Skip to main content

Someone I know on Facebook set me off this morning with an idiotic statement about the Second Amendment. It's a common one, but it really got me this morning: "Without the second amendment, the others would be GONE!!!!" It struck me that that's one of the most pernicious bits of gun fetish mythology out there. This is what I replied. Yeah, I was angry. Yeah, I used some salty language. But there are times when anger is appropriate, and I firmly believe I was right.

You know the problem? You're not part of the organized militia. You're not part of the army. You're a stupid peckerwood who thinks your fucking gun makes your dick bigger. News flash: it doesn't. The militias defended our rights. The army has defended our rights.

Stupid peckerwoods with guns started the Whiskey Rebellion. George Washington called out the militia to put it down.
Stupid peckerwoods with guns formed posses to chase down escaped slaves and raid slave quarters to make sure they didn't have any guns. The army
freed the slaves.
Stupid peckerwoods with guns went into Ford's Theater and shot Abraham Lincoln.
Stupid peckerwoods with guns fucked up Reconstruction and kept segregation and Jim Crow laws in place in the South for another hundred years.
The National Guard came out so black kids could go to school in Little Rock.
Stupid peckerwoods with guns shot Medgar Evers.
Stupid peckerwoods with guns shot James Garfield, William McKinley, John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
Stupid peckerwoods with guns shot Martin Luther King, whose entire movement was predicated on non-violence.
Stupid peckerwoods with guns shot Gabby Giffords.

The ORGANIZED STATE MILITIAS and the US MILITARY fought our wars and kept us free.
ALL the advances in our recognition of people's rights - abolition, women's suffrage, the labor movement, civil rights for blacks, civil rights for homosexuals, civil rights for women, even Prohibition, misguided as that was, were achieved primarily through non-violent means, not with guns.

And before you start whining about how I don't like guns, none of this is an argument that we should take away everybody's guns. It's an argument that the USSC was wrong when it decided US v. Heller in 1980 and ignored 200 years of precedent, and that we should go back to the Supreme Court with reasonable gun laws and try and get it overturned.

Also, the Heller decision explicitly left room for regulation of guns even as it said that the Second Amendment applies to individuals. By the way, you know what most of the people who love the Heller decision generally say when the Court ignores precedent and overturns laws? They want to impeach the damn activist judges. So be happy about Heller if you want, but don't try to pretend that it has anything to do with Original Intent.

I have absolutely no problem with people who want a gun or three for hunting. Target shooting. Protecting their home. But you want to be what the Second Amendment is really about? Join the National Guard. Join the Army. Stop being a stupid peckerwood with a gun.

Originally posted to Mike Jones on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 09:23 PM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA.

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

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

?

More Tagging tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Preferences

  •  I have a problem with people that want a gun (0+ / 0-)

    For hunting and target shooting.  

    We have one hundred thousand folks shot each year.  Guns are causing much more harm than good.  People can get along without hunting and target shooting and the wild animals need a break.

    •  It's not quite that simple (0+ / 0-)

      I grew up in the southern Appalachians (western North Carolina). It's still a pretty poor section of the country. For a non-trivial number of people, hunting makes the difference between having enough protein on the table and not. I knew more than a few folks growing up who spent the money they saved during the winter by putting a deer in the freezer to pay their heating bills.

      Still, I want those folks to be reasonable. They don't need assault weapons for hunting. There's no reason they shouldn't be registered. There's no reason they shouldn't be under lock and key when they're not being used.

      Guns can be used safely. By most of the people I knew who had them when I was growing up, they were used safely. But the notion that the 2A means a free-for-all shootout has got to go.

      Yes, I'm still for Dean.

      by Mike Jones on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:16:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What do you mean by non-trivial? (0+ / 0-)
        For a non-trivial number of people, hunting makes the difference between having enough protein on the table and not.
        Because we are not talking about very many people,  not in this day and age where burgers are so cheap.  

        I dispute your whole premise.  And better to that these folks work at McDonalds of get food stamps or whatever then give us 100 thousand deaths a year.

        •  This is the real world (0+ / 0-)

          Lots of these people are already working or getting food stamps. Possibly both. Don't sound like a right winger and think that the poor in the US are all well-fed and secure in their food supply.

          Also, the kind of people I'm talking about aren't giving us 100,000 deaths/year. They tend to own shotguns or hunting rifles (not a large collection of them) and know how to handle and store them safely.

          Yes, I'm still for Dean.

          by Mike Jones on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 06:33:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Just logged in for the first time (0+ / 0-)

    today which is why I am just now commenting on your diary posted early this morning.  Bravo!  I commend your language and your message!  

    Live so that when your children think of fairness, caring and integrity, they think of you. H. Jackson Brown, Jr.

    by Ellen Columbo on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 10:12:08 PM PST

  •  I didn't even know (0+ / 0-)

    that word.

    Babylon system is the vampire... ~Bob Marley

    by sfinx on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 10:24:18 PM PST

  •  "overturned 200 years of precedent" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JayRaye

    show me a 200 year old precedent that was overturned???

    Stupid peckerwoods with guns fucked up Reconstruction and kept segregation and Jim Crow laws in place in the South for another hundred years.
    You mean this kind of Jim Crow Law?
    I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps....The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population.... [I]t is a safe guess to assume that more than 80% of the white men living in the rural sections of Florida have violated this statute.... [T]here has never been, within my knowledge, any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people, because it has been generally conceded to be in contravention of the Constitution and non-enforceable if contested.[1]
    It's a ban on concealed weapons.
    So, because the KKK was successful in implementing gun control among Black people in the South, we should now extend their success to everyone nationwide?  I don't concur.

    the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

    by happymisanthropy on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 12:42:41 AM PST

    •  200 years of precedent (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rmx2630

      Show me a USSC decision before Heller that said that the Second Amendment applied to an individual right to own guns, as opposed to in the context of "a well regulated militia". You won't find it. If you do, I'll apologize.

      And there were a lot of laws against concealed weapons in the early US. None of them were overturned. That's part of the "200 years of precedent" I was talking about. There were also laws that required everyone owning a gun to register them with the head of the state militia. Also not overturned. There were laws forbidding storage in your house of more than a certain amount of munitions; the remainder had to be stored in the village magazine. Also not overturned.

      And you know, the text you cite doesn't even support your point. The law applied to everyone. It was only enforced against blacks. That's not a Jim Crow law; it's just another case of people's rights being trampled that none of the "law-abiding citizens with guns" stood up against. There were plenty of people with guns in the South during the Jim Crow era that could have stood up against the actual laws or against the misbehavior of local and state governments. Where the hell were they?  Answer: for the most part, they agreed with those laws and behavior. Just another case of how lots of individuals with guns is absolutely no guarantee that the rights of people around them won't be violated.

      Yes, I'm still for Dean.

      by Mike Jones on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:25:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So the literacy tests (0+ / 0-)

        that applied to everyone, but black people "failed" even when they answered every question right, weren't part of Jim Crow?

        the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

        by happymisanthropy on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 10:00:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Literacy test (0+ / 0-)

          Technically, no, they weren't "Jim Crow laws". Jim Crow was more than just laws, though, as you clearly understand. And where were all the law abiding citizens with guns to defend against it? That's the question you're not answering. What good does it do to claim we need guns to defend our rights if they're never used that way?

          Yes, I'm still for Dean.

          by Mike Jones on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 10:42:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Oh and (0+ / 0-)

        militia members (i.e. almost everyone) were required to prove to the militia captain that they owned at least one functional weapon.  They were NEVER required to register every weapon they owned.

        the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

        by happymisanthropy on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 10:02:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yet it was a registry (0+ / 0-)

          So I take it you wouldn't have any problem, then, with a law that required everyone who owned one or more guns to register at least one of them? And to attend a regular muster?

          Yes, I'm still for Dean.

          by Mike Jones on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 10:44:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If there's no purpose (0+ / 0-)

            except to needlessly harass gun owners, then I would oppose it.

            "You're probably all wondering why I called you here today... I just wanted to waste your time and make it so inconvenient that you gave up."

            the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

            by happymisanthropy on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 12:18:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  thirdly (0+ / 0-)

        show me a supreme court decision that says the Second Amendment applies only to members of a militia.  None ever did.

        Dred Scott, however, makes a list of reasons why Black people cannot be allowed the same rights as white people.  One of those reasons is that, if black people had the same rights as white people, they would be able to travel freely from state to state and carry weapons with them wherever they went.

        It didn't specifically cite the second amendment, because the individual right to keep and bear arms was universally accepted at that time and you don't cite what everyone already knows.

        the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

        by happymisanthropy on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 10:07:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're dodging the question (0+ / 0-)

          The fact is that there have been numerous laws that regulated guns by type, location, ability to carry (both open and concealed), and other criteria yet the courts never overturned any of them on the basis that the 2A carried an individual right to own whatever guns one wants. Even Heller doesn't actually go that far.

          Yes, I'm still for Dean.

          by Mike Jones on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 10:45:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Definition of militia (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Justus

    UNITED STATES CODE
    TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
    Subtitle A - General Military Law
    PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
    CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

    § 311. Militia: composition and classes

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

    (b) The classes of the militia are --

    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;

    and

    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    UNITED STATES CODE
    TITLE 32 - NATIONAL GUARD
    CHAPTER 3 - PERSONNEL

    § 313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitations

    (a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.

    (b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must -

    (1) be a citizen of the United States; and

    (2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site