Skip to main content

In a well written and reasoned diary post cross posted to Crooks & Liars a KOSsack suggests its time for my American chums to sit down and have a sane and reasoned conversation about gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment.  I sympathize and agree entirely with that sentiment. It is a process we Brits last went through after the hideous Dunblane Massacre that saw classes of schoolkids turned into targets for a crazed gun nut.

However, whilst I support and applaud her cry, I'm sorry to say that my pragmatic rationalist within is laughing at that idea, and pointing out its the same one that is raised after every other spree shooting attack in the US from the Clocktower Sniper to Columbine and onwards. It is, says that rationalist within, impossible for Americans to have what we Brits call an "adult" conversation.....because adults don't tend to ignore the massive whopping big grey elephant on the couch sitting smirking next to the 15 pound pile of dung on the carpet, and a whole bunch of his big fat grey mates sitting next to him.

So....if you REALLY want to have an adult conversation about the Second Amendment here is how you start.

LATE EDIT: That article I flag is by Darcy Burner and found here:http://www.dailykos.com/...

1) Its An Amendment Stupid!The clue is in the name. The Framers, having got the US kickstarted, realized that the original foundation contract between State and Citizen was inadequate and needed tweaking. That tells you that the Framers realized that the contract would need constant re-tweaks as time went on and things changed. They never intended that the Constitution would remain sacrosanct and carved on stone tablets forevermore. Having humility and reason they realized that they were imperfect.....so why the hell has the modern America deified this fallible contract?

2) Welcome to the New Millennium. The Framers wrote that great contract using a sharpened feather and iron filings ink on animal hide. The cutting edge gun technology was a Kentucky Long Rifle - a flintlock muzzle loading black powder gun capable in highly trained hands of shooting three times a minute, and with an accurate range of around 300 yards. Handguns were similar flintlock muzzle loaders with a similar rate of fire and an effective range of less than 50 yards. In the hands of joe shmo these weapons were hard to use, and hard to use accurately.

3) This is America!When the Framers wrote the Constitution and its Amendments he USA was a largely agrarian society of farmers and landworkers with no standing army to defend itself from the Damocles like threats beyond its borders. The citizenry had no police force to protect itself from criminals. So an armed citizenry able to serve as well regulated armed militias to protect the borders and its communities from crime made sense.

3) Regulation Regulation. See that phrase "WELL REGULATED MILITIA"? Well, given that in the 20C state and national police forces were established, and a standing army was in place, sane minds would point out that THEY were the Well Regulated Militia discussed in the Amendment. So if a private citizen buys a gun and is not a signed up member of a regulated citizen militia group how the hell does that Amendment make any sense? And who regulates the well regulated militia? There is also the possible discussion around how the hell a private citizen being able to buy 4 guns and 6000 rounds of ammo online via net stores and nobody thinking "Hang on...." classes in ANY way as falling into an acceptable definition of "well regulated". When any old joe can buy better weapons than the average Police officer responding to the incident is carrying that is NOT well regulated....its damn insanity.

4) I'm Purdey The Gunsmith. There's another thing about the Framers. NONE of them are known to have taken significant electioneering money off a gun manufacturer or lobby group of gun nutty gun nuts. Get that? NONE. Gun manufacturing was almost a cottage industry back then. And I don't recall reading how Adams, Jefferson, Franklin et al were score carded on their performances by Thee Ex Colonial Gunne Clubbe of America.  How the hell can any modern US politician be seen to be able to have an impartial and fair analytical discussion of the gun issue when most are in the pay of gun manufacturers and have the NRA's swiftboat bayonet in the small of their backs?

There will be a lot of pearl wringing in the next days and weeks about the whys and wherefores of this tragedy. But at the end of the day it boils down to this:

It happened because in the USA it was legal for a totally unmonitored and unregulated normal militarily untrained citizen to buy 4 military grade weapons and wheelbarrows full of ammunition without any form of intervention or real control. It happened because he had guns and ammo rather than a baseball bat or a kitchen knife. Because he owned guns.

And if occasional localized voter fraud incidents happening less often than lightning strikes and shark attacks can be used to justify the mass disenfranchisement of potential voters, then this and the other spree shootings is more than enough justification to take away the right to own dangerous firearms.

SO

please....the sane world, sick to the stomach of reading about these spree massacres two or three or more times every year, is begging you. Put down the gun, take off the rosy tinted David Barton glasses, and start a sane and adult conversation about whether having a population that owns more guns per head than Somalia is a good idea.

Start that conversation with "yeah the 2nd says that, but here is what it actually meant back then, and that was over 200 years ago. Its an Amendment...so lets damn well Amend it."

And like I said, when the argument is made that guns protect your freedoms and liberties, ask why one or two incidents of voter fraud can be used to justify taking away the freedom and liberty to vote, yet graveyards full of dead fathers, mothers, sons and daughters are not justification to take away the liberty of gun nuts to stockpile weapons of mass murder and why Joe The Plumber gets to own a rack of bigger better guns than Paul The Policeman sent to stop him shooting his neighbours.

Good luck my American chums, and my sympathy to all involved.

Originally posted to Dave The Sandman on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 04:11 AM PDT.

Also republished by Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

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

  •  Tip Jar (342+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Agathena, commonmass, Fighting Bill, SneakySnu, Prison4Bushco, journeyman, historys mysteries, DRo, lakehillsliberal, Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN, BoiseBlue, penguins4peace, boofdah, Paulie200, crystal eyes, stegro, althea in il, expatjourno, stevej, MRA NY, Bob Duck, Kristina40, kathny, Dave in Northridge, tampaedski, adigal, xanthippe2, gooderservice, GreyHawk, bookbear, greenbell, snapples, TheGreatLeapForward, CA Berkeley WV, HCKAD, theKgirls, Texknight, kamarvt, poe, NonnyO, CoolOnion, Horace Boothroyd III, marina, David54, MichiganChet, liberte, sdf, sidnora, verdeo, grannycarol, Cat Whisperer, Alma, rubyclaire, Sandy on Signal, Joealan, CitizenOfEarth, Sylv, Alexandra Lynch, pat bunny, Pescadero Bill, marleycat, Yellow Canary, FG, zukesgirl64, Stripe, Naniboujou, whoknu, twigg, Marihilda, salmo, eternallyvigilant, opinionated, TracieLynn, chira2, pat of butter in a sea of grits, Radiowalla, surfbird007, Preston S, VegLane, smartdemmg, implicate order, mooshter, deep, RFK Lives, Clyde the Cat, Nulwee, PBnJ, slowbutsure, sandrad23, leonard145b, filkertom, yawnimawke, statsone, annetteboardman, ProfessorWho, SallyCat, Justus, twcollier, Calvino Partigiani, Robynhood too, DSC on the Plateau, NYmama, gloriana, S F Hippie, caryltoo, kerflooey, surelyujest, little lion, justintime, Habitat Vic, blueoasis, geejay, housesella, meralda, Mike08, SeaTurtle, davehouck, bronte17, SoCaliana, mlharges, glorificus, chicagobleu, McGahee220, Dallasdoc, Loquatrix, Trendar, Mr Bojangles, otto, luckydog, GeorgeXVIII, FloridaSNMOM, truthhurtsaz, Onomastic, Rosaura, oldmilitant, geordie, One Pissed Off Liberal, sunny skies, enhydra lutris, Herodotus Prime, owlbear1, Gowrie Gal, on board 47, indubitably, cybersaur, Ajipon, Alice Venturi, lissablack, EagleOfFreedom, Scioto, Nicci August, Nowhere Man, RatCitySqueaker, yellow cosmic seed, revsue, global citizen, goObama, Siri, Eddie C, Recall, JD SoOR, dagolfnut, shaharazade, caul, BachFan, Ian S, angstall, Matt Z, 420 forever, middleagedhousewife, madmsf, The Hindsight Times, joeschmeaux, Oye Sancho, deha, rmonroe, madhaus, ZhenRen, Only Needs a Beat, Margd, BCO gal, Lily O Lady, PeterHug, cskendrick, dejavu, Keone Michaels, NYCee, eru, allergywoman, triv33, NM Ray, StonyB, old wobbly, CSPAN Junkie, Emerson, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, Hastur, houyhnhnm, Simplify, Anne was here, yet another liberal, ceebs, peterfallow, semioticjim, lyvwyr101, dull knife, llellet, john07801, filby, LillithMc, skod, satanicpanic, kharma, DavidW, 3goldens, bibble, Susan from 29, Anak, Polacolor, freelunch, royce, collardgreens, dskoe, Shotput8, Daneel, pwn3rship society, greycat, grumpelstillchen, Dvalkure, kck, LynChi, tundraman, citisven, lcrp, chrississippi, Alfred E Newman, YucatanMan, lotlizard, marykk, kyril, Smoh, Lost Left Coaster, TheLawnRanger, emidesu, Fe, countwebb, ZenTrainer, Nancy in LA, susakinovember, Ginny in CO, Crabby Abbey, itsbenj, Ginger1, No Exit, frsbdg, OregonOak, TXdem, awsdirector, lavorare, ridemybike, craiger, pgm 01, Boston to Salem, Teknocore, bsmechanic, tapestry, kissfan, Rhysling, agincour, davidkc, dinazina, valadon, moonbatlulu, riverlover, SoCalSal, prettygirlxoxoxo, cocinero, Brit, virgomusic, Mother Mags, glbTVET, uciguy30, oldliberal, rogerdaddy, DefendOurConstitution, aunt blabby, hungrycoyote, Tchrldy, Thinking Fella, NWTerriD, Lefty Coaster, mamamedusa, dufffbeer, BigOkie, devis1, squarewheel, rscopes, IreGyre, elziax, Pinko Elephant, where4art, Rick Aucoin, Panacea Paola, AaronInSanDiego, JDWolverton, reflectionsv37, Late Again, dsb, hubcap, Ed in Montana, Spirit of Life, martinjedlicka, Heart of the Rockies, lcbo, SadieSue, BYw, multilee, dradams, radical simplicity, Terri, mdcalifornia, David PA, Bongobanger, Thorby Baslim, splashy, bob152, Zack from the SFV, jhop7, CanadaGoose, GayHillbilly, Florene, frisco, wagdog, zephyr108, zeke7237, just another vet, TheFatLadySings, Aquarius40, glitterscale, BeninSC, angel d, vigilant meerkat
  •  sounds pretty darn sweeping (15+ / 0-)

    I like a lot of this, by the way.

    My family was involved in a mall shooting, which definitely underscores my predisposition to support gun control. What would actually be useful, I don't know. Taking away all "dangerous firearms" strikes me as over the top -- and if it strikes me that way, I'm pretty sure it will never happen.

    And if occasional localized voter fraud incidents happening less often than lightning strikes and shark attacks can be used to justify the mass disenfranchisement of potential voters, then this and the other spree shootings is more than enough justification to take away the right to own dangerous firearms.
    But folks here generally oppose mass disenfranchisement. Why would we use voter ID laws to justify obliterating the Second Amendment? That's not exactly the kind of principled argument I'm looking for.
    •  Not at all. (6+ / 0-)

      In many, if not most cities, it's virtually impossible to get a gun (try to get one in NYC, for example)

      •  try the internet (25+ / 0-)

        it knows no borders or local enforcement.
        as we have just had demonstrated yet again.

        Class war has consequences, and we are living them.

        by kamarvt on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:06:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Which is only one (18+ / 0-)

        of many reasons why I'm glad I live here in NYC.

        We love to travel in the rest of the country, though. And particularly after the Trayvon Martin shooting, I started to question whether carefree vacations in some of our most beautiful, but freely armed, states was really such a great idea.

        "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

        by sidnora on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:21:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Bloomberg gave heavy to the (25+ / 0-)

        Dems in Va   Because the majority of guns in NYC tie back to the crazy loose regs in va...and these all past after our tragedy at VT.   This last session the repealed the one hand gun a month law that had been in effect for over 30 yrs...because you know those free loving 2 nd amend types just couldn't live with 12 pistol purchases in a year....

        •  Seriously? Even as a gun owner, WTF do you need (16+ / 0-)

          12 handguns for? Did they call the bill the Straw-Purchaser Enabling Act? Because that's the only reason I can think of to buy that many handguns.

          Can I have my vision back? I will live outside your city walls. - "Ride With Me" Steppenwolf

          by 135790 on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:57:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I had a fight here (24+ / 0-)

          with one of the RKBA crowd because he refused to believe that the guns that kill people in NYC are imported from VA.

          "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

          by sidnora on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 07:23:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I quit trying pretty quickly yesterday (14+ / 0-)

            with an RKBA who wanted proof that the Mexican drug cartels buy guns in the US.  I suspected facts didn't matter to him/her, so I wasn't gonna look them up.

            Rmoney & The Republicans - We've should've killed GM, not bin Laden.

            by filby on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:49:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  NRA have a lot of facts and statistics (6+ / 0-)

              they are just a little selective about them.

              The fact is, the NRA has successfully lobbied to cut funding for the Center for Disease Control and Prevention to keep them from researching firearm deaths. This is how the NRA prevents the truth from coming out, in other words, alters the facts.

              ❧To thine ownself be true

              by Agathena on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 12:23:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The person (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Recall, mrblifil, Agathena

                I had my disagreement with wasn't citing selective statistics from the NRA, he was quoting VA state law on gun purchases. There were huge holes in his argument, but I nothing I said could budge him. Eventually I gave up.

                "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

                by sidnora on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 12:34:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Who are the RKBA? (10+ / 0-)

            I suspect that I had a fight with two or three yesterday on another diary thread, and they are like lobbyists for the American Gun Industry and the Republican Me First lobby.

            I felt like Custer at the Little Bighorn or the French Army at Dien Bien Phu. They went away finally, and yet... who ARE those guys?

            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

            by OregonOak on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 11:48:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  they are kossacks: (5+ / 0-)

              here: RKBA

              Toleration is the greatest gift of the mind; it requires the same effort of the brain that it takes to balance oneself on a bicycle. -Helen Keller

              by ridemybike on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 11:54:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thanks, and they haven't stopped... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mrblifil, DefendOurConstitution, caul

                and neither have I. I will carry the thread forward for months if I have to. They are down to angry accusations and name calling and apology-demanding today. They are like the Posse from Hell in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Reasons dont faze them. They are PINO's.. Progressives in Name Only I am afraid to say. No thoughtful analysis or flexibility of argmument, or clever nuance of meanings, just full out bludgeoning. Interesting. Not fun, but interesting.

                Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                by OregonOak on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 12:37:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  "they are down to angry accusations"? (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  43north, sviscusi, KenBee

                  You said we are accessories to murder.

                  Interesting. Not fun, but interesting.

                  Please go back and retract your slander.

                  •  No, I said you are complicit in arming (7+ / 0-)

                    irresponsible people. That is not accessory to murder, that is being on the same side as people who would use freedom to harm us. Its complicity, not responsibility.

                    And I will not apologize. I mean every word of it.

                    Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                    by OregonOak on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 01:09:29 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Then advocating arms control legislation (0+ / 0-)

                      at this moment in this country means you you would be complicit in electing Romney.

                      see how that works?

                      From those who live like leeches on the people's lives, We must take back our land again, America!...Langston Hughes

                      by KenBee on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 04:25:00 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You are playing a triple bank pool shot, (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Recall, caul, DefendOurConstitution

                        while I am playing a fast break up the middle. Two different games. But, I believe that this discussion and debate is now unavoidable, and its suddenly best to surprise the opposition, take the momentum, go fearless,  charge straight ahead with force and moral authority, and win or lose, dont be afraid. And by the way, it will win. But don't take counsel of your fears. Its what we have been doing for 40 years, and that time is over.

                        There must be some hope that the fear of mass killings will end sometime, and in the middle of a Presidential election is the best possible time. Lets charge. Show some hair.

                        Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                        by OregonOak on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 08:06:08 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Prove that claim (0+ / 0-)

                    It's easy enough to do if you care to invoke the hyperlink feature.

                    •  It is an assertion based on Democratic Theory of (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ridemybike, caul

                      Government.

                      In the dictionary, there is no entry for; "People who support the same side as people who use freedom to irresponsibly buy and use automatic weapons are complicit in the harms done by the irresponsible."

                       That is an assertion borne out by the democratic theory of government, which says that whoever supports by word or deed a plan of action is complicit in the outcome of that action, whether they want to be or not. It is simply the case. See, Democratic Theory of Government  660B.C.E. to 1945 in Metacrawler, and "Complicity by Speech" in Locke or Hume. Madison had comments on the responsibilities of belief as well, making it one of his foundations of the "disinterested man as leader" theory.  These concepts are all well known. No mystery to finding them online.

                      Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                      by OregonOak on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 01:35:34 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  OregonOak - automatic weapons? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        PavePusher

                        It is nearly impossible to purchase automatic weapons in the US. It can be done but the legal process takes money and months and includes a deep background check.

                        "let's talk about that"

                        by VClib on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 05:04:12 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  And my claim is that Semiautomatic weapons (5+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Recall, Johnny Nucleo, bob152, caul, Agathena

                          should be defined now as Automatic weapons. Time to reassess our NRA-written definitions. Its long PAST time to do this reclassification.

                          I also claim that Semiautomatic weapons were conveniently separated from the category of Automatic weapons for no good reason except that its a convenient and easily measurable point of identification, but that the effects of these two types in the commission of mass crimes are virtually identical, and therefore, logically, no such legal distinction should be made. Therefore, I refer to them both as automatic weapons, because, logically, they are. In the world of bureacratic lobbying, lawyerly parsing, administrative pettifoggery, they are not, but moral claims are stronger than these legalistic and artificial claims.

                          This is a change that could be made tomorrow at the ATF by emergency administrative decision, and verified by the US Congress in a bill presented in the House next week, unless Darrel Issa wants to rename a few more oceans.

                          Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                          by OregonOak on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 08:00:32 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  OregonOak - but they are not the same (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher

                            As someone who was extensively trained in small arms by the US Army there is a significant difference between a weapon that will fire continuously if you hold down the trigger and a similar weapon where you must pull the trigger to fire each round.  This difference is particularly helpful in combat when you are outnumbered and the enemy is charging you in force. If automatic weapons and semiautomatic weapons were the same I would be on The Wall with many of my friends.

                            The notion that any agency of government could declare that semiautomatic weapons were now automatic weapons when they lack the feature that distinguishes one from the other is preposterous. If you would like to have new laws that regulate semiautomatic weapons then propose them. But to suggest that an entire class of weapons could be reclassified erroneously by administrative action would not be legal.

                            "let's talk about that"

                            by VClib on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 08:51:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Reclassfication is the easiest way to do this. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Recall, caul, Agathena

                            No one is banning, no one is "taking my gun away" but there must be equivalency in legal definition between automatic and semiautomatic weapons now. The NRA lobbied hard to get the current distinction and supplied TONS of propaganda materials to say exactly what you have just said. The Congress dutifully followed their advice, and ATF dutifully administers.  

                            For OUR benefit, gun owners and non gun owners alike, there could be an Emergency Reclassification by the ATF, followed by a bill in Congress or the several states. Either way, fine. Just advocate for it instead of saying, no, its not good, no its not right, no it cant be done, no, its preposterous. You are on the wrong side of history if you continue to claim those things.

                            The time is now. Be on the bus.

                            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                            by OregonOak on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:10:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And you are well educated, but not bold. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Recall, caul

                            You lean way too heavily on what has become "settled" and opt for small thinking instead of bold new proposals, but I sense you are intelligent and able to be bold, just somewhat squashed by events and current protocols. Am I close?

                            Someone can put the fire under you.. hehehehe.

                            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                            by OregonOak on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:04:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  I am aware of that current definition.. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Recall, caul

                          but I am claiming a new definition must be created by the people. It can start here. WE get to define these terms, not historians, not paid for Supreme Court members, not Arms Manufacturing Lobby groups NRA and the like.

                          If WE define what these terms mean, we can shake off the lethargy of the last forty years of being compliant, dumb slaves who can be shot down like dogs in the street by madmen protected by the bogus interpretation of the Second Amendment.

                          We can, and we have to do it. Its 50 years of increasing mayhem, and its not going to get any better until we stand up.

                          Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                          by OregonOak on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:42:09 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  Here you are. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      KenBee

                      http://www.dailykos.com/...

                      I included links to the definition for "complicit", since our claimed lawyer friend apparently doesn't know what it actually means.

                      Just as he doesn't know what machine gun or full-auto firearm mean

                      •  Complicit means Aware Criminal Acts are occurring (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        French Imp, caul

                        but not involved as a conspirator or accessory, hence its not a criminal offense.

                        It is not a crime. Complicit means looking the other way when someone can get a gun for the purpose of mayhem, of not asking questions, and not doing anything to stop it.

                        Anyone who does not advocate for more restrictions on semiautomatic weapons, reclassification within the category it is ALREADY IN,  automatic weapons, is today, after this last week, complicit in arming irresponsible people who will commit criminal acts.

                        I do not apologize.

                        Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                        by OregonOak on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:46:08 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  PINO? That's the best you got bucky? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  KenBee

                  I commented on the Happy Land Social Club fire in a diary by kossack webranding.

                  You're free to keep beating the just ban the damn guns drum, and I'll keep pointing to mental health issues as being core to all of these mass murders.

                  Until we work on the mental health situation, all we'll accomplish is to child-proof the entire world, with a newly banned item per incident.

                  •  I don't want to ban guns. (4+ / 0-)

                    The right to bear arms within a well regulated militia is not to be infringed according to the US Constitution Second Amendment.

                    Our problems stem from selective reading and pressure from arms manufacturers to only pay legal attention to the Right to Bear part and exclude from consideration or legal standing the Well Regulated Militia part.

                    Your claim that I want to ban guns reveals you have not understood my meaning in this thread. I may not have been clear enough. My apologies. My name is not Bucky, but you can call me Oak if you'd like.

                    Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                    by OregonOak on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 01:39:45 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd Amendment (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Merry Light

                      is an individual right because the language of the Amendment noted the "right of the people" to bear arms. Wherever the term, the right of the people, is used in the Bill of Rights it has been viewed as an individual right. You many not agree, and you would have lots of company here, but it is the current law. There is no "militia" requirement in the 2nd Amendment.

                      "let's talk about that"

                      by VClib on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 05:08:28 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  And they SHOULD be impeached if they supported (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Recall, caul, Aquarius40

                        this interpretation. They SHOULD and we SHOULD be in a permanent state of restoring the entire Second Amendment to its original reading in plain English.

                        Instead, on a Progressive Blog, people throw up their hands and say, well, that is settled, nothing to be done! Move along. Nothing to see here. And then they argue, those same people who claim the issue is settled, that Semiautomatic and Automatic weapons are COMPLETELY different, following the NRA propaganda line and their control of the ATF administrative rules.

                        Whose side are you on? I think its obvious you have NO sympathy or interest for Progressive ideas in Constitutional law when it comes to the Second Amendment, and actively try to suppress those Progressive ideas. Then you take Scalia's side in the "no militia requirement." Why pretend you are Progressive on this most important issue of the day? You are not. You are as Regressive as any Tea Party chairman arguing for a return to the Gold Standard.

                        I have a copy of the Constitution in front of me: "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." They framers could have agreed to write this in a hundred ways, but this is the text. For those of us who understand English, excluding the Supreme Court at the moment, and NRA and apparently RKBA members here,  the Militia requirement for military bearing of arms is FIRST in the sentence. No question they did not intend for it to be ignored.

                        Its time to stop the willful and selfish ignorance. This Amendment must be read in  plain English. You must have training and an affiliation to a Well Regulated Militia to take a military weapon home. It is clear, but decades of obfuscation and parsing and excuse making and fake history have been attached to it, and now, even smart people cannot read clear English. Thank you NRA and RKBA. Thanks for the fog of confusion and divisiveness. You should be ashamed of advocating policies which put automatic weapons in the hands of deranged people who shoot multiple victims at the rate of two per month average in the last 10 years. At last, have you no shame?

                        Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                        by OregonOak on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 08:57:32 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  OregonOak - it's not clear (0+ / 0-)

                          Many lawyers and legal scholars believe that it is an individual right because it is a right "of the people", not of the militia.

                          You can't impeach members of the SCOTUS for issuing an opinion, no matter how much you don't like it. If you could, members of the Court who ruled in Brown v Board of Education would have been impeached.  

                          In addition, you can't just declare that semiautomatic weapons are automatic weapons because you say so. When you refer to automatic weapons in your comments no one will believe you because informed people know that automatic weapons are very difficult to obtain and that they are very rarely used to commit crimes in the US.

                          "let's talk about that"

                          by VClib on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:06:21 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  That is BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT DEFINITION! (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            caul, Aquarius40

                            Your logic is circular. We have few automatic weapons because THERE ARE LAWS RESTRICTING ACCESS. Great. Do it some more. Stop saying it cannot be done with semiautomatic weapons. It can be done.

                            The result of defining automatic weapons as they are has resulted in their scarcity. We can and we SHOULD now defy the NRA and reclassify SemiAutomatic weapons as automatic. (The only difference on the bad side of the gun is that you get shot twice with a semi and four times with an automatic. NO REAL DIFFERENCE. It is not logical to put these kinds of weapons in two categories when you read the news. Do you read the news?

                            You are pettifogging and doing the job of the NRA when you make the claims above. Of course we can reclassify.

                            The Supreme Court has placed the entire country in jeapardy with its Heller ruling. We will see more of this insane behavior because of an insane ruling. At least start impeachment against the author of Heller. Its time to show the bullies that we do not accept their bullying.

                            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                            by OregonOak on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:25:24 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Impeach the author of Heller? (0+ / 0-)

                            Dick Heller, a DC police officer, was the plaintiff in the case DC v Heller. The was no statute it was a lawsuit brought by a private citizen against the very strict gun control laws in DC.

                            If you want semiautomatic weapons to have the same restrictions as automatic weapons it will have to be done through Congress. It is not something the executive branch will do on its own. Given how politically toxic gun control is for Dems in swing states the Obama administration won't touch this issue until after the election, and for good reason.

                            "let's talk about that"

                            by VClib on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:49:53 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No.. the Supreme Court Decision Heller.. (0+ / 0-)

                            Not the police officer. The Supremes Decision in 2008. I was using shorthand.. DC vs Heller.  

                            And its not something the Executive Branch will do on its own, but its something the Executive Branch CAN do on its own with an Emergency Regulatory Finding in the ATF or Justice Department.  

                            And once again, miss a chance to form a mandate on a critical issue. Playing triple bank pool when only a fast break will work.

                            This is when I really wish we had real leaders. I have wished that a lot in the last 20 years.

                            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                            by OregonOak on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:00:19 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oregon Oaks - Impeach Scalia (0+ / 0-)

                            Are you delusional? Progressives would love to see Scalia, the author of Heller, impeached. However, you could not find 50 votes in the House or 20 votes in the Senate to impeach Scalia on the basis of his legal opinions, including Heller, in large part because most members of Congress believe that opinions are not an impeachable offense.  

                            "let's talk about that"

                            by VClib on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 06:27:15 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  At the moment, true. BUT... (0+ / 0-)

                            isnt our job here to influence and shape public opinion? I am asking people to consider things which do not CURRENTLY obtain, but which could obtain if people would stop saying, OH.. we cant DO THAT. For whatever reason. Mostly because people feel hopeless that any mechanism exists for change.

                            Not true. The mechanisms for change are creaky, corrupted by money and tradition, BUT the primary reason there is no change  is that Progressives are such Debbie Downers, naysayers and flighty flibbertygibbets that they dismiss ANY progressive ideas as unobtainable. Pull your head out.

                            Impeaching Scalia is not that difficult on the grounds that he has politically made comments in paid speeches which follow a pattern of destroying the government's ability to function. It is more than mere "opinion," it is acting in the destruction of a republican form of government, and Bush v Gore, Citizens United and Heller stand out as primary examples. He needs to be called into account for his political statements before, during and after his authoritarian and seditous actions between decisions in the public eye, including graft, conflict of interest and accepting money for decisions from corporate interests. If journalists were doing their jobs, he would already be out on his ass doing pro bono defense work in traffic court, badly.

                            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                            by OregonOak on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 10:48:59 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oregon Oaks - I agree with most members of Congres (0+ / 0-)

                            Opinions are not a legitimate reason to impeach any Justice of the SCOTUS. I have read many diaries here about Scalia and have read nothing that rises to the level of an impeachable offense in my opinion. Many of the accusations about Scalia are not factual, and others are not a violation of judicial ethics.

                            "let's talk about that"

                            by VClib on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 06:57:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Congress is ineffectual and wrong about this.. (0+ / 0-)

                            The authors of DC v Heller are guilty of single handedly overturning the Second Amendment. The result is what we see in Aurora and hundreds of other places in the last four years.

                            Heller is not a mere "opinion." It is an attempt to say that the Supreme Court may nullify an entire Amendment by majority vote. That is the precedent which puts the Republic in danger. Scalia and Thomas and Roberts know this, and they are hoping we do not notice. We are in the middle of a Constitutional crisis, and if we do not act, they will do it again with the Second or some other Amendment. This is not a game.

                            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                            by OregonOak on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 08:36:32 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  OregonOaks - we just disagree (0+ / 0-)

                            I have never owned a gun, although Uncle Sam gave me a great deal of training in the use and care of them, but I thought the SCOTUS got it right in Heller.

                            "let's talk about that"

                            by VClib on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 10:03:54 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So you believe that they may nullify (0+ / 0-)

                            by opinion, and throw open the purchase of military use weapons by mail order to reclusive insane people with no ability for the national interest to come into play.

                            I do not understand your position in light of the entire Second Amendment, which still stands as written, but so poorly read that is has been in effect nullified.

                            Are you ready to accept the nullification of the Fourteenth Amendment, or the First Amendment as well?

                            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                            by OregonOak on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 06:38:29 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And when the PUBLIC says so.. (0+ / 0-)

                            then it will happen. And I am one of the public.

                            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                            by OregonOak on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:36:33 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  We don't have less people (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    caul

                    whith mental issues in Europe... but we have less killings.

                    Point is: all societies have their lunatic fringe. The question is, how do we live with them? Some have found more civilized approaches than others.

                    Quisquis sollers subtilisque sententia a praeclaro antiquo Sapiente latine scripta, sicut consuetudo est apud Kossackos.

                    by French Imp on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 12:13:54 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Correct, and How do we ask them to live with us? (0+ / 0-)

                      We should ask them to start by putting down their semiautomatic weapons. That is all. Keep your handguns. Keep your knives and hunting rifles.

                      This is so simple. Military weapons belong in association with military organization. If you are not a member of a militia organization, officially sanctioned and organized by the United States Government, you dont get to keep a military weapon at home.

                      Without this change, the US is flirting with another Civil War. It can happen here.

                      Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                      by OregonOak on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 06:22:45 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Focusing on the psychology of the shooter moves (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      shaharazade

                      the conversation away from gun control. It's a pattern I've seen so often here.

                      The gun defenders will also try to show their extensive knowledge of guns and ammo and lament on how ignorant the gun control advocates are about guns.

                      In the end of all the discussion there are still 300 million guns in the USA due to lax gun control.

                      Bill Moyers says the 2nd amendment is a cruel hoax.

                      ❧To thine ownself be true

                      by Agathena on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 08:40:35 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  They also tell you that having guns protect (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        shaharazade, Agathena

                        normal guys (like them) from crazy people. But in all those killing scenes, when did a 'normal guy' present on the spot use his gun to stop the killing?

                        Quisquis sollers subtilisque sententia a praeclaro antiquo Sapiente latine scripta, sicut consuetudo est apud Kossackos.

                        by French Imp on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 09:36:45 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  A gang among us that has as it's sole mission (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Recall, satanicpanic, caul, Aquarius40

              to prevent any talk about intelligent gun regulations.  I am pro-gun, I do not want to repeal the 2A, I do not want to make owning guns very difficult, but any time I mention the simple things: training, licensing and background checks they fly off the handle with personal attacks mocking my screen name and worse.

              They even follow people that dare express any thoughts about regulation.

              I avoid them like the plague, but had run ins with them yesterday because of their odious comments and because of a diary one of them published accusing Darcy Burner of seeking political gain with the blood of the Colorado victims.

              I gotta give them this, they are organized, they get alerted, and they mobilize their members quickly any time their sacred topic is mentioned.

              I cannot understand why Markos keeps allowing them to bully people.  Unfortunately the only remedy is probably exactly what they want; that - just like with the Israeli/Palestinian issues that were so out of control - the topic would be banned.

              I gotta give them this, they are organized, they get alerted, and they mobilize their members quickly any time their sacred topic is mentioned.

              Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

              by DefendOurConstitution on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 01:29:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Interesting.... Well, now I know! (3+ / 0-)

                and as a teacher, I have really thick skin. Whatever they want to say or HR, is fine.

                I just want them to know that there are a few people who will defend the government's Constitutional mandate to regulate military firearms under the Second Amendment, and although the Supremes have kicked this under the table, the Second Amendment stands intact. They didnt repeal it. They can't. And neither can the RBKA or the NRA.

                It is interesting how they tag team like.. the best analogy I have is.. hyenas.. with both good bad and ugly statements coming from all directions simultaneously. I guess my task is to stay on as long as possible and not get banned myself! Hah!

                Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                by OregonOak on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 04:24:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  But the fringe gets tweaked! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Recall

          Parse the parsley, hands off the meat.

          So, a VA law got loosened to allow more than one gun a month. Even one a month allows for 12 a year. And some nuts are patient planners.

          But VA shaved a bit of parsley here:

          (Link) Virginia has since become one of the most diligent states in reporting those with mental illness, but it's an exception. An exhaustive report in November by the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that most states appear to under-report, and some hardly bother to comply at all.
          Okay, right... but this sort of "responsible action" is about all our "adult conversation" gets us after high profile mass murder by gun. And it is just a drop in the bucket - reporting of those involuntarily committed for mental illness into the database, to be denied gun purchases. (Alas, the 'Joker' gunman's mental issues are irrelevant to this. No involuntary or voluntary mental health services noted. And if so, well, neighboring states would allow him to get weaponized at an unregulated gun show, no questions asked. Or why leave home at all, when you can get assault weaponry online? And that, he did.)

          Interesting how more and more govt intrusion and restrictions are visited upon us, because of terrorist acts, while letting home grown gun terrorists increase the means to terrorize us with a click of an unregulated purchase online. Or a refusal to renew the ban on assault weapons. On the other hand, we now are told that no one can dress up as a character when they go to a movie. Never mind that 99.9999999% of those dress up fans are harmless and "arm"less, just out to have their whacky brand of fun.

          Those of us on the opposite end of Mr La Pierre's take on gun control might take a leaf from his book, might warn that sacrificing costumes is just the first step on that slippery slope to sacrificing our very right to live! Except it would be stupid to say that because, unlike the phony slippery slope he and his ilk warn of, our slope has long been sliding us into premature, unnatural death, a slope made slippery from the blood of hundreds of thousands of victims of gun violence. The victims are other people's MOST loved ones, sacrificed under the United State's rule of gun law-lessness. (In the interest of accuracy and integrity, let us add tens of thousands of Mexicans to the body count, and then imagine all the resultant suffering for the ones still living, who love them.)

          (Link) Cross-border gun trafficking has helped Mexican drug cartels wage an armed conflict that has taken at least 50,000 Mexican lives since the country began a concerted crackdown on drug traffickers in 2006, according to that government’s data. But, gun rights advocates insist that any effort to restrict access to weapons infringes on what they say are Constitutional rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens.
          In 2004, Congress did not renew a 10-year ban on the sale of 19 different types of guns known as assault weapons. Gun sellers across the country reported an immediate uptick in sales.
          Of the nearly 100,000 guns seized and submitted by Mexican authorities to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing between 2007 and 2011, about 68,000 were "U.S. sourced" -- manufactured in, or imported into, the U.S., where they were then purchased, the ATF reported last month.
          Year after year, thousands of victims slide down this bloody slope, without much of a fuss at all, beyond the temporary 24/7 sensational coverage given to mass murders by gun, like this one. You or I could be the next one to lose the one we love most to gun lawlessness. (Just reflect on what that would mean to your life.) But the beat goes on, same as it ever was. All for America's holiest freedom on high -  the right to bear any and all arms, in whatever amount desired, with the least scrutiny money can buy, under that phony "well-regulated militia" argument.  

          One hopeful ray: Perhaps the drastic nature of this latest assault weapon attack - at a mega-blockbuster Batman movie showing -  could impact big money industries (Hollywood, theaters, sports complexes, concert venues, malls, etc), shake them up enough to propel some heavyweight pushback in a new direction, against our nation's enthrallment to the cult of the NRA. I'm not holding my breath, but it occurs to me this just might happen - rock the politicians to rock the gun lobby's boat, for a change.

          Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a lame party, or should it drive a lame party to break out? If it cant, should it break out?

          by NYCee on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 04:14:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It's not even virtually impossible. Go somewhere (7+ / 0-)

        else.  Buy gun.  Go back.

        "I cannot live without books" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1815

        by Susan Grigsby on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:56:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not most cities. NYC is one of a few exceptions... (11+ / 0-)

        ...not the rule. Indeed, of the top 50 U.S. cities, only three are places where guns are difficult to obtain.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:30:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Most cities? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pot

        You've got to be kidding? And in your one simple minded example of NYC, I guess no one there has ever considered driving an hour or so away and buying one in another location. I keep asking myself, why do you bother to post here. I think you do it just to be an antagonist. Because you certainly aren't adding anything to the conversatiion with posts like these.

        Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

        by reflectionsv37 on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 04:51:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Appears to be (7+ / 0-)

      the BIGGEST Constitutional right on US soil.

      I wonder how that happened?

      "But the protesters were only armed with chalk---the cops had guns and batons----and they were beating the protesters."

      by lyvwyr101 on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:48:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The 2nd amendment is archaic as pointed out in (59+ / 0-)

    the diary. It's there for the advancement of the gun industry not for the people of the USA.

    For propaganda, marketing, lobbying, and political action no other industry can beat it. Even the Supreme Court is protecting the gun industry.

    ❧To thine ownself be true

    by Agathena on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 04:29:15 AM PDT

      •  An excellent goal (6+ / 0-)

        And as much regulation and red tape as possible in the meantime.

      •  Or define the term (28+ / 0-)

        "firearm."

        What the Founders were talking about and what we're talking about now are two different things. The gun control debate has always been about what constitutes a firearm and what goes beyond it, if you think about it in those terms.

        So when gun laws get ridiculous, like needing a pistol permit (at the discretion of your local police chief) in Massachusetts to own a paint ball gun, we've clearly stepped too far into regulation, but on the other hand, allowing someone to arm up like that kid did in Colorado...in short order, seems just as egregious the other way.

        •  I feel that I am upholding the spirit (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          emidesu, Ginny in CO, Recall, 43north

          as well as the letter of the 2nd Amendment, in that I own a Brown Bess and a Charleville.  (OK, no actual ammunition given that I use them to reenact War of 1812...)

          Having said that, I must add that these smoothbore muskets would be highly dangerous if they were to be used as they were originally intended.  They are very accurate (even in my completely untrained hands) out to 75 yards or so (I was able to put 4 rounds into the center section of a pistol target at that range in a minute, having never fired with ammunition before).  The Bess' bullet is 3/4 of an inch in diameter, weighs almost 1.5 ounces, and with a normal charge has a higher muzzle velocity than a 12-gauge shotgun firing a deer slug.  These weapons were designed to kill people, and they are actually quite good at it, within their limits.

          And as far as the Federal Government is concerned, these aren't even guns.

          Under the United States Gun Control Act of 1968, antique firearms and replicas are largely exempted from the aforementioned restrictions. Antique firearms are defined as: any firearm with a frame or receiver manufactured in or before 1898 regardless of ignition system, or any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system, and any replica of an antique firearm if the replica is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire ammunition, or uses fixed ammunition, which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels or commercial trade, any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. (Note: Antique firearms exemptions vary considerably under state laws.)
        •  How 'bout we define firearms (3+ / 0-)

          for 2nd amendment purposes as exactly those that existed when it was written? Because the framers were certainly not thinking of drones or nuclear weapons when they wrote those words.

          The founding fathers knew of the mutually corrupting influences of Church and state, wisely sending them to opposite corners.

          by emidesu on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:50:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Don't need to repeal it, just read it and start (11+ / 0-)

        regulating that "well regulated militia".

        "I cannot live without books" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1815

        by Susan Grigsby on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:58:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's not that "well regulated" is it? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Susan from 29, ZenTrainer, pgm 01

          ❧To thine ownself be true

          by Agathena on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:29:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  failure by Congress to regulate the militia well (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OregonOak, PavePusher, 43north

          does not negate the operative clause of the amendment.

          Medic Alert: Do not resuscitate under a Republican administration.

          by happymisanthropy on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 11:01:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Typical 2nd Amendment cultist blowback here, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Recall, Susan from 29, caul

          in "comments" to editorial: link

          Here's one commenter's argument. I guess Scalia would grade him A+. Rubber stamped by Silent Thomas.

          The 2nd Amendment has two primary purposes in it's two clauses. The first "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" says that the security of the state depends on the militia, which in that day was private citizens organized by the STATES. Not by the FEDERAL Government. In short, the Nat'l Gaurd is NOT the militia
          Okay, flash forward, Einstein, to "in these times." So how are Joe Blow gun owners part of a STATE's "well regulated militia"? Do these fine folk gather somewhere and get an award each year from the governor for, once again, maintaining the "security" of their "free state"? (Well, maybe from Rick Perry!)

          He went on to argue:  

          The second clause says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That indicates that the ability to have a secure, free state depends on a well-regulated militia and that the ability to have a well-regulated militia depends on the PEOPLE having weapons. Thus, it is no exaggeration that the security of a free nation is dependent on the people's rights to own guns.
          To me the second clause pertains to the first clause, causing this second part of his argument to sink like a stone, along with the first part.

          Yesterday I heard a caller tell Dr Drew that the gunman could have used a rock instead. Are we going to regulate rocks? He was very upset. Dr. Drew told him he made a very intelligent point. (I think, instead of gun control, Dr Drew believes national rehab is the ticket.)

          Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a lame party, or should it drive a lame party to break out? If it cant, should it break out?

          by NYCee on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 04:54:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Dr Drew allowed that rocks could have killed 12 (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            caul

            people in a dark movie theater?  And that nobody would have been able to stop him?

            Really?

            Wow.  (BTW, who is Dr. Drew?)

            The second amendment always seemed to say that because the state needs a well controlled militia to defend itself, the members should be able to have guns in order to form the militia.  

            I have always felt that the NRA & Co. wanted the second amendment to consist of two separate sentences and so pretended it did and convinced everyone else.

            "I cannot live without books" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1815

            by Susan Grigsby on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 07:17:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Dr Drew didnt get all that into the weeds ... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Susan from 29, Recall, caul, Aquarius40

              I just think he wanted to shape the discussion away from gun control as solving our gun killing ills and shape it toward a national 'head' check. That's how he is. Comes across dumb, doesnt it, when specialists cant get out of their groove?

              Who is he? An MD who is an addiction specialist, who talks on the radio and TV. Sex issues too. I started putting him on occasionally over the past year. He does crime stuff in the news w/lawyer guests, celebrity rehab, regular folk rehab, oddities, assorted guests from all walks. Often the bizarre, like Octomom and LaToya Jackson. He likes to befriend them, partly for ratings, Im sure. Strange show. Nothing all that deep. Analysis is snappy for callers, moves along. But sometimes I like to have it on... easy brain food to digest. He grew on me, somehow, despite the fact that he used to annoy me half the time. He's on that cheesy CNN spinoff channel, HLN. (The one with Nancy-The_Executioner-Grace)

              Yeah, as to the 2nd Amendment bifurcation fans - sure does suck. I am just wondering if the fallout from this latest shooting spree isnt going to get some big monied interests going up against the NRA, for a change. Hollywood, big venues, shopping malls, theaters, sports arenas, etc. This was a big hit, tarnishing a big name brand money making movie. Might be interesting...

              Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a lame party, or should it drive a lame party to break out? If it cant, should it break out?

              by NYCee on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 08:40:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Never thought about that, but you're right, big (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                NYCee, Recall

                money could be hurt by this shooting. I'd love to see them push back against the gun lobby.

                I don't get radio up here, and I tend to listen to music when I have XM on.  Used to watch HLN when we traveled, in the pre Nancy Grace era. We stopped when HLN went from 30 minutes of news to Nancy Grace, Glenn Geck and entertainment news. The name of Dr Drew sounded familiar, but I don't think I've ever seen him.

                Although I do think we could all benefit from some brain therapy now and again.

                "I cannot live without books" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1815

                by Susan Grigsby on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:34:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Sounds like you have higher level... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Susan from 29

                  listening habits than I do! (I do watch Cspan, even book tv! Used to listen to the radio for a while, but not these days) I use TV as a substitute for Vicoden sometimes, I think! ie, for relaxation...

                  When you say, "I dont get radio up here," sounds like you are in a very rural, wilderness area... Where do you live? (If you dont mind saying... )

                   

                  Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a lame party, or should it drive a lame party to break out? If it cant, should it break out?

                  by NYCee on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 07:07:15 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Mojave desert. There is a country western station (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    NYCee

                    and a rock station that is easily received.  For the rest; static.  When you get to the low desert, the Palm Springs area, which is about an hour away, you are back in civilization and can get real radio.

                    Funny, I grew up in Chicago and then moved to San Francisco and never appreciated the easy radio access that I had.  Used to have the radio on every morning as I got ready for work.

                    So actually, my listening habits aren't higher than yours, they are much lower.

                    "I cannot live without books" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1815

                    by Susan Grigsby on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 11:17:57 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh, just in case you check back... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Susan from 29

                      Wanted to say that I love the desert out west. Never set foot in it (been to Europe many times, Mexico, PR... California, too... but no desert.) When I see images of AZ, NM, CA, UT, NV... the sunsets, rocks,  cactus, vistas... stirs me. My husband doesnt get it because he's a big "by the water" fan, ie, ocean. Me too, definitely. But I like the desert too.

                      Do you like living there? What state?

                      Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a lame party, or should it drive a lame party to break out? If it cant, should it break out?

                      by NYCee on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 11:46:22 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  California. My husband used to tell the story of (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        NYCee

                        waking up on a hillside in Korea during the war and promising God that if he ever got warm again he would never return to the cold.

                        I was raised in Chicago, and moved to SF in 1973, so living in a small town in the desert has taken some adjustment, but the sunsets are spectacular, our views breathtaking and it is very peaceful and quiet.  Good place for retirement.

                        But, I miss the ocean.  We used to spend weeks at a time on the beach at Camp Pendleton on the southern California Coast in a motor home.  The sounds, the smells, you don't forget.

                        The 29 in my user name is for 29 Palms, which is about 150 miles due east of Los Angeles and a world away.

                        "I cannot live without books" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1815

                        by Susan Grigsby on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 07:08:42 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Thanks for the info. (0+ / 0-)

                          Did you ever see the movie Baghdad Cafe? There are several indie films that take place in the desert that Ive enjoyed. Has a very soulful quality to it, to me.

                          Well, yes, the ocean is just so ... opening. I love the NC coast. We go every year. But NY beaches, dunes and all, are just a 50 minute train ride on the Long Island Railroad... to Long Beach. A lot of us city daytrippers go there for a day at the beach without too much hassle. Long Beach has a small town, a long boardwalk.

                          But North Carolina's barrier islands really do it for me.

                          Enjoy your sunsets. Maybe you'll get over to the beach soon.  

                          Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a lame party, or should it drive a lame party to break out? If it cant, should it break out?

                          by NYCee on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 11:03:25 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

      •  Just as RWers have wheedled away at the (8+ / 0-)

        right of Choice by women over their own body, why can't progressives wheedle away at the insanity -- internet purchases of vast quantities of ammunition? -- of the current Supreme Court's 2nd Amendment interpretation.

        My personal belief is that the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything like "everyone gets to own guns."  I agree with Dave The Sandman that it was written specifically to provide for a "well regulated militia" when there was no other form of defense for the nation.

        Then, for the sake of argument, let's say it wasn't just for the provision "militia" but everyone, because why shouldn't every man, woman and child be carrying machine guns?  It still says, quite clearly "well regulated."

        And there's not a damn thing "well regulated" about the current Supreme Court's decision.  "Toss the barn doors open" is not well regulated.  Where's Scalia's original intent these days?  He never meant that for a minute.

        The conservatives on the Supreme Court are literally the most radical people in the US today, seeking to undo, toss off, and change every last bit of how this country works.  

        The past 50-60 years have been the best the USA has ever seen, and this court is determined to undo it all.

        "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

        by YucatanMan on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:33:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  the Dept of Defense has superceded it (11+ / 0-)

      we no longer need a 'well regulated militia'

      but people still hang on to it as though it applies to them individually

      "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

      by eXtina on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:39:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We apparently DO need it, by the Constitution, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        43north, caul

        for the express purpose of regulating military firearms. If that is ALL the well-regulated militia does, fine. It will serve its purpose. We can have a standing military if we want, but we are REQUIRED by the US Constitution to have a Well-Regulated Militia for the purposes of military firearms regulation for a "free state" to exist.

        There is no need to repeal or amend. We need to simply FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION for the first time in our history.

        Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

        by OregonOak on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 12:03:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I've often held that the Swiss (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Otteray Scribe, Merry Light, caul

          follow our Constitution, more than we do.

          That to follow the Constitution requires mandatory service by all persons, not just white males age 18 or older.

          Why this hasn't been done in our 220 years since ratification?

          See Scott v. Sanford:

          In the words of Justice Taney:

          It would give to persons of the negro race, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.
          Those many treaties with Native Americans, bestowing "rights" would also have to be followed.  Women (saints preserve us) would have the right to bear arms.

          Oh, what a can of worms we'd open... thus, it was conveniently ignored.

          •  Yes, there are historical reasons, but... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            eXtina, caul

            I would say that the Well-Regulated Militia Dependent Clause of the Second Amendment was put in place by the more Liberal founders (Adams and Franklin particularly) precisely for circumstances which could arise as they have today. We may, they thought sometime in the future, need the law to be able to call every able bodied man to declare his weapons and fitness to hold them, mental, emotional and physical. Or at the very least, to require Gun Safety Militia Training for everyone which is merely gun safety.

            This is not absurd. With 300 million guns in people's possession, doesn't the right of the people of the nation exist to know who and why and where those guns are being used? When twice a month someone uses the Freedom to kill innocent people, simply because he CAN?

             Our rights to freedom are theoretically balanced with the responsibilities of freedom, which we have been allowed by the Supreme Court, to weasel out of. We want the freedom FROM responsibility. It wont work. Freedom only works when paired with balancing Responsibility. A very Conservative point of view, to be sure, but within a Liberal Constitutional context.

            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

            by OregonOak on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 02:22:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "the book" on "regulation" (0+ / 0-)

              http://books.google.com/...

              I've guests over, and will continue this discussion later.

              •  Baron Von Steuben? Hmmm... (0+ / 0-)

                I think he was a German subject. Interesting choice of backup evidence.

                Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                by OregonOak on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 03:10:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Likely Gay, confidant of G. Washington, and (0+ / 0-)

                  declared both an American and pensioner by Congress.

                  YMMV

                  Ignore the author, pay attention to the Manual of Regulation Congress commissioned circa the Militia Act of 1792.

                  Your efforts at besmirching Von Steuben, smacks of saying: "Kissinger, are you really citing him regarding Israel and the Palestinians?"

                  Get past the hackzent and zee droll delivery.

                  •  No no.. I respect Von Steuben, but.. (0+ / 0-)


                    wondering how he formed or influenced a part of the Militia Regulation/Right to Bear discussion in the Constitutional Convention.

                    (But really, I wouldnt cite Kissinger in the P/I conflict history. That's just me tho. Realpolitik reminds me too much of the losing side in the Big One.)

                    Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                    by OregonOak on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 07:41:22 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Washington "hired" Von Steuben (0+ / 0-)

                      to act as Inspector General.

                      Von Steuben addressed the lack of "regulation" in Army and Militia camps, for as-many citizen soldiers were dying or disabled from disease and poor food, as were falling to Prussian or English bullets.

                      Simple stuff really, but given the era "revolutionary".

                      Food and water << here.

                      Latrines >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there.

                      Health, welfare and moral improved to such a degree, Von Steuben was given a further task, to author a comprehensive manual for the regulation of the Army.
                      Said manual was adopted by the respective States, for militia.

                      Research the Militia Act of 1792, and you'll view the "registration" provisions.

                      You were presumed to have a "suitable arm" and prescribed a minimum ammunition load and quantity.

                      None of the following were recorded:
                      Make:
                      Model:
                      Serial Number:
                      Caliber:

                      Date of Birth:
                      Address:
                      Social Security Number:
                      NCIC Number:

                      Only Name, and Age.

    •  Archaic (7+ / 0-)

      The argument that the framers were quaint gentlemen with quills and all is fun, but they also wrote the 1st 3rd 4th, ect. And crazy stuff like TV and the telephone and internet weren't around when they granted freedom to speech and press, maybe we should scrap them too.

      Don't start thinking that freedom of speech hasn't caused deaths or lives ruined. How about that 4th, we've pretty much gutted it and no one is happy about it. Do you want the right to a speedy trial, cus a lot of people don't seem to care anymore. What about the ninth? What do you consider rights granted that aren't enumerated....?

      "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

      by high uintas on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 08:26:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The 2nd amendment is the only one invoked to (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ZenTrainer, Recall, Terri, caul

        justify the proliferation of guns in the USA.

        I'm not up for a discussion of the entire US constitution.

        ❧To thine ownself be true

        by Agathena on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:32:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Stupid argument and straw man. (13+ / 0-)

        "If we repeal one, should we repeal them all?"

        Of course not, and there's no natural or social law that says we have to. What rot.

        We should repeal the ones that don't work/don't serve society according to our best judgment and leave in place the ones that do.

        That line of argument ("You want to take away guns? What's next, free speech?") is crap. Free speech isn't next because it's a different issue with different criteria, different effects, and it's a different amendment, not to mention that even at the single amendment level, there's nothing saying we can't change a single sentence, word, or letter.

        The constitution isn't an "all or nothing" quantity like being alive or being dead. It's a series of letters embodying a series of different statements, any of which can be changed at the individual level based on what we, the people, decide is pragmatically sound and practicable.

        If someone was advocating that we eliminate the right to a speedy trial, you'd be in the right place, but here people are talking about gun control, a completely separate issue.

        It's in the same category as "You want to elect Obama? What's next, Hitler?" No, because Obama is not Hitler, Hitler is dead, and Hitler ran in Germany. The two are completely unrelated apart from their combined use in a straw man formulation.

        -9.63, 0.00
        I am not a purity troll. I am a purity warrior.

        by nobody at all on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:59:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not stupid at all (5+ / 0-)

          You can't address altering the amendments without considering what others might become inconvenient at some time in the future. I'm not a Constitutional absolutist, but I take my individual rights very seriously and shudder at how many are given up when something happens that brings out the emotions and FUD.

          Right now people are concerned about guns because there was a horrific incident that involved guns. It also involved a mentally disturbed young man who seemed determined to kill people. He chose guns to do it with, but he also had the ability to rig his apartment to kill more if they entered. Who is to say that if he didn't choose guns he wouldn't have chosen a bomb? IMO he probably had the smarts to do this. More would have died.

          I'm not a fan of the NRA, I hate them in fact. I believe that there are many common sense ways that we can limit the growth of gun violence and control their spread. I also believe that while everyone is screaming about guns they are ignoring the main cause of this carnage, the young man who did it and what it was that set him off.

          I don't believe that lack of a gun would have stopped him given his planning and determination.

          "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

          by high uintas on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 12:08:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Some of the changes do need more consideration. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Recall

        I don't think we need to rewrite the Constitution to understand that the kind of speech the framers were thinking of was in person or print.

        Speech broadcast 24/7 over radio and TV? How many repetitions of an ad will break down the human brain's normal ability to question or consider the content?*

         Once Madison Ave (and the GOP) figured out how to get past that feature of the mind and instill concepts it would reject if spelled out truthfully, they have been steadily increasing that control.  Media ownership = ownership of the messages allowed out in so much repetition the human mind has to be convinced the source is evil in order to resist the messaging.

        Instead we have the cognitively dissonant combination of Media that spews unvarnished lies being accepted as gospel truth, discredited in the next breath as the Librul media. I have to wonder if the 1% get a steady chuckle out of pulling that off.

        * This was a well known issue in the music industry before iPods, MP3, and the internet. I realized in my teens that popular songs that didn't appeal to me eventually seemed enjoyable. The DJs could make or break a song depending on how much or little they played it - because once the masses had heard it enough, they usually liked it and sales were made.

        Same with food. Cultural favorites are based on how much we have eaten them. Visitors to the Arctic circle invited to try the Eskimo staple, muktuk, usually find whale blubber difficult to appreciate. When you associate that flavor with the disappearance of hunger and return of physical energy, it's delicious. The basic assessment the brain has made is the value of that food which is: it sustains life.  Before you eat that healthy, low fat, high fiber breakfast cereal, compare the nutrition label to an Oreo package. Some are not so healthy.

        "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

        by Ginny in CO on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 12:51:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The solution is not archaic... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      devis1

      the solution is to recognize as the diarist claims that the first part of the Second Amerndment, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," cannot be ignored or made to be a "preface" statement, or an "informational" statement, but a Dependent Clause in 18th Century language, in that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," DEPENDS UPON the establishment of the well-regulated militia.

      In other words, the Supremes have abolished the first part of the Second Amendment by simply declaring it is not there, and they should be impeached for it. Those impeachment movements should start immediately for any Supreme who argued in Heller that the right to bear arms was individual in 2009. It is wrong. It is as wrong as the Dred Scott decision which had to be repealed by war. We either reverse their decision in Heller, or the results may be the same as in 1860.

      In any event, the remedy is to pass state by state laws that require gun owners with military designed weapons, however you wan to define that, to be REQUIRED to take the test and join a US Arms Training Service unit for safety, skill, and fitness. Any other remedy is UnConstitutional.

      The "archaic" Constitution contains the words which will put an end to this foolishness when we decide to use them. We do not have to repeal the Second Amendment. We have to use the WHOLE SECOND AMENDMENT for a safe society.

      Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

      by OregonOak on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 11:59:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think the framers wanted guns to be (25+ / 0-)

    legal for private citizens so they could shoot each other in duels. ;)

    My last fortune cookie was a The Nephew sockpuppet. equalitymaine.org

    by commonmass on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 04:35:15 AM PDT

  •  You'd have to get working on that amendment. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    penguins4peace, MKSinSA, GreyHawk, exlrrp

    The 2nd protects the right to gun ownership; for substantial regulation of guns, the 2nd amendment needs to be partially or wholly repealed.  

  •  You're talking about the wrong thing (14+ / 0-)

    If you look at newspapers from the Victorian era, from the turn of the century, as people where just beginning to live in large crowded urban areas for the first time, you find that accounts of people running amok were common.

    Man with a cleaver kills 10
    In that one (I'm going from memory), a butcher just wigged out and charged out of his shop and just started laying into anybody he could catch on the street.

    More recently, in Tokyo, a guy flipped out in the Akihabara electronics district and plowed his van into a group of people on the sidewalk, jumped out, and went to work with a small paring knife. He killed about 8.

    Now, in Aurora, a heavily armed and armored guy killed 12. These numbers hardly differ in body count, so you really don't have much of an argument that banning firearms would greatly reduce the danger imposed by psychotic individuals.

    In this case, the guy had his hair died red, called himself The Joker, boobytrapped his apartment, and it's fairly clear that he wanted to be a Super Villain. An honors student in neuroscience.

    The problem of people snapping and going on homicidal sprees may not be something we can "fix" but I would argue that more investment in mental health services is probably the better way to go.

    Every day's another chance to stick it to the man. - dls

    by The Raven on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 05:03:16 AM PDT

      •  So take a wrench (5+ / 0-)

        Find the right nut to loosen, you can wreak a lot of havoc.

        On the other hand, while a wrench can be used to kill a great many people, it won't help you much if a person is breaking into your home.

        It is natural for those favoring gun control to want to seize on this story as support for their position, but here's an argument for a right to personal defense.

        Anybody arguing that this woman should have been unarmed needs to explain why, exactly, that would be a good thing.

        Every day's another chance to stick it to the man. - dls

        by The Raven on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 05:54:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I understand that a crazy person bent (22+ / 0-)

          on destruction will find a way to hurt people.  However, why does any private citizen need to own an automatic weapon?  It's why we don't let children play with knives or drive cars.  Why make it easier for people with diminished capacities to do even more damage?

          Was a cold and dark December when the banks became cathedrals...

          by althea in il on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:14:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The shooter's weapon was not automatic. n/t (6+ / 0-)

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:36:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It was a Semi-Automatic with 100 round magazine (6+ / 0-)

              If some people want to drool over their M4 or M16 or AK47 knockoff assault rifle let them do it with a reduced capacity magazine. Unless the weapon is to be used for war or policing I believe a 5 shot magazine is sufficient for any weapon.

               Hell, my 5 shot browning shotgun is required to be plugged so it only holds and shoots 3 shotgun shells at any one time. Moreover, if I take the plug out so I can shoot 5 times and get caught by the game warden I can have the shotgun confiscated.

              "We are a Plutocracy, we ought to face it. We need, desperately, to find new ways to hear independent voices & points of view" Ramsey Clark, U.S. Attorney General.

              by Mr SeeMore on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 11:24:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Whatever the case, it's doesn't advance... (5+ / 0-)

                ...the cause of more gun control to fail on terminology. Some people say it doesn't matter. We don't say the same when it comes to any other arenas of political debate, economics, environment, taxes.

                Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                by Meteor Blades on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 12:26:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I agree with you in theory but here's the thing (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Recall

                  I like to use correct terminology whenever possible.  However, I don't want to have to know all the features about all the possible guns someone can use to mow down innocent people.  If it fires enough bullets in a short enough time to hit scores of people, I'm against it.  Automatic, semi-automatic...whatever.

                   Guns for hunting, guns for protection, I'll concede.  Something that can shoot hundreds of rounds in the hands of private citizens is the height of stupidity.

                  Was a cold and dark December when the banks became cathedrals...

                  by althea in il on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:43:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Why in the hell do police need... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                43north

                to be relieved of any restriction placed on the Citizenry?

                And that plug only applies to legal hunting in season.  Any other purpose (defense, for instance) you can take it out.

                You don't get to limit my defensive options unless you can prove they are dangerous to others without cause.

                Unless you are offering to provide security for me?  I'm betting... not.

                •  Defensive options against Who? The Fear factor is (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Recall, Rick Aucoin

                  what is driving the rush for many people to be armed to the teeth, imo.

                   I would like to know against what person, people, entity are people so afraid that they need AK47 and M16 knockoffs to feel secure.

                  Just WHAT or WHO is this boogy-man that many people are afraid of, so much so, that they feel the need to have assault weapons?

                  "We are a Plutocracy, we ought to face it. We need, desperately, to find new ways to hear independent voices & points of view" Ramsey Clark, U.S. Attorney General.

                  by Mr SeeMore on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 01:21:48 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Ask the families of the dead if the weapon was (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Recall, devis1

              automatic or semi-automatic.  It doesn't matter - it shoots a load of bullets really fast and a technicality on the name does not really change their deadliness.

              Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

              by DefendOurConstitution on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 02:11:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If you're going to talk about banning... (0+ / 0-)

                ...semi-automatic weapons, you have to realize that the vast majority of handguns made today are semi-auto and capable of shooting lots of bullets really fast. Pushing that kind of ban will run into a brick wall.

                Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                by Meteor Blades on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 09:26:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Technically a semi automatic assault weapon (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DefendOurConstitution, Recall

            Directly copied from a standard military weapon and able to take a much larger magazine holding up to 100 bullets for automatic spent case ejection, reload, and recock, to be able to fire again in milliseconds. It still requires the trigger is pulled for every shot. An automatic doesn't.

            Hunting and handguns can have the same feature (many do), they just don't have the same capacity to be fitted with a magazine holding up to 100 bullets. They probably could be, it just makes no sense to be lugging that many bullets around chasing animals. Or wearing a 'concealed' weapon that has a magazine big enough to be both visible and uncomfortable.

            "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

            by Ginny in CO on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 01:14:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  This is silly (39+ / 0-)

          Limiting access to certain types of weapons, ammo and the volume of ammo doesn't require eliminating all gun ownership.  

          And such limits don't preclude further investment in mental health services.  It's not "either/or".

          "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

          by Triscula on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:14:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes we can walk and chew gum (4+ / 0-)

            Great point.

            Also, since it was the movie that inspired this clown, should we be talking about banning Batman movies?

            Every day's another chance to stick it to the man. - dls

            by The Raven on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:42:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Batman comic books were around a long time (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              glorificus, indubitably, Matt Z, The Raven

              before they inspired Batman movies.

              And "the clown" obviously, as an honor student, was good at reading. Who's to say that his familiarity with Batman didn't come from books/comics?


              In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

              by bronte17 on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 07:41:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Good question (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PavePusher

                One possibility is that these superhero movies often involve villains (and heroes) who don't have special powers as much as they simply have technology.

                They show ordinary people doing extraordinary things. This guy may have been focused on some kind of inner fantasy that he was compelled to realize.

                I know his name, but my policy is to avoid giving these people notoriety - they should know that, no matter how horrific their crimes, they will become non-persons.

                Every day's another chance to stick it to the man. - dls

                by The Raven on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 11:16:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Yup, sensible regulation does not violate 2A, but (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Recall, Rick Aucoin

            to hear the bellyaching from the gun fetishists it's like we are taking away the air they breathe!

            Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

            by DefendOurConstitution on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 01:34:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You've utterly missed the point. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KenBee, Merry Light, The Raven

              I'm one of the most radical of the RKBA group.

              And I'm all in favor of sensible gun laws.

              We just disagree on the definition of "sensible".

              Much like "adult conversation", the side favoring immersed restrictions on the private ownership of firearms tends to define "sensible" as "agrees with me."

              That won't fly.

              --Shannon

              "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
              "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

              by Leftie Gunner on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 02:18:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If RKBA is a fundamental right... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DefendOurConstitution

                .....use strict scrutiny to determine whether a firearm regulation is constitutional.

                There is a much stronger "compelling government interest" in keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and the insane, and under reasonable restrictions for the law-abiding, than for any of the questionable free speech exceptions such as "obscenity", "fighting words", or "time, place and manner restrictions", as well as a "least restrictive alternative" in background checks, reasonable limits on firepower, and regulations to catch straw purchasers.

                9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

                by varro on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:30:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  strict scrutiny is the goal. (0+ / 0-)

                  That is the result that all of Alan Here's litigation has been building towards since Heller.

                  And the antis are terrified that he'll succeed.

                  --Shannon

                  "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
                  "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

                  by Leftie Gunner on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 09:38:02 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Alan Gura, that should have been. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    varro

                    Damned autocorrect.

                    "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
                    "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

                    by Leftie Gunner on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 09:39:34 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I went to school with Gura's law partner... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...FWIW.

                      The NRA seems to think that "no restrictions" should be the standard.  

                      Like I said, strict scrutiny should be the standard, but there is much more of a compelling government interest to regulate weapons (of all sorts - not just firearms) than to regulate speech.

                      9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

                      by varro on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 01:02:10 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  What will survive: (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        varro

                        1) Permitted concealed carry. What's come out of the State courts before Heller and the Federal Appellate Courts since, suggests that the rule will be something like, "you can have permits for concealed carry, but they must be be issued to any person not prohibited from owning a firearm, and the requirements cannot be excessively burdonsome or expensive. Psych evals, million-dollar insurance requirements and the like aren't gonig to fly... although i expect states like New York, New Jersey, and Illinois to try all of the above and more.

                        2) NICS, for purcahses from FFLs. I don't think that state bans on intrastate private sales are gong to stand, unless the Feds open up the NICS database for individuals... which has some pretty serious privacy issues.

                        3) Felon-in-posession laws and straw purchase laws. The fatherst I can see the SCOTUS going on this would be to say that felons must have a process whereby they can petition to have thier rights restored, and that the standards they have to meet must be clearly defined and adhered to.

                        4) The NFA. I can maybe see a rulling that all states must allow their citizens to own whatever the Federal law allows, and that the registry must be re-opened and kept open. The first is a Supremacy Clause issue, and the second is a straight equal-protection claim. (If automatic firearms fall under the protection of the 2nd Amendment at all, the government can't decide who can exercise that component of the right based solely on net worth, which is all the closing of the machinegun registry in 1986 has done.)

                        4) Not much else.

                        Things like magazine-capacity limitations, feature-based bans on categories of firearms, permit-to-own systems, most safe-storage laws, (California's is the strictist I can see survivng. When you buy a gun from an FFL, you have to buy a trigger lock if you don't have a safe. They're like 10 bucks, and you're not required to ever actually use the thing once it leaves the store,) are going to have a very tough time meeting the level of review required to pass strict scrutiny.

                        --Shannon

                        "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
                        "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

                        by Leftie Gunner on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 01:27:34 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

    •  As has been pointed out (8+ / 0-)

      the solution is not "either/or". But besides that, yes, you can find widely separated incidents where "a comparable body count" is produced by other means than guns.  Or you can find countless cases where guns have been used. The statistics matter. Australia solved this same exact problem in their country with gun control. Same type of society. It worked there. You are proposing a much more complicated, less effective solution, that ultimately will have people throw up their hands in learned hopelessness, the same as they have done when it comes to controlling carbon emissions, to bring up a similar issue that has become hopelessly ensnared in modern American politics.

      "The only thing we have to fear - is fear itself." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

      by orrg1 on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:25:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yup, just because we will not stop all senseless (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Recall, whytewolf

        gun violence does not mean that we should not try to stop any.  If we looked at automobile fatalities like that we would not have seat belts or any of the other laws that have significantly reduced the automobile fatalities.

        Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

        by DefendOurConstitution on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 02:14:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Australia? (0+ / 0-)

        Bad example. The gangs who attack rural dwellers there who are defenseless against the horrors inflicted on them are good examples of why removing citizens' access to firearms is bad policy.

        We can have changes to laws regarding ownership and registration, types of firearms - these things are open to debate. But sweeping bans of the type Australia enacted have resulted in severe misery.

        Every day's another chance to stick it to the man. - dls

        by The Raven on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 09:16:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Psychopaths are virtually impossible to (0+ / 0-)

      treat. You're making the unsupported assumption that he has a treatable mental illness.

      •  We don't know yet (0+ / 0-)

        whether he is a psychopath. I'd say it's 50/50 psychopath vs. psychotic disorder. 50% or even 25% fewer tragedies sounds good to me.

        The founding fathers knew of the mutually corrupting influences of Church and state, wisely sending them to opposite corners.

        by emidesu on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:57:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  US mental health care needs a huge (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        The Raven

        refocus and reinvestment for many reasons. Gun violence (already established without Holmes having a diagnosis) can be reduced for minor to major psych disorders if the patients are being treated and monitored well enough. There have been some comments in other diaries of horrible examples when families begged for pysch intervention and the system failed. There would still be some who would fall or escape through a crack.

        The significant gun stat it could decrease - the largest number of deaths, is suicide. Because it would also address suicide with ropes, pills, bridges, illegal drugs and by cops.

        "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

        by Ginny in CO on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 01:31:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  If knives are just as (8+ / 0-)

      dangerous as guns then I suppose you would be satisfied just owning a knife?

      "Back off, back off, he's got his own dreams that won't come true!"- Robots

      by satanicpanic on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:51:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Always back to the "guns don't kill people" meme (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Recall, Rick Aucoin, satanicpanic

      Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

      by DefendOurConstitution on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 01:32:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you for making a reasoned and important (20+ / 0-)

    Argument.  Americans have to make a decision what is more important, their civil society or their guns, they really can't have both.  

    •  Yes, we can, actually. n/t (0+ / 0-)
      •  With reasonable, NATIONAL regulation it is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Recall, satanicpanic

        possible.  Without those, lakehillsliberal is absolutely correct, and sadly we will never have reasonable & national regulations i place.

        Reasonable regulations:
        1) Obtain training
        2) Pass an exam proving that you can use guns you intend to purchase safely and get a license indicating so
        3) All purchases need background checks and there is a database of who owns what gun/serial number (clearly the definition of who should not have access to a gun will be contentious, but that can be worked out)
        4) Pass the assault weapons ban permanently and outlaw any clip/magazine/semi-automatic that can be used to turn many guns into automatic weapons (for all intents and purposes).

        Now I don't see how that "infringes" on anyone's Second Amendment rights, but the gun fetishists like you will insist it does.

        Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

        by DefendOurConstitution on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 02:07:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The redcoats are coming! (25+ / 0-)

    He just wants us to get rid of all our guns so the Brits can take us back as a colony!  It's a trap!  ;)

    Here here.  Lots of good diaries on this issue, but I'm cynical enough to be pretty sure that nothing will change, and 50000 shootings a year will simply be written off as 'normal'.

  •  Further (31+ / 0-)

    If a vote were taken, Americans would overwhelmingly vote to ban high powered assault rifles.

    What has our democracy come to when what the people want is overridden by a heavily financed lobby?

    When did this group of nuts usurp our right to freedom to live without constant fear of  being shot during daily life?

    Be the change you want to see in the world. -Gandhi

    by DRo on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 05:10:02 AM PDT

    •  Colorado itself provides a parallel (21+ / 0-)

      Their legislature was unwilling to close the gun show loophole that allowed the Columbine shooters to get some of their arms.

      One of the victims' fathers helped promote a ballot issue that would force closure of that loophole.

      In a very gun friendly state, a clear majority of Colorado voters said, aye, and the loophole was closed.

      Now, what might happen if a similar initiative tried to close of sales of AR-15 or similar weaponry? Close off mega-magazine sales? My guess is easy passage.

      After all, many NRA members themselves are not in agreement with the political slant of the organization to which they belong.

    •  Actually, no. (9+ / 0-)

      I am sorry but in his column today, Charles Blow cites the following statistic:

      "Are you for or against a law which would make it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles?"

      For: 43%
      Against: 53%

      From a Gallup poll taken in Oct.2011.

      The NRA has done their work very well.

      "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

      by sidnora on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 07:05:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Note how the question is asked. (5+ / 0-)

        I think if you said 'restrict' it would change the vote.

        Also, Blow reasons,

        One step in the right direction would be to reinstate the assault weapons ban. Even coming from a gun culture, I cannot rationalize the sale of assault weapons to everyday citizens. (The Washington Post reported that Holmes had a shotgun, two pistols and an AR-15 assault rifle, all legally purchased.)
        Bold added.

        Be the change you want to see in the world. -Gandhi

        by DRo on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 07:19:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That is not what you said (7+ / 0-)

          in your original comment:

          If a vote were taken, Americans would overwhelmingly vote to ban high powered assault rifles.
          Since we are talking about weapons whose only known purpose is killing large numbers of human beings as rapidly as possible, what sort of "restrictions" do you think would be appropriate? Restricting them to LEOs, who rarely if ever use such guns?

          In fact, I am willing to bet that if you polled them, LEOs would be overwhelmingly in favor of an outright ban on the domestic sale and ownership of assault weapons. This is military hardware that has no place in civil society.

          "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

          by sidnora on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 07:29:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yes--the NRA has done their work very well- (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DRo, sidnora, m00finsan, devis1, satanicpanic

        but for the person who really believes they have a right to go out for a movie---or to a restaurant---- or to school---or to college---or to a mall-----or to a political event-----or to a museum-----or just about anywhere-------- where people congregate--freely:

        Know that this IS a real possibility in this country for any one of us:

        And if we continue to refuse to have a discussion regarding guns-------- our surviving loved ones will be forced to have a discussion regarding one of these.

        We have gone way past the crisis point here in this country........................and still nothing................

        "But the protesters were only armed with chalk---the cops had guns and batons----and they were beating the protesters."

        by lyvwyr101 on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:25:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Not according to the most recent... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pluto, DRo, pgm 01, PavePusher

      ....Gallup Poll that asked that very question.

      53% opposed to a ban; 43% in favor.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:43:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And what, pray tell... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      is a "high powered assault rifle"?

      I'll give you a few hints to start from:  

      An "assault rifle" is fully automatic, i.e. a machine gun.  None were used in this incident, nor in any mass-shootings I can think of.  They are highly regulated, at the Federal level, cost thousands of dollars, and it's been illegal to produce any for the civilian market since 1986.  There are less than 300K legal ones in private ownership, though government agencies seem to make a habit of... missplacing... them.

      An "assault rifle" is, by definition, a low-to-mid power caliber, generally equivalent to a .30-30 lever action ballistics or less (at the low end of the deer-hunting catagory).  A few use the mid-power .308 round.

  •  Realistically speaking (9+ / 0-)

    ...it seems only prudent to carry a gun in the US, since so many Americans are armed and dangerous. And they are very, very stressed these days.

    There is NOT going to be a conversation about restrictions on weapon ownership. That is philosophically illogical. Building and selling weapons throughout the world is what America does for a living. Indeed, half the money the US government spends goes to subsidize this industry.

    Most of this new nation was seized and settled at gunpoint. This has become an essential part of American culture and identity -- and the foundation of its wealth and success.

    It's hard to know when or how or why intense American attitudes about gun rights might change. All we really have to guide us is a snapshot of comparative global stats:  Of the world's 196 national constitutions (of which the US constitution is by far the most antiquated) only three nations have a "second amendment" provision. Two of these three are now considered failed states.

    Thus, whether you think we are coming or going -- it is still a good idea to pack some heat.

    •  Which is why I am so tired of these things (38+ / 0-)
      Thus, whether you think we are coming or going -- it is still a good idea to pack some heat.
      No. I don't want to own or carry a gun and I am sick and tired of the people who carry them saying they need them for protection.... from other gun carriers.

      I had an incident a couple of months ago. I was outside having a cigarette at about 6 am and saw something curious out by my driveway, so I went to investigate. As I walked past my garage, a homeless guy walked out of MY garage.

      It's early on a weekend morning, I'm a young-ish woman, alone, confronted by a large guy who is up to god knows what.

      He ran off and I went inside and locked my doors. And I can't for the life of me imagine how either one of us packing heat would have made that situation less dangerous.

      But some would like me to believe that I would have been safer that way.

      P.S. I am not a crackpot.

      by BoiseBlue on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 05:24:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's unnerving, to say the least. (21+ / 0-)

        The other factor sitting out there is homelessness, which changes the picture significantly. Most developed nations have much tighter social safety nets -- because people in the community don't want to be surrounded by homeless, hunger, mental illness, and petty crime to survive, while they go about their day.

        Seems to me you can't address people's sense of fear and insecurity until you first relieve the social problems that disenfranchise those who were allowed to fall through the net.

        •  Not to invalidate BoiseBlue's experience (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DefendOurConstitution

          but very, very few of the homeless are actually dangerous. Very few people are actually dangerous.
          In many years of inner city living I had very few encounters with violent people, and blocking a punch or stepping away from a gun chase were the most I ever needed. Had I been carrying I might have been tempted to be more aggressive and things might not have turned out so well. At any rate, my or anyone's anecdotal experience means little in the face of overwhelming evidence that having a gun is more likely to get you or a loved one injured than protect you.

          The founding fathers knew of the mutually corrupting influences of Church and state, wisely sending them to opposite corners.

          by emidesu on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 11:19:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  To be clear - I NEVER said the guy was dangerous (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Boston to Salem, devis1, KenBee

            because he was homeless. He was a guy in my garage. He ran off, I went inside.

            After the initial shock of the experience, my first thought was that he was just looking for a warm place to sleep and since my garage was open, that's where he went.

            Later in the the morning, I went out to the garage and realized he'd been going through my car. There wasn't anything of value, but he did go through it looking for something.

            I didn't care about the experience- it was resolved peacefully and no harm was done.

            And that is my point. It was over just as soon as it began. The same would probably not be said if either of us had a gun at the time. We were both startled and scared. Bad time to have a firearm, IMO.

            I just wanted to clear up that I in no way suggested that the guy was inherently dangerous because he was homeless. He was in my garage because he was homeless. I feared him because he's man much larger than me and I was alone and unsure of his motives. Those are two separate things.

            His homelessness had nothing to do with my fear of him.

            P.S. I am not a crackpot.

            by BoiseBlue on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 11:49:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Here's a similar situation (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        samanthab, PavePusher, BoiseBlue, KenBee

        That the homeowner didn't survive

        You were extremely lucky. If this person had gone out of the house sufficently armed and in the frame of mind to meet a foreseeable threat, he'd probably be alive now.

        Will the police help? They were called!! and said because they were too busy with Occupy Berkeley they were only responding to  critical calls.
        So good luck calling 911 and waiting for the police to save you.  Especially if there's a demonstration going on

        Happy just to be alive

        by exlrrp on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:39:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And here's another situation... (16+ / 0-)

          Where the homeowner didn't survive because he was armed.

          Yes, the deputies in this situation knocked on the wrong door. Yes, they failed to identify themselves. But had the homeowner not opened the door with gun in hand, he would be shaken and angry, but alive.

          I vote we run Rick Scott out of Florida on a high-speed rail.

          by ObamOcala on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 07:39:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  If he *came home* sufficiently armed. (0+ / 0-)
          According to a probable cause statement filed in court by Berkeley police Detective David Marble, Cukor, who owned a logistics consulting firm, called police at 8:45 p.m. Saturday to report that there was a suspicious person in his garage.

          Marble said in the statement that the person, later identified as Dewitt, left the property after Cukor told him to, but that Cukor and his wife, Andrea Cukor, later saw Dewitt enter their front gate, which leads to their front door.

          Peter Cukor again told Dewitt to get off of his property and Dewitt “said he was a psychic and he was told to go through the front gate to find Zoey,” Marble wrote.

          Dewitt then left the property again and Cukor walked across the street to a Berkeley fire station that’s located there, “probably to ask for assistance from the firefighters to help deal with Dewitt,” according to Marble.

          However, no one was there because firefighters were out on a call.

          Marble said that when Cukor returned to his property, Dewitt “confronted” him in his driveway and “viciously assaulted” Cukor, hitting him in the head.

          In addition to two sets of first responders not being available,  it turns out that the courts and the mental health system were MIA:
          Daniel Dewitt’s father, Al Dewitt Jr., said outside court Wednesday that Dewitt has suffered from mental illness since the age of 18.

          Al Dewitt Jr. said he and his wife, Candy Dewitt, have been trying to get their son into a permanent treatment program or have him held in custody but court officials always released him after he received brief periods of treatment.

          “We always had a fear of him hurting himself or someone else,” Dewitt said.

          But never mind all that, MOAR GUNZ solves everything.
      •  Some people, (5+ / 0-)

        for various reasons, for instance, having depressed people in the house, can't have guns.  The pro-gun people don't seem eager to consider that either.  

        "Back off, back off, he's got his own dreams that won't come true!"- Robots

        by satanicpanic on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:59:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Signed, shared, and Tweeted :) (7+ / 0-)

    I agree with Darcy's diary, too. :)

    Seen on Facebook: "Rich people are not the cause of a robust economy, they are the result of a robust economy."

    by boofdah on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 05:23:47 AM PDT

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

    I think that the Second Amendment shouldn't be merely altered, but repealed entirely.

    Ceterum censeo Factionem Republicanam esse delendam.

    by journeyman on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 05:33:08 AM PDT

  •  It will never happen, sadly. (18+ / 0-)

    But I love, love, love this:

    And if occasional localized voter fraud incidents happening less often than lightning strikes and shark attacks can be used to justify the mass disenfranchisement of potential voters, then this and the other spree shootings is more than enough justification to take away the right to own dangerous firearms.

    Was a cold and dark December when the banks became cathedrals...

    by althea in il on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 05:34:01 AM PDT

  •  "Freedom" cloaking profiteering (18+ / 0-)

    explains how we got into our current foreign wars.
    I am disgusted in the corruption of our democracy by the weapons lobby.
    Money buys a blind eye and cold heart in those who should know better.  

    If cats could blog, they wouldn't

    by crystal eyes on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 05:40:37 AM PDT

  •  Before the conversation (7+ / 0-)

    can even begin a different conversation has to happen;

    Why not make law according to the times we live in and not by trying to second guess (or rather manipulate according to desire) something agreed, centuries ago.

    America is nowhere near ready for that conversation.

    I left the UK ten years ago where I was taught about the difference between a written and unwritten constitution. I had a good teacher but she did not even begin to get across the huge difference in mindset between the two.

    Nothing prepared me for the lengths with which normally sane people are prepared to cling to law based not on logic and reason but rather sentimentality and superstition.

    This is not just about the second by the way but all of them.

  •  Amen! Sanity from across the pond! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Boston to Salem

    Thank you!

    My dog is a member of Dogs Against Romney: He rides inside.

    by adigal on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 05:51:34 AM PDT

  •  Passionate! And Truth (6+ / 0-)

    I touched on a couple of those ideas in much shallower way in another thread.  I especially liked

    largely agrarian society of farmers and landworkers with no standing army to defend itself
    And the contrast on how one side of our political spectrum goes after "voter fraud", and how grossly distorted the reading of the 2nd amendment is from many of those same folks, it paints a staggering picture.

    Thank you for the words.  They hit a chord in me.

  •  The NRA & Grover Norquist Have Veto Power.... (10+ / 0-)

    in this country.  They decide what the national conversation will be & when.  Politicians literally quake when the NRA scores a vote.  They fold like a cheap suit.  Ditto for Norquist.  That little shrimp controls revenue in this country.

    The days of muskets & powdered wigs are long gone.  Either we start acting like it or....... travel 10 days on a broken down nag to get to the WH like the olden days.

     

  •  Excellent point! (5+ / 0-)

    I just wish Democratic pols and pundits would make this argument.

    Best diary I've read here in a while, I'd rec it more than once if I could!

  •  And about that Amendment... (15+ / 0-)

    ...what part of "well regulated" do these gun freaks not understand?  The amendment doesn't guarantee the right of a person who's had a bad day to go into a large group of people and start shooting them.

  •  That'll work. (7+ / 0-)

    You start off our adult conversation by infantilizing an entire country, waving the bloody shirt of the latest massacre, and then launching into third rate legal drama dialogue presented as argument.

    Before you criticize how Americans handle this debate, perhaps you should ask yourself why your supposedly adult reaction to Hungerford didn't prevent Dublane.

  •  Hired 31 1/2 years ago by a Brit ex-pat (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marina, Naniboujou, shaharazade

    Who just died of natural causes at 92

    Work for his son now, also born in England

    We were just bought by a Canadian firm as the son inches toward retirement. We are such a scialist firm, healthcare and profit sharing even before this buyout. His American sons want to drive trucks or fix cars, not be at the other end of the steel industry

    I cannot discuss the 2nd amendment with the spousal unit, the one I have had for 31 years. No adult conversation here.

    Must be the Amish genes my family absorbed after landing in Philly in 1739.

    Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living~~Mother Jones

    by CA Berkeley WV on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:13:32 AM PDT

  •  Good luck, Dave, but you gotta understand (19+ / 0-)

    This is a neurotic stegasaurus of a country. Huge body, tiny brain. And guns are one of the things we here are neurotic about. You might call it a fetish.
        Hard to argue with that, or indeed have anything close to an adult conversation.
       I mean, just think: Pot is illegal here, but hundred round magazine drums aren't. It sort of makes you stop and think!!

    An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head. -- Eric Hoffer

    by MichiganChet on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:23:38 AM PDT

  •  Freaking Gun Nuts (8+ / 0-)

    There is NO reason anyone needs to own an automatic weapon unless you are in law enforcement.

    I'm fine with homeowners having a pistol for personal protection from home break-ins. But there is NO reason to own an automatic weapon. NONE.

    OK, GUN NUTS, your turn.

    "It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth." - Morpheus

    by CitizenOfEarth on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:31:15 AM PDT

  •  heart of the matter (9+ / 0-)

    2nd amendment is interpreted and abused to serve the purposes of those who want it to say what they need it to say

    3) Regulation Regulation. See that phrase "WELL REGULATED MILITIA"? Well, given that in the 20C state and national police forces were established, and a standing army was in place, sane minds would point out that THEY were the Well Regulated Militia discussed in the Amendment. So if a private citizen buys a gun and is not a signed up member of a regulated citizen militia group how the hell does that Amendment make any sense? And who regulates the well regulated militia? There is also the possible discussion around how the hell a private citizen being able to buy 4 guns and 6000 rounds of ammo online via net stores and nobody thinking "Hang on...." classes in ANY way as falling into an acceptable definition of "well regulated". When any old joe can buy better weapons than the average Police officer responding to the incident is carrying that is NOT well regulated....its damn insanity.

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:37:59 AM PDT

    •  yes (0+ / 0-)

      the framers thought that a well-regulated militia was so important that, even if Congress saw fit to abolish it, the people would always have the materials necessary to reassemble one should the need suddenly arise.

      I'm not saying it's a perfect system.  Clearly it isn't.

      Medic Alert: Do not resuscitate under a Republican administration.

      by happymisanthropy on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 11:36:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I agree with much of your post. However, to (9+ / 0-)

    summarily "take away" their guns (the gunwhacks), would start a civil war.

    We had gun rights back before the 1960's without a lot of gunwhackery and the attendant mass shootings.
    The "Texas Tower" killings at UT Austin mark the beginning of the domestic terror epidemic, in the early 1960's. When i was in Scouts as a kid, I was a member of the NRA, which mainly promoted gun safety and responsibility.

    Here's my take:
    There is a "gun cult" in our society. It's primarily male. It actually cuts across political and racial fault lines, to some degree.
    It manifests itself in different ways in different individuals and groups of people.
    Fundamentally, the "gun" is a fetish object, signifying power. In worst case scenarios, "power-deficient" people, (almost always men), use guns in well-planned rituals or in ecstatic fits of rage to "take human sacrifice" and by doing, to appropriate power.
    Guns are also a tool by which anti-social individuals also simply carry out crimes (theft or rape) which they would not have the courage or power to do otherwise.

    Let's have a national conversation on what is going on with these men and why guns have become an object of worship.

    Let's start talking about some of the controls on gun sales that make sense without depriving anyone of their "2nd amendment rights". Let's ban 100 round magazines, for example. Let's talk about liability insurance for every legal gun owner. That's not unreasonable.

    Let's force a dialogue about the sociology and psychology behind the male gun cult and get us to a place where we don't need to "take away their guns" and the NRA can go back to promoting safety and responsibility among gun owners.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:38:05 AM PDT

    •  To change the prevailing attitude, (8+ / 0-)

      change the NRA. They, more than any other entity, are responsible for the situation in which we find ourselves. As you rightly point out, 50 years ago they were chiefly about promoting gun safety and responsibility.

      At some point along the way, they realized that they are, in fact, a trade association, and a trade association's primary responsibility is to maximize its members' profits, not to keep their products out of the hands of deranged or irresponsible buyers.

      This boils down to the struggle between profit and responsibility to the community, and the gun industry is far from the only one to bankroll and steamroll the crushing of community responsibility. You could also point out the tobacco industry, the fossil fuels industry, and most of the food industry as equally culpable. The only difference is that the NRA's victims bleed more spectacularly.

      "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

      by sidnora on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 07:18:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  My husband collects guns. (6+ / 0-)

    Understand, he collects Vietnam-era weapons and military memorabilia like another guy might collect shot glasses or beer mats. And HE's even fine with the fact that while you CAN hunt animals with all his guns, including the SKS and the AK-47, that no private citizen needs thirty round and hundred round clips to put on said rifles, and there are quite a number of people who don't need to have access to a gun.

    I've got nothing against hunting with a gun, though the whole personal protection thing is often iffy to me. (This may be because I am someone who shouldn't carry on a daily basis, though.) I do wish that we could have a rational conversation about the fetish issues around guns, though. But that would require people at large to do the psychological work to admit their fetish and control it, and I don't see most people as being willing to do that.

    When you come to find how essential the comfort of a well-kept home is to the bodily strength and good conditions, to a sound mind and spirit, and useful days, you will reverence the good housekeeper as I do above artist or poet, beauty or genius.

    by Alexandra Lynch on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:42:51 AM PDT

    •  I'm not aware of any location (in the U.S.).... (0+ / 0-)

      that allows hunting with "thirty round and hundred round clips".  But they can be useful in defensive situations.

      Anything that can be used beneficially can also be abused.  That is simple reality.

      •  California, for one. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PavePusher, KenBee

        Magazines for semiautomatic firearms capable of holding more than ten rounds are illegal to sell or buy in California. Not illegal to own. Installing one in a semiautomatic centerfire rifle creates an "assault weapon", which is illegal to possess unless it is registered to you.

        That said, if you own a legally registered "assault weapon" in California, you may hunt anything but birds with it.

        The only magazine capacity restriction in California's hunting laws is the three round limit for shotguns, and the only reason that's there is to comply with the Federal law on migratory bird hunting.

        --Shannon

        "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
        "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

        by Leftie Gunner on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 02:30:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  There's so much wrong here. (5+ / 0-)

    First of all, if you're trying to convince someone, it's a good idea not to start by labeling them as irrational or worse.

    Second, saying that it's a good idea to take away anyone's rights is a really poor way of selling anything at all.

    The massacre in Colorado makes me ill, and I'm a fan of keeping guns out of the hands of a rather large class of people, but this is not the way to successfully make this argument.

    Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

    by MBNYC on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:48:55 AM PDT

  •  The thing of it is, Dave the Sandman... (12+ / 0-)

    THESE few words in the Second Amendment are totally ignored by 99.9999999999% of modern Americans as though they don't exist and were never written:

    See that phrase "WELL REGULATED MILITIA"? Well, given that in the 20C state and national police forces were established, and a standing army was in place, sane minds would point out that THEY were the Well Regulated Militia discussed in the Amendment. So if a private citizen buys a gun and is not a signed up member of a regulated citizen militia group how the hell does that Amendment make any sense? And who regulates the well regulated militia?
    Our National Guard units which were supposed to be controlled by each state governor were meant to replace the lack of any "local militia" units, so technically the need for a "well regulated militia" ceased to exist when they came into being.  The National Guard units do much good when there are such things as local floods (they've been called out from two states several times to help during the spring floods of the Red River of the North), forest/prairie fires, being called out to help search for lost people, traffic control for large events, and the like..., but Dumbya & Dickie co-opted them for their illegal and unconstitutional wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  When Hurricane Katrina tore through New Orleans, many of the Louisiana National Guard troops were in Iraq or Afghanistan; they didn't make it home for several weeks/months to help their neighbors and other residents of the state (corporate Blackwater mercenaries made it into New Orleans before the Louisiana National Guard troops who were still in the state got to NOLA).

    The whole "issue" of gun ownership has become an emotional issue (and a corporate and NRA issue), not a logical issue.  Mention a "well regulated militia" in connection with the Second Amendment to anyone who has not actually read the amendments and one is looked at like multiple Hydra heads have sprouted from one's body.  They have no idea what one is talking about.

    NRA and gun manufacturers and ignorant gun owners yap about guns needed for hunting, but many ignorant gun owners fail to think through the fact that a real hunter going out to kill one deer or one antelope or one elk for edible meat to store in the family's large freezer for winter food is not going to use an AK-47 or other weapons like that: killing machines that powerful would destroy the meat and render it inedible.  All one needs is one clean shot to the head or to the heart of an animal, and then the hunter has edible meat.  Machine guns and assault rifles and the like are designed to kill massive amounts of people and it would pulverize the meat of a game animal..., those massive killing weapons are not designed for one clean shot to the head or heart of an animal used for winter meat.

    If you're looking for logic when it comes to owning guns, it won't be found in the US.

    I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

    by NonnyO on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:49:31 AM PDT

  •  What part of "well-regulated" is too complex? nt (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    glorificus, Matt Z, emidesu, awsdirector

    Don't let millionaires steal Social Security.
    I said, "Don't let millionaires steal Social Security!"

    by Leo in NJ on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 07:08:02 AM PDT

  •  GUN PROHIBITION (7+ / 0-)

    is gonna be a great thing!.

    Since the war on Marijuana has been SUCH a rousing success (marijuana is unheard of anymore, completely wiped out by America's dedicated law enforcement) as the general war on drugs has been (nobody uses drugs anymore and the Mexican cartels have been banished) , then you can imagine the bliss and quantum leap of public safety that will come when handguns (in particular) are banned and we watch a hundred million decent, law-abiding americans lining up to fork over their pieces.

    A blanket law banning handguns and 'assault-style weapons' will create a new class of criminal over night, where there were no criminals the day before.

    A LOT of Americans will NOT give up their guns and will hoard them.

    Overnight, guns will quadruple in value if not more creating a BLACK MARKET in restricted weapons.

    And if you think the war on drugs has created violence, you ain't seen shit until a black market in common guns gets going.

    Good luck.

    Note: I don't own real guns.

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 07:09:41 AM PDT

    •  Then perhaps its time to go after... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybersaur, shaharazade

      ...the manufacturing of guns - or at least specific types.

      Personally, if you want to be a Second Amendment purist and a Constitutional Originalist, I would favor a ban on the manufacture of all firearms with the exception of flintlock muzzle-loading black powder rifles, pistols and blunderbusses. Of course, you would also need to regulate the quantities of powder sold, because one with too much powder could make a bomb with it. But that's a detail that will have to be worked out.

      This is, by the way, only half-snarky. A muzzle-loading long rifle is a perfectly acceptable hunting weapon, and I don't know of too many burglers who would be willing to face down a blunderbuss.

      I vote we run Rick Scott out of Florida on a high-speed rail.

      by ObamOcala on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 07:50:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Once you restrict the availabilty (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happy camper

        the remaining guns become more and more valuable creating a black market.

        If the items remain legal the guns will drift into the hands of the monied and things might go OK.

        If they are banned or otherwise prohibited expect black market dynamics.

        The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

        by xxdr zombiexx on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 08:26:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  We aren't allowed to search containers from China (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NM Ray, happymisanthropy

      Well, Customs is allowed a Potemkin Village search of a couple percent.

      Searching containers would cost Walmart 15 seconds worth of profits, so it isn't allowed.

      So, once guns are illegal; lots of guns will be hidden in the containers that come in from China.

    •  Prohibition doesn't Work (4+ / 0-)

      Why don’t they pass a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting anybody from learning anything? If it works as good as Prohibition did, in five years we will have the smartest people on earth.

      Will Rogers

      Dick Cheney said, "Pi$$ on 'em!" And, Ronald Reagan replied, "That's a Great Idea. Let's Call it 'Trickle Down Economics!"

      by NM Ray on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:22:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent analysis (0+ / 0-)

    Thank you

  •  BTW, Darcy Burner is not just (6+ / 0-)

    a Kossack who wrote a great diary...she's also running for Congress in WA-01.

    Support her here:  ActBlue

    Visit her Campaign website

    If you took the greed out of Wall Street all you’d have left is pavement ~Robert Reich

    by k8dd8d on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 07:41:19 AM PDT

  •  Where the fuck is Homeland Security? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, shaharazade, emidesu, Recall

    Why aren't THEY monitoring the kinds of websites which sell military-weapons-grade ammunition?

    Maybe they don't care where it comes from. Maybe it suits them just fine if we kill one another, long as we don't talk bad about their bosses.

    This "adult conversation" won't start until we separate the "right to keep and bear arms" concept from the fucking "interstate commerce clause". It doesn't seem real complicated, you know?

    It is time to #Occupy Media.

    by lunachickie on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 08:06:33 AM PDT

  •  I agree with much of what you say. (0+ / 0-)

    Everything except point 3 is accurate. However, your purpose and not subtle intent behind the overall piece is faulty. It had nothing to do with firearms in fact. Point by point you're largely accurate however.

  •  If we regulate our cars then why not our guns? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade

    We live in a society that regulates and requires citizens To act responsibly and in the words of the Second Amendment "well-organized" with respect to guns.  

       This is the second time that our President has had to offer condolences to the latest horrific tragedy involving a person with a gun and over 6000 rounds of ammunition.  This time, like the last, scores of our fellow citizens are dead for simply going to see a movie where scores of innocent people go.

    Prays are nice but it is time to regulate how much ammunition goes into these guns and why we do not require like our autos, insurance, testing and renewals for gun ownership licensure on a state by state basis.

    It is time for citizens to regroup to push our public officials to stop coddling the NRA who know doubt will be out there crying a river about regulations about regulating what are weapons of WAR not just for protection or sporting.

    If we ca regulate our cars, access to prescription drugs ,our food and just about everything else we can regulate these war weapons.

    The time for hand wringing and prayer to me are over. Th e time for sensible responsible gun ownership is here.

  •  Good diary mate. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, shaharazade

    Thank you.

    Wear Your Love Like Heaven ~ Donovan

    by One Pissed Off Liberal on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 08:21:36 AM PDT

  •  Sounds Great to me... (0+ / 0-)

    but it ain't ever going to happen here.  Unfortunate but true.

  •  The "adult' conversation begins w/ Hellers briefs (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, PavePusher

    take the time to read the many well reasoned arguments  on BOTH sides
    dc v heller amicus briefs

    Our president has his failings, but compared to Mitt Romney he is a paradigm of considered and compassionate thought.

    by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 08:53:40 AM PDT

  •  NRA Board of Directors (2+ / 0-)

    It would be a great beginning if the NRA Board of Directors would gather in a crowded theater, everybody armed with a Glock, each with an unlimited supply of ammunition, and they could all begin to defend themselves. .  . .

    Anyway, at least the conversation could at least begin with a poortion of the insane faction removed from the equation!

    Dick Cheney said, "Pi$$ on 'em!" And, Ronald Reagan replied, "That's a Great Idea. Let's Call it 'Trickle Down Economics!"

    by NM Ray on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:12:57 AM PDT

  •  Know what you mean. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grover, stevej

    Guns are practically a religion to a lot of Americans. Doesn't matter that they make murders and suicides easier, doesn't matter that they make it more likely that members of Congress or their friends will die, doncha dare regulate them cuz the Bible...er, the Constitution...says I can own as many Uzis as I want!

    I don't get that level of paranoia. Then again, I live in a town with a school shooting, so I suppose to the paranoid who believe they have to have guns to protect themselves (where do they live? Iraq?) my opinion automatically doesn't matter.

  •  Pretty sure it wasn't (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grover
    Thee Ex Colonial Gunne Clubbe of America
    but instead Ye Olde Ex Colonial Gunne Clubbe of America.

    It's a common mistake.

    T&R'd.

    I want a living planet, not just a living room.

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:18:38 AM PDT

  •  gun crazies = child molesters with bullets (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DefendOurConstitution, stevej

    Got your attention, did I?

    Because that's how the gun lobby frames it.

    They equate having and using guns with teh sex. The good fun kind that surely has nothing to do with what those weird whacko loners do.

    They paint the tragedy as, well, tragic, sick and wrong - no one disagrees. And no one disagrees that outlawing teh sex would be teh bad, either... so we should not do anything over the top like regulating gun purchases, such as meaningful screenings and waiting periods.

    I can hear it now: "That would be like insisting on people being careful with who they have sex with! And you want big gummint in your racks? Well, we don't want it in our gun racks, either!"

    Except... guns aren't sex. And when sex is aimed at people, usually good things, er, transpire.

    With guns? Not so much.

    So, really this is the thing to fight - both the temptation to play into this meme (gun crazies = all gun owners) and tolerance of this meme being subtly used by people who really, really don't want anyone getting betting them and their gun fetish. Because it feels good to them.

    Hmm.. there's a way to work to this constructively but so far the NRA's been very good at playing defense with this approach: "Hey don't blame use good users of sex, er, guns, for what those child molester gun crazies are doing. We're not with them! We're good people, too!"

    And the beat goes on, with the occasional staccato jazz of the mass murder spree, and to date most lawmakers of the land like the music. A lot more than their solemn words in the wake of tragedy indicate.

    Because.. well normal people have sex. And guns. And shouldn't be punished by what weirdos do with either.

    And that's the line the keeps people in this country dying by the tens of thousands every year thanks to guns.

  •  Beautifully stated (0+ / 0-)

    Intelligent and passionate. And you a Brit. One would think that any ordinary yank, given the more immediate "motive and cue for passion" would "cleave the general ear with horrid speech, make mad the guilty and appall the free" or at least articulate our situation as forcefully as you have done. What's Hecuba to you, after all. I fear what we lack here more than adult-like sanity is imagination.

    Our great mother does not take sides, Jake. She protects only the balance of life. -- Neytiri

    by ailanthus on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:28:10 AM PDT

  •  Good diary. I've never been a fan of the idea that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DefendOurConstitution

    the Constitution is unchangeable since technology has changed so much since then, not to mention our understanding of science, biology, etc. That said, our society has become so divided into right and left, and our politics so corrupted by money that it is impossible to imagine any kind of rational amendments having a chance of garnering the two-thirds of the states necessary. Heck, we couldn't even pass the ERA, and that was  before the advent of hate radio and Fox.

  •  How many other ticking time bombs (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DefendOurConstitution

    otherwise known as people does the US harbor, one wonders? I'm about ready to hide in my mother's basement--wait, I am the mother.

    "Let's stay together"--Rev. Al Green and President Obama

    by collardgreens on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:00:57 AM PDT

  •  Geez, if the Republicans wanted gun control, (3+ / 0-)

    they would have no problem using the Aurora shooting to make it happen.  They wanted a war in Iraq and used a terrorist attack carried out by Saudis to  achieve that end.

    But no.  We won't use their tactics.  Nope.  We're not venal.  We won't use any tool available to control the widespread availability of massive weaponry.  We'll just wring our pearls as we wait for the next shooting spree to tear apart families and communities.

    Wait, why not?

    Because the gun lobby would find it distasteful to politicize this tragedy.  It seems not to have occurred to them that by issuing that statement they have politicized this tragedy. Or that some of us may not care what they find distasteful.  

    I find twelve deaths far more distasteful than politics.

    "I cannot live without books" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1815

    by Susan Grigsby on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:10:13 AM PDT

  •  One of Washington's first acts was gun control (4+ / 0-)

    when he disarmed the farmers who participated in the "Whiskey rebellion."

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

    In October, Washington traveled west to review the progress of the military expedition. According to historian Joseph Ellis, this would be "the first and only time a sitting American president led troops in the field".[91] Washington met with the western representatives in Bedford, Pennsylvania, on October 9 before going to Fort Cumberland in Maryland to review the southern wing of the army.[92] Convinced the federalized militia would meet little resistance, he placed the army under the command of the governor of Virginia, Henry "Lighthorse Harry" Lee, a hero of the Revolutionary War. Washington returned to Philadelphia; Hamilton remained with the army as civilian adviser.[93]
  •  Heavily armed citizenry: ultimate check & balance? (0+ / 0-)

    For all the arguments against private arsenals, there's a school of thought that holds the Second Amendment to be a kind of constitutional "check and balance of last resort."

    Undeniably, the Founding Fathers and framers of the U.S. Constitution were deeply distrustful of power concentrated in the hands of any one individual or institution.

    Rightly or wrongly, many Americans believe a corollary of that distrust extends to the notion that, if government should ever try to place itself beyond the reach of its citizens — as some would argue it is doing now, through unprecedented secrecy, plutocracy, and surveillance — citizens must retain the possibility of waging civil war.

    The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war.

    by lotlizard on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:38:21 AM PDT

    •  Puppies. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DefendOurConstitution, Anak

      Regulations on puppies.

      Did you know that it is harder to bring a Canadian puppy across the border (or a six pack of (or a six pack of Kinder Surprise Eggs) than it was for this man to buy his ammo online?

      My sister in law raises dogs.  She was taking a puppy across the border (from Canada to the US) to go to a friend's in Colorado, no less.

      She (and I) were delayed at the border for approximately an hour while we filled out paperwork for the puppy. Was it a commercial enterprise? No.

      Did the 10 week old puppy have papers for rabies shots? No. Puppy was too young for rabies shots. Vet's certificate of health? Check.

      OK.  Fill out this form for Homeland Security.  Done. What's the new owner's street address? Ah, there isn't one? She lives in the middle of nowhere in Colorado.

      Some weeks later, the person we took the dog to, a friend of ours, got a phone call from Homeland Security.  In Los Angeles.

      To make sure the puppy was quarantined until it got a rabies shot.  Which was easy because they live in the middle of nowhere, or as I like to call it, in Bum$#@%, Colorado.

      Point of the story? There are regulations governing a rabies shot for a 10 week old puppy.  Not so much for online ammo.

      That's nuts.

    •  Multiple recent successful revolutions have (0+ / 0-)

      occurred in countries where the general population was overwhelmingly outgunned by their government. And if weaponry were the only thing that mattered in the balance of power, all the hand-held firearms in the world wouldn't suffice in America or most countries.

      The founding fathers knew of the mutually corrupting influences of Church and state, wisely sending them to opposite corners.

      by emidesu on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 11:35:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Only works if people can identify with each other (0+ / 0-)

        … and with the general population in other places near and far — ordinary common people like themselves who are being oppressed.

        Are Americans still capable of doing, say, what the Tunisians did? Could Americans rally the way Tunisians did, seeing themselves and their own lives reflected in the life and death of an ordinary street vendor?

        Aren't all too many Americans willing to believe their leaders and media every time a whistleblower, protester, etc. is portrayed as a criminal, a random loser, a disturbed person whose suffering and death is meaningless?

        At the moment it seems almost trivially easy to manipulate a majority of Americans into ignoring, dismissing, or ridiculing any person or group the government targets — even applauding the killing of same without the slightest semblance of due process.

        The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war.

        by lotlizard on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 12:34:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'm one of those fools who thinks the day (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PavePusher

    may still come when liberals are going to be the ones who need guns for self-protections.  I suppose I'm too nuts for some of you, but I really worried for a while there, back in 2006, when Bush wanted to get rid of the filibuster rule, that we were getting to the point where democracy in this country failed.

  •  great points but adult conversation is not allowed (0+ / 0-)

    RW radio does not allow it- i posted a diary on this this morning here:

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and partisan lying by broadcasting sports on Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 12:11:20 PM PDT

  •  adult or not (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Recall

    (I agree with you both for different reasons, Darcy was right to broach this topic), I won't quibble over words...

    I don't think that the intent of the Founders was to leave us the victims of outmoded or ineffectual ideas. The Constitution and its provisions are both a foundation and a means of structural guidance, but it was never meant to remain static. It is a living organic document that should be modified or amended to the needs of each subsequent generation. Maybe I give the Founders too much credit, but that's what I hear in their words. ;)

    "In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer."- Albert Camus

    by valadon on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 12:44:39 PM PDT

  •  THANK YOU!! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, DefendOurConstitution, Anak

    Somebody ship this to the NRA. They need to wake up and so do we!

    Rmoney: says it all. Children have imaginary friends; adults have gods.

    by glbTVET on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 01:00:44 PM PDT

  •  I'm sure our friends in the RKBA community (5+ / 0-)

    will be chiming in any minute with their sensible centrist plan to show us The Way Forward...

    •  Yup, talk about mental health, talk about our (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Recall, Anak, pot

      culture that glorifies violence, attack people as un-patriotic or because they are trying to take away their rights, but never NEVER talk about regulation.

      I do believe that mental health and the glorification of violence are very important topics that need to be discussed, but there is no reason why we cannot strive to make improvements in those at the same time as we seek to improve (not eliminate as we will never do that) the horrendous numbers of deaths we tolerate in this country because of gun violence.

      Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

      by DefendOurConstitution on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 01:45:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Let's also remember (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Recall, Anak

    the First Amendment is not unlimited, you may not yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre and maintain you were exercising free speech. The protections of the Second Amendment are similarly limited, both within the language of the amendment and in rulings that have happened since.

    Second Amendment Purists hate that Fire in a Crowded Theatre analogy, btw. Just wanted to share that with the group.

  •  we need adults to have an adult conversation. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Recall, martinjedlicka, Anak

    (meaning we need adults in Congress, not bribed lackeys)

    For-profit gun manufacturers are driving the conversation. If gun manufacturers and their paid allies, the NRA, were interested in having a conversation, we would have had one decades ago.

    If reality, not profit, was driving the conversation, then we would have passed and not blocked laws on eliminating the gun show loophole (blocking felons from buying guns); mandatory gun safety courses; waiting periods; limits of 1-2 gun purchases per month ("only" 12-24 guns per year). Instead, we see massive gun sales in low-regulation states (e.g. Virginia) by people who live in or drive to high-regulation cities and states.

    No one needs or wants to "take your guns away". We just need sane gun laws instead of the Wild West fantasy.

    •  Not a single one of those proposals is sane. (0+ / 0-)

      In fact, it's a veritable grab bag of bureaucratic nonsense.  And it's one that a growing majority in Congress and state legislatures has decided not to pursue.

      IF you want to negotiate, then come up with something reasonable enough to appeal to the majority.  I suggest you stop fixating on the instrument and consider ways to prevent gun violence by other means.

  •  Here's where I am: (0+ / 0-)

    The largest divide in the U.S.A. is the rural-urban divide on gun control. They are simply completely different mindsets however you choose to define them, and they will never be brought together. You will NEVER convince my rural neighbors they can't own guns. And you will never convince an urban dweller that a gun is anything other than something used to shoot other people. The mindsets are irreconncilable, and there is no grey area that doesn't 'aggrevieve' someone.

    These times--when a mentally ill person uses guns to kill other people--it enflames emotions. Making grand sweeping pronouncements about what should be done should be considered in the manner they are made: an emotional one.

    Further, I know this is true: Gun owners in America will never allow their guns, gun rights, and ability to buy guns to be taken away or lessened, and how you or I feel about that makes no difference. Having said that, we GOTTA do something to stop the mentally ill from going berserk with guns. This massacre thing has got to stop.

    How did we get here?

    .

    "The better I know people, the more I like my dog."

    by Thinking Fella on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 02:04:04 PM PDT

    •  My response (0+ / 0-)

      re: Emotional wave and conversation. Yup....that was what some donkey from the Cato Institute linked to the NRA tried on Piers Morgan earlier.

      My response is a little more abrupt but essentially the same. Cobblers!

      The very time to discuss these matters is now - the reason being the real proper time for discussion was before the incident

      Its never a convenient time as far as the NRA and RKBA crowd are concerned, so its damn well time to drag them screaming and kicking to the table.

      re: "Further, I know this is true: Gun owners in America will never allow their guns, gun rights, and ability to buy guns to be taken away or lessened, and how you or I feel about that makes no difference."

      Wrong again mate. Previous gun laws, now fallen away, controlled assault rifles and high capacity mags for example. The oft used "Oh but its just an insurmountable problem" bleat is one of the most half assed cop outs there is. A reason to stick your head in the sand and hope johnny gun nut doesnt shoot you in the ass.

      And as for the last part... which is mightier - the gun or the ballot? You have a voice and a vote. Use it and stop being a cheese eating surrender monkey ;-)

      re: "Having said that, we GOTTA do something to stop the mentally ill from going berserk with guns."

      Y see.... mentally ill. There you go getting distracted again. This is NOT an issue about mental health.... it is an issue with joe shmos being legally able to buy and stockpile guns and ammo.

      And personally, I think if you own an assault rifle you are mentally ill by default.

      Thanks for the input tho mate...... have a good one.

  •  Very well said. Thanks for this n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DefendOurConstitution

     

    An investment in knowledge pays the best interest. -Benjamin Franklin

    by martinjedlicka on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:42:40 PM PDT

  •  The bill of rights (0+ / 0-)

    is something more than a generic amendment to the constitution.

    Not that they themselves are immutable but they are something more than an idea tacked on alter. Like prohibition.

    And quite frankly it is 100% impossible in modern America or likely any future version to remove one of these rights from the constitution.  

    Talking  about an amendment to do this, while technically possible is simply crazy talk and is an indicator the you, yourself are not yet serious about the topic.  

    •  Errrrr (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DefendOurConstitution

      In your own response you disprove the point you make

      The passage of the Volstead Act meant that the Constitution was amended to include a total prohibition on the sale of non medicinal alcohol. Once the Act was repealed the relevant amendment was also repealed and struck down. So the Constitution can be re-amended as society demands.

      The wording of the 2nd is at best outdated and to argue otherwise is ridiculous.

      It can and should be revisited.

      While you are at it you could also revisit the wording of the 1st Amendment as well. Free practice of religion should be worded to include non religion as well given 1 in 5 US citizens now profess no religious affiliation. Again, a "law" written in a time that is far distant temporarily and socially than the country it now serves.

  •  Thanks for the Diary. So many people want an eithr (0+ / 0-)

    /or solution- either eliminate all guns and make them illegal, OR do nothing to change the status quo where so many (deadlier and deadlier as the cheaply available technologies can allow shooting more rounds faster) guns are so easily accessible to people they shouldn't be.

    I must say that either is dangerous.  Making guns illegal would certainly create a tremendous criminal enterprise just to take care of the demand that will not go away.  Just look at how well Prohibition worked and the consequences it brought.  Continuing the status quo is also madness, but it is more likely due to the grip the NRA has on most Congress-critters and state legislatures.  It is madness because it is leading to making it easier every day for people that should not put their hands on a firearm - the internet makes it so much easier that straw purchases (which still continue untouched, in states like GA and VA, to take these "legal" guns to New York/CT/MA) may soon look like a quaint idea.

    If we do not find a way to reach reasonable regulations on firearms, we will be faced with choosing between maintaining a civil society or the readily accessible firearms, we really can't have both.

    To the people that think that nothing short of outlawing all firearms and to the people that think that any regulation on firearms is an unacceptable violation of their constitutional rights there is nothing that can be suggested that will be reasonable.  For the rest of us I propose reasonable, national (it has to be federal/national because the mish mash of laws that exist is exactly what makes it impossible for any state to truly regulate firearms) regulation.

    Here are what I consider reasonable regulations (that IMHO do not violate the Second Amendment):
    1) People that want to purchase and maintain firearms must obtain training
    2) These people must pass an exam proving that they can use guns they intend to purchase safely and get a license indicating so
    3) All purchases need background checks and there is a database of who owns what gun/serial number (clearly the definition of who should not have access to a gun will be contentious, but that can be worked out)
    4) Pass the assault weapons ban permanently and outlaw any clip/magazine/semi-automatic that can be used to turn many guns into automatic weapons (for all intents and purposes).

    Now I don't see how that "infringes" on anyone's Second Amendment rights, but the gun fetishists (even the ones among us) will insist it does because to them this is an issue that is so sacred that they are willing to destroy anyone that opposes them (just like the "right to life" people).

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 06:06:26 AM PDT

    •  Simpler suggestion. (0+ / 0-)

      How about these as a start point to add to yours

      Hunting rifles = OK
      Hand guns = OK
      Sporting style long barrel shotguns = OK

      Assault rifles = banned
      Shorty shotguns = banned
      extended/drum mags = banned
      fully auto weapons = banned.
      Riot style CS/smoke cannisters = banned
      Ammo stockpiling = banned

      Gas masks & body armor = regulated and registered.

      thoughts?

  •  "adult conversation" and "GOP": oxymoron (0+ / 0-)

    For a party that exists on LIES, FEAR and CORPORATE MONEY as its sole weapons, the uncontrolled and illimited proliferation of guns has nothing but upsides! It's GOD SENT!

    This is a party that doesn't tolerate any form of dissidence within its ranks (votes 100% together against Obama 99 times out of 100). A party that promotes little government intrusion BUT quite enjoys forcing others to adopt their beliefs, and that will ha,mer relentlessly on the same few nails until they get their way, one way or another.

    Is there any reason why we could ever envision any type of adult conservation with such people?

  •  Even more salient now, post-Sandy Hook. Thank you. (0+ / 0-)
JD SoOR, Grassroots Mom, Ed in Montana, buffalo soldier, Sylv, Alfred E Newman, Alma, Terri, TXdem, sagesource, filkertom, rfunk, Radiowalla, itsbenj, tundraman, texaslucy, NYCee, Trendar, glitterscale, irmaly, madmsf, BigOkie, PeterHug, Emerson, TheGreatLeapForward, just another vet, LynChi, Pescadero Bill, mlharges, CleverNickName, GayHillbilly, lxxf, dsb, frsbdg, StevenJoseph, Sandy on Signal, frisco, RFK Lives, SallyCat, expatjourno, bookbear, goObama, madhaus, Paulie200, geordie, kissfan, alain2112, tarminian, busternjake, opinionated, tyler93023, bronte17, TracieLynn, sponson, CanadaGoose, cskendrick, wonkydonkey, annrose, nyceve, susakinovember, twcollier, Loquatrix, Ian S, Agathena, CoolOnion, stevej, PBnJ, mrblifil, Aquarius40, pedrito, Boston to Salem, Fe, ceebs, poe, splashy, sidnora, Brit, Eddie C, revsue, Texknight, SneakySnu, kharma, dejavu, TexDem, CitizenOfEarth, pat bunny, VinBacchus, johanus, agincour, yet another liberal, DSC on the Plateau, penguins4peace, houyhnhnm, Catte Nappe, RuralLiberal, liberte, annetteboardman, lcrp, riverlover, Sembtex, lyvwyr101, valadon, llellet, bibble, thereisnospoon, Gowrie Gal, davidkc, historys mysteries, marina, 3goldens, greycat, caul, tRueffert, OpherGopher, Technowitch, Alice Venturi, Simplify, Thorby Baslim, sandrad23, YucatanMan, Laurence Lewis, Dem In VA, reflectionsv37, boofdah, eru, owlbear1, where4art, lcbo, GreyHawk, lotlizard, Prison4Bushco, Hastur, Isara, CSPAN Junkie, Shotput8, Ginny in CO, Lisa Lockwood, Cory Bantic, peacestpete, xanthippe2, kathny, Oye Sancho, ChuckInReno, esquimaux, althea in il, Keone Michaels, Kingsmeg, vigilant meerkat, cybersaur, aloha and mahalo, Mr Bojangles, hungrycoyote, liberalconservative, mooshter, Dvalkure, smokeymonkey, deha, luckydog, Marcus Tullius, kck, Lefty Coaster, blueoasis, Alexandra Lynch, triv33, global citizen, twigg, gpoutney, The Hindsight Times, Rosaura, gooderservice, SadieSue, Preston S, middleagedhousewife, democracy is coming, CA Nana, zeke7237, Stripe, shaharazade, crystal eyes, Tom Anderson, NonnyO, pat of butter in a sea of grits, One Pissed Off Liberal, old wobbly, pgm 01, john07801, BeninSC, Polacolor, pfiore8, Habitat Vic, Cat Whisperer, weneedahero, devis1, gloriana, LillithMc, semioticjim, Matt Z, Dave in Northridge, certainot, glbTVET, davehouck, HCKAD, gfre, mdcalifornia, quadmom, SeaTurtle, jhop7, uciguy30, GeorgeXVIII, journeyman, leonard145b, skod, Ralphdog, craiger, rmonroe, VA Breeze, JDWolverton, rogerdaddy, eternallyvigilant, Justus, TheFatLadySings, mamamedusa, Tchrldy, NewDealer, grumpelstillchen, wagdog, Sharon Wraight, Therapy, royce, NYmama, smartdemmg, dagolfnut, No Exit, elpacifico66, emidesu, BYw, Bongobanger, DavidW, lissablack, statsone, squarewheel, ZhenRen, oldliberal, Fiddlegirl, satanicpanic, prettygirlxoxoxo, Rhysling, Florene, McGahee220, rubyclaire, mjkellett, bsmechanic, zephyr108, Sarge in Seattle, IndySlip, DefendOurConstitution, aunt blabby, moonbatlulu, elziax, dskoe, IreGyre, MichiganChet, sfarkash, vadasz, angel d, citisven, Nannyberry, Leftcandid, collardgreens, JaceInVA, Hunter Huxley, Clyde the Cat, Ajipon, commonmass, David PA, stegro, eXtina, little lion, SmartRat, Susan Grigsby, stunzeed, on board 47, Crabby Abbey, Anak, sunny skies, Kristina40, ramara, DrTerwilliker, ericlewis0, eclecta, cocinero, CA Berkeley WV, Oh Mary Oh, nosleep4u, verdeo, indubitably, theKgirls, no way lack of brain, Onomastic, Mike08, snapples, angstall, yellow cosmic seed, kerflooey, meralda, oldmilitant, StateofEuphoria, Bob Duck, slowbutsure, implicate order, Teknocore, InRainShadow, Nicci August, SoCaliana, skip945, page394, CoExistNow, boophus, marleycat, zukesgirl64, grannysally, Cinnamon Rollover, Jasonhouse, awsdirector, pwn3rship society, muddy boots, floridablue, EagleOfFreedom, CherryTheTart, MRA NY, marianevans, whoknu, enhydra lutris, peregrine kate, Calvino Partigiani, chira2, Marihilda, bloomin, SoCalSal, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, rscopes, dradams, DRo, truthhurtsaz, caryltoo, allergywoman, Only Needs a Beat, StonyB, Siri, teachered, MikeyB33, David54, Rob Morse, S F Hippie, surelyujest, 420 forever, FloridaSNMOM, Ginger1, FreeSpeaker, Yonkers Boy, congenitalefty, Horace Boothroyd III, joeschmeaux, martinjedlicka, chicagobleu, ricklewsive, lunachickie, Margd, Kayjay, databob, Robynhood too, ProfessorWho, Abelia, kiga, TheLawnRanger, Rosedale, Lily O Lady, Panacea Paola, Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN, semiAdult, Dancun74, countwebb, Herodotus Prime, Late Again, quince, glorificus, ggfkate, howabout, bob152, Smoh, peterfallow

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site