Skip to main content

I've warned about this for a while now, that the Constitution is not an ala carte menu, and that efforts to pick and choose which amendments and freedoms are allowed would backfire on all of us.  At the end of the day, all our rights and freedoms are just words on paper.  Their only legitimacy is our interpretation of them and the respect we finally give them.  And they will all be interpreted equally.  If we overly parse and restrict individual freedom on one, we open the door to restrict all of them.

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.

Gun control advocacy groups have long argued that the 2nd Amendment does not grant individual but collective rights, and those only to members of large government run institutions such as the military and police.  They point to the ‘well regulated Militia’ clause as proof that the founders never intended an individual right, for why else would they include such a qualifier?  Advocates also point out that no other rights in the Constitution contain a similar qualifying phrase.  But this is not true.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Opponents of birthright citizenship have set upon the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof as their legal avenue to strip citizenship from the American born children of illegal immigrants.  They are claiming that citizenship is not an individual right, but a collective right bestowed by the government only to legal residents.  Opponents point to this clause as their justification, for why else did the authors of the 14th Amendment include it?  Some are now claiming that if an immigrant enters the country illegally and does not report herself as a legal resident, then she has actively sought to not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.  Therefore Congress could pass legislation stating that her child is not a citizen per the wording of the 14th Amendment.

The Constitution can be interpreted in favor of individual rights or collective rights and this will be applied equally.  If a cleaver parsing of one amendment finds that an individual right does not exist, nothing prevents the exact same thing from being done to another cherished right.  The Constitution does not state one amendment is more sacred than any other.  Use of the Well Regulated Militia argument is actually facilitating the right wing attack on birthright citizenship.

It doesn't end there.  Legislators tired of political attacks from the blogosphere could similarly parse the 1st Amendment and claim that in the days of the founders, printing presses were large expensive pieces of equipment that were not widely owned.  Limited ownership and the personal reputation of the wealthy press owners provided a check to irresponsible behavior that doesn’t exist today to the same degree. Freedom of the Press therefore applies only to large media organizations that can be effectively policed for slander, libel, morality and patriotism.  That giving freedom of the press rights to any and all internet bloggers creates an unenforceable danger to the public good.

We have a choice to make:  To accept individual rights and freedoms for all, to take the bad with the good, or accept collective rights and leave all of us subject to the tyranny of the majority.  I choose individual freedom for all.

http://www.scrippsnews.com/...

Originally posted to Norm in Chicago on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 08:06 AM PDT.

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

  •  [rolls eyes, goes elsewhere] (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    polecat, WIds, bobdevo, alba, brooklyn137

    Dean was wrong.
    We don't need to take our country back. We need to take our Party back.

    by shpilk on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 08:09:42 AM PDT

  •  If these idiots want to assert that undocumented (8+ / 0-)

    aliens' offspring born in the US are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof (of the United States government), they'd best be careful, as if it were determined they were not citizens by virtue of not being under jurisdiction, they could not be deported, as they would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    Is there any relationship between reading and comprehension skills and political parties?

    "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

    by bobdevo on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 08:12:06 AM PDT

  •  Is there another definition for the word ALL? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    polecat

    This word is a powerful directive.

    There can be no quibbling about it's meaning.

    It is the first and only guiding word for the entire Amendment.

    For those familiar with the meaning and power of the work "shall" when used in a legal setting understanding the power of "all" is a cinch.

    "A functioning Democracy must defy economic interests of the elites on behalf of citizens" Christopher Hedges Econ 3.50&Soc. 5.79

    by wmc418 on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 08:14:29 AM PDT

    •  "And" qualifies "all" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      teknofyl

      The language is pretty clear.  All people who meet these qualifications.  The qualifications are born or naturalized AND subject to the the laws etc.  There are two necessary conditions, one is disjunctive, that is "or."  What subject to the laws means is the question.  Apparently, the SCOTUS has ruled on that.  

      In the Second Amendment there is no such language.  The framers of the Second clearly intended that the states should be able to have a militia and that, under the conditions of the time, that meant that people kept arms and ran to the defense in time of need, like a modern volunteer fire department. So the villagers grabbed their muskets and ran to the town square to defend their village.

      Conditions have changed and the question is, while states clearly have the right to a militia, do individuals have the right to keep and bear arms not as part of a militia and if so which arms?  While I disagree with this SCOTUS decision, the real questions are still out there.  While no sane person thinks the government has no right to regulate atom bombs or shoulder fired surface to air missiles (commerical air traffic and terrorists anyone?) the real issue will be where the line is.  

      •  All persons born (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        polecat

        Deal with that statement alone and where does it get you.

        It makes no mention of parentage.

        The "or" section of the amendment is irrellevent to birth.

        It is the ALL portion that is subject to the Right's argument.

        "A functioning Democracy must defy economic interests of the elites on behalf of citizens" Christopher Hedges Econ 3.50&Soc. 5.79

        by wmc418 on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 08:51:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Does the "and subject" clause mean anything? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Norm in Chicago

          If it relates to naturalized citizens then the "and subject" statement makes absolutely no sense.  If someone is a naturalized American citizen, then by definition, he is subject to the laws of the US.  

          The "and subject" clause, if it applies to anyone applies to the born not naturalized.  It is therefore a limitation on the born clause. Who specifically that refers to has apparently been determined by the SCOTUS to be children of diplomats. I disagree with the right on this issue, but to say that we get to puncuate laws however we please or ignore clauses is to invite chaos.  

  •  Let's see... PERSONS vs. PEOPLE (0+ / 0-)

    Persons seems to relate to individuals, while People refers to a group.  But IANAL, so that's just my take.

    In an insane society, the sane man would appear insane

    by TampaCPA on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 08:15:10 AM PDT

  •  Wow! (5+ / 0-)

    Pretty broad generalization on what gun control advocates want.

    I would say 99% have no issue with individuals owning guns and have more of an issue of what guns and who owns them. I live in a state where hunting is very popular. So popular that one learns just stay out of the wood during hunting season. I would never attempt to tell my friends an neighbors to give up the right to own a gun because they are not in a well regulated militia.

    So while I see your broader point don't over state what gun control advocates actually believe or want.

    In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

    by jsfox on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 08:16:58 AM PDT

  •  The First Amendment already is gutted like that (5+ / 0-)

    In case you haven't noticed the right to assemble has been squished into little other than windown dressing by making all assemblies, regardless of how peaceful and "copnstitutionally protected" subject to an endless permitting process that makes assembly a privilege, not a right, and both speech and assembly are determined to be fully free when allowed to happen in  wired in cages miles from anyone or anything called "Free Speech Zones".  Yes, I know everybody here is all worried that the libtard gummint is coming to take their guns away, but they've ALREADY taken away your rights to free speech and free assembly, you just don't notice that because unlike your guns, you never try to use your First Amendment rights.

    American business is about maximizing shareholder value. You basically don't want workers. ~Allen Sinai

    by ActivistGuy on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 08:18:31 AM PDT

  •  Sorry, your argument falls flat with me. (6+ / 0-)

    If a person is not 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof', they can rob, pillage, and maim with impunity before you deport them.  That phrase looks to me to refer specifically to diplomats and their wives giving birth in the US, as people with diplomatic immunity are not 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'.

    Nice try though.

    Note to self: Quit insulting people. Note to others: If I insult you, please remind me that I'm trying to stop doing that.

    by Ezekial 23 20 on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 08:20:40 AM PDT

    •  Yup. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      polecat, teknofyl

      What Ezekial said.  That phrase has a very specific meaning, placed in the amendment for a very specific purpose.

      Everyone in this country, illegally or not, is subject to the laws of the United States - except for diplomats.

      One should no more deplore homosexuality than left-handedness. ~Towards a Quaker View of Sex, 1964 (Proud left-handed queer here!)

      by AUBoy2007 on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 08:33:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  As another commenter noted, it also applied (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AUBoy2007

        to citizens of foreign countries who were in the US at the time the 14th went into effect.

        Note to self: Quit insulting people. Note to others: If I insult you, please remind me that I'm trying to stop doing that.

        by Ezekial 23 20 on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 08:39:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Not my interpretation you have to worry about (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oldpunk

      I'm not making the right wing argument, I'm saying the door has been opened for it.  This is what the "review" of the 14th that the GOP wants is.  It would then go to the courts to decide if the new laws were legal or not.

      But I think the GOP is going to try to ban birthright citizenship the same way Chicago tried to ban handguns.

      •  I think they'll fail miserably, then. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Norm in Chicago

        You can take any frivolous nonsense to court, but that doesn't mean you won't simply get laughed at.

        If you truly want to remove birthright citizenship through the courts, you first have to come up with the standard for citizenship with which you want to replace it, and prove to the courts (if that's the path you're taking) that your standard is more constitutional than what is actually written in the constitution...

        The only real path they have to repeal is for 38 states to ratify yet another amendment repealing the 14th, and with the makeup of the states today, that simply isn't going to happen.

        Note to self: Quit insulting people. Note to others: If I insult you, please remind me that I'm trying to stop doing that.

        by Ezekial 23 20 on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 09:08:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's how long they take to fail (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ban nock, Ezekial 23 20

          Instead of the nation throwing the argument flat on it's face, we're going to get the review and a slew of bad laws that will all have to be court challenged and declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

          Again, the knowledge that they'd fail miserably didn't stop Chicago from trying to violate the Constitution, and they've announced that they'll just pass new laws and wait for new court challenges.

          We'll get bad birthright citizenship laws designed to be thrown out and provoke a fight to the Supreme Court.

          To give a favorite quote of mine, "We're about to see a whole lot of ugly, from a never ending parade of stupid."

  •  so what does (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    brooklyn137

    'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' mean?

    They put it there, it has to mean something.

    If we pretend the phrase does not exist, are we not de facto amending the amendment?

    IOW, who are those who are not subjust to U.S. jurisdiction?

    •  Those with diplomatic immunity. nt (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AUBoy2007, alba

      Note to self: Quit insulting people. Note to others: If I insult you, please remind me that I'm trying to stop doing that.

      by Ezekial 23 20 on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 08:22:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  is that a fact of law (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Catesby, Norm in Chicago

        or just your opinion?

        i found this..

        http://federalistblog.us/...

        Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law that it was the goal to "make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States," and if "the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen." Obviously he did not have natural allegiance in mind since under common law it did not always matter who owed allegiance in advance.

        Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, added on March 1, 1866: "We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments."

        •  You seem to have answered your own question. (0+ / 0-)

          People who were already citizens of another country at the time the 14th went into effect didn't suddenly become citizens, and children born to diplomats don't become citizens.

          So, since you actually went out and found the facts, I'm not sure why you bother to ask if it's 'my opinion', but kudos for looking it up.

          Note to self: Quit insulting people. Note to others: If I insult you, please remind me that I'm trying to stop doing that.

          by Ezekial 23 20 on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 08:38:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  thought i'd also ask (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ezekial 23 20

            in case you had additional information that would undermine that which i provided.

            Interesting for me as my sister-in-law has been illegal here for 20 years. Her 2 kids are now attending college.

            •  K. Didn't understand (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TheFaithfulStone

              exactly what you were saying.

              I'm of the opinion that being here 'illegally' should be on the order of a parking ticket violation, as long as you aren't committing other crimes.  Obviously if you're actually running around dealing drugs or whatnot, I've got no problem with them bumping it up to some charge like 'illegal entry with intent to commit a felony' or somesuch.

              But I could care less who all is here as long as they're generally law-abiding.  

              Note to self: Quit insulting people. Note to others: If I insult you, please remind me that I'm trying to stop doing that.

              by Ezekial 23 20 on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 09:12:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  It Excludes People Subject To Another Jurisdiction (2+ / 0-)
      i.e. foreign diplomats and Indian tribes legally recognized as sovereign over what land was left to them.

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

      by stevemb on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 08:34:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No body ever points this out! (0+ / 0-)

        That's EXACTLY what it refers to - people not subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal government, but born within it's territorial bounds.   Native Americans, who at the time were not considered citizens of the US because they were citizens of their individual nations, and diplomats.

        It's not even hard to understand.  There were, and still are, sovereign countries contained within the US.  Indians had to be granted citizenship by legislation.  Everyone else got it as a birthright.

        •  So would that not also apply (0+ / 0-)

          to children of Canadian/Mexican/etc. citizens that are born here, but raised elsewhere?

          •  No, because all persons "born" here are citizens. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            oldpunk
          •  I think they have to apply for citizenship (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            oldpunk, TheFaithfulStone

            If I recall correctly, if a child is born in the US but then taken to another country and raised there, and given citizenship in that other nation, they have until their 18th birthday to formally apply for dual citizenship.

            Otherwise the US citizenship can lapse and they retain only the citizenship of the nation they were raised in.

            •  Citation for the law that citizenship can be (0+ / 0-)

              lost, in current times, by an act of omission, please. One can disclaim citizenship by affirmative acts, but I will need the citation for losing it by omission before I believe. the US may not like dual citizenship but it can arise in many circumstances, but the question is whether someone born here can lose it by accident, and I don't think so without proof.

          •  Only If They Were Not Subject To US Jurisdiction (0+ / 0-)

            The only case that qualifier would apply is if they were foreign diplomats or came along with a conquering army (a real conquering army that overthrew the previous government over the territory it held, not a metaphor for illegal immigration).

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

            by stevemb on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 09:20:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It may not be limited to those cases (0+ / 0-)

              Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, added on March 1, 1866: "We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments."

              •  Good point. (0+ / 0-)

                I think there's an argument to be made that travelers are probably not subject to this bit.

                I'm not sure whether you're really "subject to the jurisdiction" of a country if you're just passing through.   It depends on how you parse "subject"

      •  "Temporary sojourners' may have been discussed, (0+ / 0-)

        but didn't make it into the official text.
        Only two classes of folk who despite being here when Junior arrived weren't here at all in the law, namely Native Americans not taxes who were thought to be citizens of little sovereigns  inside the tummy of Great America, at least until 1924, and diplomats, whose kids have to be protected from the application of local law to them so that the diplomants never get a conflict of interest issue as to the kids, and nations can't grab and use the kids as a ransom point against the diplomants. Diplomats and their families when with them, and their literal embassy are not as a matter of law 'in' the nation to which they are accredited, but are as a matter of law at home on the main street of the national capital of the country which accredited them, at all times.

  •  I hear pot is a gateway drug . . . (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    esquimaux, alba

    leads to heroin, crack and selling babies.

    Sorry, but the argument doesn't hold water.  The Second Amendment is not about fundamental human rights it was about appeasing anti-federalist fears of a central government, as I have argued here.

    The fact of the matter is that no one in any position of responsibility actually considers gun ownership a fundamental human right.  If they did then we would have to list all of those nations that restrict gun ownership as violators of human rights.  We don't.  What's more, no one suggests that we should, even the most rabid right-wingers in politics.

    Gun ownership is not a fundamental human right.

    As for the 14th Amendment, the argument of the righties is absurd on its face.  If the so-called anchor babies are not subject to US or state jurisdiction then they cannot be apprehended and deported.  If they are, then they are citizens.  It's pretty simple, really.

    "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

    by journeyman on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 08:22:42 AM PDT

    •  Interesting Read. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oldpunk

      After repealing the 2nd amendment, what?  What types of gun laws do you advocate?

      •  Thanks for taking the time to read it. (0+ / 0-)

        You know, I don't have a specific set of laws that I propose.  I'm in favor of pragmatic solutions and a period of trial and error.  I'd like to see open carry laws rescinded.  I think they're ridiculous.  I'd like to see a law forbidding anyone except law enforcement from carrying firearms to political events or anywhere near where public officials are expected to appear.  Most of all, though, I'd just like people to stop pretending that having the power to take a human life in the palm of your hand is a fundamental human right.  It insults my intelligence.

        "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

        by journeyman on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 08:41:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think the 2nd could be repealed (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OMwordTHRUdaFOG, oldpunk

          unless it was immediately replaces with something that clarifies modern gun ownership rights.  Being that concealed carry is legal in over 40 states now (you don't even need a permit in Vermont), i doubt that you could get the required 38 to repeal it.

          •  I think you could get it repealed (0+ / 0-)

            if anyone actually honored it.  In this day and age it's too insane to even consider.  So we all pretend that "arms" means "small arms" and nothing else.  The Second Amendment is basically a dead letter with regard to everything else already.  People ignore what it actually means and pretend that it means something else altogether.

            I think simple repeal would be more honest.

            "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

            by journeyman on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 08:54:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The problem with your argument (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              oldpunk, theatre goon

              is that you would have to be an uber-originalist to interpret it they way you have (and reject the last 150+ years of case law).

              So, I don't really see the same problem as do you.

              •  But you agree (0+ / 0-)

                that that was the meaning when it was written?

                You agree that the plain words of the document cite the right to bear "arms" and that they do so in a specifically military context?

                "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

                by journeyman on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 09:09:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The right of the people to (5+ / 0-)

                  keep and bear arms is not limited to membership in a militia because such membership was voluntary.  If such a membership was required then our right to freedom of the press would be limited to newspaper owners and our right to freedom of religion would be limited to those who are members of a church. Our rights are not contingent upon such affiliations otherwise they would not be rights but privileges.

                  Don't believe what the politicians do, don't believe what they say, all they want to do is fuck you and get fat on their pay.

                  by oldpunk on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 09:30:56 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I never suggested that it was (0+ / 0-)

                    limited to membership in a militia.  Quite the opposite, really.

                    If you're going to join an argument midstream, you really ought to acquaint yourself with its history first.

                    "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

                    by journeyman on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 09:38:02 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It seems to me (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ban nock, theatre goon

                      that this statement;

                      You agree that the plain words of the document cite the right to bear "arms" and that they do so in a specifically military context?

                      clearly implies limiting gun ownership to the military context of militia membership.

                      As for your link, you said this;

                      The Second Amendment is a dangerous anachronism.  It ought to be repealed.  It was meant as a guarantee of state power against the federal government.

                      What State power could be used against the Federal Government other than a militia comprised of an armed populace?  Nothing. So while you haven't said that gun ownership should be limited to the militia you have implied it.  But such a restriction wouldn't be good enough for you.  You want the 2nd Amendment repealed.  Good luck with that. Hey, do me a favor, when you go about getting the 2nd Amendment repealed don't associate yourself with the Democratic party because such a position will ensure a Republican majority for years to come.

                      Don't believe what the politicians do, don't believe what they say, all they want to do is fuck you and get fat on their pay.

                      by oldpunk on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 10:18:32 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Reading comprehension is obviously not (0+ / 1-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Hidden by:
                        Tom Seaview

                        a strength of yours.

                        What I wrote was this:

                        What is important to note here is that this was meant as a guarantee of rough military parity between the federal government and any state or large area that felt that federal power was encroaching on their rights.

                        The teabaggers and militia types have it right.

                        It is about the right to revolution.

                        "Arms" in this context does not mean "hunting rifles."

                        It does not mean "firearms".

                        It means exactly what it says: "Arms", that is to say war potential.

                        The Second Amendment was designed to guarantee the citizenry access to war potential of equal or even greater power than that possessed by the federal government.

                        That was what I wrote in plain English.

                        How you get from that to some requirement about membership in a militia, I have no idea.

                        "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

                        by journeyman on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 10:24:30 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Interesting. (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          ban nock, KVoimakas, theatre goon

                          You have to resort to insults instead of addressing what I posted.  Clear evidence of the weakness of your position but nevertheless. This statement

                          The Second Amendment is a dangerous anachronism.  It ought to be repealed.  It was meant as a guarantee of state power against the federal government.

                          is from a different diary and has no credibility in this thread where you said this

                          You agree that the plain words of the document cite the right to bear "arms" and that they do so in a specifically military context?

                          Like I said, the above statement clearly implies limiting gun ownership to militia membership.

                          Don't believe what the politicians do, don't believe what they say, all they want to do is fuck you and get fat on their pay.

                          by oldpunk on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 10:43:30 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Again, with the reading comprehension. (0+ / 0-)

                            Uh, you obviously failed to notice that the debate we were having started in response to the previous poster's response to the diary in question.

                            You see, I linked that diary in a comment.

                            Then Right-leaning Mod chimed in with a reference to my diary.

                            Then we began discussing that diary.

                            In that context he suggested that I was being too much of an originalist for suggesting that the Second Amendment was about preventing the federal government from having a preponderance of force over states and localities.

                            The discussion was about whether or not the Second Amendment revolved around the right to revolution, not about any requirement for membership in a militia.  You can check my posting history, the only place that I have advocated such a requirement is in your imagination.

                            You have problems with reading comprehension.

                            Pointing to a true point that is at the heart of a dispute is not "resorting to insults", however unflattering it may be to certain individuals involved in the debate.

                            "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

                            by journeyman on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 10:55:44 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I stand corrected. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            journeyman, ban nock, theatre goon

                            Although I feel that my failure is not with reading comprehension per se but rather with just skimming and not taking the time to read the entire diary, my apologies.

                            Don't believe what the politicians do, don't believe what they say, all they want to do is fuck you and get fat on their pay.

                            by oldpunk on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 11:22:42 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Fair enough. n/t (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            oldpunk

                            "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

                            by journeyman on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 12:45:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

        •  I do have the fundamental right (4+ / 0-)

          to defend myself and my family against those who would do me or mine harm, if that results in the taking of a human life so be it.

          Don't believe what the politicians do, don't believe what they say, all they want to do is fuck you and get fat on their pay.

          by oldpunk on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 08:49:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Right (0+ / 0-)

            And suppose those that meant you harm had a tank.  Should you also have a tank?

            Besides that, the Second Amendment is no about self-defense.  It's about revolution.

            "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

            by journeyman on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 08:52:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I would like to have a tank (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              oldpunk, ban nock, theatre goon

              rush hour would be much more fun.

            •  Tanks and other such things (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Norm in Chicago, theatre goon

              don't meet the definition of arms.  And no the 2nd amendment is not limited to revolution just like the other amendments aren't.  Oh and who is responsible for your personal defense?  The police?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
              HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA. The military? HAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Your home owners association or community watch? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  Your security alarm company? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  Nope, you and you alone are ultimately responsible for your personal safety and the 2nd amendment ensures a very effective and practical way to secure it.

              Don't believe what the politicians do, don't believe what they say, all they want to do is fuck you and get fat on their pay.

              by oldpunk on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 09:05:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

                it seems to me that the Second Amendment just guarantees that many more have the ability to violate my personal safety.

                How many times last year were firearms used in self-defense?

                How many of those times were they used against others who were also exercising their Second-Amendment rights?

                How many times were they used to take the lives of others in some capacity other than immediate self-defense?

                Your case would make sense only if you could show fire arms were of aid in self-defense more often than in murder.  You can't because they aren't.

                "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

                by journeyman on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 09:16:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oh, yes, I can. (5+ / 0-)

                  According to this DOJ study, there were approximately 1.5 million Defensive Uses of Firearms in 1994 (conservatively, if you read the study.)  There were 107,000 if even if you take the absolute lowest estimate, but that discards a lot of legitimate DGUs.  

                  (For example, if you come to my house and threaten to kill me, and I scare you off with a gun, that's obviously a legitimate defensive use, but wouldn't be counted in the 107,000 number unless you were convicted of and served time for Terroristic Threatening.)

                  The Study

                  According to the SAME STUDY, there were approximately 1.07 million crimes where guns were used.  (This would include any crime where a gun charge was filed.)

                  They point out some reasons why they could get such wildly disparate numbers, but miss the obvious one in which DGU repots outnumber crimes, because the crime failed to be committed because of the DGU.  If I'm approaching you in a threatening manner, and you scare me off with a gun, you've legitimately used a firearm to deter a possible crime, but no crime was actually committed.)

                  And according to the UN, there were about 16,000 (total, including things not involving firearms.) murders in the US in 2009.  Now granted those statistic are about 15 years apart, but I think we'd notice if the murder rate dropped by 90% in the past decade and half.

                  So, what you asked for:

                  At minimum, Guns are used 6.5 times as often for self-defense as they are to commit a murder.

                  •  Except (0+ / 0-)

                    You forgot to subtract the number of self-defense incidents that were directed at OTHERS possessing firearms.

                    Moreover, you neglected to mention the fact that the survey is based on estimates derived from the self-reported usage of firearms owners themselves.  That obviously allows for bias as those who feel the need for something are more likely to have found it useful.

                    You may as well ask those who pray at Shinto shrines if prayer at Shinto shrines is useful.

                    The thing is that there is an easy way to measure the validity of these perceptions.  One can look at what happens in countries where firearm ownership is restricted.  If firearms deter so many crimes, then we can easily surmise that countries with strict gun laws must have many more cases where self-defense was not achieved successfully for want of a firearm.  But, actually, we observe exactly the opposite.

                    Hmm... it would seem that purchasing a gun might actually correlate with exaggerated fears for one's personal security.

                    Who would ever have thought that?

                    "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

                    by journeyman on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 09:57:52 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  What about Switzerland? (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      oldpunk, theatre goon

                      Where everybody owns an automatic rifle, and there's very, very low violent crime?

                      •  What about it? (0+ / 0-)

                        Obviously that case isn't applicable here.

                        "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

                        by journeyman on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 10:17:33 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Uhh... (4+ / 0-)

                          If firearms deter so many crimes, then we can easily surmise that countries with strict gun laws must have many more cases where self-defense was not achieved successfully for want of a firearm.  But, actually, we observe exactly the opposite.

                          Seems applicable to me.

                          •  Uh no. (0+ / 0-)

                            You see, the fact that there is low crime in Switzerland where there is high gun ownership is not relevant to the United States where there is both high gun ownership and high crime.

                            However, if we were to believe that crime is deterred by gun ownership then we should be able to show that high crime exists where gun ownership does not.

                            I should have thought that was self-evident.

                            "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

                            by journeyman on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 10:57:47 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Washington, DC? (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            oldpunk, KVoimakas, theatre goon

                            Where gun ownership is low and crime is high?

                            As an aside, the robbery, assault, and burglary are all much more prevalent in the UK than they are in the US.  Only murder and rape are less prevalent.

                            [sarcasm]
                            I think this is not related to gun ownership at all, but is instead a cultural tendency of American criminals to finish what they start.
                            [/sarcasm]

                            This is a perfect example of correlation not being causation, in other words.

                    •  Other countries which have (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      KVoimakas, theatre goon

                      lower gun violence often have better social safety nets, better preventative mental health care, lower income disparity and aren't waging a failed war on drugs.  In other words they are addressing the root causes of violence overall and haven't focused solely on the implements used to commit violent acts regardless of what they are.  The goal should be to reduce violent crime and that can only be done by identifying and correcting the root causes.  

                      Don't believe what the politicians do, don't believe what they say, all they want to do is fuck you and get fat on their pay.

                      by oldpunk on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 11:31:07 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Actually, the murder and violent crime rates (4+ / 0-)

                    have dropped about 35-40% in the last decade and a half.

                    A number of hypotheses have been floated; I'm partial to the environmental lead remediation one.

                    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 Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 10:04:02 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Your personal safety is your responsibility and (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  KVoimakas, theatre goon

                  is not a right.  I know you didn't say that but I thought I would throw that in for free. Nevertheless I don't see how a person who can legally own a firearm is a threat to you, it is the people who have obtained them illegally that you should be concerned about.

                  How many times last year were firearms used in self-defense? Around 1.5 million.

                  How many of those times were they used against others who were also exercising their Second-Amendment rights?  No data.

                  How many times were they used to take the lives of others in some capacity other than immediate self-defense? No data.

                  Your case would make sense only if you could show fire arms were of aid in self-defense more often than in murder.  You can't because they aren't.

                  Yes I can, the number of murders by firearms 9484 and the number of DGU's was 1.5 million as reported by the National Criminal Justice Reference Service in the first link.

                  Don't believe what the politicians do, don't believe what they say, all they want to do is fuck you and get fat on their pay.

                  by oldpunk on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 09:55:11 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yeah I've just been reading through this (0+ / 0-)

                    Interesting how you both brought it up and yet both misrepresented its actual contents.

                    Misrepresentation number one:  This was not about last year, it was about 1994.  That's a little different than last year.

                    Misrepresentation number two: The sample size in this survey was vanishingly small.  In fact all of the conclusions in it were taken from responses by a total of FORTY-FIVE people.

                    One woman, whose response was apparently factored into that oh-so scientific total, claimed to have used a gun in defensive situations a grand total of 52 times in the past year.

                    What this actually shows is nothing more or less than that in 1994 there were 45 gun owners in the United States that may have had exaggerated fears for their personal security.

                    Big surprise there.

                    "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

                    by journeyman on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 10:07:04 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Your misunderstanding of how statistics work (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      oldpunk, theatre goon

                      isn't our misrepresentation.

                      I think it's pretty clear that the 1.5 million number isn't really accurate, just as the 107,000 number isn't really accurate.

                      The real number is somewhere in between, but is surely greater than 10,000.

                      •  Oh, excuse my ignorance. (0+ / 0-)

                        Please, educate me.

                        How do statistics work?

                        So its just that it's "somewhere in the middle"?

                        That sounds more like drive-by journalism than statistics.

                        But perhaps you could enlighten me.  Tell me the exact procedures you used to arrive at your sophisticated conclusion.

                        "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

                        by journeyman on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 10:19:39 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Random Sampling (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          oldpunk, theatre goon

                          You don't want to ask everybody in the US how they think the president is doing so you ask 1,000 random people.  Then you do your statistic on that and extrapolate the numbers based on the results of your sample.

                          There are problems with false positives in the 1.5 million number, because the sample is too large and uncontrolled.   (Basically, they asked everyone, and a lot of people are kinda crazy, so they picked up a lot of FPs.)

                          The problem with the 107,000 number is that it avoids all false positives, but the sample is biased.  It was based on interviews with victims of crimes - so obviously it wouldn't include people who were never victims based on their use of firearms.

                          Neither sample was perfect, but since they were imperfect in almost exactly opposite ways, it's a fair guess that the "actual" number is between a lower bound of 107,000 and an upper bound of 1.5 million.

                          Either way, the likelihood for it being less than 10,000 is basically zero.

                          You're welcome. ; )

                          •  Sorry, your analogy is false. (0+ / 0-)

                            You ask 1000 people perhaps, but you don't 1000 Republicans.  You don't ask 1000 smokers about respiratory issues to find out the situation with all Americans.

                            You also don't ask 1000 people who think it's necessary to find a firearm if they think firearms have made them safer.

                            When you have only 45 people who answered that they used firearms for self-defense and more than half of them claimed multiple uses of firearms for self-defense and one actually claimed 52, you know that a good deal of your sample is bogus.

                            That is to say that your study is crap.

                            To say that asking people who actually bothered to report an incident is flawed because people who used firearms to scare off possible wrong-doers would not have reported it is sheer nonsense.  If someone doesn't bother to report an incident because they scared someone off with a firearm, that means that they never took it seriously to begin with.

                            Victim interviews is a reasonable methodology.

                            Interviewing nutcases is crap.

                            You do not find the truth by weighing crap against reason and finding the truth somewhere in between.

                            "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

                            by journeyman on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 10:47:58 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's not an analogy. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            oldpunk, theatre goon

                            That's the explanation you asked for about how statistics work.

                            Yes, the 1.5 million number is clearly wrong.  It's wrong not quite for the reasons you gave, as you seem to have misunderstood the sampling methodology.  The sample was 2,568 adults with telephones.

                            Yes, the 107,000 number is also clearly incorrect, as I already pointed out because it samples out of people who were victims of crimes.  If you scare off a trespasser, you were not a victim of a crime, but you do have a legitimate DGU.

                            People are reluctant to report themselves as "victims" but not at all reluctant to report themselves as "heros."  That's what I mean when I say that both sets of numbers are wrong in almost the exact opposite way.

                            But it's really an academic argument, because 107,000 is still 10X the size of 10,000, which was your original assertion, hence disproven.

                          •  Um, huh? (0+ / 0-)

                            You claim that two studies are flawed and then assert that they give you an insight into the truth.

                            That makes no sense.

                            Then you say that 107,000 people asserting that they used firearms to prevent a crime is the same as that many people saying that they used them to prevent a murder.

                            You are not really making a lot of sense here.

                            "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

                            by journeyman on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 11:10:54 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Flawed is not false. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            oldpunk, theatre goon

                            The theory of general relativity is flawed.  Newtonian mechanics are flawed.  That doesn't mean they don't provide insight.

                            Statistical work is almost always flawed in some way, but that doesn't mean it's worthless.

                            Then you say that 107,000 people asserting that they used firearms to prevent a crime is the same as that many people saying that they used them to prevent a murder.

                            I didn't say that.  You said I couldn't prove that firearms were an aid in self-defense more often than they were used in a murder.  You didn't say that I had to prove that firearms PREVENTED more MURDERS than they were used in.

                            In fact, such a thing would be next to impossible to prove, because you would need to prove that something WOULD have happened, against something that DID happen.   I can tell you that 107,000 people at minimum thought that they were in enough danger to warrant the use of a firearm.

                            You can tell me all you want that X% of them were wrong - but it's just a naked assertion.

                          •  Right. (0+ / 0-)

                            So you're trying to establish that firearms are a great boon to self-defense by parsing and completely ignoring the fact that firearms are also used in innumerable other aggressive ways than murder, e.g. inflicting bodily harm, threats, etc.

                            That's not really a persuasive case.

                            "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

                            by journeyman on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 12:40:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            Firearms can be a necessity of self-defense when everybody else has guns, and can also be used in other aggressive ways.   A is not mutually exclusive of B, although they are related.  (If no criminal had a gun, carrying a gun for self defense would clearly be insane - unless you wanted to be the criminal.)

                            In other words - Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.   (Of course, the best thing to do is not go to gun fights, but you don't always get that option.)

                    •  No misrepresentation. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      theatre goon

                      All I did was provide a link and quoted what was there.

                      Don't believe what the politicians do, don't believe what they say, all they want to do is fuck you and get fat on their pay.

                      by oldpunk on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 10:21:17 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No, that was either a mistake or a (0+ / 0-)

                        misreprestation.

                        What you posted was this:

                        How many times last year were firearms used in self-defense? Around 1.5 million.

                        Then you linked a 1997 study that discussed a 1994 report.  That wasn't last year.

                        "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

                        by journeyman on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 11:08:26 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Just provided the data that was available (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          theatre goon

                          in response to your question.

                          Don't believe what the politicians do, don't believe what they say, all they want to do is fuck you and get fat on their pay.

                          by oldpunk on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 11:46:25 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Except that the data (0+ / 0-)

                            was highly questionable and not timely.

                            And you didn't mention either of those things.

                            Some people might see that as a misrepresentation.

                            "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

                            by journeyman on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 12:41:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I would consider the (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            National Criminal Justice Reference System and the National Institute of Justice as fairly unbiased sources and they stated the following about the National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms study;

                            Evidence suggests that this survey and others like it overestimate the frequency with which firearms were used by private citizens to defend against criminal attack.

                            On the basis of data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data, one would conclude that defensive uses are rare indeed, about 108,000 per year.

                            So again no misrepresentation I provided a link to the data for all to see and read. I happen to believe that there are more DGU's than less. So whether the DGU's are over a million or "rare" at 108,000 more people are saved from potential injury or loss of life than the number of people murdered by a gun.

                            Don't believe what the politicians do, don't believe what they say, all they want to do is fuck you and get fat on their pay.

                            by oldpunk on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 04:10:44 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oldpunk (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            oldpunk

                            I'll frankly admit to you that I've had a few since our last exchange.  Moreover, I'm in the middle of a cross-country move.  Long story short, I don't have the time or energy to give your riposte the time it deserves.  That said, I've enjoyed crossing swords with you.  You've sharpened me up.  I would like to continue this some other time.  I do hope you've felt the same about me.  I hope to see you around again.

                            "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

                            by journeyman on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 07:49:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Always, iron sharpens iron. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            journeyman

                            "By the collision of different sentiments, sparks of truth strike out, and political light is obtained". Benjamin Franklin

                            There will never be full agreement on any topic nor would I want there to be.  In the sharing of different opinions we all grow and are strengthened.  The biggest challenge for me is communicating in this medium of text.  It's not like writing a paper, it is faster and often emotionally charged plus it is quite easy, not being face to face, to let fly comments without concern to their impact.  Thanks for your time journeyman I too have enjoyed the exchange and look forward to crossing swords again.  Be safe on your move.

                            Don't believe what the politicians do, don't believe what they say, all they want to do is fuck you and get fat on their pay.

                            by oldpunk on Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 05:04:27 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Clearly... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            oldpunk

                            ...since your reference shows journeyman to be completely wrong in all of his or her assertions, he or she chooses to ignore it.

                            Y'know, honest and open debate -- the facts that somebody else doesn't like can be ignored, but you're supposed to accept their empty assertion as fact.

            •  So? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              oldpunk, theatre goon

              It's about revolution.  That's a whole different conversation, about whether a country that was founded on the backs of a popular revolution can morally cut off the possibility of a popular revolution.

              But there is a fundamental human right to self-defense.  Whether or not that includes carrying a gun is maybe, sort-of, kind-of debatable.  You could argue that the right has been infringed if you say "No, you can only defend yourself in THIS particular way."

              If criminals had tanks and rocket launchers, I think you'd actually have a fairly good case for popular ownership of that kind of hardware.  But they don't.  If criminals never used guns, then you could conceivably say that defending yourself with a firearm was unnecessary.

              Also, as an addendum to your comment about open carry and people showing up with AR15 to political events.   People show up with homophobic and racist signs with political rallies all the time.   Just because you're within you're rights doesn't mean you're not an asshole.

    •  Europe doesn't list birthright citizenship... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oldpunk, KVoimakas, theatre goon

      as a fundamental human right either.

      See, you're doing exactly what I said.  You're saying that the 2nd Amendment isn't a fundamental human right, but the 14th Amendment IS.  Based on what?  Your interpretation?

      If you can just decide for all of us that guns aren't a right, then someone else can decide that birthright citizenship isn't a right either, as in Europe.

      I'm saying that one follows the other.  In the end it's all up to the courts, but I don't like what happens to our rights when the courts go the collective route.

      •  Its not a right in the UK (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpunk

        so yah, I agree.

      •  Wrestling strawmen is fun!!!! (0+ / 0-)

        Uh, no, I am not.

        I never suggested that the Second Amendment should only apply to those in a militia.  Quite the opposite.

        What I said is that it is a dangerous anachronism.

        But you are correct that I don't believe that gun ownership is a fundamental human right, while I do believe that (at least in the United States) birthright citizenship is.

        You disagree with this interpretation.

        So what is the basis of your assertion that gun ownership is a fundamental human right?

        Also, if you believe that gun ownership is a fundamental human right, then why do you not believe the same about tank ownership, or aegis destroyer ownership, or stinger-missile ownership, or nuclear weapon ownership for that matter?

        In other words why does "arms" not really actually mean "arms"?

        "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

        by journeyman on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 10:14:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  In other words... (3+ / 0-)

      You're as bad as the teabaggers... you just choose to ignore and repeal a different constitutional right.
      You'd have a better time over on FreeRepublic.

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

      by Tom Seaview on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 09:47:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Funny (0+ / 0-)

        Actually I was about to say the same of you.

        You see, I saw a teabagger as someone who engages in dishonest smears of their opponents and makes gratuitous assertions of sympathy with the enemy.

        "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

        by journeyman on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 10:16:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  "Gun ownership is not a fundamental human right." (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oldpunk, theatre goon

      The right to use deadly force to defend ones self is not completly, established law, unless your the govt in some country like Kyrgyzstan or where ever some crazed despot inflames the nutters, Im not all that reassured it could never happen here. You have the right to help lead the sheep to slaughter, I most disrespectfully decline.

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

      by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 10:34:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not sure that is correct. Antiques Roadshow (0+ / 0-)

      is not usually a source of Constitutional information but on an episode this week, they were looking at a New York State Militia Uniform for a doctor, from before the Civil War. Militia in a period within sixty odd years of passage of the Second, which militia had uniforms and ranks, and was sent here and sent there by both the State and the national government to do what an army does now, because the US didn't have one at that time.

      So here is this uniform, which looks weird because men's style in those years had broad shoulders and nipped waists and the like, which is the visual argument and proof that there is meaning and substance to the notion of the 'well regulated militia' as being an institutional something  with uniforms  and ranks and numbers, New York Second Brigade of New York State Militia, when referred to in the Second Amendment at a time when the conversation was not so old that men could not remember from Pop or Grandpa what was meant in the Seventeen Nineties. No matter what Scalia says about that language not really being there or of any effect, or Second Amendment diehards want to be the fact.

  •  Pulling up by own bootstraps. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ralphdog, alba, Norm in Chicago

    Everyone who disagrees with you on the interpretation of the second is misintepreting, and therefore, in favor of misinterpretation, and therefore, a danger to other rights in other amendments.

    It's just not true.  There's nothing about disagreeing with you that obligates anyone to nitpick any other amendment.

    If you're looking for a danger to rights, frankly, it's in the supreme court, which found a right to guns based on the practices of olde english squires and and public opinion in 1868.  

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

    by Inland on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 08:29:53 AM PDT

  •  False equivalenecy - possessing a firearm (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WIds, esquimaux, Ralphdog

    (an option to own a thing) hardly seems akin to the array of rights and privileges associated with citizenship . . .

    •  No false equivalence. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Norm in Chicago, theatre goon

      The 14th Amendment covers a right that the government can't restrict, if you are born here you are a citizen The 2nd ensures your right to keep and bear arms just because you choose not to exercise that right by owning a gun doesn't negate it, you still maintain the right.

      Don't believe what the politicians do, don't believe what they say, all they want to do is fuck you and get fat on their pay.

      by oldpunk on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 08:54:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it's just a thing - an instrument of death (0+ / 0-)

        to be sure - and truly a dark and negative right if ever there were one as it says I must have a thing that will give me the ability to kill and kill quickly . .

        •  To me (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon

          I want to have a thing that I can defend myself with efficiently and effectively and at a distance that reduces the likelihood of me being killed or injured.

          Regardless of what a gun is, there far more things out there that result in thousands of more deaths than firearms.  

          Don't believe what the politicians do, don't believe what they say, all they want to do is fuck you and get fat on their pay.

          by oldpunk on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 10:31:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Undocumented Aliens ARE Subject (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldpunk, Norm in Chicago

    to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    Only ambassadors, embassy staff, and other aliens here in a capacity representing their govenrment, and their families, are nnot subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    In fact, it was for that very reason the clause was included. It excepted children born to representatives of foreign governments while in the country from claiming birthright citizenship.

    "Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds." -- A. Einstein

    by Walt starr on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 09:00:27 AM PDT

  •  Good thing we never fought prohibition. Oh, wait. (0+ / 0-)

    Parts of the U.S. constitution are brilliant, almost divinely inspired (were I a believer). James Madison was an astonishing political thinker.

    But other parts were just plain batshit insane. Like the parts that danced around the whole slavery thing. It's always been a work in progress, never cast in stone. That's why slavery is now history, and why you can buy a beer again.

    And not for one moment will I concede your assertion that the founding fathers meant the second ammendment to refer to assault rifles in every closet, when entirely reasonable people can assert with equal evidence that it referred to organized militias, i.e. States' check on Federal power.

    The current far-right Roberts court strikes down restrictions on gun ownership, but that doesn't mean for a second that the argument has no merit. See: Citizens United for more evidence this court has its head up its.....

    •  Prohibition was repealed by another amendment (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon

      Not by legally parsing the amendment that banned alcohol, looking for loopholes.

      If you want to overturn the 2nd Amendment, you need a new amendment to do so, that is approved by the votes of the American people.

      The same is true for any repeal of the 14th.  It would have to be done by a vote, not by loophole.

      But if we allow a loophole removal of 2nd Amendment rights, there is NOTHING to prevent the other side from doing the same to rights you don't disagree with.

  •  *SIGH* This isn't even wrong. n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    esquimaux, Rich in PA
  •  Everyone's a hostage-taker nowadays, it seems (0+ / 0-)

    Give me unrestricted access to firearms, or I'll take away your citizenship!  

    Some things you know/and some you just believe in/and hope it comes out even --Aimee Mann

    by Rich in PA on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 09:51:59 AM PDT

    •  That's why neither should be an option. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oldpunk, theatre goon

      Again, I think you missed my argument.  If one right can be taken away, so can all the others.  You want to have it both ways.

      It shouldn't be an option to take away anyone's citizenship, just like it shouldn't be an option to take away any other right.  All are sacred, or none are.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site