsequential.  The reason they gave us the First Amendment was to criticize the government.  Should I then be barred from telling a guy on the street to go fuck themselves?  What about veggie libel laws--would they not seem to be a prima facie infringement of the First Amendment, despite the fact that there is no political speech involved?

                Conservative since 1992. Open-minded since birth.

                by ShowMe on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:49:46 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Again, the Founders were Lockeans (0+ / 0-)

                  and they were not interested in creating a society that would soon collapse into an unstable State of Nature.  They wanted a society that would last for ages, and they organized a federal government with broad powers to maintain the general welfare.

                  Making every single individual responsible for their own self-defense, which the NRA would have us believe is the true meaning of the Second Amendment, flies so directly in the face of everything else the Founders put into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that it is quite clearly the wrong interpretation of the constitutional text.

                  Looking at the history of the era as well, the Founders' well-documented use of state power to put down Shays's and Whiskey Rebels, again should make us pause before leaping to the conclusion the Second is all about unrestricted gun ownership as a check on state power.

                  •  As I said above, (3+ / 0-)

                    if you were in a pure state of nature, that would be correct.  But Locke's view--that one must often give up certain rights of nature in order to protect one's property--is not incompatible with the belief that one has not only the right, but also the responsibility of self-defense.

                    Conservative since 1992. Open-minded since birth.

                    by ShowMe on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:00:01 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  In the abstract, that might make sense (0+ / 0-)

                      but here's what Locke himself wrote (same link as above):

                      Secondly, the power of punishing he wholly gives up, and engages his natural force, which he might before employ in the execution of the law of Nature, by his own single authority, as he thought fit, to assist the executive power of the society as the law thereof shall require. For being now in a new state, wherein he is to enjoy many conveniencies from the labour, assistance, and society of others in the same community, as well as protection from its whole strength, he is to part also with as much of his natural liberty, in providing for himself, as the good, prosperity, and safety of the society shall require, which is not only necessary but just, since the other members of the society do the like.

                      There's no doubt in my mind Locke himself would have seen unrestricted gun ownership as an abomination.

                  •  Which is why (0+ / 0-)

                    they didn't pass a Bill of Rights.

                    The question is not whether the chickens needed replacing, the question is whether the fox should have been guarding them in the first place.

                    by happymisanthropy on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:05:48 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Texas veggie libel law (0+ / 0-)

                  The chamber of Commerce printed these pre trial

                  The only Mad cow in Amarillo is Oprah

                  There wife's had them destroyed & welcomed her TV show to town

                  Who is Mighty? One who turns an enemy into a Friend!

                  by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 09:51:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Self defense (10+ / 0-)

            is always justified, even in a civil society. The police are not responsible for your safety - they protect society only by catching criminals after the fact. My dad was a cop, and many of my friends are cops to this day, and every single one of them has always said that cops pick up the pieces - they don't protect individuals.

            And firearms are great force equalizers, so that even those who are old, or who have been injured, or who are weak, can protect themselves - or do you believe that they should just submit to violence by the young, healthy, and strong?

            Read or *listen to* my SF novel for free. (-7.13/-7.33)

            by Shadan7 on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:44:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ltsply2, litho, SunsetMagnolia

        That a frontpage writer on DailyKos is channeling the NRA shows just how serious the damage to civil society in the US has become.

        Exactly. She doesn't even present a good argument. She is making the assumption that those of us who are anti gun have no problem at all with any other part of the constitution. One huge assumption.

        The Teabaggers are the GOP base

        by stevej on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:37:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So what are you against? (10+ / 0-)

          Freedom of speech? Goodbye voting, that's speech in the form of a political choice.

          Freedom of a trial? Goodbye fair hearings and hello revenge accusations for the purpose of taking your house.

          What are you against in the rest of the bill of rights?

          Miseris Succurrere Disco

          by JayFromPA on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:45:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Um (1+ / 0-)

            That's just silly.

            How about the idea that blacks can be slaves and count as 3/5 of a person?

            Or that women can't vote?

            Or that alcohol consumption is prohibited?

            Those were all in the Constitution and when it was decided that they didn't reflect modern sensibilities they were changed.

            If you want examples that haven't been repealed, how about the Electoral College. Rightly or wrongly LOTS of people have problems with that one. Or term limits.

            The point is that lots of people have legitimate issues with areas of the Constitution (that you may or may not agree with). That they have these does not automatically mean they are wrong. The Constitution is NOT infallible and the fact that the founders made allowances for its amending (and actually made use of this themselves) proves that.

            PrairieStateBlue - Open Source Illinois Politics

            by ltsply2 on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 02:39:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Just because the NRA holds a view... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buddabelly, KVoimakas

        ...doesn't automatically mean that they're incorrect.

        Back in the day of analog timepieces, the saying was that a stopped clock is still right twice a day.  So to with the NRA -- while I don't agree with their every specific view, I do generally think that they're generally right to interpret the Second Amendment fairly broadly.

        Ironically enough, back in 2003 the NRA took some heat from the right when they sided with liberal groups against the Bush FCC's attempts to further loosen ownership restriction on radio and TV stations (under Michael Powell).  I was certainly more than happy to have them on our side for that issue, and so I don't mind finding myself on the same side when it comes to the Second Amendment, either.

        Even if I'm still disgusted with the NRA in many other ways -- such as their attempts to portray Obama as an enemy of gun owners when he's done absolutely nothing against their interests.

        Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

        by TexasTom on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 01:24:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  2nd Amendment (11+ / 0-)

    Why is when discussing the 2nd Amendment no one EVER talks about the first part of the Amendment which states "A well REGULATED (italics mine)militia"
    The word regulate is in the first sentence of the Amendment, yet we cede this to the NRA when talking about the second amendment that people have an individual right to have a gun.
    If they do, why does the Amendment use the word regulate?
    One may argue that individuals should have a right to have a gun, but that is NOT what the 2nd Amendment says.
    If you want individuals to have a Constitutional right to have a gun, then you must AMEND the Constitution.

    •  Regulated (15+ / 0-)

      in the 18th century meant "equipped."

      It did not mean as we take it in he 21st, which is, "bound by all manner of rules."

      •  never seen it used that way (5+ / 0-)

        but the militias were regulated - they had rules (that is, regulations) about things like drilling every month or so - they weren't kidding about that part, either; they had experience with needing organized armed force in a hurry.

        The other thing you have to remember, and this does get lost a lot by both sides, is that we weren't going to have the kind of standing army that we have now. We were only going to have a small group of regular army, and the rest was going to be militia.
        That ended with the war of 1812, I think, and after that the military just got bigger every time there was a war.

        (Is it time for the pitchforks and torches yet?)

        by PJEvans on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:35:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, equipped and operating under discipline. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        davewill

        A " well regulated militia" is not a bunch if yahoos that want to overthrow the Constitutional government. But rather the populace that can be brought to bear, as a fighting force, when needed by the people (government). So the militia can fight off Indians, British, and insurrectionists. It can't fight US regular forces, or other militias called to federal service by the Congress.

        The idea that the Constitution recognizes an individual right to arms, devoid of a militia context is just wrong. (Yes I know that 5 justices decided otherwise, overturning 200 years of precedent. They were wrong. )

        •  So many people say that... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          buddabelly, KVoimakas, the tmax

          ...why can't they find a single founding father who agrees with them?

          The question is not whether the chickens needed replacing, the question is whether the fox should have been guarding them in the first place.

          by happymisanthropy on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:11:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  How's John Adams for a Founding Father? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Late Spring

            He obviously thought a well regulated militia was one controlled by the government.

            To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
            A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 3:475 (1787-1788).

            Maybe George Mason:

            That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state.
            Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People", later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention (1788).

            The idea of an undisciplined, heavily armed populace would have been troubling to most of the Founding Fathers. Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson being among the more 'liberal' interpreters they both still were ready for more revolution at the time.  

            •  Excuse me (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              buddabelly, KVoimakas

              what part of

              except in private self-defense,

              did you miss?

              The question is not whether the chickens needed replacing, the question is whether the fox should have been guarding them in the first place.

              by happymisanthropy on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 04:55:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  To be more obnoxiously direct and to the point (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              buddabelly, KVoimakas

              show me where he says that average people do not have a right to own guns.

              The question is not whether the chickens needed replacing, the question is whether the fox should have been guarding them in the first place.

              by happymisanthropy on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 04:56:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  He's pretty clearly saying that arms relate to (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Late Spring

                The common defense, and that there is a possibility of legal USE of arms in self defense.  

                He does not say the people have an individual right. It's tied to the militia. I don't have a problem with that.  It's  the folks that want to create their own private armory to "defend the constutition from the government" that I object to.

                The history is pretty clear that arms in individual hands relates to the militia. You can ignore tha, but look at the facts.

                To pull 4 words out of the quote and claim that they imply a right is reaching a bit.    

        •  Also (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          buddabelly, KVoimakas

          the 200 years is a flat-out lie.  Cruikshank is 1880s, so it's 130 years or so.  Before that, NO ONE would have suggested that there was no individual right to keep arms and to bear arms.

          The question is not whether the chickens needed replacing, the question is whether the fox should have been guarding them in the first place.

          by happymisanthropy on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 04:59:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  and Cruikshank admitted it was an individual righ (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KVoimakas

            that's why they didn't incorporate as it would have given the black man the same right of self defense the white man had and that just wouldn't do.

            Miller even implied it was an individual right, just the weapon wasn't of the proper category, no military utility.  If it had or maybe if Miller had been defended at all or if it was a Thompson, a weapon of indisputable military utility, the NFA might well have been overturned.....

    •  The diary has a pretty good rebuttal (12+ / 0-)

      that is more supported than your position.

      Are you working to reduce pain, or just distribute it?

      by Liberaltarianish on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:18:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's wrong. (8+ / 0-)

      "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

      The first part of the second amendment EXPLAINS the right, the second DEFINES it.  This country had just fought a revolution against a colonial power.  It was understood that the government would of necessity maintain a militia, therefore the people would need to maintain arms as well in order to maintain a balance of power.

      "The more laws, the less justice."

      by Denverlibertarian on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:20:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is nothing in the Amendment (8+ / 0-)

        supporting the position that individuals need guns to provide for their individual self-defense.

        The Amendment supports the notion that people need guns to support the defense of the state from enemies foreign and domestic.

        The Amendment expressly did not support the idea that people willy-nilly could form their own militias to take state power.  All you need to do is look at the history of Shays's Rebellion, which was violently put down by the State of Massachusetts and provided the inspiration for the call to a Constitutional Convention, and of the Whiskey Rebellion, which was violently put down by the president in one of his first acts leading the federal government, to realize the founders were not at all interested in empowering any fool to set himself up as arbiter of the powers of the state.

        •  The militia was individual private persons. (5+ / 0-)

          How you have a 'militia' that isn't made up of individual private persons, none of whom were 'professional militia' without each of those individual private persons having their own firearms...

          Can you explain how you could have a fleet, without individual ships armed with personal propellers?

          Can you explain how you could have a mob, without individual persons equipped with individually held torches?

          Can you explain how you could have a group blog such as daily kos, without individual members equipped with individually owned computers?

          Do you see how silly it is to demand a collective right and ban an individual right, when the only way to build that collective is with individuals?

          Miseris Succurrere Disco

          by JayFromPA on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:51:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You didn't read me very well (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mayfly, cheinke

            The Amendment supports the notion that people need guns to support the defense of the state from enemies foreign and domestic.

            The question is whether they need guns for self-defense or to support a militia.  My argument is the Amendment says they need guns to support a militia.

            The Amendment doesn't support the notion people need guns for self defense.

            •  I think the self-defense part of the equation is (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas

              simply ignored by the Constitution. Most of the country was wilderness then and I expect the question didn't even come up.  Settlers were still defending land against the Native Americans they stole it from. Especially on what was then the frontier, a lot of "self defense" was going on.

              I think the Militia need was specified in the Constitution for reasons others have described very well on this thread.

              Resist corporate serfdom.

              by Mayfly on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:41:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  As for the balance of power (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buckhorn okie, divineorder

        the Founders addressed that issue in the Federalist papers.

        Military force simply does not enter in as a guarantee of the rights of the people.  Rather, the system of checks and balances in their view worked just fine.

        •  The position of the founders is quite clear.... (5+ / 0-)

          ....when you appreciate the fact that they were gun owners themselves and they and no illusion about the danger the state posed to liberty. By studying their thoughts on the subject in context there can be no mistake.  It saddens me the party of Jefferson has forgotten this.

          "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

          -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

          "The more laws, the less justice."

          by Denverlibertarian on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:50:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Nonsense (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          buddabelly, KVoimakas

          I forget which, but even the Federalist papers assume that private citizens with private firearms would provide enough FORCE to counterbalance possible abuse by the government.

          And that's WITHOUT a second amendment.

          The question is not whether the chickens needed replacing, the question is whether the fox should have been guarding them in the first place.

          by happymisanthropy on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:13:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  amazing how many (0+ / 0-)

        posters with libertarian in their UID have suddenly appeared. must be a coincidence.

        The Teabaggers are the GOP base

        by stevej on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:38:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly. (5+ / 0-)

      The gun violene in this nation is repulsive and none of these rah rah 2nd amendment arguments work for me.

      There's a fervor in gun collectors I find disturbing.

  •  I'm not too concerned (29+ / 0-)

    about the Second Amendment for one very simple reason:  it's the only one of our rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights that has a powerful lobby  protecting it.  It's the only one of the rights so enumerated that is explicitly exempt from limitation by state and local authorities.  In fact, increasingly the practices of local authorities have made the supposed First Amendment right to peaceably assemble effectively disappear; unless we consider a wired in cage miles from nowhere where nobody except the ring of cops surrounding it will ever hear the points the assembled make in their designated "Free Speech Zone" to be an appropriate limitation on exercise of the right to assemble.  We can be certain that the "RKBA" crowd would never in a million years accept such strident limitation of their Second Amendment, in fact, they have secured the Supreme Court ruling that there can be no such local limitation on toting around your favorite gat.  But while those rights expand, the FIrst, FOurth, FIfth, SIxth and Eighth are dying, held in contempt by that very same America that so fervently embraces the Second Amendment.  SO if I don't put as much energy and emphasis on fighting for the Second Amendment, there's a simple reason, the rest of the Amendments need what little help I can provide them far more, as they are much much more endangered.

    We who have been nothing shall be all. This is the final struggle. ~E. Pottier

    by ActivistGuy on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:11:08 AM PDT

  •  Outstanding (6+ / 0-)

    It is telling that the politically powerful (who ALL get to carry guns or have men with guns close at hand to protect THEM from criminals) exempt THEMSELVES from gun control laws.

    If NOT being allowed to carry a handgun makes you safer, then why are the police and politicians allowed to? I've never read of a cop getting mugged while on duty.

    C.J. Maloney's first book (on Arthurdale, West Virginia during the New Deal) is to be released by John Wiley and Sons in February 2011.

    by CJ Maloney on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:11:29 AM PDT

  •  One can see the political benefits of this. (9+ / 0-)

    If that is your point, fine.

    But I don't know of anyone who opposes the 2nd Amendment. Not a single person.

    I do know lots of people who think it has been interpreted in a way that permits a type of gun ownership (keeping and bearing) that not only was not intended/envisioned but also makes absolutely no sense and costs people lives.

    Long live the 2nd Amendment. You shouldn't get to own the equivalent of a machine gun.

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:11:41 AM PDT

  •  Mouse, can you comment on Part B of the (3+ / 0-)

    intro to the militia code?  In other words, only women who are part of the National Guard are in the militia and have the right to carry weapons.

    I feel safer now knowing my wife doesn't have the same right I have as a greater than 17 year old man.

  •  fuckin' awesome post (20+ / 0-)

    the bill of rights isn't a cafeteria plan.

    Die with your boots on. Gonna try? Well stick around. Gonna cry? Just move along. The truth of all predictions is always in your hands. - Iron Maiden

    by Cedwyn on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:12:07 AM PDT

  •  This liberal is also a gun nut - love sporting (9+ / 0-)

    clays, trap, target shooting; but no way in hell do folks need to be carrying handguns to the grocery store and restuarants, nor do they need unfettered access to fricking automatic weapons!!

    "Our 'neoconservatives' are neither new nor conservative, but old as Babylon and evil as Hell" - Edward Abbey

    by stormserge on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:12:32 AM PDT

  •  The Second Amendment does not mention guns. (27+ / 0-)

    It mentions arms.  An unless we can all agree on an absolute constitutional right to weapons-grade plutonium, we all agree at some level that some common sense restrictions need to be in place.

    The debate is about where we draw the line.

    Obama is losing John Edwards' base.

    by snout on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:12:33 AM PDT

    •  Probably the line should be under nuclear. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SadTexan, happymisanthropy
    •  Again, this is tricky (10+ / 0-)

      Even the founding fathers probably wouldn't have argued for the right to own field cannon.

      OTOH, their intention was clearly that citizens would own SOTA military small arms. These days, that's an M4 carbine.

      •  Both sides need to concede something. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Uberbah, KVoimakas, liberalbully

        Gun enthusiasts need to concede that some regulation must exist.  Gun foes need to concede that the constitution does indeed confer a legitimate use for guns in society.

        We should put our energy into debating where that line ought to be, knowing that the constitution does not answer that question for us.  The founders wanted us to answer questions like that for ourselves.

        Obama is losing John Edwards' base.

        by snout on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:27:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And I'm all for regulation (7+ / 0-)

          when it actually makes sense. A lot of the "common sense" regulations that are proposed by people who don't understand a thing about firearms. And oftentimes, they're pretty expensive, too.

          •  All well and good. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KVoimakas

            But that leaves you uncomfortably ahead of the national debate.  As a larger society we continue to get bogged down in the question of whether guns ought to be legal at all.

            Personally I have great revulsion for guns.  Don't like 'em.  Would never own one.  Would prefer that they were all melted and made into action figures.  But I like the constitution and therefore I suck it up.

            I believe that the larger community must set the line, and that it will probably always be the subject of debate, revision and consternation.  To quote Vonnegut:  So it goes.  

            Obama is losing John Edwards' base.

            by snout on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:50:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  What regulations do you object to? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KVoimakas

            Just curious.

            •  Just off the top of my head (3+ / 0-)

              Falsely so-called "cop-killer bullet" bans are pretty much nonsense. The same goes for "assault weapons" bans -- if it's not a machine gun or worse, it doesn't need any further regulation IMO.

              One-gun-a-month rules don't buy you anything.

              Restrictions on magazine capacity do more harm than good IMO. Additionally, there's no reason in the world why a police officer should be able to have more rounds in their magazine than a law-abiding citizen using their firearm in self-defense.

              As far as I'm concerned, concealed carry (with a license) has proven itself. It's legal in 35 or more states. There's no reason why it shouldn't be legal in all 50 plus DC.

              I personally find registration odious and unnecessary, but if it has to be done (and I'm not even remotely convinced that it DOES have to be done), then the local authorities MUST be compelled by law to accept the registration. Exceptions can be made for anyone not otherwise qualified to own a firearm (e.g. criminals, fugitives, anyone under the age of 18). Keep in mind that this is VERY tricky. Registration can and has been used to later enforce a gun ban (as was the case with SKS rifles in California in the 1990s).

              More later -- I'm off to brunch.

              •  "Registration is odious" (0+ / 0-)

                How so? I actually think registration is the lowest water mark. Do you agree that individuals under TROs should be prevented from owning a gun? If so how do you enforce without knowing who the owner is?

                Without registration any "sensible regulations" are moot.

                •  Im pro registration and pro 2nd. (0+ / 0-)
                  I feel that if 'they' come for your rightfully-possessed guns, the result will be one of the reasons the 2nd exists.

                  Are you working to reduce pain, or just distribute it?

                  by Liberaltarianish on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:57:13 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Because of (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  maxomai, buddabelly, KVoimakas

                  Government agents going door to door and confiscating registered weapons from law-abiding citizens after a ban is passed.  Don't tell me it can't happen here.  It has happened in California and New York.

                  The question is not whether the chickens needed replacing, the question is whether the fox should have been guarding them in the first place.

                  by happymisanthropy on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:26:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Er.... (0+ / 0-)

                  Do you agree that individuals under TROs should be prevented from owning a gun? If so how do you enforce without knowing who the owner is?

                  It depends on the TRO, but if it's the usual kind, then you enforce it by sending the cops to their door. In 99 out of 100 situations the subject of the order will turn over their firearms. In the hundredth, I'm not sure that it would have done them a lick of good.

                •  Personally I don't agree with that (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  buddabelly, KVoimakas

                  I mean, how about also restricting their right to speak of the person they are restrained away from?  So shall we register all forms of speech?

                  Convicted criminals, certifiably crazy, too young without an accompanying adult: that's it for who shouldn't have guns (and by the way I'm not too happy with the all-inclusive 'convicted criminal' part).  Everyone else should be allowed to have what they want without encumbrance.  No licensing, no registration, no restriction on method of carry.

                  USING the firearm is a different issue.  No shooting in the air to celebrate something.  If you pull it offensively you ought to be held accountable for that as it might be a threat instead of an act of defense.  If you shoot someone same thing.  No shooting within reasonable proximity of where peeps normally are living and working ... unless you're at a range (duh eh?).

                  But no: a TRO should not restrict your rights any more than the TRO actually does.  And registration is pointless.

              •  More (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                buddabelly, KVoimakas

                I'm back from brunch, so here's more, as promised.

                Licenses to own guns: sure, as long as there's reciprocity between all states and territories, just like with drivers' licenses. Frankly, there's no good reason why these shouldn't be rolled in with concealed handgun licenses, either.

                Ballistic fingerprints: fine for revolvers, useless for semi-automatic handguns that are commonly used for defensive purposes (such as the 1911 or the Glock 17), since the firing pins, barrels and chambers are easily and routinely changed. Therefore, requires a closer cost-benefit analysis. In short, this is not intuitively a good idea

                Microstamping: The idea behind this technology is that some component of the firearm — typically the firing pin — will leave a clearly identifiable imprint of a serial number on a casing during the course of firing. Any criminal with any brains will destroy the serial number, or throw the firing pin away. The really clever criminals will simply switch pins with some patsy and pin the job on them.

                Some explanation for my objection to the "cop-killer bullet" ban: the basic idea here is to ban handgun ammunition that can penetrate a bullet proof vest and will still expand on the other side. This isn't a bad idea in principle, but there are limitations to how well this can work. The big problem is that any hunting rifle round worth a damn is going to blow clean through any body armor. Good luck banning those.

      •  Yes, but (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buddabelly, KVoimakas

        there were privately owned cannon on privately owned warships at that time.  They were, however, regulated.

        The question is not whether the chickens needed replacing, the question is whether the fox should have been guarding them in the first place.

        by happymisanthropy on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:24:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The line for many "liberals" is "none". nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Denverlibertarian

      Are you working to reduce pain, or just distribute it?

      by Liberaltarianish on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:20:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But but but I need a tank! (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric K, Uberbah, Scioto, mamamedusa, Benintn

      It's just a big gun on wheels! My rights are being violated!

    •  Amen! (4+ / 0-)

      The 2nd Amendment is an antique.

      And you're exactly right: Unless we can all agree on a right to have weapons-grade plutonium, we all agree that some common-sense restrictions need to be in place.

      The 2nd Amendment was poorly written and reflects a Revolutionary War-era attitude, just like the idea of having states elect Senators instead of the people.

      I'm not saying we do away with the 2nd Amendment, but we have to figure out how to make it work for all the people and not just work for those with money, power, and a mercenary attitude.

      Full Disclosure: I am not Ben Leming. But I think he's pretty cool.

      by Benintn on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:32:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Arms" Means "Standard Militia Weapons" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      soros

      That's the purpose of the militia clause -- to provide context to the term "arms" and to thereby exclude this ridiculous straw-man argument.

      On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

      by stevemb on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:51:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Where is your documentation (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        snout, FutureNow, Uberbah, mamamedusa

        that arms means standard militia weapons?  

        And what is the definition of standard militia weapon.

        •  A "stand of arms" in the 18th century (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          buddabelly, Uberbah, Mayfly, KVoimakas

          was an infantryman's kit: firelock long gun, bayonet, cartridge box. In the early half of the century, that included an infantry saber.

          The notion that "arms" means any weapon of war, opposed to those carried by an individual, is a later gloss to the term.

          The relationship between the 2nd and weapons appropriate for a militia was confirmed in Miller.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:05:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Those have changed though (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happymisanthropy

        Even if we interpret arms as "standard militia weapons", that class includes weapons much more powerful than what was available in the eighteenth century.

        Point being, do we modify our understanding and interpretation of the 2nd based on this development?  I don't think that's a silly question to ask.

        Procrastination: Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always pays off now.

        by Linnaeus on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:40:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why Would We? (5+ / 0-)

          It's well established that the First Amendment applies to modern communications, religions that didn't exist in the eighteenth century, etc. Why would this be any different?

          On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

          by stevemb on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:44:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  As has the "press". I don't see anyone denying (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Linnaeus, happymisanthropy, KVoimakas

          1st amendment applicability to the internet.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:06:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Uberbah, KVoimakas

            You're right.

            My point is, as I mentioned above, that it is not a red herring question to consider the real-life implications of a particular interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.  If we want to say that the amendment allows for the ownership and use of military armament, then that should be stated openly.

            Procrastination: Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always pays off now.

            by Linnaeus on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:16:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, then, yes, I think the late (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Linnaeus, buddabelly, KVoimakas

              '80s ban on the transfer of new full-auto receivers to private hands in unconstitutional.

              I do not think the '30s NFA which would keep those weapons still under incredibly tight regulation would be unconstitutional (the court found it so in Miller), since someone willing to undergo the intense scrutiny to have an NFA weapon is unlikely to be a criminal threat.

              I also think that any ban on the semi-auto equivalent of NFA weapons is highly unconstitutional for this reason, in addition to being just plain stupid (like the "Assault Weapons Ban" so reflexively popular among gun-ignorant Dems).

              Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

              by Robobagpiper on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:54:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Okay (0+ / 0-)

                This is good, because it makes discussions over gun ownership rights more concrete.

                Personally, I'm not sure why my stance is on such things right now is, and that's simply because I need to do more research (though I'm familiar with the cases you mention).  It seems to me that the so-called assault weapons ban of the early 1990s didn't do what it was intended to do.

                It's just that people's concern about these weapons is real and not unreasonable, so if we as a whole are going to be arguing for a more expansive interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, we need to be ready to discuss these questions.

                Procrastination: Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always pays off now.

                by Linnaeus on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:59:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Typo correction (0+ / 0-)

                  "...I'm not sure what my stance is..."

                  Procrastination: Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always pays off now.

                  by Linnaeus on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 01:00:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  The concern really isn't real or reasonable (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  buddabelly, KVoimakas

                  Because while there are millions of such weapons in private hands, they make up the tiniest fraction of those used in crimes.

                  The concern was because of movies, because they look scary, and because Dem policymakers deliberately blurred the line between the "Assault Weapons" they proposed to ban and actual full-auto weapons, long-restricted through the NFA, with scare-language like "spraying bullets" and the like.

                  Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                  by Robobagpiper on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 01:03:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Very quickly (0+ / 0-)

                    I was referring to full-auto weapons, not semi-auto "assault" rifles and the like.  Should have made that clearer.

                    Procrastination: Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always pays off now.

                    by Linnaeus on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 11:45:27 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  "the court found it so" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                buddabelly

                I was unclear in my language. The court found the NFA constitutional, for a variety of reasons - one of which was that it is a revenue law, not a gun ban per se.

                Also, it found that a double-barrelled sawed off shotgun, which would have required an NFA tax stamp and the licensing that goes with it, was not protected under the 2nd as it did not bear a reasonable connection to an arm useful to a militia.

                Under the same reading of Heller, an M-4 carbine would; and while it would remain controlled under the NFA for both auto capability and the short 14.5" barrel, Miller suggests that it can not be prohibited outright - which the Hughes Amendment of the 1986 "Firearm Owners Protection Act" did.

                Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                by Robobagpiper on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 01:12:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  The NRA wants to claim it is black and white (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mamamedusa

      It is those "complaining about gun nuts" liberals who realize the issue is common sense restrictions.

      Personally I think maybe the line should be any type of "arms" that was available when the Bill of Rights was approved.  :-)  That was clearly the original intent of the Constitution, isn't it Tea Baggers?  

    •  Nukes are ordnance, not arms. NT (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas
    •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

      to an absolute constitutional right to weapons-grade plotunium.

      Its a weapon we have used in war and is thus "arms".

  •  Well, yes and no (7+ / 0-)

    Does supporting the second amendment mean:

    It OK to own an assault rifle?

    It OK to have "cop killer" bullets?

    It OK to buy guns with no background checks?

    Because if a candidate is against the above, the NRA will label him/her as an "anti-gun" librul etc etc...
    to me there is a big difference between sensible gun regulations and wanting to ban folks in general from owning guns.

  •  whe "liberals" vigorously defend the rights of (10+ / 0-)

    the Black Panther Party, the American Indian Movement and others to collectively keep and bear arms in self defense of communitites the i will take this seriously..

    "....while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Eugene V. Debs

    by soothsayer99 on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:13:15 AM PDT

  •  I don't disagree (5+ / 0-)

    I think if people want to keep guns in their home or on their property, that's their right and their business.

    But I don't think it's entirely unreasonable for a local government (which bears the ultimate responsibility for maintaining public safety, more than the federal government or the state government) to want to limit guns in public.  In Tennessee, our teabagging state legislature passed a law allowing guns to be carried in bars and restaurants (no way anything could go wrong there!), and a separate one allowing guns in parks.  The city of Nashville already opted out of the latter and has been trying to opt out of the former.

    Since policing and public safety are ultimately local matters the vast majority of the time, I don't think the different needs of different cities should be disregarded.

  •  I think we should be very Originalist about this. (7+ / 0-)

    So only 17th Century muskets will be allowed.

    Dr. Dean...Paging Dr. Dean...he's not on-call you say...then get me DR. MATT!! STAT!!!

    by doctormatt06 on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:13:54 AM PDT

  •  I'll be honest...the preview made me think (15+ / 0-)

    that the headline was a trick and this was going to be an epic attack on the 2nd amendment.

    Instead, it was a truly epic defense.

    3 cheers for real liberalism. Thanks for your piece.

    Are you working to reduce pain, or just distribute it?

    by Liberaltarianish on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:14:00 AM PDT

  •  Excellent Diary (12+ / 0-)

    Thanks for giving us so much food for thought.

  •  Liberals don't love the constitution (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doctormatt06, Samulayo

    They love it when the constitution results in them winning.  Thus, notwithstanding their love of free speech, liberals support restrictive campaign finance laws and restrictions on advertising tobacco and restriction on hate speech.  Similarly, liberals weren't so happy when the Violence Against Women Act was struck down as exceeding Congressional power.

    In this liberals are very like conservatives, who seem fond of the Constitution when it compels results that they want.

    •  Liberals don't love the Constitution? (7+ / 0-)

      For one the Violence Against Women Act WAS NOT struck down, only one portion of the law was. Clinton and Bush signed this law which comes up again in 2011.

      Liberals generally support publicly funded campaigns, in order to level the playing field and erode the power of cash to choose our government. Also, the big campaign finance law was bi-partisan. (remember, McCain-Feingold?)

      Restricting tobacco advertising to children is not a liberal platform issue, but a smart one. Do you really think advertising tobacco using cartoon characters during children's programming is a good idea? Really?

      You speak of liberals as the far right does, as if the word liberal is one that should be interpreted in a negative way. Why do you hang out here if this is your view of liberals as this is most certainly a liberal site.

      •  I hang out here because I agree far more (0+ / 0-)

        with liberal positions than with conservative ones (many of which I find to be nuts).

        And, if you read my whole comment, you will note that I indicated that both conservatives and liberals have no great love for the constitution except when it results in the outcomes that they prefer.

        You may also note that I did not express any opinion on any of the restrictions that I mentioned.  

    •  And you have what evidence of this? (0+ / 0-)

      I call Bulls***.

      Full Disclosure: I am not Ben Leming. But I think he's pretty cool.

      by Benintn on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:33:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  An excellent pile of straw you've made. (0+ / 0-)

      James Carville emerges from the conflagration, riding a burning alligator.

      by shpilk on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:49:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I never could understand the Progressives and (10+ / 0-)

    Liberals opposition to the 2nd when the fact is it was the Liberals an Progressives in 1776 who went to War against The King and England and it was the Conservatives who was The Servants of The Crown Royalist and King George Loyalist,they were the ones saying "how dare you say people have Inalienable Rights that the King can't take away at a whim" and Conservatives are still saying that cause to them "governments are Evil" but Kings aren't.

    •  BECAUSE GUN VIOLENCE IS EPIC (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tiponeill, Uberbah, alba

      And if you ever had one pointed at you, you don't necessarily embrace it. See The Brady Bill.

      •  I have had Guns pointed at me I managed to talk (0+ / 0-)

        the angry drunken one into being calm and putting his 357 Revolver down and to go back in his house and sober up and the other was I was holding a gun on him as he was holding one on me and I was talking to him how wrong it was to point a gun at his girlfriend and then he told me he only did that cause she came after him with a butcher's knife so after getting him to also calm down and leave I decided I would never get involve in a domestic Dispute again I would just call the Cops and let them handle it,that's the closest I every came to pulling the trigger on a person and he saw it in my eyes and lowered his gun and the one other time it was some jerk-off neighbor guys trying to get a laugh out of trying to spook me by calling me over to their car and pointing a gun in my face but I fooled them after just a hairsbreadth of a pause I said "wow that's a nice Gun" so with the "joke"over we talked a little and they drove off.Really to be truthful the closest I came to getting shot by a gun was by a 22 Rifle I would go out walking in the woods and took my 22 with me and it had a sling so when I put in over my shoulder I would have the barrel pointing up and the sling was long so that the end of the barrel was almost at ear level and I did that for months and then one day I notice the sliding Safety on the gun was being slide into the off position as it bumped against me as I walked so I don't know how many times I could have blown my own head off but after that I always slung it with the barrel pointing down at least that way I would only shoot my lower leg and I kept an eye out on where the Safety was too.

      •  Yet violent crime is dropping (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rockhound, buddabelly

        even though gun laws are liberalized.

        Weird, that.

        MF and RKBA Member. Share Our Wealth -9.00, -4.05

        by KVoimakas on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:59:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  NO ITS NOT CRIME IS DOWN YOU JUST WATCH (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rockhound, KVoimakas

        TOO MUCH TV

        and please stop shouting........

  •  Perhaps you are right...better to repeal it... (7+ / 0-)

    Very few are for actually banning guns outright...reasonable restrictions are warranted however, and are consistent with the amendment as written. Groups like the NRA do not agree and that is where much of the disagreement lies...the ability to own any firearm at any time for any reason without restriction has become a religion to them.

    In my opinion  the second amendment is anachronistic, poorly worded and has caused far more trouble than it is worth. If I had the power or influence I would advocate for repeal and adoption of a more clearly worded alternative.

  •  I strongly support the right (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sandblaster, Uberbah, allergywoman

    of states to maintain armed, well-regulated militias.

  •  Original Intent (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Trendar, Uberbah, zooecium

    I can buy that the Founders wanted unlimited access to the firearms that existed at the time of the development of the Constitution.  However, percussion caps and cased ammunition did not exist until the early 1800s, several decades after ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  If one adopts the logic that the Second Amendment applies to all arms, regardless of technological developments, then one should be free to keep and bear biological, nuclear, and chemical arms.  Would the Founders really think that was a good idea?

  •  #5 is just wrong, teabag fodder. (9+ / 0-)

    The declaration of independence was a manifesto stating that the British crown was un-fit to govern the people of the colonies.

    The Constitution is the agreement of the people to govern themselves, including peaceably to change the government. Revolution (insurrection) is not a permitted method of changing a Constitutional government. The 2nd amendment, as it pertains to revolution, calls for the militia to PUT DOWN I surrectio, when called to service by the Congress.

  •  Yeah, there's good reasons why (0+ / 0-)

    Thomas Jefferson made it second, after all.

    "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think." -- Dorothy Parker, who knew someone like Jeff Gannon

    by PDiddie on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:15:37 AM PDT

  •  Well argued. Brilliantly, in fact. (3+ / 0-)

    But I respectfully disagree. The Founders were brilliant, too, and constructed a great document. With a couple of flaws. They were wrong about the whole slavery thing, to say the least. Like the Second Amendment, the slavery "compromise" [ugh] came from their 18th century point of view, emerged from the realities of their times.

    There were no standing armies, no supplies of weapons owned and kept on hand by the government itself. The "people" (aka the menfolk) needed to be armed to defend the newborn country against its possible foes.

    My modern interpretation: Every American has the right to keep and bear 18th arms. Hope you know how to make your own 18th century musket balls over an open fire at home!

    Ho'oponopono. To make things right; restore harmony; heal.

    by earicicle on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:15:51 AM PDT

    •  This Silly Argument Again? (8+ / 0-)
      How do you post on DKos with a quill pen (that being the only form of writing protected by the First Amendment under this ludicrous notion)?

      On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

      by stevemb on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:00:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, strictly speaking, hand-set lead type (4+ / 0-)

        and engravings could be used in printing presses of the day, so they would be covered, too...  /snark

        -5.12, -5.23

        We are men of action; lies do not become us.

        by ER Doc on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:15:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The power of speech has remained constant (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Uberbah

        over the centuries, even as the technology to disseminate it has advanced.

        The power of arms has increased to an exponential degree beyond what the Founders ever could have imagined. The Founders provided us the ability to amend the Constitution because they knew they could not possibly envision everything that was to come.

        We make a mockery of them to bear assault rifles into bars and National Parks and crime-ridden inner cities, and claim that Thomas Jefferson would have wanted us to do so. Do you really think TJ would conflate anti-government pamphleteering (or blogging) and cop-killer bullets?

        Ho'oponopono. To make things right; restore harmony; heal.

        by earicicle on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:07:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Assault rifles in cities and parks? (4+ / 0-)

          You must be posting from an alternate universe where the NFA wasn't passed in the 1930s.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:13:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The Power Of Speech Keeps Increasing (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          buddabelly, KVoimakas

          Obviously, a message that can be disseminated to millions at the touch of a button is more powerful than the same message requiring long slow manual setting of type, cranking out of individual copies, and physical distribution by horse and buggy.

          On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

          by stevemb on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 01:25:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So you are saying the words of Glen Beck (0+ / 0-)

            are more powerful than the words of Abraham Lincoln, simply because they can be disseminated more rapidly?

            I beg to differ.

            The speed at which a bullet can be delivered, however, does make a difference. Not to mention the killing power of that bullet: a homemade musket ball, versus a "cop-killer" bullet. And the kind of weapon from which it is delivered.

            With words, the message contains the power, not the medium. With guns, the medium is everything. And that medium has changed radically since the late 18th century.

            Ho'oponopono. To make things right; restore harmony; heal.

            by earicicle on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 02:53:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  100 Years Ago, Glenn Beck Would Be Unknown... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              buddabelly, KVoimakas

              ...ranting to a few people at the local bar.

              On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

              by stevemb on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 03:03:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Right. There were no cranks, crackpots, (0+ / 0-)

                whack-jobs and extremists prior to the invention of the TeeVee and the Internetz. And none of their words motivated anyone to do anything crazy. Like assassinate any Archdukes to kick off any World Wars or anything. That would NEVER happen w/o modern tech!

                Are you arguing that Beck's words have too much power because of technology, and thus require trimming the First Amendment?

                Ho'oponopono. To make things right; restore harmony; heal.

                by earicicle on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 03:18:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Of Course Not (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  buddabelly, ER Doc, KVoimakas

                  Are you arguing that Beck's words have too much power because of technology, and thus require trimming the First Amendment?

                  Certainly not. I am pointing out that the argument "The Founders didn't anticipate modern guns" inescapably leads to an absurd conclusion, and thus cannot be correct.

                  On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

                  by stevemb on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 03:26:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You have missed my initial point entirely. (0+ / 0-)

                    The power of words themselves has not evolved since the late 18th century. The power of arms has evolved EXPONENTIALLY. Thus, the need to 'regulate' words has changed little, other than perhaps limiting the exposure of kiddoes to the F-bomb during family TeeVee time.

                    The need to 'regulate' arms? EXPONENTIAL change in their power to do harm mandates that we regulate them, and regulate them well. As the Fathers would want us to do.

                    Ho'oponopono. To make things right; restore harmony; heal.

                    by earicicle on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 05:37:10 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Ever seen what (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              buddabelly, KVoimakas

              a .60 caliber musket ball can do?

              Everything you know is wrong. Firesign Theatre -5.13/-3.38

              by Grannus on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 05:07:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No. But I'm pretty sure a mentally unbalanced (0+ / 0-)

                student at Virginia Tech would have a tough time making enough of them by hand (undetected) and firing them off fast enough, and with enough accuracy, to kill the number of people he did.

                Or that DC sniper guy...would he have been able to pick off random strangers from a distance with an oh-so-accurate 18th century musket?

                Plus, I think it's a bit harder to commit suicide in a deep moment of despair when you have to take the time to make a musket ball, and then do the whole paper/gunpowder thing. Also, aren't the muskets themselves a little awkward to turn on oneself? Not an expert here...

                Ho'oponopono. To make things right; restore harmony; heal.

                by earicicle on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 05:31:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Another reason: racism (10+ / 0-)

    Gun regulations and anti-gun arguments often have the effect,if not the intent, of preventing minorities from owning guns. The strongest regulations tend to be in places where racial minorities are a more significant part of the population than in the country at large. Anti-gun arguments usually have to do the notion that regulations will prevent "urban" violence etc.

    Black Panthers were very strongly in favor of the 2nd amendment, and for my money, their use of it most accurately reflected the amendment's intent.

    •  The actual practice is more racist than the laws (7+ / 0-)

      we get federally funded "anti-gun task forces" rousting young men of color to 'get the guns off the streets' of inner cities, but no comparable task forces in the cul-de-sacs.

      Michael Steele is not as dumb as you, if you're still clinging to the dumb war in Afghanistan.

      by ben masel on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:24:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Population density (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mayfly

      Where people have nothing to shoot but other people guns are bad idea.  When you live in the country, and you might want to defend yourself against a bear, and their is no human in miles and miles for you to hit, having a gun makes a lot more sense than if you have a gun in a place that's packed with people.  Same is true for firecrackers.

      Young Black men are killed by gun violence more than any other group in America. How you can argue that saving the lives of young Black men by protecting them from gun violence is racist is beyond me.  What's racist is the people who support people in the inner cities living in desperation, and then giving them guns so they can shoot each other over the few scarps they have.

      "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."

      by Futuristic Dreamer on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:30:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good point! In the wilderness you can play (2+ / 0-)

        your trumpet at 2 AM if you wish--but in an apartment building, probably not.  

        And certainly social justice lowers violence.  Also, our insane "war on drugs" is just a formula for growing drug cartels.  Legalize!! Let health professionals ration and wean.  Pull the rug out from under the drug dealers.

        Resist corporate serfdom.

        by Mayfly on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:18:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  .. (4+ / 0-)

        Your first paragraph is the best rejoinder to my argument I've encountered (elsewhere as well). However, one could just as easily apply this argument to cars. They are much safer when no one else is around, out in the country. Every year in every major city, people are killed by careless use of cars.

        As for

        Young Black men are killed by gun violence more than any other group in America. How you can argue that saving the lives of young Black men by protecting them from gun violence is racist is beyond me.

        Because the argument assumes that if a black person in the city owns a gun, s/he is going to use it for malevolent purposes. It assumes that what is a right, and acceptable if not desirable for others is not acceptable for this subgroup. The bans, and the police, clearly do little to curb gun violence. Simply telling a group of people (again, this is in effect, not necessarily in intent) they may not defend themselves when it is clear that the police have no desire to defend them only reinforces the institutional racism put upon blacks in the inner city. Did Chicago's gun ban do a good job of curbing gun violence there?

        Economic opportunity and decriminalization of drugs would certainly help ailing urban neighborhoods, but those issues are irrelevant to responsible gun ownership.

        The thing about rights is they are non-negotiable, even if at times they produce bad consequences.

        •  i should clarify (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas

          by non-negotiable, i don't mean "not subject to rational regulation."

        •  Local laws are practiced with cars (0+ / 0-)

          You also need cars less in the city because of the availability of public transit.  Drivers tests are more challenging in cities and NYC doesn't allow anyone under 18 to have a drivers license, or drive in the city, while it's 16 in the rest of the state.

          Poverty, anger, desperation, and a high population density lead to increased violence no matter what, when you add guns to the mix you get lethal mix that resembles a war zone.  I don't know if you've heard the "they've given us the drugs the guns and no way out, to encourage young Black men to kill each other" mem, but it's relevant here.  Adding guns to a high population density high stress urban area results in dead people.  It's bad public policy.

          "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."

          by Futuristic Dreamer on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 04:59:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Another red herring. (0+ / 0-)

      Threatening to use weapons against The Man just brings more men with more guns and an every increasing desire to kill you.

      I'm a part of the reality-based community, not the personality-based community.

      by Uberbah on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 02:16:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If only to stick a fork in... (10+ / 0-)

    the whole "libruls want to take my guns away" nonsense that the NRA has been using to scare gun owners into voting Republican. Besides my mom is a good shot and has her on SKS.

    The lesson of that history is that you must not despair, that if you are right, and you persist, things will change. -Howard Zinn

    by blueyedace2 on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:17:02 AM PDT

    •  That ship has sailed (6+ / 0-)

      Pretty much all Democrats in government have abandoned gun control as an issue.  But that doesn't stop the NRA from attacking Democrats with false claims about "taking away our guns".

      Why?  Because the NRA is part of the Republican Party.

      And when you appease the NRA, you are surrendering to the Republicans.  Somebody high up decided that this line wasn't worth defending.  As a result, the NRA/Republican alliance took all the ground we ceded, and now is demanding more and more and more.  Concealed carry.  Guns in parks.  Guns in schools.  Required gun ownership.  The concept is that there is no legitimate regulation of gun ownership.  

      Do we forget that guns killed John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr.?  Do we forget that every year there's another Columbine or Virginia Tech massacre or Holocaust Museum shooting?  Do we forget how unsafe the United States is compared to European countries where gun ownership is strictly regulated?

      I guess so.  And so the gun manufacturers can squeeze out more dollars, we are willing to create the conditions for a homicide wave the next time the national mood turns sour.  Which, as you might have noticed, is just about now.

  •  A question? (19+ / 0-)

    Is there someone in this country who actually believes there are no gun owners who happen to be liberal Democrats?  

    I'm so liberal, I'm about to fall off into Sweden.  

    I'm also a gun owner.  

    The first order of business should be to dispel the myth that liberal Democrat and gun owner are mutually exclusive terms.  

    It would go along way to making this an honest debate.  

    •  Why do you have a gun? (4+ / 0-)

      That is the first question my wife asks me when I tell her I want a gun.

      I don't hunt.

      I don't have a lot of time for target shooting.

      So I ask myself, why do I want a gun?  For WWIII, to keep my neighbors out of my house?  

      •  Here is why I have a gun... (4+ / 0-)

        after I gave the rifles and shotgun to a nephew, and sold the handguns, one night someone was working on a window of my house, trying to break in.

        I called 911 and got a busy signal.

        Next day I bought a gun.

        Resist corporate serfdom.

        by Mayfly on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:02:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  To defend those who cannot for themself. (5+ / 0-)

        That's just one reason to have a gun - to defend someone who is unable to defend themself.

        How's that for a bleeding heart liberal reason pro-firearm?

        Miseris Succurrere Disco

        by JayFromPA on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:16:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Do you really believe ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WIds

        ...that the likelihood of WWIII is greater than the risk that your firearm will accidentally discharge, hurting someone or be stolen and then used to the detriment of others?
        An equal concern might be that you get one, feel barely more secure for all of 5 minutes, put it in the attic (or somewhere 'safe') forget about about it for a number of years and
        ... your (grand)son or (grand)daughter finds it and accidentally shoots him/herself or someone else.
        ... life happens, you or someone in the house develops Alzheimer's/dementia and starts shooting at the annoying 'squirrels' and hits a neighbor or passerby.

        Worked in Home Health Care for eight years and saw instances of all of the above (with the exception of WWIII).

        Unless you are going to put in the time and effort it takes to learn how use and care for your firearm, attain and maintain some proficiency in its use and be willing to give it up with your car keys when the time comes please trust your wife on this one.

        "Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." Avram Noam Chomsky

        by zooecium on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:19:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I have a gun because .......... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buddabelly, Mayfly, KVoimakas

        ....... when business was good, I was on the road quite a bit.  

        My husband grew up in MO and guns have always been part of his life.  He still has 2 guns that used to belong to his grandfather and one from his father.  

        He's is a liberal and I'm so far left ........

      •  Relaxation (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buddabelly, KVoimakas

        I genuinely enjoy target shooting with a 9mm pistol.  It forces a completely clearing of the mind, getting rid of the stress of work, arguments with family, etc.

        It is just me, the pistol, and the target.  If I'm going to be anything resembling accurate, I narrow my focus down to a very small world and start firing.

    •  I second that! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buddabelly

      Resist corporate serfdom.

      by Mayfly on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:19:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Seriously. This diary's premise is bullshit. (0+ / 0-)

      This diary was so much myth-perpetuating bullshit.  The positions the author keeps ascribing to liberals belong to a distinct subset, and it's fucking tiresome to see the canard that "liberals are anti-gun" perpetuated here.

    •  Sure, the NRA and the righties... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buddabelly

      Because Dems are coming to take your guns!

      I wanted a shirt that says "Obama's coming to take my gu....oh, there it is!" with an arrow pointing to my openly carried .44 revolver.

      MF and RKBA Member. Share Our Wealth -9.00, -4.05

      by KVoimakas on Mon Jul 05, 2010 at 12:13:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well, this old-fashioned liberal believes (8+ / 0-)

    strongly in the "well-regulated" clause in the 2nd Amendment. You will have a hard time ever convincing me that the 2nd allows for unfettered handgun and semi-automatic weapon ownership,

  •  The founders DID fuck up from time (13+ / 0-)

    to time.

    Take the 3/5 clause for slaves, state appointment of senators, and the second amendment.

    I will categorically state that I HATE the second amendment. Yes, there are sensible uses for fire arms and sensible users. Too bad most of them lose their fucking minds when it comes to a simple restriction like a license and training.

    Join a "well regulated militia" and be able to have a gun, otherwise, no fucking way.

    Flame way, there is a whole squadron of gun lovers on here, and I frankly don't give a shit if they don't like this comment.

    F the right wing whiners. I don't care about them any more they can all F themselves for all I care.

    by UndercoverRxer on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:19:09 AM PDT

  •  People with an extremist view (6+ / 0-)

    of the Second Amendment simply fail to understand the context within which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written.  The founders simply did not believe in a society in which everyone was always at war with everyone else, the view associated with Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan.  In that view, you do need a weapon in your house for self-defense.

    No, the Founders were inspired by John Locke.  In his Second Treatise on Government, Locke wrote this:

    Thus mankind, notwithstanding all the privileges of the state of Nature, being but in an ill condition while they remain in it are quickly driven into society. Hence it comes to pass, that we seldom find any number of men live any time together in this state. The inconveniencies that they are therein exposed to by the irregular and uncertain exercise of the power every man has of punishing the transgressions of others, make them take sanctuary under the established laws of government, and therein seek the preservation of their property. It is this that makes them so willingly give up every one his single power of punishing to be exercised by such alone as shall be appointed to it amongst them, and by such rules as the community, or those authorised by them to that purpose, shall agree on. And in this we have the original right and rise of both the legislative and executive power as well as of the governments and societies themselves.

    We surrender part of our freedom to the government, the Founders believed, in order to guarantee greater security and a better life.

    It really is important that the Second Amendment starts with the words "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."  Those words limit the otherwise unlimited right to keep and bear arms.

    And I'm shocked that so-called progressives don't understand this.  It really is all about government being necessary or not.  In a very, very fundamental sense.

    •  I am a contrarian (7+ / 0-)

      in that I am willing to see an individual right to bear arms, but not enumerated in the 2nd Amendment with its qualification about well-regulated militia, but rather in the unenumerated rights of the 9th Amendment.

      Of course, conservatives don't like the 9th because of Roe v Wade.  

      I think as progressives we should be aggressive in support of the 9th Amendment, and be willing to consider some level of gun rights as included therein.

      "what the best and wisest parent wants for his child is what we should want for all the children of the community" - John Dewey

      by teacherken on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:23:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Unrestricted access to guns (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cfm, WIds, Uberbah

        by definition puts us back in Locke's State of Nature, a kind of society which he argues can not long survive.

        I don't need a gun, Ken, so long as there is a police force capable of keeping the peace.

        I pay taxes to support those police.  And I've got no problem whatsoever doing so.

        •  Right. So long as there are cops. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          buddabelly, ER Doc, KVoimakas

          Have you noticed what the conservatives have done to the budget for cops?

          So... When will I see you at the range?

          Miseris Succurrere Disco

          by JayFromPA on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:22:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Never. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WIds, Uberbah

            I'll keep fighting for the right of government to create civil society until the day I die.

            It's why I'm a Democrat.  I believe in government.

            •  Government by the people, eh? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              buddabelly, KVoimakas

              I'm a citizen, I'm part of government.

              As part of the government, I have a say in the use of the resources of the group of us.

              As recognition that it takes time to train and hire enough cops to keep up with the population, it is an act of civil engagement for me to care for myself above and beyond what I contribute to the public collection plate.

              Why aren't you as engaged in civil society as I?

              Miseris Succurrere Disco

              by JayFromPA on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:44:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not understanding your point (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                litho, Uberbah

                Which appears to be that owning guns is the sole measure of civic participation in this country, aside of course from what appears to be expanding the 2nd amendment into some sort of mandate to buy and use them.

                "Too big to fail" is not too big to jail.

                by Angela Quattrano on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 01:47:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  A civil society includes the ability and the (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              buddabelly

              right to defend yourself effectively. Which means firearms.

              MF and RKBA Member. Share Our Wealth -9.00, -4.05

              by KVoimakas on Mon Jul 05, 2010 at 12:18:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Wow! (0+ / 0-)

                You can always spot a gun zealot because they always equate self-defense with firearms.

                God, think of all those poor Europeans, living their whole lives without any means of self-defense! How do they ever survive without firearms?

                Give it a rest, dude. I'm 65 and live is a big, bad city, and have been unarmed all my life and I'm still alive. And you know what, all my friends have survived unarmed.

                •  I envy those poor Europeans some things (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rockhound, ER Doc, theatre goon

                  and pity them for others.

                  Personally, I think one of the reasons why an AMERICAN civil society would include the right to keep and bear arms is that the genie is already out of the bottle. There are millions of firearms in this country. Banning them would not magically make them disappear. Only the law abiding would disarm and then you'd have people at the mercy of those who are armed.

                  No thanks.

                  MF and RKBA Member. Share Our Wealth -9.00, -4.05

                  by KVoimakas on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 12:24:43 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  I don't buy it. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          soros, buddabelly

          What I never believed about the anti-gun  position is the ultimate conclusion which you have essentially made is that only the state has the right to committ acts of violence for self protection.  In your world the individual must give up their rights of self protection to the state (the police force) in order to supposedly live in a safe society.  By extension, you end up defending the right of the state to committ any act of violence as it can always be defined as protecting those who cannot legally committ violence for their self protection.

    •  except that . . . (8+ / 0-)

      It really is important that the Second Amendment starts with the words "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."  Those words limit the otherwise unlimited right to keep and bear arms.

      . . . they don't.  The "shall not be infringed" part is absolute.  It is not qualified by the opening participial clause.  The opening clause is rationale, not restriction.

      Much as I am opposed to absolutely unrestricted gun ownership, this is exactly what the text of the Second Amendment demands.

      •  No, it isn't (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WIds, Sharon Wraight, James Allen

        Your reading of the text is a modern one, developed by rightwing extremists in the second half of the twentieth century.  Earlier analysts experienced no difficulty whatsoever accepting restrictions on gun ownership under the Second Amendment.

        •  Earlier analysts (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          stevemb, MrWebster, KVoimakas

          must have had difficulty with the laws of syntax and semantics.

          •  Syntax and semantics change over time (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Angela Quattrano

            or hadn't you noticed we no longer speak Latin?

            •  Actually, the meaning of (6+ / 0-)

              "shall not be infringed" hasn't changed at all.  And although the definition of "militia" may have changed slightly, and the definition of "people" considerably, the latter was always a broader set.

              The Second Amendment protects, for instance, the uninfringeable right of someone beyond militia-eligible age to keep and bear arms, and that right is just as uninfringeable as that of someone who is of an age that subjects him to being called into service.  More to the point: It always has.

              •  The Amendment was not written (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                WIds, Uberbah

                to provide for an individual right to self-defense.

                It was written to guarantee a populace with the weapons and skills necessary to provide service in a state run militia when the need might arise.

                •  asdf (4+ / 0-)

                  The Amendment was not written to provide for an individual right to self-defense.

                  But that's precisely what it did.  If it were meant only to ensure the ability to form militias in short order, it would've ensured ownership of arms only to those eligible to serve; everyone else would've been at the mercy of local, state, or federal law.

                  I think one has to distinguish between several different attitudes at work in the framing of our founding documents: deliberate good-faith concepts (e.g., separation of powers); deliberate hypocritical nonsense (e.g., anything preceded by "all men"); and oopsies (e.g., the absence any explicit acceptance or rejection of the notion of judicial review).  This belongs in one of the latter two categories.  

                  This is why neither "original intention" nor "letter of the law" is a guarantor of good governance or law.  

                  •  It did not (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    WIds, davewill

                    It is a modern interpretation of the Second that it provides for individual self defense.  It certainly was not a contemporary understanding at the time the Constitution was adopted, nor was it broadly accepted in American society until some twenty or thirty years after the NRA began its broad campaign to reinterpret the Second in that way.

                    What you're seeing here is the end result of a hugely successful right wing campaign to change history.  And you've bought into it yourself.

                    •  it's easy to "buy into" (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      KVoimakas

                      because that's what the text of the amendment actually says.

                      In the same way, equal rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property happiness" is as old as the Declaration of Independence, but nobody took that seriously until fairly recently either.

                      I deplore the former notion and like the latter.  This would trouble me if I felt the Constitution were Holy Writ.  But I don't.

                    •  Your argument is demonstrably incorrect. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      buddabelly, KVoimakas

                      As a historical matter, the right to bear arms for self-defense is firmly rooted in English Constitutional history.  See for example, the English Bill of Rights provision written nearly a century before our own Constitution, 1 Wm. & Mary sess. 2, ch. 2 (1689) ("That the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law"). The historical context in which this codification ocurred was, of course, the abdication of James II in the Glorious Revolution and subsequent Jacobite Rebellion that threatened restoration of the Catholic Pretender.

                      Moreover, William Blackstone in his famous Commentaries on the Laws of England emphasized that the common law tradition of the right to bear arms was justified on the grounds of protection against the actions of a tyranical government and when "the sanctions of society and law are found insuffient to restrain the violence of oppression." 2 W. Blackstone, Commentaries, 144 (first published 1765-69).

                      The Bill of Rights also enacted by various States during the late 18th and early to mid 19th centuries also make reference to both self defense and the common defense in differing degrees of emphasis. By way of just several examples, consider Pennsylvania ("That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state" (1776) and "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned" (1790)), Vermont (T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State (1777)), Connecticut ("Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state" (1818)).

                      I also believe your emphatic argument (made repeatedly elsewhere) based upon Locke's thesis and influence with respect to this Second Amendment issue is also incorrect both from an interpretive and historical basis, but perhaps I'll save that for another comment.

                      Rome is burning ... put down the fiddle.

                      by ancblu on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 02:29:37 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Bizzare leaps of logic (3+ / 0-)

                  Again here is your convoluted logic.  You assume that if the writers did not mean self possession of a gun for self protection, then they did in fact believed that its use for self protection was an illegal use.  In using your missreading, you cannot assume that the opposite of the reading is the illegality of guns for personal possession.

              •  entirely disingenuous (0+ / 0-)

                The second clause was contingent on the first. That is what it meant to them when they wrote it.

                "Too big to fail" is not too big to jail.

                by Angela Quattrano on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 01:49:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  that opening clause is a conditional clause. (0+ / 0-)

        It states that if a militia is necessary, then the right shall not be infringed.

        I believe we should have an individual right, I just don't think the 2nd amendment actually establishes one.

        "Intolerance is something which belongs to the religions we have rejected." - J.J. Rousseau

        by James Allen on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:03:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Incorrect logic. (0+ / 0-)

      Using your logic, no police force of any sort, whether permanent or temporary is needed as your a priori define the state of human society as without violence or crime.

      You posit an absolutist either/or argument about the possession of a gun in that possession of a gun defines a state of war between individuals.

      Very convoluted logic.

    •  spot on, litho. (0+ / 0-)

      An armed society is not a polite society, it is a scared society.

  •  This is so wrong (30+ / 0-)

    The "unorganized militia" simply refers to people who are eligible to be drafted into an organized militia, such as the National Guard.

    Hence the age and gender restrictions, which are comparable to those for the Selective Service.

    I may be going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that Kalli Joy Gray is not an "able-bodied male" between the ages of 17 and 45.

    In any case, if you are part of an unorganized militia, then you are certainly not part of a well-regulated militia.  The well-regulated militia is, by law, under regulations promulgated by Congress and under officers appointed by the States.

    Does Kalli Joy Gray adhere to any regulations?  Does she have a uniform?  Who is her commanding officer?  Would she be protected by the Geneva Conventions if she took her pistol and shot someone she thought was a threat to national security? (The answer to all those questions is, I expect, "no".)

    The whole concept of the national militia is outmoded.  The militia was supposed to be a nucleus for local military organization, in the case of invasion or rebellion, until an army could be raised to repel the invaders or rebels.  It was superseded by the establishment of a large and permanent United States Army, the National Guard, and local police forces.  The "security of a free state" is already well-protected, and doesn't need Kalli Joy Gray's pocket revolver to protect it.

    In any case, I find recycled NRA propaganda on the Daily Kos front page very repugnant.  The people who want you to be afraid of all the black and brown men in your vicinity are frontmen for the ultra-conservative gun industry, which does not support Democrats -- even pro-gun Democrats -- and never will.  They are in a firm and unbreakable alliance with the Republicans and they will make up stuff about "Democrats coming to steal your guns" even when there's nothing.

    In the meantime, their views get more and more radical.  First they just wanted the right to keep a gun, anywhere in the U.S.  When they got that, they wanted the right to carry a gun on their person.  When they got that, they wanted the right to conceal it on their person.  (For better deterrence, one supposes!) When they got that, they wanted the right to carry guns into parks.  Into Army bases.  Into schools.  Then they started demanding that everybody be required to purchase a gun.

    Welfare for the gun industry!  A corporation whose product is fear and death.  Since when did we get so friendly with companies that produce deadly products?   We can take on BP, but we're too afraid to take on Smith and Wesson?  What gives?

    •  Slam dunk (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WIds, Uberbah, statsone, varii, SoCalSal, nutbutter

      And if you are paying attention the Tea Party folk, they are just as unwavering about "gun rights."

    •  Gosh, tell us how you REALLY feel. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WIds, zooecium

      This is a pretty powerful argument.

      I don't think Angry Mouse is, by any means, simply regurgitating NRA nonsense.  To the contrary, she's advocating something much more dangerous and much more powerful - the right of individuals to have guns to use in case a tyrannical government starts overstepping.  And that's whether the government is state, local, federal, foreign, whatever.

      Having said that, your response is actually a common-sense approach that both blows holes in the NRA argument and reminds us of the original context of the 2nd Amendment, which is about a civilian-run military.  As recent events regarding Stanley McChrystal should remind us, the Commander in Chief is a civilian and the 2nd Amendment is as much about a civilian military as anything else.

      Tennessee isn't called the Volunteer State because we like serving at charity auctions or the Cotillion.  It's called the Volunteer State because of our volunteer military and our commitment to be ready at all times to fight for our freedoms.

      Full Disclosure: I am not Ben Leming. But I think he's pretty cool.

      by Benintn on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:12:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Close (0+ / 0-)

      It was not a national militia but individual state militias that were in existence at the time. (and well-regulated)

      "Too big to fail" is not too big to jail.

      by Angela Quattrano on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 01:54:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Agreed on all points (9+ / 0-)

    I would only point out that notwithstanding the politics of the ACLU, libertarianism and liberalism are not and have never been the same thing, and there have definitely been authoritarian tendencies within liberalism over the years -- Woodrow Wilson signed the Sedition Act of 1918, FDR interned Japanese Americans, COINTELPRO reached its height under LBJ, Clinton had Ruby Ridge and Waco and so on and so forth.

  •  I guess addiing new rights to those written into (5+ / 0-)

    the Constitution is going around these days. It's bad enough that the basis SCOTUS used to sustain the plaintiffs in McDonald was a newly proclaimed Constitutional right to self defense, but now we have mainstream bloggers proclaiming a right to revolution? Does this mean that the statutes against sedition and treason are now unconstitutional? Because they would infringe the people's right to revolution? And would you feel that you had to support the 'right to revolution' if the crackpot militias went in and shot up the post office or the IRS office in your town as the new Lexington and Concord, to set off the Second American Revolution? Or were marching up and down hunting liberals in your town on the ground they were revolting and liberals were traitors? Was Roeder's gun crime an exercise of his right to revolution against laws protecting baby murderers?

    It's one thing for the Second Amendment to proclaim the right to keep and bear arms, but another absolutely to take the further and not necessarily consequential position that they have the unfettered right to use them as they see fit since there is no reason to possess that which you do not intend to use. Even SCOTUS did not go that far.

  •  Herein lies the rub: (7+ / 0-)

    Because it is by fighting to protect each right that we protect all rights.

    Rights are in tension with one another--positive and negative liberty are in tension with one another. So each right is not just in a synechdochal relationship with rights as a whole. Protecting someone's rights without infringing on another's is the whole reason we need law and society, to negotiate that fundamental tension between negative and positive liberty.

    There are moments when the body is as numinous as words, days that are the good flesh continuing. -- Robert Hass

    by srkp23 on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:21:29 AM PDT

  •  Where's the line, then? (7+ / 0-)

    Your logic is solid, but modernity requires a line. We can agree that I can't have an ICBM with multiple warheads and global targeting ability in my backyard. We can perhaps agree that limiting "arms" to late 18th century muzzle-loaders is also unreasonable.....

    Where's the line?

    "Who is John Galt?" A two dimensional character in a third rate novel written by Alan Greenspan's dominatrix.

    by Inventor on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:22:16 AM PDT

    •  If a line cannot be agreed upon, does that (6+ / 0-)

      mean the right goes away?

      Because there's this thing called abortion...

      Are you working to reduce pain, or just distribute it?

      by Liberaltarianish on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:30:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  First, we must agree (0+ / 0-)

        that in our society there is a limit to how much and what type of lethality a private person or private organization may possess.

        Are you arguing that since defining that line is difficult, it does not exist?

        If there is no limit to my right to possess lethal weaponry, why can't I have my own nuclear submarine with full missile accoutrement? Why can't I have my very own anthrax weaponizing facility? This is not entirely hypothetical, there are people in this world rich enough to do this. Am I, as an individual, bound by U.S. treaties? Does not my individual rights trump the inferior "collective" rights of the government to enter into treaties?

        Even the "Randiest" libertarian has to agree on the existence of a limit. At least one with intellectual integrity.

        "Who is John Galt?" A two dimensional character in a third rate novel written by Alan Greenspan's dominatrix.

        by Inventor on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:26:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Of course I agree there are limits. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Robobagpiper, KVoimakas
          I hate how it's always an 'all or nothing' game with so many people on both sides of the aisle.

          You seemed to argue since we sometimes struggle with the 2nd amendments line, it should be ignored or repealed entirely. If that's not the case, mea culpa for misunderstanding.

          Are you working to reduce pain, or just distribute it?

          by Liberaltarianish on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:44:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not at all... (0+ / 0-)

            The diary does not address the idea of limits. It fact, it seems to argue the opposite.

            I accept that the line lies between WMDs and muzzle-loaders. What I would like to see is a well reasoned definition of where exactly the line should be drawn.

            "Who is John Galt?" A two dimensional character in a third rate novel written by Alan Greenspan's dominatrix.

            by Inventor on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:58:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  and my problem has always been (5+ / 0-)

    that guns take a heated altercation and turn is deadly.

    To quote one of my more favorite shows, guns make people stupid, I want to fight my wars with duck tape.

  •  The Founders were very brave. Imagine this: (6+ / 0-)

    "Hey, let's put a clause in the Constitution that guarantees that, if we become despots, the people will have the means to rise up and engage in armed insurrection".

    How brave - and smart - was that.   There is no greater check on a tyrant than an army of oppressed Americans with the means to take him or her out.  

    They could have made it hard.  They didn't.   Think about that.

    Strength of character does not consist solely in having powerful feelings, but in maintaining one's balance in spite of them. - Clausewitz

    by SpamNunn on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:23:13 AM PDT

    •  The Hippies Were the Last Americans to Stand Up (4+ / 0-)

      to the armed US military. We had the general good sense to bear dandelions. I am back from hippiedom to report that they're better armed than the rest of you citizens.

      When you're in your in your trenches, look off to the side where the vendor carts are servicing the onlooking crowds.

      That'll be me selling potato chips. I'm not going to invest in propane for hot dogs, because the battle is not going to take that long.

      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 Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:25:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Of course, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SpamNunn

      "Hey, let's put a clause in the Constitution that guarantees that, if we become despots, the people will have the means to rise up and engage in armed insurrection".

      . . . to some degree that's exactly what happened.  Read up on the Whiskey Rebellion and Shays' Rebellion, and you'll see what I mean.

    •  oh come on - You don't need an amendment (0+ / 0-)

      to the Constitution to tell you that you that it is lawful to rise up and destroy the Constitution.

  •  You can have my atlatl when (7+ / 0-)

    you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

    Excellent posting AM.

    My kid and grandkids are here for the holiday so my firearms are more well-secured than usual.

    "Go well through life"-Me (As far as I know)

    by MTmofo on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:23:34 AM PDT

  •  Who Are These Liberals? (7+ / 0-)

    The only action I see is courts repealing all the restrictions.

    By the way, that collection of rights contains things that are serious blunders for our time, and there's a much bigger threat than universal arming in there.

    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 Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:23:40 AM PDT

  •  Oh, please. There are significant differences. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WIds, FutureNow, alba, liberalbully

    Words are not designed to murder people. Handguns are. All your handwaving does not equate the two. And yes, history matters. Jefferson envisioned, for example, an America where we had no standing army in times of peace. I think it's reasonable to think that the 2nd Amendment was meant so that we could assemble an army in times of peace.

    Nope, not persuaded.

    On Sara Palin: "That woman...is an Idiot." -- Keith Olbermann

    by allergywoman on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:23:41 AM PDT

  •  My family owns guns, and we're liberals. (10+ / 0-)

    I agree with all your points, but also understand the despair and outcry when a baby is killed in her bed from a drive-by shooting, when the promising young man in the family is cut down before he can take advantage of the scholarship he earned.

    Questioned about his stand on guns, Bill McBride (Alex Sink's husband) who was running for Florida governor at the time, said, "People in the city think of it as a safety issue, and people in the country think of it as a freedom issue."  

    We do have some restrictions now that are more or less accepted--I cannot own an air to ground missile (so the traffic helicopter hovering over my house too early in the am never gets a warning shot across the bow) and I'm all right with that.  Machine guns were outlawed during the prohibition era--but technology has rendered that ban unimportant.  

    If we could make drug use a public health issue, we would remove the profit motive from drug dealing and a lot of gun danger would evaporate.  

    As I say, we have guns and I would not give them up,  but I'm not ready to face the mother whose 10-year-old was killed on the way to the corner store.

    Certainly, politically, the Democrats would be better off leaving the issue alone--which is what President Obama seems to be doing.

    Resist corporate serfdom.

    by Mayfly on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:24:01 AM PDT

    •  I should have said "ground to air" missile, duh! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas

      Resist corporate serfdom.

      by Mayfly on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:08:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You nailed it. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mayfly

      I live in NYC and have a house in rural upstate NY.

      I don't want guns being carried by the public in NYC but I sure as hell think that every farmer and hunter in my county should have a right to possess guns and use them pursuant to local law ... and assuming they have the appropriate permits.

      The distinction is very clear to me. I know that it is less so for others.

      "To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the need for thought." -H Poincare

      by Glinda on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:35:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I find myself agreeing with Molly Ivans (7+ / 0-)

    I am not anti-gun. I'm pro-knife. Consider the merits of the knife. In the first place, you have to catch up with someone in order to stab him. A general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness. We'd turn into a whole nation of great runners. Plus, knives don't ricochet. And people are seldom killed while cleaning their knives.

    With that out of the way, the second amendment can be seen as having grown out of the English Bill of Rights. King James the Second had been trying to turn England back into a Catholic nation and was systematically disarming the Protestants. In An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown they list the grievance.

    By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;

    And later the solution:

    That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

    If you think I am overstating the influence of this document on the Bill of Rights, look at these items also included

    That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

    That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

    That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

    That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;

    That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;

    That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;

    Do any of these look familiar?

    Four out five sock puppets agree

    by se portland on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:24:20 AM PDT

  •  I think there is a whole dialectic going on (5+ / 0-)

    of people overreacting to one another.  One side certainly wants to arm the irregulars (if that's the interpretation of the Constitution that the diarist wishes to give) in a manner similar to the regulars (e.g. firing heavy automatic weapons in junkyards) and the other side wants Great Britain/Japanese style bans.

    I think the reasonable ground tends to be that there are some situations where one may not be able to have certain/any guns.  The analogous situations is that if I want to yell (or better yet sing) "Fire", I'm free to do it all I want in a South Dakota prairie.  Don't like the D.C. ban?  Move out of D.C.  That is a Constitutional approach used for a lot of other rights.  If ultimately we want to change the jurisprudence on ALL rights, that's fine.  What I really object to is that the 2nd is seen as the "one right to rule them all".  I'm fine with Heller as long as it doesn't get an absolutism not found with other Constitutional rights.

    Unfortunately this dynamic gets exacerbated by the NRA.

    "Tease the Panther" is the new "Release the Kraken."

    by AZphilosopher on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:24:55 AM PDT

    •  Of course people are overreacting (0+ / 0-)

      They have guns, ferchristsakes.  Guns tend to be quite persuasive, especially when you try to take advantage.

    •  I like the local approach. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Futuristic Dreamer

      I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I don't know the proper interpretation. But, I definitely think the ideal policy is one where local jurisdictions can apply locally appropriate restrictions. I don't see anywhere in the country where the tyranny is reduced because of a well armed populace. The assumption of well armed criminals just leads to further militarization of the police and use of no-knock warrants and such that further infringe our rights and risk our safety.

      For better or worse, no one ever gets what they deserve.

      by Jawis on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:36:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No (4+ / 0-)
        We don't accept local restrictions for what we are allowed to say, or print, or worship. There is no reason to accept them for other parts of the Bill of Rights.

        On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

        by stevemb on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:05:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah... (0+ / 0-)

          that's why I laid out the whole "consistently interpret and apply the constitution" thing. I just don't think a right to completely unfettered gun access makes any sense, and is sub-optimal from a policy standpoint.

          For better or worse, no one ever gets what they deserve.

          by Jawis on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:11:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Except for "yelling fire in crowded theater" (0+ / 0-)

          Resist corporate serfdom.

          by Mayfly on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:05:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Actually we do in current (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ancblu

          jurisprudence in many ways.

          Where you are counts re: the 1st amendment:

          School cases:
          Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeyer
          Morse v. Frederic

          Obscenity test:
          Miller v. California

          Restrictions on sale of obscene materials:
          Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition

          So, if I'm in a school working for a paper or even as a student at an assembly, I have fewer rights than the rest of the population.  I have a remedy if I'm 16, drop out.

          If I'm in CA under Miller v. California I'm subject to a different obscenity standard than OK.

          If I live in the middle of nowhere, I can't buy porn via the mail even though my personal use is protected and it is not a crime.

          If you use this approach in conjunction with Scalia's opinion  in Heller, probably a lot of local bans, specific hardware bans and ammo bans are recoverable.  

          Don't even get started on incorporation cases.  The point is to hold "no local regulation", you'd have to treat the 2nd totally different than other rights.  Also a "no local regulation" rule wouldn't allow for any counterbalancing of interests.

          "Tease the Panther" is the new "Release the Kraken."

          by AZphilosopher on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 01:04:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Agree 100% (9+ / 0-)

    And I don't own a gun.  Haven't had one since I was 17 years old.  Learned how to use a whole bunch of them when I was in the Army.  I jokingly tell my Republican friends that the Army taught me 15 different ways to kill someone (which it did, by the way).

    We have no guns in our household.  My wife is strongly against any type of gun, including the pellet guns that I jokingly say I want to get to kill the critters that steal the food from my vegetable garden.  By the way, this year is starting to get to me.  This morning I checked the garden and the five tomato plants that I planted Tuesday are GONE.  The Raccoons took my entire potato crop 4 month ago.  The squirrels are eating my parsley and herbs.  If that isn't a reason to buy a gun, I don't know what is.

    But I digress. We liberals should get off the ban guns approach.  In fact we should take the opposite tactic.  We should actively promote that Liberals be armed.  It would scare the hell out of Republicans.

    Think of the reaction to the Black Panthers.  It was mostly a social organization, promoting self help, education, and community organization.  But it also had another division - Self Defense. Every picture or description from that time period show armed blacks in scary and threatening poses.

    The Republican reaction- panic and the violent removal of their 2nd amendment rights.

    So, actively protect the 2nd Amendment.  Everybody has a right to own and bear arms.  Including YOU.  Don't let them take it away from you.

    "If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve; if impeached, I will not leave" -Anon

    by Graebeard on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:25:16 AM PDT

  •  Having seen personally gun nuts.. (9+ / 0-)

    Using their guns to intimidate people at town halls, victims of violence, and the way they try to take the second amendment to the nth power, I will respectfully disagree.

    I wonder if the founders, ever envisioned "Arms" meaning the things they mean today?

    Happy Fourth.

  •  agree with premise with some disagreements (3+ / 0-)

    > the Iraqi "insurgents"

    The Iraqi insurgents have also carried out extreme campaigns of ethnic cleansing against each other. So if one patriots "revolution" is another patriots ethnic and/or sectarian cleansing what you are arguing for is mandatory possession. Unlike Iraq we settle things at the ballot box. The tea baggers don't seem that happy with this. Is it time to head to the Beck rally armed to the teeth as a show of force? Not my idea of a good time.

    The "big bad government" that we could stay armed against is the local police forces. My opinion is that in the recent history of this nation, since the roll back of Jim Crow, the local police forces are by and large really good people. If the Blackwater / teaparty / black panther / code pink (insert armed extra-legal group here) began marching and killing they would be up against the rule of law - basically the cops. If some religious boogie man - or boogie men - in the military decided to crush the libruls they'd be up against the rule of law and the vast majority of the armed forces who are good people (excluding sci fi scenarios referencing the air force (see: R Heinline). Genocide requires a like minded populace (Hitler's Willing Executioners)

    That said, I agree with your basic premise that declaring rights obsolete is a bad can of worms to open (if I've misread apologies). And, I'd add, there is no reason for anyone to face home invasion on anything but a level playing field if they so desire.

    But where does that leave us with concealed carry laws. I like living in a state that regulates firearms as I no longer enjoy carrying them. I've watched minor traffic disputes in other states devolve into waving guns around. I'm against banning guns, but I'm also against mandatory possession.

    If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

    by jgnyc on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:26:32 AM PDT

    •  The Hutaree agreed (0+ / 0-)

      That the way to show armed resistance to what they believed to be a dangerous and evil state was by murdering police officers.

      If you can believe it, they were arrested and jailed just for planning to exercise their "right to revolution"!  What is the world coming to?

  •  With respect to #4 - they're in all the time! (5+ / 0-)

    The military is watching my cell phone calls.  The CIA is monitoring every conversation I have with my sister in England via Skype.  I know I'm being watched.  I realize that every time I use the internet, it's being monitored by my ISP, my computer company, and the rest of the world.

    The rest of the world, quite literally, is coming into my home.

    In light of this, yes, I do need to have ways to "keep and bear arms" ... but more than anything, I need to have ways to defend my security of intellectual property rights, personal freedom from unreasonable searches, etc.

    Sadly, the 2nd Amendment has very little to do by way of helping me to stand against the confluence of media, corporations, and government acting in collusion.

    There are many who would say that we're long past time for a revolution.  And while I don't sympathize with Timothy McVeigh or others who advocate violence against tyranny, I do realize that to a certain very limited extent they are right - we're just not that free.

    The 2nd Amendment gives the illusion of freedom, but doesn't give us freedom.  Having a gun in my house doesn't keep the government from invading my privacy, stifling my speech, threatening me with tyranny, etc.

    Full Disclosure: I am not Ben Leming. But I think he's pretty cool.

    by Benintn on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:27:45 AM PDT

  •  Very thought provoking (5+ / 0-)

    I'm one of the people who emotionally would be happier if there were no guns around.  And I can't think of a single instance in the last hundred plus years when individuals armed with private weapons have successfully defended their liberty from government tyranny in the US.  Lots of cases where a whacko has killed a cop or two and gotten himself killed, but no cases of successfully defending one's rights.
    On the other hand, we demand the respect for rights that others find abhorent, and - most persuasive to me - promoting gun control is and will be for a long time, a political loser.  And, honestly, there was a time during the Bush administration when, as a member leader of a very militant union, I considered the possibility that I might be on someones list of troublemakers and thought being armed might be not all that bad an idea.
    And there would be a certain fun in going into the local gun shop and telling them I wanted a powerful gun to defend myself against whacko teabaggers.

    "I was asked what I thought of the mainstream media. I said I thought it would be a good idea" - Amy Goodman.

    by Chico David RN on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:27:45 AM PDT

  •  I'd call America a "gun culture"... (7+ / 0-)

    ...but that would be a gross understatement.  "Gun porn culture" is more like it, and I don't believe the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about masturbating while dreaming about assault rifles.

    I have a really difficult time believing that America's pathological gun fetish is all in the name of armed revolution, "just in case".  But who's really capable of questioning motives?

    •  It's all about (0+ / 0-)

      the paranoid perception that there are people out there who are out to get you who "need killing", and you need to be armed to kill them before they come and get you.

      The overriding emotion in the country is paranoia, the fear that when the time comes for a shootout with your next door neighbors, you will run out of weaponry first.

      "Too big to fail" is not too big to jail.

      by Angela Quattrano on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 02:12:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  urban gun crime vs rural hunting, sport shooting (3+ / 0-)

    Gun owners who live in wealthy suburbs and quiet rural areas have little or no experience with guns being regularly used against people rather than animals and tin cans. Your guns spend most of their time locked up in display cases, and 99.9% of the time are intended and used for sport. "Our" guns spend most of their time out on the streets, and 99.9% of the time are intended and used to kill.

    We in the cities want guns out of our communities. Period. The Second Amendment be damned. We are sick and tired of living in fear of our own safety and that of people we care about. We do not want an arms race; you who tell us to own more guns than the criminals and the gangs and to be more willing to use those guns than they are would only make our problem worse. More fear and more violence are not the answer.

  •  Make the 4th Annual Liberal Clean Your Guns (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NearlyNormal, ER Doc

    Weekend!

    I thought about starting a facebook thing, BUT, since all my LIBERAL boston & seattle friends think I'm half f'ing nuts anyway, I wouldn't get the shock value / outrage that would make it fun.

    The affluent, the more noble than me, the wanna be affluent, and the clueless can afford to "rely on the kindness of strangers" - I prefer hollowpoints to Blanche Dubois' approach.

    rmm.

    Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

    by seabos84 on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:29:35 AM PDT

  •  Amen to that! (5+ / 0-)

    And a very good point about "the people" not meaning an approved collectivity but the totality of individual citizens.  

  •  Amen, sister! (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shadan7, buddabelly, ER Doc, NM Ray, KVoimakas

    Not only should progressives embrace the 2'nd Amendment but we should make a sincere, pragmatic political effort to promote as expansive an interpretation of the 2'nd Amendment as the 1'st.

    Forget about finding the exceptions and get get liberated from the albatross of 2'nd Amendment debate, at once taking it away from the Republicans' cheap tricks.

  •  Bravo for a Brave Essay!! (12+ / 0-)

    I'm a sucker for elegant and consistent logic.

    Add me to your fan list.

    ::
    The Pluto Chronicles. You want reality? You can't handle reality!

    by Pluto on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:29:48 AM PDT

  •  This becomes a public safety issue. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WIds, mamamedusa

    For all its problems, NYC is arguably one of the safest large cities in the nation, largely because of the restrictive gun laws.  If it were not for Virginia's custom of selling guns to everyone, even the mental case who shot up VaTech University, and having individuals driving those guns up Rt95 to the City, the crime rate would actually be lower than it is now.  Yes, I have a gun too because I live out in the country, but have to be carefully vetted under NJ's strict gun laws.  I'm not sure that NJ, or NYC, or the rest of the Northeast would be any safer if they were to adopt gun laws like Virginia's that allow psychotic mental cases to buy a gun in less than an hour.  Sure parents, send your kids to school in Virginia where the VaTech incident could happen tomorrow given the slight restrictions they have for handgun purchases.  

    And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

    by MrJersey on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:29:49 AM PDT

    •  recommend... (4+ / 0-)

      you read "More guns, less crime" by John Lott (3rd edition).  It's a fact based book that will show you your idea that "more gun control is better" is actually faulty.  I lived in NY for the first 21 years of my life and understand where you're coming from, but studying one city and making a gerneralization about the rest of the world is dangerous.

  •  absolutely fantastic entry!! (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shadan7, buddabelly, ER Doc, Mayfly, KVoimakas

    ...Not in my wildest dreams could I have imagined a way to say this better.  I'm a fence sitter when it comes to politics...fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.  If I could find the confidence in the Democrat part to support the 2nd ammendment with the vigor of the Republicans, I'd vote left every time.

  •  I believe in a well-regulated free society (5+ / 0-)

    Which is to say, that I don't hold absolute liberty above collective responsibility in all cases.

    So I support well-written laws that regulate commerce and trading and business of all sorts, and yes, guns.

    I do not think that belonging to a militia should be a requirement for gun ownership, nor do I think that the 2nd should be repealed.

    But I do think that we tend to be extreme in our arguments about guns in this country. Either you're on the side of the NRA (ALL GUNS! ALL THE TIME!) or you favor bans.

    What I love about this diary, Ms. Mouse, is that it opens the conversation up. Maybe there are some ways to regulate which support the common good, without infringing upon the right of ownership and use of firearms.

    Personally, I hate guns, but when it comes to the constitution and law in this country, I am not an absolutist.

    •  The issue is that it's really a false argument (0+ / 0-)

      since hardly anyone now is arguing for strict gun control, while the voices declaring the right for all Americans to own arsenals to "protect" themselves by using the guns if they feel paranoid for any reason seems to be becoming deafening.

      "Too big to fail" is not too big to jail.

      by Angela Quattrano on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 02:18:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Can you appreciate the irony of your argument? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buddabelly, KVoimakas

        You deny the "false argument" of an extremist label for "your position" and yet bestow that exact attribute of extremism to those with whom you disagree.

        I would encourage you to make a greater effort to recognize the nuance and sophistication in the opinions and arguments of those here who support 2d Amendment rights in various degrees. They are not remotely as simplistic or extreme as you suggest and it is clear that you understand the offense of making such a "false argument."

        Rome is burning ... put down the fiddle.

        by ancblu on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 03:35:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Outstanding argument... (7+ / 0-)

    ... we support all rights, or we support none. We don't get to be "Cafeteria Catholics" when it comes to Constitutional rights.

    "We have so much time and so little to do. Strike that, reverse it." -- Willy Wonka

    by Huginn and Muninn on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:30:20 AM PDT

  •  Strawman much? (13+ / 0-)

    When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check rational thought at the door. They dismiss approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns, and those who fight to protect the Second Amendment, as "gun nuts."

    I've never heard any liberal at all and especially no prominent one claim that all gun owners are "gun nuts". Gun nuts are members of the NRA leadership that fear monger about Obama and the Democrats taking away all guns and coincidentally leading to sky rocketing gun and ammo sales figures. Gun nuts are the ones creating  conspiracy theories regarding common sense international agreements against illegal gun smuggling and preying on the fears of conspiracy minded "one world government" black helicopter types in their midst.

    I really had no desire to finish this article after that obvious bs. Also, I've never been one to enshrine the thoughts and beliefs of the founders as divine edicts. I believe the constitution must be applied consistently, but just because our founders a decade after a revolution believed in a right of armed revolution 200+ years ago doesn't mean it makes sense now.

    For better or worse, no one ever gets what they deserve.

    by Jawis on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:30:24 AM PDT

  •  Sorry, I diagree with you (12+ / 0-)
    The issues of law are clearly explained by others in this thread, as well as at countless other times on this Website. Perhaps you have chosen to ignore them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

    The Second Amendment clearly grants members of a "well-regulated militia" the right to keep and bear arms in defense of the State (i.e. the United States). It does not give individual Americans the right to brandish weapons in public willy-nilly.

    Secondly, the use of that ableist, sexist, ageist portion of Title 10 (what you link as "The United States Militia Code") hardly buttresses your argument that individuals in the United States can own firearms.

    According to that fine chestnut, only physically fit male citizens (or prospective citizens) between the ages of 17 and 45 or females (of any age?, who are/are not citizens?) who are members of the National Guard can be members of a militia, either "organized" or "unorganized."

    contra your statement, the Code you reproduce does NOT "clearly" state that "everyone else" is a member of a militia. Only those people who fit category (a) who don't meet the requirements for (b)(1), rather, qualify under (b)(2). NOT Everyone else. NOT individuals. NOT the People.

    My suggestion on this day of independence is that you step out from behind your own prejudices regarding what you WANT the Second Amendment to say and actually focus on the entire text, including the clauses that the Roberts Court pervertedly judged to be "non-operative."

  •  I call Bullshit on this! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HeavyJ, varii

    The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age ...

    I ain't in any damn militia, never have been and never will be, and any law that claims that I am is most certainly not looking out for my rights, by any stretch of the imagination.

    •  Wait a minute. A question: (0+ / 0-)

      If all able-bodied males constitute the militia, what constitutes the Regulation?  

      Let's say you have never been in the Army, Navy, or National Guard -- but you are in the militia as part of "everyone else".  Is A.M. suggesting that you must be "well regulated" to have the right to bear arms?

      "The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."
      —Emerson

      by CT Yankee on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:41:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The 2nd doesn't require regulation in the (3+ / 0-)

        prefatory clause. Check the verb there. There's no verb in the prefatory clause that requires anything.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:24:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And Congress (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          buddabelly, Robobagpiper, KVoimakas

          cannot use its failure to provide for the regulating of the militia as a jusitification to nullify a constitutional right.

          Think about it.

          The worse a job Congress does at providing for the militia, the more important it is that private citizens be able to make up for the deficiency.

          The question is not whether the chickens needed replacing, the question is whether the fox should have been guarding them in the first place.

          by happymisanthropy on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 01:18:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Absence of a verb has NOTHING to do with (0+ / 0-)

          it. The second clause was intended to be contingent on the first when it was written. That is how they said it at the time. Language changes in the past 200 years do not excuse the rewriting of the intent.

          "Too big to fail" is not too big to jail.

          by Angela Quattrano on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 02:24:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You'll find no one more interested in the (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            soros, buddabelly, KVoimakas

            language than me.

            "well-regulated" meant "trained in drill". It did not mean "governed by executive rules".

            "militia" meant "the armed body of citizenry". It did not mean "the National Guard".

            "arms" generally meant the kit of an infantryman, more so than the modern usage of "military weapon, no matter how powerful or destructive".

            So what were you saying about the intent not changing?

            In any event, the verb matters rather a lot - because the Constitution is a code of law. Possessing only the participle of "to be" as its verb, the prefatory clause simply declares a state of affairs.

            It does not proscribe or prescribe anything. The operative clause, with its meaty shall not be infringed does. While it is useful context to the operative clause, the operative clause doesn't cite militias or national guards or states. It cites the right of the people. Show me where in the Constitution where "the people" meant other than the people, and I'll give you some slack.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 02:50:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  thankfully... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy, KVoimakas

      this nation has evolved to the point that only volunteers are defending you.  But if we were invaded, are you saying you would do nothing?  If so, that's pathetic.

      •  I would not use violence. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WIds

        But if we were invaded, are you saying you would do nothing?  If so, that's pathetic.

        I'm not going to start killing people, no. Not sure whether or not you would equate this with "doing nothing".

        If you feel that this is pathetic, then so be it.

      •  It's a rather Orwellian use of the term... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WIds

        ..."volunteer", when folks can be jailed for refusing.

        thankfully...

        ...this nation has evolved to the point that only volunteers are defending you.

        But then, the "Peacekeeper missle" is also a rather Orwellian name for the MX missle, too.

        I just hope that we don't take this military Doublespeak seriously.

        •  Orwellian? (0+ / 0-)

          ...I think I'm pickin up what you're puttin down, but "Orwellian" would suggest these "evils" are perpetrated by an outsider.  Am I wrong and you are actually suggesting the all volunteer force that protects us is not actually serving in our best interest (ie, they're outsiders)??

          •  There are two major uses of the term... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            happymisanthropy

            ..."volunteer", as near as I can see.

            The primary usage, used every day on the street in nearly every human endevou