Skip to main content

Matt Wuerker
(Click for larger image)

Originally posted to Comics on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 02:50 PM PST.

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

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 support gun laws (8+ / 0-)

    but the precise meaning of the 2nd amendment doesn't have anything to do with flintlocks.

    "I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, You know I'm a peaceful man.'" J. R. Robertson.

    by NearlyNormal on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 03:03:11 PM PST

    •  Yup, just as the guy practicing his free speech (10+ / 0-)

      rights to draw this cartoon is using the web to distribute it. So free speech rights are only guaranteed with lead cast moveable type and hand cranked printing presses?

      What's wrong with America? I'll tell you. Everything Romney said was pre-chewed wads of cud from Republicans from the last 30 years and yet he managed thru a combination of racism and selling the (false) hope of riches to get 47% of the national vote.

      by ontheleftcoast on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 03:19:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nor unfettered ownership of any type of gun (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      by common citizens.

      "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

      by wader on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 04:23:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  you sure? (4+ / 0-)

      because when the consitution was written the idea that any one person could have a round per minute rate over maybe 10 would have been unbelievable and flintlocks were all they had

      I don't quite support putting the idea into practice but I laugh at the irony of those 'strict constructionists' who don't quite get how hypocritical they are being

      In the time that I have been given,
      I am what I am

      by duhban on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 05:24:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah, I'm sure (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon

        If they had wanted only flintlocks they'd have said so.  The context of the writers, particularly including the arguments put forward in the Federalist Papers, are conclusive that the meaning of "arms" wasn't to be restrictive, they knew there would be advances...I don't think they knew how far it would go-but I am sure that the idea was to have a fairly substantial armed citizenry.

        "I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, You know I'm a peaceful man.'" J. R. Robertson.

        by NearlyNormal on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 06:45:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  how can you restrict something that hasn't (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shanesnana, FutureNow, drklassen

          been even concieved?

          That's a paradox and a contradiction and besides I'm not saying that it should be that way just that when people beat their chests and say 'strict consitutionalist' that's an inherently flawed position

          In the time that I have been given,
          I am what I am

          by duhban on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 07:47:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  right (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Canis Aureus, theatre goon

        just like comics distributed over unimaginable fiber optic networks were unimaginable, and therefore excluded from first amendment protection.

        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 Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 07:03:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, they knew about rapid fire and (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon

        mass area-effect weapons. They knew about a device called the "Puckle Gun" (Google it) which was kind of a 1770's precursor to the Gatling Gun; they also had a lot of cannon which were privately owned but pledged to serve the early Colonies: Privateers formed a lot of the nascent US "Navy" and those were privately owned ships that had to have their own privately owned cannon to protect themselves from pirates. And 'grapeshot' was far, far worse than a high-capacity magazine.

        Heck, look up "Volley Guns" in general-- the concept had been around for awhile:

        Does this negate arguments for gun control? Not really-- so long as it is remembered that such weapons were organized into the "well regulated militia" while still privately owned. Training and proof of competency, and a way to get in contact if needed = militia.

        •  puckle and volley guns (0+ / 0-)

          do not even come close the level of firepower one person can wield today buy as I said else where that's not really the point

          the point is a jab at the 'strict consitutionalists'

          In the time that I have been given,
          I am what I am

          by duhban on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 08:34:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I know what you meant, I just (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            duhban, theatre goon

            have to call into question the validity of the notion that "one person could never be able to wield the power to be able to kill so many people" when they obviously were aware of it.

            Arguments for control can be made, I just believe that this is a poor foundation from which to launch such arguments.

  •  I'd be happy with a flintlock (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theatre goon, wader

    but then I'm weird.

    I wonder if I could have a gatling gun.......

    It's not technically a semi-auto because you have to shoot it manually.

    It doesn't have a thumbhole stock or a front grip. It does seem to have a towing attachment.

    It's not the sort of thing you could take to Penny's, though...

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

    by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 03:11:03 PM PST

  •  no rational person would apply the 2nd (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OldDragon, Glen The Plumber, polecat

    to the AR-15 with a 30 round magazine. It's like saying the 1st means you can broadcast the Koran at ear-splitting volume everywhere without restiction.

    This Rover crossed over.. Willie Nelson, written by Dorothy Fields

    by Karl Rover on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 03:13:48 PM PST

    •  Bad comparison. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon, happymisanthropy

      First amendment version of the modern sporting rifle with a standard size magazine (which is what you specified) would be having a home computer and printer with which you can print out hundreds of copies of a pamphlet to pass out willy-nilly in front of city hall.

      Oh, wait. Most folks already HAVE the first amendment version of the ar rifle.

      I am so sorry that your analogy turned out to really suck as an argument. Better luck next time.

      It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink. The answer is not more gun control, it's people care.

      by JayFromPA on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 03:50:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, the 2nd is supposed to apply to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      "the militia" and the common militia weapons that a militia would "keep and bear"... so actually a civilian modified AR-15 type rifle is almost the definition of what would be covered, since it is a civilianized copy of what the US military is issued.

      What really needs to be defined is "the militia" and its role. IMO, the "militia" would be every able-bodied citizen between the ages of 18 to 65 (theoretically). If someone in this category wanted to own a militia weapon, they should join a state-recognized militia and be available to assist in the event of civil disaster.

      Whereas if you don't join a militia, then... it's bolt-actions, lever-actions, trapdoors, break-open, revolvers and muzzleloaders.

    •  Like saying Fox News can spew lies and hate (0+ / 0-)

      on broadcast TV, radio, and cable.

      Oh wait...


      by raincrow on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 04:47:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I should create a sockpuppet account: Joke Ruiner (3+ / 0-)

    I hate to be "that guy" but...

    A strict constructionist would read "arms" and interpret "arms" (in the sense of the definition, "a weapon"). In other words, the strict constructionist interpretation is that nuclear weapons should not be banned, not that only flintlocks should be allowed:

    Strict construction requires a judge to apply the text only as it is spoken. Once the court has a clear meaning of the text, no further investigation is required. Judges should avoid drawing inferences from a statute or constitution and focus only on the text itself.

    I think you meant something more along the lines of originalism, specifically "original intent":

    Original intent maintains that in interpreting a text, a court should determine what the authors of the text were trying to achieve, and to give effect to what they intended the statute to accomplish, the actual text of the legislation notwithstanding.[2][3] As in purposivism, tools such as legislative history are often used.

    ...although I admit that's not a perfect match, either.

    Sorry to ruin the joke.

    it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

    by Addison on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 03:14:32 PM PST

    •  Nope, not exactly. The "nuclear arms" argument (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon, wader, raincrow

      has been debunked countless times. But we can do it again.

      The 2nd Amendment states that there is a right to "Keep and Bear" arms, so the "Arms" would have to reflect something that someone could keep on their person and bear (carry) by themselves. It is also supposed to reflect "common arms" as used by "the militia" for "militia purposes" (as backed up by United States vs. Miller). Nuclear arms are not common issue among the military, but heavily restricted to particular units and subject to their own chain of command.

      So, sorry, hate to be "that guy", but... ;-)

      •  Sigh... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber

        ...who/what are you even debunking?

        I am not a strict constructionist. I am just noting what their arguments point to vis-a-vis the second amendment.

        To engage in your argument:

        1. There are portable nuclear arms.

        2. Nuclear arms could be used for militia purposes.

        ...and most bizarrely:

        It is also supposed to reflect "common arms" as used by "the militia" for "militia purposes" (as backed up by United States vs. Miller). Nuclear arms are not common issue among the military, but heavily restricted to particular units and subject to their own chain of command.
        3. "Common" isn't a word used in the amendment, so it wouldn't be included in a strict constructionist argument -- see my blockquote above.

        Why are you bringing an obviously originalist argument into my statement about strict constructionalism?

        I guess you just wanted to argue with someone about something?

        it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

        by Addison on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 05:39:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Common arms as used by the militia (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon, drklassen

          was a condition used to define the United States vs. Miller case. Miller had a sawed-off shotgun which he said he was allowed to have under the 2nd Amendment. The Court came back and said, no, the 2nd Amendment applies to the militia, and so it only covers arms in common use by the militia (paraphrased). Sawed-off shotguns were considered inappropriate for militia use and so, weren't covered.

          18+ years in the US Army combat Arms (Infantry, Tanks and Combat Engineers) and I was never once, ever, issued a suitcase nuke, even when I went to Iraq. ;-)

    •  thanks for this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shanesnana, Canis Aureus

      How dare you throw cold water on a beautifully drawn cartoon  like this!  ....but I appreciate the point.  Truly.

      You also though are being a bit selective in your cutting and pasting from Wikipedia.  This is in the next graph under the part you site on "Strict Constructivism"

      "Strict constructionism" is also used in American political discourse as an umbrella term for conservative legal philosophies such as originalism and textualism, which emphasize judicial restraint and fidelity to the original meaning (or originally intended meaning) of constitutions and laws
      it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses...indeed.
      •  Dear Matt... (0+ / 0-)

        ...I liked the cartoon!

        But it should be noted that the passage you're quoting mainly deals with inaccurate representations of the philosophy, not what it actually means. I was selective in my quoting, yes. HOWEVER, I did that because I didn't feel the need to quote bits that merely reflected the common misunderstanding!

        it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

        by Addison on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 08:30:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  In this version of "Strict Constructionism," (7+ / 0-)

    ...then Freedom of Speech would not apply to the Internet -- the medium used to share this cartoon.

    Ironic, no...?

    Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

    by theatre goon on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 03:20:02 PM PST

  •  Um, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, ratcityreprobate

    Unless "NRA" signifies an organization with a precisely defined chain of command and table of organization with regular training and drilling dedicated solely to the defense of the state, no flintlocks, either.

    Republicans represent both sides: the insanely rich and vice versa.

    by Crashing Vor on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 03:21:11 PM PST

  •  Muzzle loaders only. Perfect. +4/rec'd. (0+ / 0-)

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 03:55:07 PM PST

  •  2nd Amendment Excerpt: "a well regulated militia" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber, polecat

    well regulated = gun control

  • long as only property owners can vote! (0+ / 0-)

    (right wing troll)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site