Skip to main content

Lots, and lots, and lots of "discussion" on the 2nd Amendment here at Daily Kos after the Aurora shooting. As usual, those who are the most emotional about the topic were the most-heard from.

While we may never reach a consensus as liberals about what the 2nd Amendment says, doesn't say, allows, doesn't allow, I thought it worthwhile to list what the 2nd Amendment DEFINITELY DOESN'T ALLOW, meaning that these are items/activities not covered by the 2nd Amendment. I'm not saying the list doesn't include rights not specifically mentioned or enumerated in other places in the Constitution, or whether or not they are covered by "natural rights", but that they are definitely not in the 2nd. Perhaps you will consult this list prior to the next flame war, and consider not bringing any of these into the next 2nd Amendment discussion.

The 2nd Amendment does not:

1) Grant anyone the right to hunt.

2) Allow you to shoot someone, or use a firearm or other weapon in any way, to defend yourself.

3) It does not allow you to "stand your ground" in the face of danger.

4) It does not allow you to shoot trespassers on your private property.

5) It does not allow you to conceal-carry.

6) It does not allow you to own a cannon, ordinance, a nuke, or anything else that an individual could not reasonably "keep" from use by others, and carry (bear).

7) It does not expressly (dis-)allow you to purchase arms in a (private) public transaction.

8) It does not prevent local, state, or federal governments from requiring that you register guns you own.

Any questions? Disagreements? We're talking literal here, not "so-and-such court case found this and perhaps that could apply to #6." Also, it makes no difference that the NRA would probably argue every point; they're just wrong.

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

  •  Well, do you expect the least "emotional" to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bud Fields, gfv6800

    speak up?

    Of course people who have strong feelings about an issue will involve themselves.

    This is, of course, the difference between republicans and human beings. - Captain Frogbert

    by glorificus on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 09:14:26 AM PDT

  •  The second amendment prevents (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eataTREE, Bud Fields

    Government from requiring that gun owners have a permit to own a gun about as much as the first amendment prevents government from requiring that protesters have a permit for an organized demonstration.

  •  No questions, just disagreement. (0+ / 0-)

    I so disagree with you, Scalia, and other "originalist/ literalist" interpreters of the Constitution that I'm not even going to work up a lather about it.

    I guess you agree with Scalia that the Constitution provides no basis for a right to privacy -- and that includes contraception and abortion -- or equal protection for women.

  •  I agree with your broad statement (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GoGoGoEverton

    Essentially, both sides were wrong in DC v Heller - Scalia's sophistry is embarrassing, but the argument that the 2nd Amendment constitutes a collective right exercisable in the context of a militia ONLY is clearly also wrong.

    In my view, Heller was decided correctly, but for the wrong reason.  It was arbitrary to deny Heller his licence.  It had nothing to do with the substance of the 2nd Amendment.

    As you say, that all is beside the point.  The question is whether the 2nd Amendment allows regulation of the ownership of weapons, guns, different kinds of guns, ammunition, registration, etc.  And there, the clear answer is:  Yes, it does.  The limit of the 2nd Amendment is where the Federal government denies the States the factual ability to raise militia.

    γνωθι σεαυτόν

    by halef on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 11:33:53 AM PDT

  •  Aurora - Denver shootings (0+ / 0-)

    Fact of the matter is, these shootings occur with enough regularity to make them sickening. I lived in Canada for 3 years and the USA for 2 and ten years ago wrote a thriller which had gun control at its core in the same way that Grisham's The Chamber focused on the death penalty.

    In that ten years we've seen Columbine and numerous other incidents.  They can happen too in the UK. Andy Murray, our top tennis player, was a Dumblane school shooting survivor. Then just last year we had an even worse massacre in Norway, which has fairly strict gun laws. So the bottom line is: if a nutcase really wants to get hold of a gun for a wild shooting spree, they can.

    What I addressed mainly in The Second Amendment was the easy availability of guns which can turn an average Satuday night bar or neighborhood argument more deadly when guns are too readily available. That's where the majority of the 10,000 killings a year in the USA stem from.

    In the UK this year, our total murder rate was just over 600. About the same as a city like LA, but we have population of 65 million. So something is working.

    I was pleased to see that Haiwaii has quite a low murder rate compared to 25 years ago, and that has largely come about through year by year stricter gun control.

    Of course, the age old argument put up against this time and time again by the NRA and GOA is that you can't mess with The Second Amendment - which is true. It's in the Constitution.

    But it struck me that The Second Amendment, with its main purpose to provide an efficient private national militia for defense, was not strictly adhered to. Far from it. And that's where the core thesis at the heart of the book, The Second Amendment, plays its part and starts to have wings.

    So much so that when I reissued the book on kindle, I was urged to take it to the next stage, which I've now done. You might want to check it out.

    http://www.indiegogo.com/...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site