Skip to main content

Some elements of our fine Constitution outlive their relevance and service to our country. The Second Amendment ("the right to bear arms), is one of them.

A radical idea? Yes. Beyond reason and logic? No. And not unprecedented. But first a disclaimer. Those who drafted the Constitution, and Bill of Rights were bright, thoughtful and creative. It is a document which has served our nation well for over 200 years. But, having said that, it is not without flaws and weaknesses – and the Second Amendment in particular, is the subject of numerous interpretations and challenges.

But beyond the confusion of the Amendment, there are several other excellent reasons to repeal it. Among those are the enormous changes in America since Colonial time; changes in the American character the past several hundred years; and weapon development. All are worthy of consideration. But, first the Amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

While simple and succinct in it drafting, its brevity is also the subject of a wide range of interpretations. Those who support strong gun control claim the Amendment has strict limitations. As recently noted in a NY Times editorial: “The Supreme Court has made clear that the right to bear arms is not absolute and is subject to regulations and controls. Yet the NRA clings to its groundless arguments that tough regulations violate the Second Amendment. Many of those arguments serve no purpose other than to increase the sales of guns and bullets.” The NRA, of course, claims there are no limitations as to ownership, type of weapon, or purpose of use.

But the fact is the Amendment is subject to vague interpretation. Indeed, since it was adopted in 1791, it has been the subject of over 31 Federal court cases of various kinds. Six in U.S. District Courts; 19 in U.S. Courts of Appeals; and 6 which ended up in the Supreme Court. To describe the outcomes of these cases alone proves the confusion surrounding the Second Amendment – but suffice it to say, it presents a situation that will never be fully decided, and will remain a source of confrontation probably forever. Unless…it is repealed.

While the confusion of the Amendment is reason alone to suggest its repeal, the better reason is the enormous change in our nation since the “right to bear arms” was first adopted. America in 1789 (when the Second was first drafted) had a population of about 2.5 million, not including slaves or Native Americans.  Less than 1 percent of our population today. It was a rural country – the largest city was Philadelphia with 40,000 inhabitants. The rural inhabitants, while mostly farmers, also used their arms to shoot game – not as today’s sportsmen do, but to put food on the table. And the reference to a “well regulated  militia” clearly was related to the fact that we had just fought a brutal war of independence, with a tiny standing army, and a dependence on multiple state militias.

Admittedly, repeal itself would not stop the bloodshed of recent mass murders, but that still does not address its relevance today. Our forefathers could never have imagined back then, densely packed cities with many times the entire population of 18th century America. How could they imagine an area like the South side of Chicago with its thousands of gun injuries this year alone?

They never foresaw the push westward…the multiple frontiers…the effect on the American character as it developed from the homogeneity of the Colonists. They never had an opportunity to consider the molding of the “new” American character as the early settlers pushed into frontiers that were wild, untamed, and without established laws. And obviously they did not ever imagine the development of individual weapons capable of killing dozens in barely a moment.

All these factors: the massive increase in population; the urbanization of our country; the changing character of our citizens over the centuries, and the increasing devastation of weaponry have also changed the dynamics of an Amendment written for the conditions of the 1700’s, but still in play today. It is clear that the Second Amendment is an anachronism in today’s world; a part of our Constitutional rights which has outlived itself.

Further, our Founding Fathers would almost certainly not object to modification or even repeal of the Second. Indeed, they made provisions for just such a possibility. Since 1791 when the Amendment was adopted, there have been a total of 27 Amendments to that great Constitutional document. Moreover, repeal itself is not unique or precedent breaking. In 1933, the Twenty-first Amendment did repeal the Eighteenth.

While we try to believe the Constitution is sacrosanct, it is in fact a “work in process” –and repealing the Second Amendment would serve our country well in the 21st Century. Such repeal could also include retention of those types of weapons we would all likely agree on: such things as rifles for hunting, pistols for target shooting, certain approved security reasons for owning weapons etc. But it would end forever the argument that virtually anyone… can own any weapon…of any devastation… for any reason…because of some vaguely defined “right” granted two centuries ago.

Originally posted to myles spicer on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 10:55 AM PST.

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


The "right to bear arms" as described in the Second Amendment is...

53%135 votes
46%116 votes

| 251 votes | Vote | Results

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

  •  I agree that amending the Constitution (15+ / 0-)

    is the way to deal with interpretations of the Constitution by the SCOTUS that the people disagree with.  

    However, I have a better chance of winning the PowerBall than you have right now of getting a supermajority of the Congress, and three-quarters of the States to agree to amend the Constitution by repealing the Second Amendment.  

    For those who support gun control, time is FAR better spent in pursuing the kind of reasonable regulation that the Heller decision specifically acknowledged could be done by legislation.  

    •  Sure, go for the low-hanging fruit (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cal2010, Buzzybill, Sharon Wraight

      but that is no reason not to have a movement to repeal the second amendment. Most gun crimes are committed with handguns, not with assault rifles.

      A movement to repeal the second will move the Overton window and change what seems "reasonable".

    •  So Do Both (9+ / 0-)

      Why can't we do both?

      (1) In the short term, pursue bans on assault rifles, bans on high-capacity clips/magazines, tightening the gun show loophole, and other minor regulations on gun ownership; and

      (2) In the long term, work towards full repeal of the Second Amendment.

      It doesn't have to be either/or.

      •  That's the logical route. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cal2010, Sharon Wraight

        Do both.

        But, as with all negotiations, we need to stop compromising before it even begins. The Feinstein bill, for instance, is too weak. Put something stronger down, at least as strong as Australia's enormously successful ban, and go from there.

        It's too frustrating for words that the Democrats only offer what they think they can get, while the Republicans demand far more than they ever dreamed of getting, and all too often succeed at that.

        In short, if you want to save a million acres of wilderness, demand two million. Don't ask for 50,000. etc. etc.

      •  Here's why that is not helpful (5+ / 0-)

        Right now, I think there's still a majority of this country that thinks people should be able to keep hunting rifles and regular handguns some people keep in their homes, etc. for self-defense.  

        The biggest tool that those who are against gun regulation have is the scare tactic:  "They want to take away your guns!  They want to take away your hunting rifle!"  Right now, if you accept Heller focus on the reasonable regulation allowed by Heller, that argument rings hollow.  Most people understand the difference between an assault weapon and  a hunting rifle, and most people understand that agreeing to regulate assault weapons does not mean you are "coming after" their hunting rifles and handguns.  

        If, however, you do any push for a total repeal of the 2nd Amendment at the same time that you are trying to regulate guns (as Heller allowed), then you give credibility to those people who are yelling, "they want to take away your hunting rifles!!!"

        You will just push people into the other camp.  Pushing for a total repeal of the 2nd Amendment will hurt, not help, efforts to regulate guns.  

        •  But handguns are the real problem (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Many more people are killed each year by handguns with low-capacity clips/magazines than are killed with assault rifles or other guns with high-capacity magazines. The "reasonable regulations" that people are discussing won't do anything to prevent those deaths.

          If we really want to stop gun violence (instead of just preventing the next school shooting), we need to ban handguns. And the only way to do that is to repeal the Second Amendment.

          •  That is simply not possible now. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, misslegalbeagle

            And trying to push for it will hurt any chance of accomplishing what is possible now -- i.e., addressing assault weapons.  

            So, you can engage in a completely futile push to repeal the Second amendment -- which would allow government to "come after" (in the words of the opposition ) hunting rifles, and, in making that push, kill the currently realistic possibility of addressing assault weapons -- or you can focus in the near term on what is possible now - addressing assault weapons -- and forego a completely futile fight that will do nothing but hurt your chances of addressing assault weapons.  

            •  Nowhere in the diary does he say "now". (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              This is a 20-30 year battle. Many worthwhile causes take that long, or longer.

              There are many things we can and should do in the meantime.

              Working on the long-term repeal or amendment will also provide impetus for these shorter-term regulations.

              Repealing the 2nd Amendment does not ban guns. It allows for the responsible regulation of them.

              Join us at RASA: Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment. (Repeal will not ban guns, just help regulate them.)

              by Sharon Wraight on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 10:02:59 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  I won't live to see it (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Buzzybill, Sharon Wraight

        but many movements for change take more than a lifetime. Let's begin.

        We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

        by denise b on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 04:43:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Amen (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sharon Wraight, denise b

          I.F. Stone once said that the only battles worth fighting are the ones you're going to lose.  Because those are the battles that ultimately make a victory possible.

          I am so sick of people who otherwise agree with me (and, I might add, the majority of the country), but then say, "Oh, we can't win, so let's not try" or "Oh, we can't win, so let's just do this little thing instead" or (in the case of Democratic politicians) "Oh, we can't win, so let the Republicans have their way."  It's crap and its got to stop.  Otherwise, I'm looking for a new party.

          Repealing the Second Amendment DOES NOT mean you're looking to take anyone's guns away.  It just allows for proper regulation and restrictions on certain weapons without the added burden of having to get past the NRA and SCOTUS.  Everybody is agreed that you, personally, don't have a right to own a nuclear bomb.  Right there, that renders the Second Amendment essentially meaningless.  If its about "defending myself against my government" as the gun nuts always claim, then you MUST have the right to own any weapon they do.  Of course, that was never what the Second Amendment meant.  But, so long as its there, you're never going to convince the a-holes and idiots of that (let alone Scalia and company).  Get rid of the damn thing and we can have a reasonable discussion and pass reasonable regulations without sacrificing the issue to the NRA before the battle's even begun.

          And I still say--with so many issues that need--lets call it a new clarity--that the way to go is to bypass congress entirely.  The Constitution allows for that, you know.  Lobby the states to call for a Constitutional Convention.  While it's true that route has never been used, I think the effect--as the possibility begins to become possible--is that the Washington bubble people will fear losing their power and might actually swing into action.

          In any case, its certainly a fight worth having.

          "Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will."—Frederick Douglass

          by costello7 on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 09:28:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Do the people disagree with it? (0+ / 0-)

      I don't think there's majority support at all for ending all gun ownership.

  •  2014 (6+ / 0-)

    Here is the list of democratic senators who will be up for re election in 2014 from rural, gun owning districts.

    I'm sure that the GOP would LOVE to have them vote on YES on repealing the second amendment or really any gun control measure before 2014.

    Maybe if we push something like you are proposing they can get a veto proof majority for repealing Dodd Frank, Lilly Leadbetter, the Affordable Care Act. Hey maybe they can even repeal Roe.

    Rep. Shelly Moore Capito has already announced she will run to try to take Rockefellers seat.

    Mark Begich – Alaska

    Mary Landrieu – Lousiana

    Jay Rockefeller – West Virginia

    Mark Pryor – Arkansas

    Tim Johnson – South Dakota

    Kay Hagan – North Carolina

    Max Baucus – Montana

    Mark Udall – Colorado

    Tom Harkin – Iowa

    •  Do you think it could happen before 2014 ? (8+ / 0-)

      I'm guessing the repeal would take some time , would happen if it happened at all , after the 2014 elections .

      Freeing the slaves took time .
      Civil rights took time .
      Votes for women took time .
      etc etc etc

      "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

      by indycam on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 11:11:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's a bs scare tactic (7+ / 0-)

      and not a productive one. I agree completely that pushing to repeal the 2nd is a dumb idea but we can take this opportunity to pass sane, reasonable, responsible gun control legislation without threatening our hold on the Senate. The NRA and the rest of the gun lobby may be powerful but they aren't as powerful as they are perceived to be and they lose power every time they open their dumb extremist mouths.

      We can and should do reasonable, responsible regulation and now is the time.

      "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

      by Andrew C White on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 11:14:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And Justice Scalia specifically acknowledged in (8+ / 0-)

        Heller that some responsible regulation of guns would be constitutional.  

      •  The minute you (6+ / 0-)

        go for the whole enchilada, you'll lose the middle ground--where most people are on this--who feel like "sane, reasonable regulation"  is where the conversation should start.

        If the NRA had their way, they'd arm every teacher in this country and would swear up and down it would make us all safer. That's pretty much a polar opposite of "repealing the Second Amendment".

        Extremism in any form is a conversation-stopper when we desperately need to have a reasonable, national conversation about this.

        It is time to #Occupy Media.

        by lunachickie on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:17:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exact-a-mundo n/t (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Vayle, misslegalbeagle

          "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

          by Andrew C White on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:53:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Why? (0+ / 0-)

          Extremism on the right hasn't stopped anything.  In fact, its gained them tons of political ground while still a minority.  We have been saying for nearly a decade that the GOP is killing itself by moving so far right and demanding purity and being nucking futs.  But, in truth, it never happens.

          Look at this specific issue.  LaPierre does his song and dance of how the answer to gun violence in schools is more guns in schools.  Face-palms all round.  He's loony tunes.  Tone deaf.  Whatever.  Two weeks later, politicians are tripping over themselves in an effort to be the first to fully arm their faculty.  After the next school massacre, LaPierre will call for arming all six year olds.  We'll all call him a loon.  Surely, no one will take that seriously.  And two weeks later, as God is my witness, states will be arming their six year olds.

          You can't defeat extremism in the modern age with reason.  By their very nature, THEY aren't reasonable.  Or modern media is built on the premise that there is no objective truth or reason, just two competing arguments.  And the independents buy into that frame 100%.  If we, in the face of extremism, stake out a reasonable position, we are surrendering ground to the other side before the fight's even begun.  That's why, ultimately, no matter how many Democrats we elect, the Republicans always get their way.  If you stake out a reasonable position at the outset, you've already lost.

          "Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will."—Frederick Douglass

          by costello7 on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 09:41:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  all the more reason (0+ / 0-)
            Extremism on the right hasn't stopped anything.  In fact, its gained them tons of political ground while still a minority.

            Extremism on the right
            has its own built-in mouthpiece, promoting its nonsense regularly on the nation's information infrastructure. That's how a "minority view" takes hold in the public domain.

            Extremism on the left is regularly demonized by that mouthpiece. You know that. Don't give them a reason to help shut down the discussion. That is exactly what they want you to do.

            Repealing the Second is equivalent to "They're Coming For Your Guns!" in the minds of those people. You start feeding their hysteria and it's going to escalate into the equivalent of a shouting match. And then the "middle"--where everyone else is--will start tuning out.

            And then we'll be right back where we started, until another Sandy Hook happens.

            Mission Accomplished on the part of 'extremism'. NO MORE.

            It is time to #Occupy Media.

            by lunachickie on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 07:27:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Go ahead, be (0+ / 0-)

              By staking out a "reasonable" position at the outset, you ensure that the resulting "compromise" will be legislation that will allow more guns resulting in more deaths.  The "compromise" you will end up with will be that Democrats agree that teachers should be armed and Republicans will agree that arming 6 year olds, while not a bad thing, will not (yet) be allowed.  That's where your "reasonable" position will get you...further from common sense regulation than before.

              Have you not been paying attention?

              Let the gun nuts think we are coming for their guns.  That way, should we reach a point where the resulting "compromise" is limiting gun clips to ten rounds, the gun nuts will feel they've won.  By starting from a "reasonable" position that we'd like to limit gun clips to 10 rounds, we'll end up with a "compromise" that's worse than the status quo.

              The only way to achieve a real compromise is to start off equadistant to the goal.  If Rethugs are starting on their one yard line, we have to start on our one yard line in order to finish somewhere near the 50.  You want us to start off at the 40 yard line.  Doing that ensures that we'll finish up on their 30 or so.  The compromise, from those starting positions, is a position of even less regulation and even more guns.  That's how it works.

              The idea of arming teachers should NEVER have been seen as a legitimate point of view.  But it is because that's how our media ia built.  It's not the media's "Conservative bias", it's their "fairness bias".  Starting out with an equally extreme position--and, in this case, that WOULD be banning all guns--the media will present both proposals (theirs and ours) as equally valid.  And then you'll get a compromise that's truly a compromise.

              I'm going to repeat this point.  Outside of Faux Noise and Fat Limbo, there is NOT a conservative bias in the media.  The media, by and large, has a "fairness bias".  They will present each side's argument and position as equally valid.  It only seems to you that there is a conservative bias in the media because Democrats continually try to stake out a "reasonable" position--a center ground.  When both starting positions are--essentially--right wing positions (far right vs. center right), the "fairness" obsessed media is, of course, going to come off seeming conservative.  Because there is no liberal position on the field.

              I remember back in 2004, there was a blind box test for determining which candidate you most lined up with.  Everyone I knew who took that test--from hard right to hard left--ended up closest to Dennis Kucinich.  No one who took the test finished anywhere near Bush (we later tried to answer the questions in a way to get near Bush and you basically had to hold the position that you would kill your entire family, gleefully, to make an extra penny).  By that test, it was clear (and all subsequent data supports this) that--on pure policy grounds--the liberal position is the majority position.  But, because the Rethugs always stake out an extreme right position and the Democrats always stake out a "reasonable" or center-right position, the media (in its thirst for "fairness") paints Kucinich as the outlier and the public at large (including Democrats) accept that frame as true.  Kucinich might indeed be the outlier in the Washington bubble, but his positions are/were actually the mainstream.

              Through unilateral disarmament, arguing for a "reasonable" position, Democrats continually ensure that the end "compromise" will be right wing policy.  Arming teachers ought be seen as extreme.  But it hasn't been.  Why?  Because the Democratic "reasonable" position isn't that far off.  If the opposing sides are "arm everyone" and "ban all guns", then the public at large will, in fact, see both positions as extreme and we can both move toward a reasonable compromise.  If we start at the 50 with the Rethugs on the one, their position doesn't look so extreme and what we'll be left with is likely no new gun regulations and a trial period of arming teachers.  Why?  Because the framing by the media is going to be that either both arming teachers and common sense regulation are extreme or both positions are rational and equal.  Fairness bias in action.

              The right has staked out a ridiculous position.  We have, as of now, staked out a reasonable position.  I don't know if you've noticed, but THEY are winning the argument.  Feinstein's bill is already as dead as a doornail.  In fact, because Dems have started from a reasonable position, there is no chance whatsoever that the massacre at Sandy Hook will result in ANY new regulations of any kind.  Having started with a reasonable proposal, we'll be extremely lucky not to lose even more ground to the gun nuts in the final "compromise".

              "Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will."—Frederick Douglass

              by costello7 on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:27:50 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It is (0+ / 0-)

                time to have a sensible discussion. It is NOT time to lay claim to a radical position which turns people off altogether and stifles such discussion.

                Nevermind all the sensible people in the middle who want such a discussion, you just keep on with giving the gun nuts fuel for the "They're Coming For Your Guns" meme. Let us know how that works out for you.


                It is time to #Occupy Media.

                by lunachickie on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:58:19 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You can't have a reasonable discussion (0+ / 0-)

                  with unreasonable people.  We know how your proposal works out.  We've been trying it for four years.  Thirty, if you want to be honest about it.  You stake out a "reasonable" position.  Rethugs stake out a crazy position.  And the ensuing "compromise" is a Republican position.

                  It's not even just the most recent Congress.  It's history.  The AFL got nowhere until the IWW got involved.  The AFL went to the big business owners and said "It's either us or them, and those Wobblies are crazy, yo."  Suddenly the AFL became mighty appealing to big business.

                  What you're suggesting isn't a reasonable discussion, its pre-emptive surrender.  YOU let US know how THAT works out for you.  On second thought, don't bother.  I've seen that movie too many times already.

                  "Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will."—Frederick Douglass

                  by costello7 on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:23:06 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  ??? (9+ / 0-)
    To describe the outcomes of these cases alone proves the confusion surrounding the Second Amendment – but suffice it to say, it presents a situation that will never be fully decided, and will remain a source of confrontation probably forever.
    As opposed to the kajillion** cases concerning the meaning of terms like due process and equal protection?

    ** "Kajillion" is not a strict legal term; it encompasses all sums from one million through one bazillion.

    •  How many " reasonable search and seizure" cases (7+ / 0-)

      have made Scotus?

      I mean, sure, the Founders probably didn't envision the AR-15, but I can't imagine they'd already figured out Forward Looking Infra Red.

      If we're striking the Second, why not the Fourth?

      Been the source of much more litigation.

      •  Because the 4th is worth keeping. It is a (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Smoh, diomedes77, ExStr8, poco, PinHole

        political right that has a positive purpose that helps keep government from acting in a tyrannical manner. People should be safe from unreasonable search and seizure. Would that people would fight half as hard to protect the 4th as they do the 2nd.

        •  They wouldn't. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          high uintas, PinHole, Buzzybill

          Most law-abiding folks would assume they have nothing to worry about from the police.

        •  This (0+ / 0-)
          It is a political right that has a positive purpose that helps keep government from acting in a tyrannical manner.
          is exactly the same argument that the other side makes about the 2nd.

          Just sayin'.

          •  Not now (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sharon Wraight

            In Colonial times, we wanted arms to prevent a "tyrannical government" -- but then there was no standing army. Now we have a massive standing army, and preventing a tyranccal governemt will not come from armed civilians -- it will be at the ballto box. And our democracy has proven that this will work. We got rid of Nixon in a governmental crisis -- and no one got shot...there was no bloodshed in the transistion...and everything worked out just as it was supposed to in our democratic system. There is no place for militarily armed civilians in the 21st century America

            •  The anti-federalists wanted to be armed against (0+ / 0-)

              the government. But they also opposed the constitution. And they lost. Or changed their minds. Like Jefferson. Do you think for a moment Jefferson would not have used forced to suppress a rebellion like Washington did? (The Whiskey Rebellion)? Jefferson sent the Navy half way around the world without consulting Congress because he believed as President he had the power to do so. Does this sound like a man who distrusted government power?

          •  But it is not the argument of lawyers. The current (0+ / 0-)

            legal thinking about the 2nd is that it protects your right to self defense against an intruder. The 4th amendment forbids the government from intruding. You do not have a 2nd amendment right to shoot a police officer who is illegally searching and seizing. The 2nd amendment does not protect you from the government. Only criminals and those who seek to do you physical harm.

            Try using the 2nd amendment as a justification for shooting a cop. Even if the cop is in the wrong house. Or does not have a warrant.

        •  Counter... (5+ / 0-)

          If you're innocent, you don't have anything to worry about.

          Yes, people should protect their rights, including the second.
          Advocating repeal is irresponsible as it sets us up on a slippery slope for those other 'questionable rights' we're all supposed to cherish.

          Free Speech.... heh who needs that? It's just archaic, outdated and outlived as a value to our nation after all...

          -6.38, -6.21: Lamented and assured to the lights and towns below, Faster than the speed of sound, Faster than we thought we'd go, Beneath the sound of hope...

          by Vayle on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:32:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No it doesn't. Think about abolition. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            poco, a2nite, Sharon Wraight

            We ended slavery. But that didn't put the Constitution at risk. It didn't start a slippery slope toward taking away other "rights".

            And, remember, most slave holders felt they had "the right" to own slaves. "Property rights" was their battle cry, right through the Civil War.

            The 2nd amendment is dangerous, deadly and outdated. It serves no purpose other than to protect pieces of metal from sensible, sane laws, and to protect gun manufacturing profits.

            It must go to the way of the dodo.

            •  And your position is simply not going to work. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lunachickie, RonV, misslegalbeagle

              What we can achieve and should do is implement good law and regulation again.

              If you scream this while others scream do nothing, and we don't get the support we need for good laws and regulations to happen, then nothing will get done and those screaming repeal will have helped those who said do nothing in the process.

              Nothing will be perfect, but we can achieve better laws right now. Keep on thinking as you are without acting on the possible, and see how far you get.

              Answer = Nowhere.

              And that will be a failure for the entire country.

              -6.38, -6.21: Lamented and assured to the lights and towns below, Faster than the speed of sound, Faster than we thought we'd go, Beneath the sound of hope...

              by Vayle on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:53:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You don't understand the Overton Window (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cal2010, Buzzybill, Sharon Wraight

                You move it by always demanding more than you think you can get.

                If you ask nicely for what you think the other side might give you, you play their game and you remain on their side of the playing field.

                If some groups are pushing for an all out repeal, while some push for very strict bans and tough regulations, that makes the "liberal" position appear "reasonable."

                That shifts the Overton Window.

                Now, I'm not saying this because I want just the "liberal" position to win. I don't. I want full repeal and then extremely strict bans and regulations that eventually take all guns off the streets, except for single shot rifles. Hunting and target practice, with single shot guns, get exceptions. But nothing else.

                What I am saying is that with strong pressure from those of us to the left of liberal, the liberal position becomes "the center" and is then far more viable.

                If, OTOH, the liberal position is seen as the farthest leftward edge of the possible, then the right wins. Gun advocates win. The NRA wins. The center moves to the right.

                •  While you work Overton, I'll work on reality. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  RonV, misslegalbeagle, dewley notid

                  How did I know the Overton excuse was coming...

                  Again though, while you worry about the moving the window, I'll help pick up the fractured glass on the ground that is our current law and regulation for gun control and maybe even assist in to get something tangible done that may not be perfect, but that makes sense and will help people, and keep them a little safer...

                  And I'll do so without advocating that people's rights should be removed.

                  -6.38, -6.21: Lamented and assured to the lights and towns below, Faster than the speed of sound, Faster than we thought we'd go, Beneath the sound of hope...

                  by Vayle on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:16:33 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It shouldn't be a "right" in the first place. (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    cal2010, a2nite, Buzzybill, Sharon Wraight

                    It never should have been enshrined separately in law. Alone. Given it's own special place.

                    To protect pieces of metal?

                    Why no "right" to safe food and water, a clean environment, housing, clothes, education or healthcare?

                    Why no "right" protecting our access to life's essentials?

                    The absence of those "rights" greatly diminishes the credibility of the Constitution in my eyes. Setting aside a right for pieces of metal nearly destroys its credibility.

                    Why compound the error by holding fast to 18th century views, put down on paper by a few white males, most of whom owned slaves?

                    •  Shouldn't be right? That's your opinion... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      dewley notid, VClib

                      ...and most people don't and won't support that view.

                      We can and we should make better laws regulating gun ownership. You can scream it and declare it all you wish that 'it should not be', but it is and that is what we have to deal with.

                      -6.38, -6.21: Lamented and assured to the lights and towns below, Faster than the speed of sound, Faster than we thought we'd go, Beneath the sound of hope...

                      by Vayle on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:25:05 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I think most people would support it, if (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        cal2010, Sharon Wraight

                        they learned the truth about guns, and the fact that America is alone in making the bearing of arms a special right.

                        Most Americans don't know we are virtually the only nation with such a separate right.

                        And they also don't know that the gun lobby, the NRA and the even more odious GOA have managed to make it all but illegal to conduct gun science research in the NIH and the CDC -- if it leads to the suggestion of gun control.

                        Dozens of states now make it illegal for doctors to ask patients about guns in the home, even though that drastically increases risk of homicide, suicide or accidental death.

                        Most people would be in favor of repeal if they realized that repeal wouldn't prevent gun ownership. It just means that those inanimate objects would no longer have set aside, special rights.

                      •  And I'm still waiting for you to respond (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        S F Hippie, Sharon Wraight

                        to the fact of the total lack of any "rights" being granted for life's essentials.

                        Again, why nothing about those essentials, while pieces of metal, which are totally unnecessary to our life or well-being, have separate, special rights?

                        Why no response to that?

                      •  Most people on DailyKos support repeal of 2nd Amnd (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        Let me say it again: most members of DailyKos support repeal of the Second Amendment, and their support is gaining in strength and public expression.

                        This is a long-term battle. No-one suggests it will happen in this Congress, or the next, or the next, or even ten Congresses from now.

                        Repeal of the 2nd Amendment does not mean banning guns. Americans will still have the right to own guns (and cars, and puppies, and radical literature, and bibles, and bubble-gum) even after 2A is repealed.

                        The argument that the 'NRA will push back' or that if we push too hard it will 'strengthen the NRA' boggles my mind.

                        So we progressives should not have pushed for the repeal of segregation laws in the 1950s and 1960s, because Boll Weevil Democrats (and Nixon's Southern Republicans) would push back?

                        We shouldn't have pushed for environmental laws and practices in the 1960s-70s (and thru now), because the Chamber of Commerce would push back?

                        We shouldn't have pushed for women's right to choose, or LBGT rights, or separation of church and state, because the Christian Right would push back?

                        We shouldn't have pushed for healthcare, because it would strengthen the insurance lobby?

                        We shouldn't push for sound banking regulations, because it will strengthen Wall Street?


                        Join us at RASA: Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment. (Repeal will not ban guns, just help regulate them.)

                        by Sharon Wraight on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 11:11:11 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Well said. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          BvueDem, Sharon Wraight

                          Repeal is necessary, warranted, sane and sensible. As you mention, it doesn't mean a ban on guns. It just moves them into the category with all other inanimate objects, where they belong, so they can be regulated in sane, common sense ways. Once there, there is no more confusion, and the absurd idea that these pieces of metal deserve the protection of the sacred is no longer in place.

                          We then can regulate them in accord with public safety and national health.

                      •  As long as people like you place the 2nd amendment (0+ / 0-)

                        above the lives of innocent children. Because that is what you are doing by refusing to allow a debate on the usefullness of the 2nd amendment. So was the 13th amendment a mistake?

                    •  Because the constitution is a set of negative (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Neuroptimalian, VClib

                      Rights...things the government can't do.  Our constitution has never been a list of things people are entitled to.

                      •  The 2nd amendment is an entitlement. (0+ / 0-)

                        It says Americans, in order to support a well-regulated state militia are entitled to bear arms.

                        Of course, at the time of the amendment, they limited this to white males. But that's another story.

                        It's also factually inaccurate to say the Constitution is solely about negative rights. Article One, Section Eight, spells out a host of things the government can do, like tax and spend as it sees fit, regulate commerce as it sees fit, make treaties, print money, etc. etc. In fact, it says that ONLY government can do these things. Far from being only about negatives, about what government can't do, it is a very proactive document, one that sets up a very powerful central government.

                        Again, just take a look at Article One, Section Eight. Think about the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause.

                        Think also about the two times it talks about providing for the general welfare.

                        •  dio - until the 1930s some items you mentioned (0+ / 0-)

                          such as the power to tax and spend, and regulate commerce were viewed by the SCOTUS through the prism of limiting the federal government to its enumerated powers. The General Welfare Clause was viewed as  "do no harm" rather than allowing the federal government to provide broad social services.

                          All of these elements of the Constitution have been debated since the drafting stage and continuously since. Numerous Supreme Court Justices have taken radically different views on these subjects over the past two centuries. The Second Amendment is no exception.

                          "let's talk about that"

                          by VClib on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 07:25:22 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Cites please. If you are going to make this (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            argument please provide examples. The 2nd amendment has not been controversial until the late 1960s when gun control was passed. Look at Heller. Scalia left a lot of room to regulate in that decision by holding that the 2nd amendment was about self defense and the "well regulated miliita" was a simple prologue. You can own a hand gun for self defense but after that the government can regulate.

                        •  And as for guns be protection against government (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          diomedes77, Sharon Wraight

                          look at article 1 section 9 and the circumstances under which habeas corpus can be revoked. IE invasion or rebellion. A bunch of armed people marching on the capital can be detained without charge for an indefinite period of time. Does not sound like the founders appreciated armed mobs.

                      •  Check the 9th amendment. (0+ / 0-)

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

                        We have rights beyond what is in the constitution. The constitution assumes certain rights and privileges will be honored by the government without having to name them. The extent of those rights is to be worked out by courts and legislatures.

                  •  Overton is the new eviscerated on dkos. Nt (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Puha ekapi
                  •  And I suppose you supported the rights of people (0+ / 0-)

                    to own slaves when the constitution said they had the right to own slaves. Or you supported denying women the right to vote and would oppose that amendment also. people in this country have had a lot of rights to do wrong things. Like slavery. Prohibition was constitutional for a while. There was doubt that Prohibition could have been called off. If everybody thought like you no one could enjoy a beer. I also suppose you would have opposed the Federal Reserve and the income tax.

              •  Do you think the 13th amendment was popular in (0+ / 0-)

                any part of the country? If we wait for things to be popular we will never get anywhere. People need to be persuaded. But if we do not start persuading people we will never get there. Go see the movie Lincoln and then tell me about waiting for the people to catch up.

            •  That's not a valid comparison. (0+ / 0-)

              Owning a slave flagrantly infringed on the rights of the slave. Owning a gun doesn't infringe on somebody else's rights. It's only USING a gun AGAINST somebody else that infringes on their rights.

              •  The slave had no rights. The slaveholder (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sharon Wraight

                did. It was his "property rights" at stake. Which was the cover used by the right-wing libertarians of that time to secede.

                Today's right-wing libertarians conveniently forget their ideological ancestors, glossing over and turning the tables on what "property rights" meant back then. They are beyond disingenuous. Those "property rights" also included stealing land from Native Americans and creating contracts to give this "legal" support.

                BTW, yes, your gun ownership infringes on our rights to live in safety and peace. Your gun radically increases the risk of death to others and to yourself, in your home, on the street, and makes it easier for criminals to obtain guns. Your purchase sets in motion more gun making, more circulation of guns, the very high risk that criminals will steal that gun from your home or take it from you on the street.

              •  In your opinoin. Others have though differently. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sharon Wraight

                And at times a vast majority of the country thought differently. Maybe people will view the 2nd amendment differently too. But it took a constitutional amendment to get rid of slavery. And an unpopular one at that.

                This country has an ugly history and we have much to be ashamed of. Ignoring that history changes nothing. If I own a ton of fertilizer explosive I am not infringing on your rights. Unless I use it or there is an accident. So why can't I own my fertilizer explosiveness? Is that not an infringement on my rights?

                From the Jamestown colony until the 1960s it was well accepted that black people did not have rights. No one though that a flagrant violation of the rights of black people in anywhere approaching a majority opinion. In 1948 Democrats walked out of a Democratic convention that dared to claim that blacks should have equal rights. Most civil rights legislation of the 60s needed Republican support because so many Democrats opposed it.

                Well times changed. And they continue to change. And as Democrats survived as a party after civil rights were passed so can we survive a post 2nd amendment America.

        •  Correct. The 4th is. The 2nd isn't. (4+ / 0-)

          It's a strange argument when some say if you repeal one, that means you have to repeal all. Or that you might repeal all.

          Sensible, intelligent people look at the merits of each, and decide each one as it is. Do they fit the world we inhabit today? Do they fit the future? Are they dangerous, immoral, wrong?

          That's how we ended slavery.

          Using the illogic of gun advocates, abolition put all the other amendments at risk.

          •  You know. Many people own guns. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RonV, dewley notid

            Most people are not the gun nuts that get characterized either. they are responsible people and they take proper care of those weapons.

            I learned how to shoot. Possessed a gun for several years. I know how to maintain a weapon, and how to keep it safely.

            It's funny how reasonable people think they sound, when they are advocating the removal of rights from people and using safety as the crutch.

            I suppose we should all celebrate Patriot Act day and enshrine it as a national holiday, because our rights were reduced and that reduction in rights is regularly renewed. Sure, just because one group thinks the second amendment is archaic and in the way, that doesn't mean no one else will think some of those other rights are just as archaic and meaningless and pointless now.

            That could never happen... sure.

            -6.38, -6.21: Lamented and assured to the lights and towns below, Faster than the speed of sound, Faster than we thought we'd go, Beneath the sound of hope...

            by Vayle on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:02:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It never should have been a "right" in the (6+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poco, PinHole, cal2010, mattoqp, a2nite, Buzzybill

              first place.

              It's a stupid, dangerous idea.

              We don't have the "right" to safe food, clean water, a healthy environment, shelter, health care, etc. etc. . . . but we have one for pieces of metal?

              That's insane.

              To me, it's not "taking away" any right that ever should have been enshrined in the first place.

              Logically, morally, rationally, if anything were to be granted the status of "rights", it should have been clean, safe water and food, a non-toxic environment, shelter, clothes, health care, a good education, etc.

              Not pieces of metal. Not guns.

              Again, that's just insane.

              •  Sure...Never shoulda been a right. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                RonV, dewley notid, Neuroptimalian

                That free speech thing...what were they thinking. That was just crazy nutjobs...

                Not having to submit to search and seizure, hah - crazy! Anyone innocent has nothing to worry about. Talk about loons.

                Reality...It is the second amendment and we have to deal with it no matter who wishes it wasn't there or thinks it was crazy to put it there in the first place.

                Advocating the removal of rights? Go read the Patriot Act and come back and tell me how much you support it.

                -6.38, -6.21: Lamented and assured to the lights and towns below, Faster than the speed of sound, Faster than we thought we'd go, Beneath the sound of hope...

                by Vayle on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:19:33 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's not a package deal. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cal2010, mattoqp

                  It's not all or nothing.

                  Come on. You're being ridiculous, if you think wanting one repealed means all of them have to be, or might be.

                  It's not an indivisible, sacred whole. It's a living document, which we've changed frequently over the years and will change again.

                  And, again, I'm against the Patriot Act as well as against the 2nd amendment.

                  For that matter, I think the 10th is destructive, even though it has been overridden by the 14th. But it still causes confusion among those who think the Civil War needs to be re-fought.

                  •  Sure...Sure... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    dewley notid, Puha ekapi

                    No one would ever try to tamper with all those other amendments that you happen to agree with.

                    As I said. I will not support reduction/repeal of rights.

                    We disagree.


                    -6.38, -6.21: Lamented and assured to the lights and towns below, Faster than the speed of sound, Faster than we thought we'd go, Beneath the sound of hope...

                    by Vayle on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:41:00 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  How many rights were removed by constitutional (0+ / 0-)

                  amendment? The right to own slaves? Is that a burden on your sense of freedom? You have been denied the right to deny your wife the right to vote? Is that a burden? The people is their wisdom denied you the right to have a drink. And then gave you back that right. The constitution has been changed 27 times. And the loss the of the 2nd amendment will not make you un free. Unless you define yourself totally by you weapons.

              •  dio - when the Constitution was written (0+ / 0-)

                issues like clean, safe water and food, a non-toxic environment, shelter, clothes, health care, and a good education were not topics of discussion for those drafting the constitution. Some local governments were involved in education but no one thought that government at any level should be involved in the lives of its citizens to the extent that it would provide the basic necessities of life. Those were the responsibility of individuals and families, not government.

                FDR talked about a Second Bill of Rights that addressed some of your issues, but it never received and political traction.

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 07:30:55 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You've never read Thomas Paine, then. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sharon Wraight

                  Lotsa people actually did think government should help provide for the necessities of life. Much of what Paine wrote about was to say that it should help improve the quality of life for all citizens, that this was its duty, especially given the horrific working conditions in the private sector. Including slavery, child labor, indentured servitude.

                  Remember, they didn't have any regulations on those things back then. No 40 hour week. No overtime. No vacation or sick pay. Bosses had virtually unlimited power over their employees, and their employees included very young children. Many people were forced to work for ogres to pay off family debts.

                  Paine and others wrote about the need for us to work collectively to eradicate such practices, to make sure no one went hungry or homeless. They advocated for a government that would act on our collective behalf, as opposed to one that would advocate for the rich, the aristocracy, or the church.

                  I think you're seeing the past through the lens of modern conservatism. In reality, there was far more belief in a strong Commons and the duty of government to help citizens back then than conservatives want to admit to. They and their libertarian cousins have read back their own wishes and desires into the past, and the evidence doesn't support them.

            •  You fight each fight indvidually. That will tell (0+ / 0-)

              us much about who we are as a people. Like our refusal to protect children from gun violence tells us much about who we are as a people. Is your right to own a shotgun worth seeing a child murdered with a semiautomatic weapon. Because that id the fight the way the NRA is shaping it. With the NRA it is all or nothing. Do not talk to me about reasonable gun safety regulations that protect peoples rights, talk to the NRA. Stand your Ground extended the Castle doctrine to the public street. Anyone can be gunned down anywhere and the shooter has a defense. So if the victim can be made to seem unsympathetic the shooter can walk free. Is that in keeping with a tradition that banned dueling before the year 1800? Or a tradition in the West that banned concealed weapons and required one to surrender his gun when he rode into town?

    •  Isn't that spelled: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Andrew C White, Smoh, The Magus

      Brazillion? (Somewhat sorry for recycling an old GW Bush joke...)

      "I was so easy to defeat, I was so easy to control, I didn't even know there was a war." -9.75, -8.41

      by RonV on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:01:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Only one brazillion? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I'll bet we'd find more than one brazillion on the south carolina portion of the Appalachian trail alone!

      "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

      by Andrew C White on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:20:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The 2nd amendment is not (16+ / 0-)

    going to be repealed.

    It is also not going to be further amended.

    So let's lay that fantasy aside and talk about what realistically can be done, ok?

    We can ban assault weapons.

    We can bad high volumes magazines.

    We can close the gun show loophole.

    And there are other things that can realistically be done and have the support of the majority of the population.

    Let's not fuck this opportunity up by fantasizing about something that

    A) can't realistically be done
    B) isn't a good idea in the first place
    C) will be rejected by the vast majority of the people



    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 11:12:08 AM PST

    •  We can attempt to repeal and in the process learn (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      about who we really are as a people. Do we really believe in peace and justice. Or are we bullies who lie to the rest of the world. How can we lecture other nations when we demand the right to kill each other with impunity (Stand your Ground). We are in the eyes of the world the worst of hypocrites and we have forfeited our right to tell any other nation about its business.

      •  For everything there is a season (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PinHole, coffeetalk

        the season for attempting a repeal of the 2nd is not now.

        Now is the season for enacting sensible,  reasonable and achievable regulations of unnecessary weaponry.

        Perhaps some time in the future once it has been shown that reasonable gun regulation isn't a threat to freedom or safety and in fact enhances both a conversation can be had about amending the 2nd to something more in tune with the times we live in rather than its antiquated purpose and wording.

        "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

        by Andrew C White on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:08:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The time to do both is now. If we delay a (0+ / 0-)

          conversation about guns we delay the issue. What if when the surgeon general's report on smoking was released we decided to wait for a better time to talk about the goal of a tobacco less society. We would still be a nation where 60% of adults smoked a pack a day. And nothing would be done about second hand smoke. There is much to compare between the debate on smoking and the debate on guns.

          I just did a close reading of the Heller case. And it seems to me that under Heller the protected right is a right to self defense and those weapons that can be reasonably be said to have self defense purposes. If this is the case then should not Congress put this to the test and create a list of weapons suitable for self defense and ban everything else. It seems allowable under Scalia's reasoning.

          We need to closely read the law and the decisions of the court and test the issue in the same manner as the prolifers in the state legislatures are doing. Scalia did not find a right to own weapons, only to own weapons for self defense. That seems to mean that a very large number of weapons can be banned under current law. And the fact that we fail to ban these weapons un needed for self defense like semi automatic weapons means we lack the political will to curtail the gun nuts.

          •  I'm very much in favor (0+ / 0-)

            of implementing reasonable and responsible regulation of unncessary weapons right now. I think that should be the immediate goal along with removing the ban on money for studies on gun violence and gun safety issues so that we can understand what further measures can be taken down the road to create an even safer society.

            I think talk of repealing the 2nd is silly, premature and probably very counter productive at this time.

            "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

            by Andrew C White on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 12:54:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  wrong (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharon Wraight

      Virtually every amendment to the constitution has found objection and resistance. Yet we did it 27 times. Additionally "repeal" is not unprecidented -- it has been done before with the 18th.

      •  Not wrong (0+ / 0-)

        attempting to repeal the 2nd right now would not find anything close to the appropriate and necessary support amongst the populace and would likely kill any chance we have at the very real reforms that can be had now.

        Also, there are many real and valid reasons for people owning guns so repealing the 2nd is not necessarily even a good idea.

        Lastly, there is a huge difference between the 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights and the remainder of the amendments and even the original document itself. I think you would find major resistance to change a single word contained in the original 10 amendments.

        I do think at some point it might not be a bad idea to try but I strongly disagree that now is the time. Now is the time to get the regulations passed that we can get passed now and not to fuck it up by overreaching.

        "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

        by Andrew C White on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 12:59:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No-one says to repeal 2A now. It is a 20-30 yr job (0+ / 0-)

          No-one says we should try repeal 2A "now" -- it is a 20-30 year undertaking. But we should begin organizing towards it, now. This is not over-reaching.

          Doing so will help the chances at very real reforms now, not 'kill' them. Ever hear of hardball politics? Play it -- against the NRA, not in support of it.

          Repealing 2A does not mean banning guns. Good lord, how many times must this be said? People will own guns for real and valid reasons forever, after 2A is repealed (or amended).

          There is resistance to any major change. Since when does resistance make a policy wrong?

          I'm glad you think it "might not a bad idea to try" and repeal 2A at some point -- come on in, early, the water is fine! See my diary below, on just a few of the many lengthy steps that will be needed -- and please add your own! :-)

          Join us at RASA: Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment. (Repeal will not ban guns, just help regulate them.)

          by Sharon Wraight on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 02:34:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry... I think it is a bad idea (0+ / 0-)

            doomed to failure and likely to do more harm to the cause of gun control then help. I could be wrong of course but that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

            "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

            by Andrew C White on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 04:13:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Oh... and in answer to your question (0+ / 0-)

            "how many times does it need to be said"

            I think you will find that it needs to be said in every conversation you ever have on the subject and in most of them said more than once... which exemplifies part of why I think it is a very bad idea at this time.

            "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

            by Andrew C White on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 04:16:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  The 2nd amendment is (8+ / 0-)

    one of the biggest obstacles, if not THE biggest, to keeping thousands of Americans from being killed by guns every year. I would love to see it repealed, but doubt that will happen in my lifetime (I bet it will be one day in the future though). But we can make some positive changes that could happen more quickly than repealing it would take.

  •  While we are at it, might as well switch (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vayle, RonV, misslegalbeagle, VClib

    to the metric system. Repealing the 2nd Amendment and introducing the metric system are on the same level of political achievability, after all.

    For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

    by Anne Elk on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 11:28:30 AM PST

    •  You're not helping (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      atana, Smoh, Buzzybill

      Repealing the Second Amendment will always be politically unachievable if well-meaning people -- who favor repealing the Second Amendment -- keep saying that it's politically unachievable.

      •  My saying that you can't pole vault to the Moon (10+ / 0-)

        does not realistically make it any more difficult.

      •  That's the same argument for voting green (7+ / 0-)

        if everyone would vote green then green would win!

        Uh... yeah.

        Meanwhile back in America people aren't going to vote green enough for them to break the two party hold on politics and people aren't in support of repealing the 2nd amendment in sufficient numbers to repeal it... even if those in favor of repeal all stood up and said so.

        "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

        by Andrew C White on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:23:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry, but I was making the point (0+ / 0-)

        that Americans have put up with a lot of dumb things over the years, and that in fact seems to be an abiding value. They distrust change, even apparently good change. I am not saying it can't be done, but the evidence is not good.

        For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

        by Anne Elk on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:48:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

          And I didn't mean to be too critical of you. Your post just made a statement about the difficulty of repealing the Second Amendment, which I fully agree with.

          My problem is with the people who tell me that I shouldn't even raise the idea of repeal, because it will supposedly prevent "reasonable" gun regulation from being enacted. I disagree for a number of reasons. First, gun control supporters need people like me to balance out the "no regulations ever" crowd on the other side. Second, I don't believe in concealing my true beliefs and wishes. And third, I don't think the "reasonable" regulations that are being discussed will do much to prevent the majority of gun violence (we can ban all of the assault rifles and high-capacity magazines in the world, and thousands of people will still die each year from bullets shot from handguns with low-capacity clips/magazines).

    •  Pretty much an impossibility. (0+ / 0-)

      We, as a society, will accept some changes like that, but we will never go from pounds to kilos or gallons to liters.   Food weights and soda bottle volumes are the best we can hope for in our lifetimes! Celius is totally not going to happen!

      "I was so easy to defeat, I was so easy to control, I didn't even know there was a war." -9.75, -8.41

      by RonV on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:13:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I never said it would be "easy" (9+ / 0-)

    Trust me, UNLESS we at least hold out the threat of repealing the Second, we will never:
    get effective gun control
    weaken the NRA who uses it as their touchstone
    solve out nation's high murder rate, one of the wors in the world
    put America on the path to a sane reduction in gun crimes

    It is highly unlikely, but so are a lot of things our nation needs -- and yet we push, try and make the effort. Many many countries outlaw weapons or control them...why not us????

  •  Slavery, women voting, prohibition of alcohol ... (9+ / 0-)

    All kinds of things that didn't seem possible have ended up in the Constitution. Nothing is impossible except for the willingness to do the hard work it requires.

  •  Play the repeal the amendment game... (8+ / 0-)
    Some elements of our fine Constitution outlive their relevance and service to our country. The Second Amendment ("the right to bear arms), is one of them.

    A radical idea? Yes. Beyond reason and logic? No. And not unprecedented. But first a disclaimer. Those who drafted the Constitution, and Bill of Rights were bright, thoughtful and creative. It is a document which has served our nation well for over 200 years. But, having said that, it is not without flaws and weaknesses – and the Second Amendment in particular, is the subject of numerous interpretations and challenges.

    Now, replace the bolded text above with...

    The First Amendment
    The Third Amendment
    The Fourth Amendment
    ...and so forth

    See, times have changed, and the founders did not intend free speech to be what it is today...

    See, times have changed and the founders never knew how important station soldiers would be, to protect people, from others and even themselves...

    See, times have changed and the founders never knew that things would be like they are today. Besides, if you don't have anything to hide, then search and seizure won't harm you...

    No thanks on 'repeal'. Try some reasonable laws for control and regulation. Anyone who advocates giving up rights, or advocating others give up rights, especially in exchange for safety is no better than those who supported the Patriot Act.

    If you never supported the Patriot Act, but you support this, then maybe you really were OK with the Patriot Act after all.

    Think long and hard before advocating giving up rights as an exchange for so called safety.

    Those who would exchange their liberty for such safety deserve neither liberty or safety.  ~ Guess Who said something like that, and the original quote is of course the best one...

    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    ~ Benjamin Franklin
    I guess Mr. Franklin just never knew how things would be today, huh...

    -6.38, -6.21: Lamented and assured to the lights and towns below, Faster than the speed of sound, Faster than we thought we'd go, Beneath the sound of hope...

    by Vayle on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 11:43:36 AM PST

    •  If you think guns bring security and liberty (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cal2010, a2nite, Buzzybill, Sharon Wraight

      , you are sadly mistaken.

      Guns in the home make it three to five times more likely that you will be killed by a family member or a friend, or kill them. It makes it five times more likely that you or someone in your home will commit suicide or die accidentally. And if you're a woman, it makes it more than ten times more likely that you will be killed.

      And people who carry guns on the streets and get attacked? It increases their chance of being killed -- using the gun they carry -- by a factor of nearly five.

      That's not what Franklin had in mind.

      •  Don't put words in my mouth and then preach to me (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dewley notid, Neuroptimalian, VClib

        about what you decided I said.

        Read my other posts before getting all preachy based on assumption.

        -6.38, -6.21: Lamented and assured to the lights and towns below, Faster than the speed of sound, Faster than we thought we'd go, Beneath the sound of hope...

        by Vayle on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:03:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You quoted Franklin on security and liberty. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sharon Wraight

          The obvious context was guns and the 2nd amendment. Unless you're talking about something else unrelated to the diary.

          I didn't put words in your mouth. I just read your post.

          •  Your little diatribe most certainly did. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dewley notid

            Go read the Patriot Act and then tell me how much you support our reductions in rights based on that document.

            I do not advocate the reductions of rights, even the second amendment, as a means to achieve 'safety'.

            -6.38, -6.21: Lamented and assured to the lights and towns below, Faster than the speed of sound, Faster than we thought we'd go, Beneath the sound of hope...

            by Vayle on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:22:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm against the Patriot Act and the 2nd (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              a2nite, Sharon Wraight


              I see the first as taking away rights that are essential, detailed in the 4th. I see the 2nd amendment as a stupid, unnecessary, foolish and insane amendment that endangers all of us.

              See, we get to think for ourselves, as opposed to letting 18th century white males do that for us. And we don't need to think in all or nothing terms, either/or, etc.

              Intelligent, sane, rational people weigh and balance facts and reality on a case by case basis.

              The Constitution, Bill of Rights and further amendments are not holy writ, or one indivisible whole. Look at their separate parts as separate. Deal with them as they are, on their own merits.

              •  We disagree. Vehemently, and will continue to. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dewley notid

                Thank you for letting us all know, oh expert of the way things are and should be, what intelligence and sanity and rationality is.

                So good to know that your reductions of rights is selective based on the way you think things should be. That's gonna be a huge help in getting something tangible done...HUGE.

                Meanwhile, I am going to deal with reality and work on what is actually possible, and reasonable, that can and should be achieved.

                So Done.

                -6.38, -6.21: Lamented and assured to the lights and towns below, Faster than the speed of sound, Faster than we thought we'd go, Beneath the sound of hope...

                by Vayle on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:38:07 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Your opinion. Your idea of reality and the (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sharon Wraight

                  possible. You have decided what is reasonable and possible, and what can and should be achieved.

                  Your opinion.

                  I don't suggest that I'm not voicing my opinion on these matters. Of course I am. I don't try to say that my views are the views of everyone, universalized.

                  Looks to me like you've forgotten your own words are opinion as well.

              •  Wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                Your position is exactly the opposite of letting us "think for ourselves".  That's actually a right you're hoping to deprive many people of.

                "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                by Neuroptimalian on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 07:31:59 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Huh? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sharon Wraight

                  You associate getting rid of an unnecessary amendment as preventing you from thinking for yourself? Really? You're that dependent upon 18th century, outmoded thought that you can't get along without it?

                  No other developed nation has such a "right". Are you saying people in other nations are therefore deprived of their ability to think for themselves?


                  Repealing the amendment doesn't mean you won't be able to buy your precious. It just means you won't be able to exploit a stupid anachronism to prevent sane and sensible laws and regulations concerning deadly weapons.

                  Is there a special amendment that gives you the "right" to buy a car, a house, clothes, a TV? No. And you still buy them, right?

                  Come on. You're being ridiculous.

                  •  Try again. (0+ / 0-)

                    I said YOU are hoping to deprive others of the right to think for themselves.  YOU have decided that the Second Amendment is outdated; YOU think it should be repealed ... and clearly will do every thing you can to make that happen.  Even if I agreed with that opinion, I'm not trying to take away anyone else's right to think differently; i.e., to think for themselves.

                    Just because a right exists doesn't mean everyone has to exercise it.  They should be able to think for themselves as to whether they want to or not.  You want to deprive them of that right because you think you know what's best for everyone.  You don't.  If it's best that you don't own a gun, then don't; but stop trying to interfere with everyone else's right to think differently.

                    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                    by Neuroptimalian on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 02:01:38 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You are absolutely wrong. On all counts. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Sharon Wraight

                      My pushing for a repeal in no way indicates I'm trying to stop you from thinking for yourself. Not even remotely close in any known universe. First, I don't have that kind of power. No one does, in fact. Sounds like you've been watching too many Sci-Fi movies recently.

                      Second: I've never had that goal. In fact, I want people to think for themselves, instead of letting the NRA, the GOA or 18th century thinkers do it for them.

                      And, sorry, but if you push to keep the 2nd amendment in place, that means YOU think you know what is best for the rest of us. By definition. That's how advocacy on any issue works. If you push for or against the status quo, you are trying to persuade people that YOU think you know best.

                      I'm sick to death of that card being played by conservatives and the "smaller government" crowd. They are blind to their own advocacy -- and, yes, their activism. Whenever they say things should remain the same, or fall back on the founders, misreading them as always, they are engaging in advocacy for a particular set of policies and laws which were/are themselves created by fallible human beings who thought they knew best.

                      You can NOT escape that. It's two sides, or three or four sides, of the same activist/ advocacy coin.

      •  The numbers you cite ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        are actually tiny odds, when looked at from the correct standpoint.  If you could say something was 5,000 times more likely to happen, you'd have a point.

        And take the suicides out of your calculations as those so inclined would just resort to other methods if they had to.  They only use guns because the effect is often immediate.  But there are many other ways to go if one is determined, and very few (if any) would abandon the idea just because a gun wasn't handy.

        "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

        by Neuroptimalian on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 07:25:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're wrong about suicides. (0+ / 0-)

          They need to stay in the total of more than 32,000 gun deaths a year.

          Why? Because people who TRY to commit suicide succeed when they use a gun. Oftentimes, they want to fail. It's a cry for help. Ask any person who treats people with mental illness. Ask psychiatrists, counselors, psychologists and social workers. Hell, if you know someone who has attempted suicide, ask them. A huge percentage of people who attempt it and fail get better. They move on.

          A gun makes sure they never get that second chance.

          •  I know someone who attempted suicide; (0+ / 0-)

            my brother.  He didn't fail.  (He also didn't use a gun, although he owned one; his method was carbon dioxide.)  His was NOT a cry for help, he had his reasons.  I think you're talking out your ass when you assume most want to fail when they attempt suicide.  It's an extreme (and unforgivable) cruelty to force someone to continue living when they don't want to.  Luckily, it's a right they can exercise without interference by callous jerks if they do things right.

            "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

            by Neuroptimalian on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 02:09:42 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You really can't read. (0+ / 0-)

              I never said "most want to fail." But a large percentage does. We know this, because of thousands of studies on the subject.

              But my saying that guns need to be accounted for in suicide stats in no way means what you then go on to say. Again, you need to learn how to read. You tend to make major leaps of illogic.

              BTW, there is no "right" to commit suicide in our society. Whether there should be or not is a different story. But there isn't, currently. Not sure where you come up with these things.

              •  There may be no "right" granted under any law, ... (0+ / 0-)

                but there mostly certainly is no obligation to live ... with the possible exception being if one has an obligation to a minor child.  The state may want you to remain alive, but that's only so as to be able to collect taxes from you, which hardly qualifies as an altruistic intent, thus "laws" on the subject are irrelevant.  I dare say, woe be unto him who should ever try to force me to live if/when I decide I have had enough.

                "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                by Neuroptimalian on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 08:16:15 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  Piers Morgan has this right. (0+ / 0-)

        Join us at RASA: Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment. (Repeal will not ban guns, just help regulate them.)

        by Sharon Wraight on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 10:25:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  misguided (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharon Wraight

      The 1st, 3rd and 4th do not KILL PEOPLE.
      I have used that Franklin quote myself often, but it is not relevant to this discussion. We are not seeking "temporary safety" -- we are looking at an America in the 21st Century in which an armed populace is no longer desirable or relevant to pursuing a strong, healthy, secure democracy

  •  Think of as a long range goal, like the ERA (10+ / 0-)

    (for the youngsters, that would be the Equal Rights Amendment). The ERA was never ratified, but it helped coalesce a powerful movement, the Second Wave of feminism, which won many legal and social gains for women. (Not that we shouldn't still ratify the ERA.)

    A movement to repeal the second amendment might take a decade to peak, and it might never actually repeal the thing, but it could do a lot of good -- and it could make the NRA about as popular as the White Supremacy lunatics.

  •  Every Amendment should be examined regularly. (7+ / 0-)

    Heck, the whole Constitution should.

    I can't believe Madison or any of those guys expected anything less.

    "The fears of one class of men are not the measure of the rights of another." ~ George Bancroft (1800-1891)

    by JBL55 on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 11:48:44 AM PST

    •  Jefferson's letter to Madison, Sept 6, 1789 (10+ / 0-)


      On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.
        •  Earlier in the letter (10+ / 0-)
          What is true of a generation all arriving to self-government on the same day, and dying all on the same day, is true of those in a constant course of decay and renewal, with this only difference. A generation coming in and going out entire, as in the first case, would have a right in the 1st. year of their self-dominion to contract a debt for 33. years, in the 10th. for 24. in the 20th. for 14. in the 30th. for 4. whereas generations, changing daily by daily deaths and births, have one constant term, beginning at the date of their contract, and ending when a majority of those of full age at that date shall be dead. The length of that term may be estimated from the tables of mortality, corrected by the circumstances of climate, occupation &c. peculiar to the country of the contractors. Take, for instance, the table of M. de Buffon wherein he states 23,994 deaths, and the ages at which they happened. Suppose a society in which 23,994 persons are born every year, and live to the ages stated in this table. The conditions of that society will be as follows. 1st. It will consist constantly of 617,703. persons of all ages. 21y. Of those living at any one instant of time, one half will be dead in 24. years 8. months. 3dly. 1[8],675 will arrive every year at the age of 21. years complete. 41y. It will constantly have 348,417 persons of all ages above 21. years. 5ly. And the half of those of 21. years and upwards living at any one instant of time will be dead in 18. years 8. months, or say 19. years as the nearest integral number. Then 19. years is the term beyond which neither the representatives of a nation, nor even the whole nation itself assembled, can validly extend a debt.
      •  That seems like a poor idea to me. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Replacing the Constitution on a regular basis like that equates to leaving basic human rights vulnerable to the fickle whims of a bare majority of the electorate every other decade.

    •  They didn't (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      high uintas, lunachickie, PinHole, VClib, JBL55

      that's why they built in an amendment process.

      But they also didn't thinks should be changed at the whim of popular (and changeable) opinion which is why they set a fairly high requirement for amending the constitution.

      If America gets to a point where repealing the 2nd becomes a feasible and realistic topic of debate it will be awhile from now and it will come after having made incremental changes to better regulate weapons without infringing materially on the rights of the many Americans who currently own guns or think it is ok to own guns.

      "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

      by Andrew C White on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:28:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The last Paragraph, and the First Amendment (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RonV, annecros, dewley notid
    While we try to believe the Constitution is sacrosanct, it is in fact a “work in process” –and repealing the Second Amendment would serve our country well in the 21st Century. Such repeal could also include retention of those types of weapons we would all likely agree on: such things as rifles for hunting, pistols for target shooting, certain approved security reasons for owning weapons etc. But it would end forever the argument that virtually anyone… can own any weapon…of any devastation… for any reason…because of some vaguely defined “right” granted two centuries ago.
    While we try to believe the Constitution is sacrosanct, it is in fact a “work in process” –and repealing the First Amendment would serve our country well in the 21st Century. Such repeal could also include retention of those types of speech we would all likely agree on. But it would end forever the argument that virtually anyone… can say anything…of any opinion… for any reason…because of some vaguely defined “right” granted two centuries ago.


    -6.38, -6.21: Lamented and assured to the lights and towns below, Faster than the speed of sound, Faster than we thought we'd go, Beneath the sound of hope...

    by Vayle on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:02:32 PM PST

    •  So are you saying (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh, diomedes77, poco

      it's a bad idea just because things are good the way they are, or are you saying if we considered changing the 2nd that would put the 1st at risk?

      Our Constitution has been amended before, but the 1st Amendment is still standing. The Founders had a lot of good ideas, including the 1st Amendment, but you can hardly argue they got 100% of everything right the first time around.

      •  I support reasonable and strong regulation. (3+ / 0-)

        Free speech is not completely 'free'.

        Leaving things the way they are would be irresponsible. Letting things come to this point was irresponsible to begin with.

        But, going all the way to the other extreme - Do nothing being the extreme on the right - is not the answer either.

        Doing nothing is not an option.
        Total repeal is extreme and should not be considered either.
        I will not advocate removal of rights as a response. Were I to do so, I would be no better than those who thought the Patriot Act was a good idea.

        We need good laws and regulations and we need continued dedication to enforcing those laws. Any gun owner, past or current should agree that our laws should make ownership bear the responsibility of the right which we hold.

        -6.38, -6.21: Lamented and assured to the lights and towns below, Faster than the speed of sound, Faster than we thought we'd go, Beneath the sound of hope...

        by Vayle on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:29:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Okay (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Vayle, Smoh

          This comment makes more sense. Thanks for explaining.

        •  No other developed nation has a 2nd amendment (0+ / 0-)


          They still buy guns.

          We don't need it, even to protect gun nuts and their precious.

          They'll still be able to purchase guns. Just as today, we buy cars, refrigerators, TVs, etc. etc without special rights enshrined in the Constitution.

          It's too bizarre that anyone thinks they need to protect pieces of metal via the Constitution, especially when we don't protect essentials for life, like safe water and food, shelter, the environment, health care, clothes, etc. etc.

          Why guns?

          The only rationale behind that is a deep psychosis. A dangerous paranoia. Perhaps even a mass psychosis.

          •  "A dangerous paranoia"? (0+ / 0-)

            Like being paranoid about all gun owners?  A psychosis which apparently runs so deep that all such persons are literally thought to be insane?  Yikes.

            "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

            by Neuroptimalian on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 07:45:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Who said all of them? Not me. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sharon Wraight

              I'm talking about those who obsess about their "2nd amendment rights", as if the amendment was handed down by Moses, and one believes in holy writ.

              I'm talking about those who are so paranoid about the government, they believe it wants to take away their precious. And, that the 2nd Amendment gives them the right, supposedly, to blast away at their fellow Americans in the government, if they believe it is tyrannous.

              Like the people in Arizona with their Don't Tread on Me signs and their assault rifles on their shoulder, when Obama came to their town to speak.

              Or the people who said "We came unarmed, this time."

              Or those who spoke of using "2nd amendment remedies" if they didn't win the election.

              Or anyone who really thinks they can win a shootout against our military, like they were living in Red Dawn world.

              Again, there is no separate "right" for buying horses, cows, carriages, hammers, houses, saws, chairs or any of the things that would have been typical of the time. But people still bought them.

              There are no special rights from on high for the purchase of TVs, cars, boats, refrigerators, books, desks or any of the things we buy today. We still get to own them.

              A repeal of the 2nd amendment won't prevent the ownership of guns. Anyone who thinks it will is paranoid. All it will do is end the nonsense about the sacredness of guns, and put those pieces of metal on equal footing with other inanimate objects we buy every day.

              •  You're describing mentally ill people. (0+ / 0-)

                But it's not just their guns you want to take away, you want them ALL gone.  THAT's where I have a problem as I can think of no reason to insist that a sane person live a life of vulnerability when there are so many with criminal intent out there.

                "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                by Neuroptimalian on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 02:12:28 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Your posts are truly bizarre. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sharon Wraight

                  After responding to you a few times now, I see a definite pattern. You misread big time, then jump to conclusions based upon wild leaps of topsy turvy "logic." Your thinking doesn't follow logic. Your responses aren't to anything I've actually said.

                  Which makes discussion all but impossible.

                  Again, I never said I want gun owners gone. I want a repeal of an unnecessary amendment, which will end the confusion and make sensible restrictions, regulations and serious, nationwide buybacks easily possible. All of those things will save lives, reduce accidents, death and destruction and lead to a healthier society.

                  Oh, the horror!!

                  •  I don't think you want all gun owners gone, ... (0+ / 0-)

                    (though perhaps you do because you apparently think they're ALL batshit insane), but it seems pretty clear that you wish you had the power to make all guns disappear.  But since that will never be possible, why dwell on what cannot be changed?  Dwell instead on coming up with practical solutions to solve the problems of the world we actually live in.  Hyperbolic statements change nothing and persuade no one.

                    I don't personally own a firearm.  Never have, don't plan to, likely never will.  I don't get the fascination with target shooting, and I'd certainly prefer it if people didn't hunt.  But they do and there's nothing I can do about it.  That said, it's not within me to be so presumptuous as to preach to Ms. Smith, a (hypothetical) single mother living in South Central Los Angeles, and tell her she must not be allowed to protect herself or her small children in such a dangerous neighborhood.  Nor would I try and convince Mr. Jones, an elderly man who walks to the store three times a week through cartel territory in order to get some exercise and to buy some groceries.  Vulnerable people NEED to be able to protect themselves if they wish; I'm not so self-centered as to think that their lives are meaningless and they must take their chances because of the threat other people represent.  

                    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                    by Neuroptimalian on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 08:35:47 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Presumptuous? Really? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Sharon Wraight

                      So, you think relaying facts, evidence and citing studies about gun violence is "presumptuous"?

                      Why bother discussing anything at all if it just means being "presumptuous"? Might as well stop all dialogue then.

                      Ya know what I think? I think you're trying your very best, in your own very lame way, to stifle dissent here, and prevent discussion about this topic. I've read more than enough of your little passive-aggressive complaints to know that's what you're trying to do. It's too obvious.

                      Rather than debate the topic at hand, you want to make it about "presumption" or "elitism" or "telling others what's best for them." Again, when you pick any side of an argument, you are engaging in that as well. For or against, in support of the status quo or not, you are engaging in advocacy for a certain position, and that means you think you know best.

                      Given the fact that both discussants do this whenever they talk about politics or social issues, it's too silly for words to dwell on that. Both people are guilty of advocacy. Both are guilty of trying to persuade others that they have the best position.

                      You're not neutral here. You don't start from a neutral position. Your position is not the default, center, neutral position in this debate. You are advocating for a certain, particular political stance, and that means, by definition, that you think you know best.

                      So, please, stop with the phony "anti-elitism" card. No one's buying it.

                      Debate the topic at hand, not your perception of style.

                    •  Also: When you say, vulnerable people (0+ / 0-)

                      NEED to protect themselves, you've taken a position on guns. You are engaging in advocacy. You are NOT being neutral, and your position, your opinion, is not the de facto center of debate. It is just one among many possible views, even though you make your statement as if it is the only possible way to look at it. Even though you say that if someone argues otherwise, they are being "presumptuous" or "self-centered."

                      Again, that's just too silly for words. It's passive-aggressive nonsense.

                      Debate the issue. Stop playing games.

                      •  You truly believe no person could have possibly .. (0+ / 0-)

                        have any "need" to protect themselves?  Do you lock your doors at night?  If so, for what reason?  If not ... then I don't even know what to say to that other than I hope you live alone so that you're not foolishly endangering anyone else's life.

                        "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                        by Neuroptimalian on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 10:37:32 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I never said that. (0+ / 0-)

                          I never said people don't have the need to protect themselves.

                          But guns are a bad way of doing it. We know that. Gun science and research shows us they make you less safe and secure.

                          (And no one "needs" unlimited firepower to keep themselves safe and secure. Semi-automatics and high capacity clips, for instance, are offensive weapons, not defensive.)

                          We're talking about how to make one safer. Not about security and safety itself.

                          Guns make people far less safe. They increase the chances of death or serious injury. They do not reduce those chances. Logically, that makes them the wrong tool to use, and the wrong method to employ.

                          •  The "increased chances" you keep referring to ... (0+ / 0-)

                            don't support your position.  If you could say that the odds of dying from accidental gunfire were 5,000 times greater, that'd be one thing.  But the odds of someone being accidentally killed by a gun are so TINY that it's statistically negligible.  

                            So, considering there are already about 350 MILLION guns out there, what method of defense DOES make the most sense?  Banning the future production of weapons is a non-starter due to the number already available.  You can't make them disappear, and even if you could, the black market would provide replacements.  That leaves ... ?  If you concede the people have a right to defend themselves, that means they're entitled to own a weapon of some sort.  What weapon, other than a gun, has any chance of saving one's life if confronted by a gun-carrying individual?  The only answer is another gun ... or possibly a stun gun, though those present their own set of problems.  Again, I don't own a gun and don't ever expect to, this is just an exercise in logic.

                            "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                            by Neuroptimalian on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 11:17:08 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  A factor of five is "negligible"? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            Or a factor of more than ten?

                            Really? I think you need to work on your math skills.

                            A gun in the home makes it three to five times more likely that the gun owner will be killed, or kill a family member, or friend, or neighbor.

                            A gun in the home makes it more than ten times more likely that a woman will be killed.

                            A gun carried on the street makes it 4.5 times more likely that the gun owner will be killed -- by the gun they carry.

                            In what universe is a 500% or a 1000% increase "negligible"?

                            And that last number, the one for women, is a low end estimate.

                            Also, there are about 300 million guns in circulation. The more people buy, the more they're made. The more guns in circulation, the easier it is for killers to find lethal weapons. They get a huge number of them from stealing them from gun owners. The majority of mass shooters in the last thirty years, for instance, took their weapons from their own parents or grandparents.

                            Also, if we do a ban on certain kinds of weapons at the manufacturing stage, along with transfer, possession and importation, you're not going to have a black market.

                            Issue a very tight ban, do a nationwide buyback, and you're not going to have a black market.

                            Reduce the total number of guns in circulation and you reduce the chances of gun crime. That's just not debatable. To argue against that is like saying that if we decreased the number of cigarettes in existence, we wouldn't decrease the number smoked.

                            Come on. Use common sense.

                          •  "Three to five times" more likely than what? (0+ / 0-)

                            According to that 1996 statistic, approximately 1 in every 300,000 people died at the wrong end of a firearm, so yes, the even tinier percentage of those 1 in 300k who died as a result of accident is a negligible number.   How many lives are you thinking you're going to save per year?  Fifty?  A hundred?  Out of 300 million?  And that doesn't even take into account how many more lives would be lost if no one had protection.  I'm thinking it would be in the tens of thousands.  What are the expert's projections on that inevitable result?  Some medicines wind up killing patients rather than helping them.  In fact, I believe the number of such deaths FAR exceeds the number of accidental gun deaths. Should we ban all medicines too?

                            In other words, yes, it can be presumed that the number of accidental deaths would decrease if guns were to disappear.  But that number is so infinitesimally small that it's meaningless on the scale at which national policy is conducted.  Especially given the offset consequences; i.e., no means to defend equals an inevitable HUGE increase in deaths caused by the criminal element.  Do you want to be responsible for them if your policy should somehow come to pass?  And the death reduction is ONLY if guns disappear; banning future production here on out, even if 100% successful, wouldn't make a measurable dent for decades while 300M continue to exist; i.e., only when existing guns are too rusty to work anymore would any death decrease be evident.

                            As to the black market claim, OF COURSE it will exist.  People are creative, especially determined ones with criminal intent motivating them.  Guns will be smuggled in in droves, just like drugs and other contraband are.  We have too many thousands of miles of unguarded borders and coastlines for them to ever even remotely be considered impenetrable.  And that's not even taking into account the weapons that will be manufactured within our borders, some by mafia-minded organizations and others by individuals, just like moonshine was.

                            Meanwhile, the mentally ill go unmonitored and untreated, and automobiles and other objects responsible for tens of thousands more deaths per year than accidental gun discharges ever will be will continue to be ignored.

                            So .... banning, in my opinion, will never work.  Should SOMETHING be done?  In my opinion, yes; let's look at what we can do to keep guns from the hands of those who most likely would misuse them.  Although I don't have the facilities to follow through, my best idea to date is that, in the future, guns should be manufactured with a sensor embedded in the trigger or along the spine of the grip that can determine whether a user has ANY mind-altering chemicals in their system, from alcohol to psychotropic drugs, and, if so, the gun would be prevented from engaging some necessary mechanism and won't be able to be fired (sort of like a Breathalyzer connected to an automobile's ignition).

                            And if there's any kind of chemical imbalance (detectable in bodily fluids) that accompanies insanity, using that test result to disable a gun would be a bonus.  Especially in cases where the mentally troubled aren't taking meds.

                            Meanwhile, back at the ranch, yet another person was pushed onto subway tracks in NYC and killed by an oncoming train.  Although some will (jokingly) call for the banning of all trains, I can't help but wonder why it has not occurred to anyone to put springy boards along the tracks next to platforms so that victims couldn't just bounce their way back up?  Or perhaps they could build a wall at the edge of the platform which has doors which open in alignment with subway train doors when they open?  Or, at a dadgum minimum, why don't the trains just slow to a crawl immediately before entering the station?  (sigh)

                            There ARE solutions to problems, just not enough intelligent people addressing their minds to conceiving and implementing them.

                            Anyway, not only do I not think any comprehensive gun ban will ever be passed, I also don't believe one would do any good even if it were passed.  So I try to think of what could make a difference.

                            Your turn.

                            "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                            by Neuroptimalian on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 02:15:08 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  32,000 deaths is "negligible"? (0+ / 0-)

                            Again, that's how many people were killed with guns last year.

                            if we saved even one of those lives with a ban, it would be worth it.

                            And, again, please stop with the nonsense about defending oneself. A gun is not the only way to do it, but it is the one most likely to lead to the death of the gun owner.

                            The "more likely than" stat is more likely than people without a gun. That's the key. The gun is THE variable. It's THE decisive factor in these cases.

                            Yes, you can cite someone being choked or pushed or kicked to death. But the numbers pale in comparison to those killed with guns. And we can't legislate against the ownership of hands, arms and feet. But we can legislate against owning lethal pieces of metal.

                            Also, not doing anything, simply because we can't solve all crime is ludicrous. With that logic in place, we shouldn't even bother treating cancer or looking for cures. We won't be able to cure all cancers, right? So why try to cure one kind or another?

                            Why bother with seat belts, stop lights, stop signs, turn signals, air bags or speed limits? Since these reduce accidents and death, but don't prevent ALL of them, why bother, right?

                            First, we need to repeal that monstrously dangerous, archaic and totally unnecessary amendment (the 2nd), institute strict gun bans of all semi-automatics, or any gun that uses clips or drums. To make that even tighter, ban all clips or drums, period. Limit guns to six shooters, tops. But no guns with removable clips are allowed. Ban these at the manufacture, sales, transfer, importation and possession stage. Institute a nationwide buyback. Make it clear that if gun owners do not sell back their weapons for melting down, they now join the ranks of illegal gun owners.

                            Their choice.

                            No loopholes for gun shows or the Internet. No loopholes anywhere.

                            And, yes, it will take time for these changes to work their way through society. But down the road, as fewer guns exist, we will all be many factors safer.

                          •  Now you're talking about "total" gun deaths? (0+ / 0-)

                            Moving the goalposts isn't helpful, and contradicts any pretense of intending to have an honest conversation.

                            And yes, 1,100 is statistically negligible in a society of over 300 million citizens.  If you think differently, then (1) you don't understand the basics of policy-making, and (2) you therefore MUST favor the complete elimination of medicine inasmuch as FAR more people die having adverse reactions to them than die from accidental gunfire.  Do you favor a total ban on all medicine which has ever resulted in the death of a single person?  I'm confident you're not, so what is the basis of this obvious contradiction?  

                            You still haven't offered a single suggestion for how unarmed people are supposed to be able to protect themselves.  Why is that?  Do you just not care how many will surely die if they can't?  Why are you indifferent about their lives while claiming to care about the others?  I can't see how that's rational.

                            You seem to have a phobia about guns, and aren't interested in trying to find any practical solution.  But guns aren't going away, no matter how fervently you wish otherwise.  Given that 40% of Democrats are gun owners, there is NOWHERE NEAR enough support among the citizenry to accomplish a ban of the Second Amendment.  You should find a way to deal with that simple fact.

                            "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                            by Neuroptimalian on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 04:45:24 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I didn't move the goalposts. (0+ / 0-)

                            The total number is obviously relevant. You're actually trying to use percentages to change the subject and redirect it away from real human beings. Actual human beings who are killed each year with guns. You want the numbers to remain abstract -- percentages, rather than total human beings -- because you know it doesn't work in your favor when we discuss human life.

                            As for medical deaths. You're just playing the same tired old card, all too similar to the argument about car accidents.

                            Here's the thing: We actually have policies and programs in place to reduce medical deaths. Laws in place to reduce them. Entire institutions dedicated to reduce them.

                            With cars, we've added seat belts, air bags, special side panels, and laws to reduce car accidents. We have traffic lights, stop signs, speed limits, and police all over our highways to enforce those laws. We have movements to reduce drunk driving. We have laws to reduce drunk driving and its results.

                            When it comes to guns, however, the right, the NRA, the GOA all do whatever they can to prevent any and all rational, reasonable, sensible work to reduce gun related violence. They refuse to do anything that would lower gun violence.

                            See the difference?

                            As for protecting oneself. How many times do I have to repeat it? Guns make you LESS safe. So why on earth would I promote using guns to protect one self? They make it more likely that you'll die!!

                            And, as mentioned, if we radically reduce the numbers of guns in our country, then we radically reduce even the NEED to protect oneself. The fewer guns around, the fewer threats against our person, our security and our safety. There can be no greater single solution to the threat of gun violence, theft at the point of a gun, or kidnapping at the point of a gun, than to get RID of guns!

                            That should be self-evident. But apparently it's not.

        •  I'm RKBA (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Vayle, dewley notid

          A non gun owner who supports the 2nd and every other right we still have left. I agree with you Vayle 100%. We are in the grip of strong emotions following a terrible event, that's not the way to make good law. The fucking Patriot Act is a good example.

          Oh, BTW this facility is being built about 20 miles (as the crow flies) from me right now. Yay?

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

          by high uintas on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:09:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Snark ensues - Watch what you say... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dewley notid, high uintas

            Well, if you have nothing to worry about and are a good citizen, you wouldn't have to watch what you say.

            A little thought exploration on repeal of rights...
            If people were totally law abiding, we would not have had to repeal the 4th amendment. But those who are innocent have nothing to worry about. Repealing the third amendment to ensure an active duty soldier is in every home possible is one way to ensure people continue to follow the rules. They'll have no problems following those rules with a soldier in their home if they are good people already.

            But that could never happen...all we anted was for people to take away the second amendment because we thought it was dangerous, those other amendments were fine the way they were. What crazy person would repeal 'those other' amendments? This is the only amendment that should not have been in the constitution because the founders didn't know what they were doing...

            -6.38, -6.21: Lamented and assured to the lights and towns below, Faster than the speed of sound, Faster than we thought we'd go, Beneath the sound of hope...

            by Vayle on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:32:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  even if I thought thus was a good idea, (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ahianne, dewley notid, VClib, The Magus

    and I don't, you might be wise to see how the current round of litigation plays out.

    We're probably 3-5 years away away from a fairly comprehensive definition of what the right to be armed means, what it covers, and what level of scrutiny applies to laws which impact it.

    Once we know the contours of the right, we can have a meaningful division of how, and if, it should be changed. Of it's more liberal, or more restrictive, than we're comfortable with, we will at least know what were trying to change.

    Right now, nobody knows.


    "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 Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:19:14 PM PST

  •  No other developed nation has that "right" (3+ / 0-)

    enshrined in law.

    That's something Americans need to think about. My guess is most assume we are one among dozens of nations with just such a "right" set down in holy writ.

    But, we pretty much stand alone on this one.

    We have no "right" to safe food, clean water, a non-toxic environment, shelter, clothes, education or health care. Yet, we have one for a piece of metal.

    Clearly, that's insane.

    If anything should be granted special "rights", it would be life's essentials. Those pieces of metal don't fall under that category.

    Beyond that, we don't have Constitutional protections for our car purchases, our TVs, our refrigerators, but we still buy them. Gun advocates have placed far too much emphasis on an unnecessary right, thinking that without it, they could not buy their "precious".

    Even without such a right, they could, as we know from the wider world. Other nations don't have that special "right", but they still buy and own guns.

    It is an outdated, unnecessary, dangerous amendment and should be repealed. It places guns outside sensible law and regulation. No need to replace it, either. Just repeal it and start treating guns as lethal pieces of metal, instead of objects of worship with special rights.

    •  Agree with everything you say except... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharon Wraight

      that outright repeal should be attempted now.

      We as a nation need to emphasize the "well regulated" portion to a much greater degree, stop any tax benefits to the NRA and similar organizations, close the gun show loop hole, strengthen registries and waiting periods, control the manufacturer of assault weapons.  

      Or any serious combination of the above.  

      •  I think we should do both. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mattoqp, Sharon Wraight

        IMO, there should be a strong push for repeal. It shouldn't come from the Democratic Party. It should be a separate movement outside that party, to its left.

        Kind of like the Occupy Movement.

        The stronger it gets, the more it makes your position the one perceived as "sensible" and centrist.

        One of the reasons why progressives lose so many of these battles is because they are perceived as being the furthest leftward edge of the possible. When FDR managed to get his New Deal through, he wasn't. It wasn't. There was a strong American left to his left.

        His New Deal was considered the compromise position, the center, actually, and that's what gave it strength across the board, politically.

        With the virtual death of the real left in America, progressives/liberals are now the edge, even though they're far from being the furthest left. The center-left is all that's allowed, so that puts them out on the edge of the possible.

        Not a good way to create change.

      •  PinHole - stop any tax deductions to the NRA (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sharon Wraight

        I believe the NRA has several entities organized under the IRS codes for non-profits some of which can be more active politically than others. If the NRA entity that qualifies under the IRS code for contributions to be tax deductible why would Congress even consider denying those deductions? When we start attacking the tax status of those who we don't like we invite other members of Congress to attack the status of groups that we favor. Congress and the IRS should be content neutral when drafting IRS code as it applies no non-profit organizations. The NRA and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence should be treated the same.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 07:49:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The reason that "special right" is needed... (0+ / 0-) that nobody tries to ban the purchase of cars, or TVs, or refrigerators. There are very real efforts to ban the purchase of guns.

    •  you are correct, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      easy to check murder rate of various nations. Those without "right to carry" are far better than us -- we are among the highest (in terms of RATE) in the world -- including many third world countries. Now, that is what is INSANE

  •  No. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vayle, dewley notid

    Seriously. Just NO.

    You don't repeal these amendments; you modify or amend them.

    I submit this is much, much more than radical. It borders on trial-balloon insanity, even for this place.

    While I agree that automatic weapons and multi-round death machines should be banned, I cannot and will not stand by and watch people start throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That's just stupid.

    It is time to #Occupy Media.

    by lunachickie on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:03:56 PM PST

    •  Some folks are so focused on one goal... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lunachickie, Neuroptimalian

      ...they simply fail to consider what damage can be done by a second Constitutional convention - or by any attempt at a rewrite of the Constitution.  

      This is a classic case of baby-and-bathwater thinking.  It reminds me of a dog walking along one side of the street and seeing something attractive on the other side.  Damn thing just takes off, with no concept of looking both ways.  ~thump-thump~

      •  a Constitutional Convention is (0+ / 0-)

        never a bad idea--we're too chicken to have one anyway, even so I wouldn't think of it as "damaging", necessarily. But otherwise, I definitely agree--big picture thinking is not taking place here.

        In fact, it rather angers me to see my brethren on the left jumping to such an unreasonable, radical place. That's what the NRA did, and you see what it's gotten them? It's gotten them bupkis--in fact, a lot of America is pretty pissed off at them, because they support the Second Amendment AND restricting certain types of firepower such that every Tom Dick or Harry with enough cash can't just go buy one--say, at a gun show or online.

        We need to have reason-based conversations, just like the NRA does.  

        It is time to #Occupy Media.

        by lunachickie on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 03:02:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Re-write???? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sharon Wraight

        No one is suggesting that. This is just another 27 before it.

    •  Why don't you care about handgun deaths? (0+ / 0-)

      Handguns kill many more people, each year, than automatic weapons or guns with high-capacity magazines. Why are so many people fixated on the size of the gun, or the size of the magazine, when a single bullet from any gun can kill a person very easily?

      And what "baby" is being thrown out with the bath water?  As Joe Biden wisely said, if a person's gun is his "baby", that person needs professional help.  

      •  Why don't you care about reason (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dewley notid

        and logic? Why do you care more about making this about "me" or my "care" about anything?

        Because you know you're being unreasonable right off the bat? Because you know it is illogical to propose repealing the Second Amendment, but goddamn if this trial balloon is going to sink without a trace?

        Sorry. You're going to have to do better than cast reaching, pitiful, desperate aspersions on anyone who disagrees with you. What is being proposed here is ridiculous and it will stifle the overall discussion as fast--if not faster--than anything the NRA has had to say about it.


        It is time to #Occupy Media.

        by lunachickie on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 03:32:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not personal (0+ / 0-)

          I'm sorry, I didn't intend to make it personal, and shouldn't have said "you".  People obviously disagree on strategies to reduce gun violence.  And, right now, none of these strategies are working very well.  

          I take the long view -- keep pushing for what you really believe in and you may, after years and years of hard work, see it happen. If we can get some incremental progress now, I'm all for it, but I'm not taking my eye off the larger goal.  That's not unreasonable, illogical or ridiculous.

    •  you are misguided... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharon Wraight

      We DO repeal amendments. The 21st REPEALED the 18th (read your history). MOreover, if there is a "repeal" the repealing amendment could easily allow for some gun ownership in some more restrictive or reasoanble manner than a vaguely intrepreted statement that apparently allows for any ownership by anyone for any purpose, of any kind of weapon. That SHOULD be repealed, and despite your statement that it borders on fact it does not. If so, we would now have Prohibition in our country.

      •  No, I'm not. (0+ / 0-)

        Good luck getting anything done, if your strategy is to stoke the flames of the wingnuts "Obama is Coming To Take Your Guns Away" meme.

        We CAN repeal amendments, if you misunderstood my statement, go back and reread it. You don't repeal THESE amendments--THESE being the first ten. You work to change them. You are giving fuel to those who would arm every streetcorner in this country. If anyone is misguided, it's you.

        And frankly, leaning on strawman arguments about Prohibition (because the last time I looked, "The Right To Drink Liquor" wasn't enumerated to begin with) rather demonstrates your further ability to want to stifle the discussion, period.

        It is time to #Occupy Media.

        by lunachickie on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 10:04:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  well perhaps you misunderstood... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sharon Wraight

          if you wish to attempt "repeal/revise/modify" in a single new amendment, sure that would work for me. As I stated, I have no reason to take guns from sportsmen, target shooters, or those wh have a legitimate security need.  But the Second, as it stands, is an obstacle to ever getting any meaningful chages to our gun laws -- it is the cover the NRA uses for their raison d'etre

  •  I appreciate this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I will work against you tirelessly, but I appreciate your honesty with your real goals, and your appreciation of what you need to do to get there.

  •  Might as well (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattoqp, Buzzybill

    'shoot for the moon'. it's no less likely to succeed in the long run as immediate efforts directed at the so-called 'low hanging fruit'. There will be nothing good coming out of a Republican controlled House for the foreseeable future on any front. Best we can hope for is that they don't entirely wreck the U.S. credit rating. Not one high capacity clip will be limited/affected in this upcoming session.

    This is a long struggle, a clash of cultures. First thing is to discredit/demonize the makers/spokeswhores. Second, transform the notion of gun ownership into a dirty secret from a prideful boast:
    "Oh, so you bought a gun last week? Was that before or after you fucked your cousin?"

    If someone might have a bear wander into their home or is given to eating what they hunt, fine, those are legitimate cases for gun ownership. Otherwise, not so much.

    This city slicker is sick of country bumpkin fetishes making my streets less safe.

    •  I agree, there is no more "low hanging fruit" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cal2010, Sharon Wraight

      There can be no easy wins on a contentious topic like this.  When people fetishize guns, any regulatory change will be a struggle.

      So if any progress on this topic will be equally hard, then why not go all the way?  Why not ask for what you want, instead of what you think you are more likely to get?  Especially when you are "likely" to get nothing?

      I want to see the NRA smashed to pieces.  I want to see gun owners shunned and ostracized just like smokers.  20 years ago, did you expect to see smokers marginalized the way they are now?  The NRA can fall just as hard as big tobacco did.

      Smash the NRA!

      Life is the game that moves as you play it - X

      by Buzzybill on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 09:22:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  right... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharon Wraight

      we are not getting any meaningful gun control legislation anyway, why not go for broke. At least the try may have value, and make a statement.

  •  Agreed, tipped & rec'ed (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sharon Wraight
  •  I don't agree on repealing the 2nd amendment (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Magus

    or banning handguns.  Law abiding people should be able to possess handguns for self-defense, sport, etc.

    The Gallup poll on gun control taken after Sandy Hook shows 74% of the American public is opposed to an outright ban on handgun ownership.  That alone (much less all of the forces that would actually fight repeal) indicates that repeal is not posible - 3/4 of our population doesn't want it.

    I am in favor of stricter controls, closing the gun show loophole, etc.  Those things are possible even if the 2nd amendment isn't touched.  The same Gallup poll shows increased support for this course of action.

    •  check the statistics (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharon Wraight

      Countries which outlaw handguns (without having approval and a specific need) have murder rates far less than we do. In some countries, murder by firearms is very rare. We do not live in the wild west anymore in 21st century America!

    •  How many times must we say this? Repeal ≠ ban! (0+ / 0-)

      The Gallup poll does not ask about repealing the Second Amendment, and if a poll did so, it must specify that a repeal does not mean a ban on guns!

      For those who favor repeal, it is our role to educate society on this fact, and on the reasons for repeal.

      Cars, oxygen, drinking-water, beef-jerky, cats, ladders, toilets, begonias, and tape-measures are also not protected by the Constitution, and yet you have every right to own them.

      Law abiding people will be able to possess handguns for self-defense, sport, etc., even after the Second Amendment is repealed.

      It will take 20-30 years. In the meantime, other reforms can be achieved, including stricter controls, closing the gun show loophole, etc.  

      Join us at RASA: Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment. (Repeal will not ban guns, just help regulate them.)

      by Sharon Wraight on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 10:59:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then the question is why repeal at all? (0+ / 0-)

        If we're in agreement that the existence of the Second Amendment doesn't preclude reasonable controls on firearms, and we're in agreement that we're not seeking an outright ban on handgun ownership, what is the need to ignite a firestorm by trying to amend the Constitution?

        •  We are not in agreement! :-) (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sharon Wraight

          The Second Amendment as interpreted by the 2 Bush's Supreme Court does preclude reasonable controls on firearms, even though it should not.

          Organizing to repeal (or amend) the Second Amendment (not the entire Constitution) will rally support, even if a minority of outspoken gun-owners wants this to be a firestorm (apocalypse, armageddon, etc.). It is a fight worth fighting.

          Organizing to repeal the Constitution will help put the Constitutional burden back on the NRA/GOA/SAF/etc., rather than forcing this burden on every effort to regulate weapons. So even though we're not seeking an outright ban on handguns, working toward (and) repealing 2A will help achieve reasonable regulations.

  •  Repeal 2nd Amd. (0+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    Sharon Wraight

    Whenever there's a mass shooting we get knee jerk demands to  repeal  2nd Amd.   Obviously none of these naive people have taken  time to read a document I was required to study in law school; The Constitution.   I refer them  to Article 5,  instructing  how to affect the amendment process.   Note:  38 States  are required to approve a Constitutional Convention needed for any change.   Acknowledged that  13 - 14  Liberal controlled  States with an Anti 2nd Amd. bias are likely to do so.    Question:  Where do you get the remaining. 24 - 25 (all PRO 2nd Amd)  states for approval?    And note:  2/3 of the legislators of all these Pro 2nd Amd states are required for repeal of the 2nd  Amd.   Anyone understanding US Political Demographics & Article 5 of the Constitution knows this is a Gun Phobic Liberals Wet Dream Delusional Fantasy & I defy anyone to disprove my logic.   Suggestion:   Have a good background in law & political demographics before deciding to do battle with me so as not too look like an IGNORANUS.    

    •  Dumb dumb dumb (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharon Wraight

      What a spurious argument -- don't attempt ANY amendments unless you have sympathetic governors. Well we have had 27 of them and I doubt you can convey which states had the "right" governor at the time of the amendment process starting? Answers please if you are so dmaned smart! Beside, the winds of politics changes during what is normally a lengthy approval process -- and this issue is not limited to "liberals" -- indeed many NRA members are not happy with the stand of thier organization. The fact is, they are beginning to find that the NRA uses them and the Second in bahalf of thier real client: the gun manufacturers and dealers.

      •  Mr. Spicer fails to follow Suggestion (0+ / 0-)

        Predictably,  we an IGNORANUS failing  to follow my advice.   Specifically:  READ ARTICLE  5 & familiarize yourself with US Political demographics.   HINT.   Even if Governors of ALL 50 STATES wanted to vote for a Constitutional Convention….  IT AINT UP TO THEM!   It's up to a 2/3 vote of the respective State legislators.    NOW do you  finally GET IT?   Or do I have to dumb it down even more for you?   Once you've done some more homework,  show us how you propose  to accomplish your Delusional Wet Dream Fantasy.   Can't wait to hear it.   But I suspect, once you've done more research & realize the futility of your dream,  we'll hear nothing more from you.  
          Bye Bye.   & Thanks for playing.   LOL

        •  I acknowledge (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sharon Wraight, BvueDem

          I misused the term "governor" when I meant "government" (i.e legislature) and admit my error; but stand by my argument that the Second amendment has run its is not relevant anymore...we would be a better nation without provides unhealthy "cover" for the NRA and their clients (gun manufacturers)...and proposing an amendment to repeal/modify it would have value and be a worthy effort difficult as it might be. Amendments have NEVER been easy to pass, and our Founding fathers made it difficult intentionally. But they no doubt expected us to try. We we have 17 times (plus the orginal 10)

          Frankly attacking me personally because I propose an idea worthy of intelligent discussion is crude, unprofesssional, petty, mean, deflects your argumanet, and really not very intelligent, and says more about you, than me.

          As for my response, I intend to stay on a higher plane. Now you vent some more.

  •  Nothing is easy... (0+ / 0-)

    In re-reading the multitude of comments to my dairy, I have noted many refer to the fact that my proposal would be difficult (many say impossible), and is unrealistic.

    Difficult? Yes. Impossible? No. Yesterday Obama provided a salient and relevant quote from Lincoln: "with public opinion there's nothing you can't do; without public opinion there's very little you can get done in this town".

    So it would be with repeal/modification/amendment of the Second Amendment. Once citizens realize the insanity of millions of Americans toting guns (of all kinds) around the streets, buildings, schools etc -- then perhaps we will have sufficient public opinion to act.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site