Skip to main content

The reactionary Right in America are fanatical about the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, or at least their own interpretation of it as an absolute right (even though it  is the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights that begins with a qualifier).  If you were to parse it into today's English from the convoluted 18th Century Noah Websterish phrasing, it would read something like:

As long as a well-regulated militia is considered to be necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The primary reason for the Second Amendment (for you Strict Constructionists and Original Intenters) is that the Founding Fathers did not want to have a standing army (its why Congress can only fund the Army for 2 years at a time). As an alternative to a standing professional army, they envisioned state "militias" the structure of which would be defined by Congress (Article I, Section 8) and could be called out in case of invasion and TO PUT DOWN SEDITIOUS INSURGENCIES (not to arm loonies to start a seditious insurgency).  In national emergencies, the President as Commander-in-Chief has ultimate command of the militias (today known as state National Guard units) and can order them into battle against an outside aggressor or a seditious revolution.

Despite its stated purpose in the Amendment and the additional detail in the first 2 Articles of the Constitution itself, there is a significant group of deluded and paranoid conspiracy theorists who have been convinced for decades that our democratically elected government is, behind the scenes, an evil conspiracy working to destroy American values and freedoms, enslave the "real" Americans (those who also believe in the conspiracy), and hand American sovereignty over to the United Nations and/or the Muslim Brotherhood.  Essentially, a group of right-wing lunatics have believed in this conspiracy for the entire history of the country (only the evil mastermind changes in each generation (Illuminati, Freemasons, Mormons, Jesuits, the "Pope of Rome," internationa bankers (code for Jews), Communists, and now one-worlders and Muslims trying to force Shari'ah down Americans' throats.

These people believe that, in order to accomplish their dastardly mission, the evil satanic powers masquerading as ordinary politicians, media, and educators, must disarm the people before they can be rounded up and put into re-education or detention camps.  Thus, they arm themselves to the hilt with the closest thing to military weapons they can find, create survivalist groups, build bunkers, and are ever vigilant for ANYTHING that they can interpret as part of the massive plot to disarm them (some recently have actually said that the Newtown massacre was perpetrated by the Obama administration as the opening move in gun confiscation).  They are always manning the barricades, on the verge of violent revolution against their own government.

BTW, even more than the thousands of gun deaths each year through crimes, suicides, accidents, home disputes, and unbalanced spree killers, I think that this army of perhaps hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of wack jobs, already armed to the teeth, are the most serious threat that gun ownership poses - and all of their weapons will be grandfathered in under any new gun laws.  Millions of already owned guns, including semi-automatic assault weapons (as well as high-capacity clips) will still be in the hands of unbalanced paranoids.

Now, lets look at the attitude of the very same reactionary right-wing loonies when it comes to the Constitutional Right, confirmed by the Supreme Court, for women to have access to safe abortions, contraception, and family planning.  All of a sudden, Constitutional Rights they DON'T agree with are merely obstacles to be blocked by any means possible, including intimidation, bombs and murders, and state and federal intrusion into the freedom of individuals and laws designed solely to put abortion providers out of business.  Just imagine if the Progressives were doing the same to gun stores and passing laws not just to make gun ownership safer, but to do a similar end-run around a Constitutional Right that the conspiracists hold sacred to block them from owning or obtaining guns.  These people see issues as black-and-white conflicts between absolute good and absolute evil - there can be no compromise for them, only victory or defeat as they prepare to fight it out to the bitter end.

There is a phenomenon in the conspiracist mentality called "mirroring," or, in Psychologists' terms "projection," where the conspiracist defines the "enemy" as a projection of the self, even to the most evil aspects of the conspiracist's self.  It is easy for the gun nuts to believe that their opponents are willing to use any tactic fair or foul to violate their Constitutional Rights, disarm, and enslave them because they, themselves, are willing to use any tactic, fair or foul to do that very thing to the Constitutional Rights that THEY hate and oppose.

They are willing to fight to the death (preferably of their opponents) in absolute support of the Constitutional Right to "own and bear arms," while also being willing to fight to the death (also, preferably of their opponents) in absolute opposition to the Constitutional Right for women to have legitimate medical access to safe abortions.

Is it any wonder that the rest of us think that their peculiar reverence for a dependent clause in the Second Amendment is worth dying for, while nothing else in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, succeeding Amendments, recent Supreme Court rulings, and stare decisis (Supreme Court legal precedents) seems to matter to them, marks them as mentally unbalanced lunatics with extreme paranoid ideation and real fear and rage toward the rest of their own country?  And, it should be noted, they are already armed with millions of weapons that will not be subjected to ANY of the new gun laws being talked about.

Where are the concerned citizens and politicians talking about this very real, if not downright imminent, threat to the country's safety from a subset of gun owners?

Originally posted to Beartooth's Left Bank on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 11:32 PM PST.

Also republished by Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA) and Shut Down the NRA.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

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


More Tagging tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (14+ / 0-)

    "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." --Frederic Bastiat, French writer and economist, 1850

    by Beartooth Bronsky on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 11:32:22 PM PST

  •  I put my coin in the tip jar for sharing (5+ / 0-)

    your thoughts.  Yes, this wacky right-wing component of society does exist.  Yes, the do value their 2nd Amendment rights, in some case above all else.  Yes, they believe that the 2nd Amendment is the only permit that they should need to carry guns.

    However. this isn't the only group that values their rights as affirmed, not granted, by the Constitution of this nation.  I happen to be one of them and I support and exercise my 2A rights.  However, unlike many on the far right, or even the far left (as many here on DKos seem to be), I support ALL of the rights enshrined by that document.  As individuals we don't get the luxury to pick and chose which we think are valid.  We don't get to say, you get this right, you get that right, and I get these.  We, each and every one of us, get them all and whether or not we need or chose to make use of them is our choice.

    As a society, the means exists to alter and amend those rights does exist.   Until such time as it is used, the 2nd Amendment stands.  The bar to do so was set sufficiently high and with good reason.  It takes the approval of 3/4 of the states.  Not a majority, not a majority of voters, not 3/4 of the people, but 3/4 of the states.  This is a much larger group.  If the bar were not this high, changing these fundamental laws would bring about change that enough of society wasn't ready to accept and chaos would ensue.  Look at prohibition as an example.  In that particular case, it was also an attempt to legislate morality, which doesn't work.

    Your opinion may be that the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias and is no longer valid, and so forth.  You have the right to this opinion as pointed out (not granted) by the very same document.  The courts, however, in several rulings across more than 100 years disagree with you, and it is their opinion that matters.  Of course they also say that these rights, all of them, are not without limitation.  What is up to interpretation, and rightfully should fall to congress is what are those limits.

    Before you go off on another anti-gun rant, please do keep in mind that criminals committing violent crime are not exercising their 2nd A rights.  Murderers are not exercising their rights.  Gang members are not exercising their rights.   There are, however, millions of American citizens who do and are.  Many of them also happen to be Liberal in their political views.  This very form has such an enclave, though many of them have left because of the treatment they have received by others here.  Others who demand their rights while refusing to recognize someone else having rights; the very same damn thing you accuse those of the political Right of doing.  Many of these people recognize the need for gun laws and are very vocal about it.  They are also realistic in recognizing that by definition laws will have little direct impact on criminals and are also rightfully opposed to having their rights, responsibly exercised, being curtailed by those who don't give a shit about this particular right.  As I see it, you either stand for all rights for everybody, or you stand for none of them because they can all be taken, one by one.

    •  No amendment is absolute (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      •  No, they are not. And I commented to this effect (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        This particular question seems to be an issue with the 2nd right now.  Them most recent SCOTUS ruling stated that, as with all rights, they are not without limit.  The court seemed to imply that the limits are more concerned with where guns may be possessed rather than what type of gun may be possessed.

    •  No, not really . .. . . (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kharma, Silvia Nightshade
      As a society, the means exists to alter and amend those rights does exist.   Until such time as it is used, the 2nd Amendment stands.  The bar to do so was set sufficiently high and with good reason
      all that needs to change is a different composition of SC justices, which based their rulings rather arbitrarily on the politics of the day.  

      That's a much lower bar, really.

      •  Yes and no. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        An appointment of a Liberal judge, will alter the 5-4 balance of the courts.  It is a matter of debate whether or not this will happen.   It is suspected that the next judge or two to retire will be Liberal and hence the likelihood of any Obama replacement will keep the same balance.  Looking forward, I wouldn't be surprised to see a shift rightward in terms of presidency back to an R next election.  I say this purely on the history of my lifetime which has shown a tendency for this change every 8 to 12 years.  My prediction is not politically motivated.

        While some may believe that this would bring about an anti-gun utopia, history suggests otherwise.  Courts are exceptionally hesitant to overturn rulings and do so only in the most extreme of circumstances.  Consequently, the idea that the courts would flip the existing rulings is very remote.  Secondly, the courts tend to affirm and respect the rulings of other courts as they like to rely upon the system of precedence.  The rulings to date would not likely be to the antis favor.  This too suggests that this would not happen.

        As an example case in point, the current court is 5-4 and Roe v. Wade still stands.  

        In addition to the courts, congress has the ability to provide checks and balances to the courts.  Should the courts make a ruling that is sufficiently unpopular, and lets be honest, outside of places like DKos, gun rights have a much higher support, congress has the ability to modify the laws in a manner to meet judicial requirements.

        •  The thing is that RW nutcase justices have (0+ / 0-)

          absolutely no qualms about ignoring precedent while progressives do not follow suit.

          Thus, the court drifts (races?) rightward . . .

          The bottom line is, if all of what you say were true, how could there be so many 5-4 decisions?

          •  The one thing that really, above all else (0+ / 0-)

            caught my attention with the recent health care legislation ruling was that Roberts (if I recall correctly), sided with the Left on this particular issue claiming that it was important for the integrity of the court and the perception of it's integrity to avoid partisan splits.  In other words, it sounded to me like he inherently disagreed with the legislation but found a way to make it fit more to avoid looking partisan.  I say make it fit, because of the dance he did around the tax issue and stated that the measure failed against the clause that the govt tried to justify it under, but that it could be justified other ways.

            In any case, the idea of rulings along party lines is never guaranteed.  Any time an issue goes to the court, it is a roll of the dice.

            •  There is a good argument to be made (0+ / 0-)

              that Robert's support of "ObamaCare" was doubleplus diabolically clever on his part.

              First, as outlined by David Frum (Yuck!, but whatever) in this article ObamaCare consisted of nothing but warmed over Republican ideas.  Plus, it would result in the infusion of tens of millions of new clients for Roberts' corporate masters - in short, nothing substantial to object to at all.

              Second, and more significantly, it would establish his reputation as an "independent" (much like John McCain inexplicably got a reputation as a "maverick").  Then, when time after time in the future he'd vote with the RW neanderthals (no offense of neanderthals, since recent genetic evidences suggests we're all partly neanderthal!) the political motivation for him doing so could be discounted.

            •  Justice Roberts really didn't side with the Left. (0+ / 0-)

              His ruling rejected the use of the Commerce clause, greatly weakening it, and was based on the technical point of Congress's Constitutional power to tax - seeing the penalty for not following the mandate in particular as a tax.  BTW, at the end of July, 2009, while Obama was still championing the "public option,"  Romney wrote an op-ed (in USA Today, IIRC) calling for Obama to substitute the long-time core of Republican health plans, the insurance mandate.  He even wrote about the way his Romneycare avoided the problem off "freeloaders," who didn't buy in until they were actually sick by imposing a "tax" (his word) on any who didn't follow the mandate.

              Obama finally gave in, dropped the public option and adopted the Republican mandate - at which point, its long-time Republican supporters spun 180 degrees and began denouncing it as a totalitarian overreach of government power.   Go figure...

              Another BTW, the entire concept of the mandate arose from a position paper written in 1989 at the conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation.  By 1990, Newt Gingrich was one of its loudest proponents, and during the battle over HillaryCare, Republicans introduced 2 counter-proposals, both based on the mandate.  It has been the core of Republican healthcare plans for 2 decades - right up until the minute Obama agreed with them.

              In the short run, this decision will be good for uninsured and underinsured Americans, but in the long run, his precedent-breaking weakening of the Commerce Clause will come back to haunt Progressives.

              "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." --Frederic Bastiat, French writer and economist, 1850

              by Beartooth Bronsky on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 07:09:12 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  noway2... (0+ / 0-)

      Actually, it is a case of black-or-white thinking to assign me the title of "anti-gun."  I am only "responsible-gun."  My problem is not with guns, per se (I have owned revolvers, rifles, and shotguns when I lived in a remote cabin high in the Colorado Rockies and they were legitimate tools).  

      I am only talking about the people who have not (yet) committed any murder, but who, in their phantasmagorical conspiracy delusions, are arming themselves against their own government - those people who see this country as meant only for them and people who look and think just like them, and are feeling so dispossessed by the natural evolution of the country that they talk of "taking back our America," and rant about "either the ballot or bullet," or, in Michele Bachmann's threat about having to exercise "our Second Amendment rights."  

      Unlike the Second Amendment, which has been argued over for two centuries by lawyers and courts as to how the "well-regulated militia" conditional should be translated, the First Amendment has NO qualifiers.  It grants unrestricted Freedom of Speech among other freedoms (can anybody name all five without looking it up?).

      Yet, we have seen the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech modified and limited in a dozen ways - each time with the intent (rightly or wrongly) of benefiting society.

      We all know the example of "You can't cry 'FIRE' in a crowded theater (unless there really IS a fire ;) ).  But consider limitations placed by laws against libel and slander and for truth in advertising. (I think we'd have much more palatable political campaigns if these laws were also applied to "public figures." Think about copyright laws or laws against advocating the armed overthrow of the American government. Think about laws restricting or eliminating words deemed "obscene" from public use and on most TV and radio channels.  Think about an entire segment of our population that would love to add a "blasphemy" clause to that law (as well as suppress religions they fear, like Islam or Scientology), or those states that have made it illegal for doctors and health workers to even discuss options to carrying an unwanted fetus to term or preventing pregnancies through any means except abstinence.

      The "Second Amendmenters" I am referring to are comfortable with what most Americans consider to be reasonable modifications or limitations to all other liberties, but are only absolutists on the "right to keep and bear arms."  They consider any reasonable regulation of gun ownership to be tantamount to confiscation of all guns - a slippery slope as logical fallacy.  I have yet to see anybody except a fringe talking about confiscating all guns and preventing people from hunting, sport shooting, or home self-defense.  

      I went to a gun show recently out of curiosity and was not surprised that it is easier to buy an AR-15 derivative assault rifle with a thirty-round clip or a Barrett .50mm sniper rifle (that has cartridges that look like cannon shells, can kill at 1,000 yards, penetrate a police armored vehicle, or bring down an airliner if you sit a bit off the runway and shoot while the plane is still climbing from the runway) than it is to get a library card in my township.

      I do not want to see criminals or psychopaths have access to guns, nor do I think guns should be accessible in any home with a seriously depressed or bi-polar inhabitant (there are more gun suicides than murders each year in this country).

      I also do not want to see tens or hundreds of thousands of anti-government conspiracy nuts sitting in their bunkers surrounded by their weapons just waiting for a chance to start what they call a "revolution against a tyrannical government," but the rest of us see as an insurgency or treasonous insurrection against a democratically elected government in a democratic society.

      I see no reason not to have all guns and rifles registered, and to issue renewable licenses for all legitimate gun owners.  This no more interferes with a legitimate person's right to own a gun than registering of automobiles and licensing of drivers interferes with the law-abiding citizen's right (more correctly, privilege) to own and drive a car - subject to all traffic laws.

      The "gun nuts" (I use the term only for the paranoid, fear-driven, anti-democratic conspiracists) believe that ANY reasonable regulation of guns is just part of their imagined conspiracy to confiscate all of their weapons and enslave them.  I think that, by definition, they have all just flunked the mental health check. I have read on their websites widely-held opinions that the Columbine, Aurora, even Newtown spree killings were secretly organized by the Democrats as a means of creating enough fear in the public to support complete gun confiscation.  Can you really claim sitting there, re-reading the Diaries of Nat Turner or posting on (I'm not talking about the blogger and author John Wesley Rawles, with whom I have had intriguing web debates about legitimate survival skills and tactics over the years, but the nutcase commenters), or NewsMax, expressing the belief that the recent murder of "The American Sniper" author, Chris Kyle, was an Obama plot.

       Their slippery slope reasoning is like the guy on death row for killing somebody during an illegal back-alley craps game.  When the guy in the next cell asked him what got him started on this life of compulsive gambling and crime leading to death row, he said "Church Bingo." [apologies to Lenny Bruce for borrowing the example].

      "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." --Frederic Bastiat, French writer and economist, 1850

      by Beartooth Bronsky on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 06:44:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  When one person gets shot every 5 minutes, it is (4+ / 0-)

    a national crisis. When will our politicians break the grip of the NRA to pass sensible firearm regulations?

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

    by DefendOurConstitution on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 04:00:09 AM PST

    •  I won't quibble about your numbers (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      but if you do the math using your statement, it's not in allignment with the apparent facts:

      It is a crisis...a huge problem.  And, while I support banning civilian ownership of military-type weapons, I don't think such a ban will materially change the numbers.   I could list a dozen reasons I think this is so, but what does it matter.

      The Swiss have about 300 gun deaths a year, but just about every home has an assault rifle and or pistol.  I think if people thought about why they don't have a problem and we do, we'd get to the root of violence here.  

      The longer I live, the clearer I perceive how unmatchable a compliment one pays when he says of a man "he has the courage to utter his convictions." Mark Twain

      by Persiflage on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 06:13:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not true (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Only Swiss males 19-34 are required to have military rifles, and they are issued ammunition for those rifles in an emergency.

        And, even with that requirement, Swiss gun ownership is about half that of the US. Their total gun death is a bit under half that of the US.

        Not sure why Switzerland is always brought up because it certainly doesn't offer a strong counter example.

        •  to my knowledge, gun deaths are about (0+ / 0-)

          300 per year.  I found that thru teh google.   The same article said there are about 870,000 assault rifles in Swiss hands.  That's enough to create major mayhem.

          The point I was alluding that the Swiss also don't have many of our social and economic ills.  Everything is debatable and I'm not arguing pro-Swiss.


          The longer I live, the clearer I perceive how unmatchable a compliment one pays when he says of a man "he has the courage to utter his convictions." Mark Twain

          by Persiflage on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 07:39:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  32k deaths plus over 70k shot and treated at ERs (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Silvia Nightshade

        add up to over 100k.  Divide 525,600 minutes per year into 100k and you have 5 minutes that pass between a person getting shot.

        Bloomberg number is for deaths only, but injuries count as well.

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

        by DefendOurConstitution on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 08:55:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  OTOH, Stalin would say when a person is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kharma, KVoimakas

      shot every 5 minutes (and I don't think you meant "shot" - I think you meant "shot AND killed" - the number who are shot and survive are 5 to 10x higher) that's a statistic, not a crime.

      Of course, if this only happened once a generation, then maybe it WOULD be a national crisis, you know, because of the shock and all.  Instead, we've all become comfortably numb.

      So, there's nothing to see here, let's all move along.

      •  So you are saying that the 70k people that get (0+ / 0-)

        shot and survive don't count?  They are victims as well, they need lots of emergency care ($14k on average) and many will spend lots of money for the rest of their lives to overcome the physical/psychological scars from getting shot.

        The shock is that we are numb to having over 100k people get shot every year and shrug our shoulders that nothing can be done because the NRA owns Congress and nothing will ever happen.

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

        by DefendOurConstitution on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 08:59:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  While I agree with you that these statistics (0+ / 0-)

          indicate that this nation has a real problem, I don't agree with you that this problem can be solved by legislative means.  In particular I don't believe that it can be solved via "gun control", the one possible exception being enforcement to crack down on proxy purchases and illegal ownership.

          Taking guns away from someone who is not breaking laws, is not committing murders, armed robbery, burglary, using drugs, etc is going to have a very minute effect on the crime rate.  Your ability to restrict the illegal gun market via legislative means is minimal.  You will only be able to control those who will abide by laws.  Lets be real, if they are not going to abide by a law against murder or assault with a deadly weapon they sure as hell aren't going to care about an illegal weapon law.  Criminals are not walking into stores, passing background checks, getting permits, and then going and then going out and committing crimes.

          The continued push on control of law abiding citizens is achieving nothing except a building backlash against the Democrat party.

          •  Nope, criminals buy guns that were "laundered" (0+ / 0-)

            into illegal guns after being sold as legal guns.  Licensing and registration will put an end to that, but it will take many years to dry up the vast inventory of illegal guns that the NRA has made sure is out there.  

            As far as not bothering law-abiding citizens, look at Nancy Lanza - a law abiding citizen that wasn't good about keeping her "legal" arsenal from her son. She wasn't breaking any laws and yet her guns killed her, 26 others and then her son.  The only way to restrict the illegal market is to have a very clear bookkeeping of the legal market and 100% accountability for every gun out there.  Sure the NRA hates it as a huge part of their profits come from guns that are legally purchased and then turned into illegal guns.

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

            by DefendOurConstitution on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 09:36:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  This, below, is NOT the NRA (0+ / 0-)

              This took place on Tuesday of this week in Raleigh, NC.  It is not associated with the NRA rally scheduled for today.  This is not the NRA.  This is a state level, all volunteer, non profit organization.

              This is what the calls for bans is doing.

              Link Here:

              As rally participants became increasingly energized, GRNC President Paul Valone took the stage to remind them of the lessons of 1994, when “compromise” on relatively benign gun control proposals led to the introduction of the draconian gun ban known as “Brady II.” As the crowd’s fervor grew, he said:
              “But make no mistake: These “reasonable” universal background checks are designed to create the beginnings of a national gun registration system. And registration is the necessary prelude to confiscation.

              “So tell people who support this “reasonable” measure that the Clinton administration already tried to turn the National Instant Check System into a defacto gun registration system by failing to expunge transaction records, in violation of the law.

              “They lied to us last time. Will we trust them this time?”

              The crowd’s cry of “NO!” was so resolute that it not only rang but actually echoed off the windows of the Legislative Office Building.

              Said Valone, “This is not 1994. Born of fire, scores of gun rights organizations like Grass Roots North Carolina have spent nearly two decades preparing for JUST. THIS. MOMENT.” Building to a crescendo, he said, “So now I want you to deliver a message that shakes the politicians behind these windows…”

              The resulting three chants from the crowd, repeating with increasing volume to literally rattle legislators’ windows were:

              “WE. WILL. NOT. COMPROMISE.”

              The local (North and South Carolina) forum members have adopted the line "Not one damned inch" as their no compromise motto.
      •  Don't write off the wounded (0+ / 0-)

        just because they survived.  Many of them will be injured or disabled for life - just ask Gabby Gifford or any of the paraplegics and quadraplegics who survived a gunshot to the spine.  

        The sister of a friend of mine was an accidental victim of a drive-by shooting on the streets of Philadelphia decades ago.  The shot grazed her skull and nicked her brain.  It appeared for a while to have done no damage except to leave a scar around her temple.  However, to this day, she suffers from seizures and almost daily paralyzing migraines resulting from her long ago wounding.

        "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." --Frederic Bastiat, French writer and economist, 1850

        by Beartooth Bronsky on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 07:18:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  you can understand the disparate treatment, (5+ / 0-)

    of course: we can point to the 2nd amendment, but there is no express abortion right.  It's impossible to deny the existence of a right to guns, its very easy to deny the existence of a right to abortion.

    •  And There's No Right to Have Food nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 05:33:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Excuse me... (0+ / 0-)

      but Roe v Wade declared abortion an express Constitutional Right, subject to certain restrictions in later stages of pregnancy.  A Constitutional Right is what the SCOTUS rules it to be.  They, for better or worse, are the sole arbiters of interpreting the Constitution and declaring what is or is not included in the Rights provided by the Constitution.

      Love it or hate it, unless or until Roe v Wade is overturned, it is every bit a Constitutional Right as Free Speech, the Second Amendment, and the right for all adult Americans to be able to vote without hindrance (the other Right the Right are trying like crazy to suppress with almost as much fervor as their movement to suppress a woman's Constitutional right to abortion).

      "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." --Frederic Bastiat, French writer and economist, 1850

      by Beartooth Bronsky on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 07:25:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Liberals are too illiterate to know (0+ / 0-)

    the difference. They usually assume as true what the far-right delusional majority says is in the Constitution. They are generally aware of what Stevens says in Citizens United regarding the buying and selling of free speech. But they have little comprehension of his dissent in Heller, or the established precedent in Miller. The GOP coup d'etat relies on liberal blind obedience to judicial supremacy, so it can quietly twist the Constitution into the shape of a pretzel.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site