Skip to main content

The 2nd amendment is a lawyer’s wet dream, devoid of anything approaching clarity and subject to the interpretation of whatever august chamber happens to be deliberating on its meaning. It is a Rorshach Test that helps to determine where we fall on the ideological spectrum. 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. If you want America to go back on the gold standard or own any pieces of clothing with the words, “these colors don’t run” on them, then you likely focus on the second half of the amendment. If you think that drone strikes are unconscionable or have an “I ♡ Obamacare” bumper sticker on your car, then you’ll be prone to devote your attentions to the first half. Anyone pompous enough to tell you he knows the “correct interpretation” of the 2nd Amendment is the same type of inflammatory jackass who insists he knows the real answer to a hypothetical question. Any reading of the 2nd amendment has as much to do with grammatical nuance as it does authorial intent. It’s all as clear as a barrel of Canadian crude.

When the Constitution was written, America was a fledgling nation with no standing army that was under constant threat of attack from their former colonial overlords on the other side of the briny deep. A couple of missteps here or there during The Revolutionary War or The War of 1812 and all the coins in my change jar could have Queen Victoria on them (right, Canada?). Naturally, the Founding Fathers would determine in all of their folksy wisdom that it would be a good idea to have a well-armed citizenry should King George decide to come back for seconds. Plus, in 1787 we were still surrounded by American Indians who were none too pleased to find us raping their land and giving them smallpox, and that’s to say nothing of the thousands of freaky ass animals that we’d never seen before roaming about the countryside. Guns were a necessary tool for surviving in the American wilderness.

Today, we have a standing army so immense that a fighting force comprised of the next 11 biggest armies in the world couldn’t equal its size. We have enough nuclear weapons to destroy every sentient being on this earth 100 times over and we have guns so powerful that they can fire off more rounds in a minute than your average Redcoat could get off in 3 hours. All of the frightening wilderness we used to encounter has been turned into a Costco parking lot and shooting animals is a sport rather than a necessity for survival. Would Thomas Jefferson have worded the constitution the same way if he was writing it on a Macbook Pro rather than a piece of parchment? I don’t fucking know. The Bill of Rights is a 225 year old document that was written in a very specific place and time and I don’t give a shit what that oafish Shrek of a man Antonin Scalia has to say about it, he’s wrong. The Constitution is a fluid, living document that was not written to be the secular iteration of The Ten Commandments. We’ve amended the damn thing 17 times before on matters as trivial as the prohibition of alcohol to issues as vital to our being as the abolition of slavery. There is precedent.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about a right to overcompensate for a lack of positive gender identity.

In the wake of the mass shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary and Aurora and Tucson, it is incumbent upon us reexamine the 2nd Amendment and what it means in the context of 21st century life. This does not mean that I, or the vast majority of Americans, want to ban all guns and completely gut the freedom to bear arms. In my opinion, the protest-happy hippie that wants to eliminate all firearms from American life is just as irrational as the paranoid survivalist that has 15 assault rifles and 3 years of canned food at his house in case the government ever tries to invade his home and plant a control chip in his brain. I am very supportive of hunter’s rights and am well aware of the somewhat paradoxical fact that pro-hunting organizations like Ducks Unlimited actually do some of the most important conservation work in this country. I recognize the fact that some people feel safer knowing that they have a shotgun or revolver in their home to protect themselves and I have nothing against that type of gun ownership provided the gun owner passes a comprehensive mental health exam and background evaluation.

What I cannot abide is the idea that anyone has the right to own an assault rifle or semi-automatic gun with a high capacity magazine whose only reason for existence is to kill a large number of people in a short time. There is no circumstance in which a home owner would need to use a semi-automatic weapon with a 30-round magazine like the one Adam Lanza used to senselessly murder 20 1st graders and 7 adults. A small platoon is not going to storm your front lawn like it was Omaha Beach so they can steal your jewelry and fine china, and if you need a 30-round magazine to deter just one or two burglars, then you have no business wielding a gun in the first place. The Bushmaster AR-15 rifle that was used in the shootings at Aurora and Newtown is a vile and disgusting hunk of metal that has no place in our society and can offer nothing but incomprehensible anguish.

Owning a gun is not a right. It is a privilege. America has proven itself uniquely undeserving of that privilege, racking up a higher intentional homicide rate than any other developed nation, with the overwhelming majority of those homicides coming from firearms.(1) The right to life trumps all else and there are 20 small children and 7 adults in Connecticut who had that right violently snatched from them for reasons that remain unclear, but will always be inexplicable. To appropriate a favorite slogan of the American Right: freedom isn’t free. Your freedom to purchase and play with semi-automatic weapons has cost us in ways that go beyond the 20 exuberant examples of youth and beauty that were taken from us this past December. Your freedom cost us more than the lives of the 7 courageous and blessed educators. Your freedom to wield an assault rifle cost us whatever sliver of hope we had that our children would grow up in a less violent and depraved world than we did. That is a cost I am not willing to pay and neither are the tens of millions of Americans who realize that without life, there is no liberty and without love there is no life.

———————————–

1The United States had 4.2 intentional homicides per 100,000 residents according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The next closest developed nation was South Korea with a rate of 2.6 per 100,000. Technically Liechtenstein was higher, but since they only have a population of 35,000, their 1 murder last year gave them a rate of 2.8 per 100,000.

Originally posted to Virally Suppressed on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 05:39 PM PDT.

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

  •  asdf (7+ / 0-)
    Anyone pompous enough to tell you he knows the “correct interpretation” of the 2nd Amendment is the same type of inflammatory jackass who insists he knows the real answer to a hypothetical question.
    ...
    Owning a gun is not a right. It is a privilege.
    ?

    Your end of the Constitution is sinking.

    by happymisanthropy on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 06:04:18 PM PDT

  •  amen...very well stated. (8+ / 0-)

    and this is worth repeating...

    The Constitution is a fluid, living document that was not written to be the secular iteration of The Ten Commandments. We’ve amended the damn thing 17 times before...


    We are not broke, we are being robbed.

    by Glen The Plumber on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 06:05:18 PM PDT

    •  We could amend our current Constitution nearly (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener, a2nite

      infinitely, and it would still not be adequate to our times. That's why I would like to have we, in the modern world, just write our own Constitution "from scratch".

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 08:29:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  you make Scalia's point. (8+ / 0-)
    We’ve amended the damn thing 17 times before on matters as trivial as the prohibition of alcohol to issues as vital to our being as the abolition of slavery.
    that's exactly his point: the recourse to a passage we don't like isn't for judges to read it out of existence, but to amend.
    •  No, the ultimate resourse, is, and has been since (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener

      day one, for each and every succeeding generation to accept the responsibility of ownership of our supreme guiding document. Obviously that might possibly mean no more than a tweak here and there.

      But the reality is that nearly no one likes all of the Constitution we are all forced to live under today, and, yet, our society has consistentl proved itself to be devoid of sufficient principle to engage in the process of deep self reflection.

      Face it, we're just too fucking lazy to even pay attention any more!

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 08:36:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent diary (6+ / 0-)

    Tipped, rec'd, agree completely, and couldn't have written it better myself.  Thanks!

    Political compass: -8.75 / -4.72

    by Mark Mywurtz on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 06:14:40 PM PDT

  •  Hear, hear! Thanks for your well-thought out and (7+ / 0-)

    reasoned post.

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

    by DefendOurConstitution on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 06:27:27 PM PDT

    •  How many other Rights included in the (0+ / 0-)

      'Bill of Rights' do you find to not be 'Rights', as the author of this diary does: "Owning a gun is not a right"?

      How much of the Constitution must be dismissed because of your distrust of your fellow citizens and your shameless fear of their liberties?

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Sun Mar 17, 2013 at 03:27:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Diary this? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose

        You seem to have a lot to say on the matter. Would you consider writing a diary putting it altogether in one place?

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:24:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe. But I did write a diary about a simple word (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib

          definition on the subject of gun control & it immediately devolved into an absurd pie fight.
          Obviously I don't have a problem jumping into a pie fight already in progress (contentious issues are seldom anything but...ya know.... 'contentious') but being the instigator by writing a diary (and of course the time/effort) isn't something I care to do presently.
          Minor difference? Perhaps. But it is significant enough to keep me from wanting to try again ATM.

          But thanks for asking.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:48:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I agree completely (6+ / 0-)

    Americans certainly have proven they lack the responsibility or demeanor to keep and bear arms.  We have 300 million firearms floating ubiquitously around the nation with no one taking any sort of responsibility with where they end up.  People who hold themselves as responsible gun owners have no concern for the damage these firearms cause around the nation as the buy and sell the things anonymously on the private market.  When the daily slaughter makes it to the headlines, they are the first to wash their hands of the bloodshed.  It's time for the rational among us to stand up and correct this abomination as the gun culture has completely abdicated their duty to do so.

    "Goodnight, thank you, and may your God go with you"

    by TheFern on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 06:28:11 PM PDT

  •  I Don't See the Justification for It At All. (7+ / 0-)

    Natives and also slave rebellions were 2 close-at-hand threats for people to be individually armed in connection with militia needs. Gun ownership is recognized as a basic right almost nowhere else in the civilized world; civilization has spoken and this is not a human right.

    We have a standing army, a state based National Guard, Navy, Air Force and mostly domestic Coast Guard, also standing state and local police forces with fast easy access to every square foot of inhabited territory, much of our uninhabited territory, and our seas, lakes and waterways.

    Obviously we have massive array of full-time professional forces performing every service of a well regulated civilian militia.

    There are dozens of reasons Americans want to own guns, just as there are for cars and rockets, and those that have such reasons should be able to have them under sensible regulation to protect society from negligence and abuse of all such things.

    But a fundamental right??

    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 Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 06:36:10 PM PDT

    •  "But a fundamental right??" Exactly! As no less (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener, Sandino

      than the Second Amendment nuts, themselves have already conceded. Sawed off shotguns and full auto ought to be still in play, as a matter of principle, but that priciple slipped by the way side decades ago.

      And the whole "ex-felon thing"? Once out of prison, we all have the same right to worship, read what we want, and to have 4th Amendment protection. RKBA? That's a pissant right, at best.

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 08:43:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  a lot of people have studied the origins of the 2A (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankRose, a2nite, Joy of Fishes

    carefully, it was very discussed when they were penning the bill of rights and many letters and correspondence were preserved. I'm not very informed on the whole thing but some are at RKBA, some lawyers over there ya know. It was only a couple hundred years ago, which doesn't seem that long to me now. I'm sure there are folks that could explain if approached in a non confrontational way, or even point you towards some places to read.

    All that is too complicated for me though, luckily our President is a constitutional scholar and I mostly figure he has it covered. What's legal and stuff.

    Another public figure I look to for guidance on issues gun is Gabby Giffords who heads some kind of reform org. She is that special kind of knowledgeable pragmatic that comes from the west. I even wrote a post about her. In support of a Blue Dog Now I know that word blue dog isn't well liked around these parts but out in the intermountain west those are the kinds of Dems we have. Cowboy hats and guns and stuff. Even though Gabby is into firearm reform she used to shoot before she got severely wounded by some guy that probably had not business being around firearms.

    Personally I don't like those  plastic guns, mostly because of looks but also I like simple mechanical things, easier to clean, less to go wrong. For those like Gabby though who enjoy shooting ARs I don't see anything wrong with it if they are obeying the law and what not.

    I have to say I've never shot at a target shaped like a human... ewww! Lota holes right in the center and some up in the neck. Too realistic for me.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 08:45:26 PM PDT

    •  Great idea - I get tired of hearing legal theories (3+ / 0-)

      thrown out and generalizations about what is and is not currently regulated.

      May I suggest a diary by Adam B, one of our Kossack lawyers took time to digest the second amendment and recent SCOTUS decisions for us.

      What gun control does the Second Amendment allow?

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 09:02:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This photo is fake (0+ / 0-)

      I'm unsure you posted it knowing this.  I just want this to be clear.

      "Goodnight, thank you, and may your God go with you"

      by TheFern on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 11:29:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sorry but you are mistaken, Gabby posted it to (4+ / 0-)

        her facebook page as well as another photo of her posing with an AK.

        Probably if you are going to call something fake you should have some sort or reason for doing so.

        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

        by ban nock on Sun Mar 17, 2013 at 03:53:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Gabby hasn't fired a weapon since she was shot. (3+ / 0-)

        As is often the case, the truth is just so simple, it's impossible to misunderstand. The picture is more than 2 years old. Using the picture to smear a Democrat is a RW meme.

        Any criticism for the target should be directed toward the Tuscon police department; it's their practice range and their targets. I share ban nock's discomfort with the details of the paper target used for shooting practice.

        Gabby is right-handed, her right arm is paralyzed from gun shot she took to the head. She can't even hold a gun now, let alone "enjoy" shooting them.

        Gabby's Facebook page aflutter over photos of her with AR-15

        No, the photos are more than two years old, but they're cropped in a way some viewers would not know that.
        As Gabby explains, the first is of her with the Tucson Police at a shooting range—servants who should have an AR-15 shooting them where they should be shot. The second photo is of Gabby in Afghanistan—again, with troops who should have an assault weapon.

        "Here are two photos of me that a conservative blog has dug up. I remember both of these days fondly. The first is at the Tucson Police Department firing range. They invited me to test rifles and Tasers that they bought with federal funds, which I helped secure. The second was in Afghanistan while I was visiting with our troops serving abroad."

        Gabby Giffords is one of the most credible voices speaking on behalf of gun safety—a respective civil servant, gun owner and victim of gun violence; and for that reason the NRA will find every reason to thwart her, like the supposed hypocrisy of these photos. Gabby's Facebook explanation of the two pictures suggests there is nothing incompatible with supporting the Second Amendment and advocating for gun safety legislation, such as background checks and large magazine bans. Sadly, Gabby's position requires a degree of commonsense that her critics are not willing to grant. And never will. Because unlike every other Amendment, the Second is all or nothing.

        The context: Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly own firearms. Recently, in his own research about how easy it is for anyone to just go out and buy a gun,  Mark purchased purchased some firearms, including an AR-15. He wanted to have first-hand experience with it so that he can speak more credibly about the AR-15 when he speaks publicly about gun safety regulations.

        The picture is one of two that has been used in attempts to smear both Gabby and Mark, claiming they are hypocritical gun owners. Lost on the manufactured non-controversy is that fact that many gun owners support gun safety regulations.

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Sun Mar 17, 2013 at 09:31:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  TheFern - it was taken in Afghanistan or Iraq (0+ / 0-)

        when she was visiting the troops. Why jump to the conclusion it was fake? It was on her Facebook page.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:24:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  A standing army larger than the next 11 biggest? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, nextstep

    Total US active duty armed forces  1,458,000

    Next 11 largest active duty standing armies

    China                 2,285,000
    India                  1,325,000
    No. Korea           1,106,000
    Russia                1,040,000
    So. Korea              687,000
    Pakistan                617,000
    Iran                      523,000
    Turkey                  510,000
    Malaysia               509,000
    Egypt                   468,000
    Vietnam               455,000
                            _____
    Total                 9,525,000

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Sun Mar 17, 2013 at 01:43:49 AM PDT

    •  Source? (0+ / 0-)

      Does it include only the army?

      Or do the numbers include - air force, navy, marines, coast guard, forest service, game wardens, border patrol?

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:27:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  All active duty military personnel for all (0+ / 0-)

        countries Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, but not including the active reserves, or National Guard. When you look at the other countries including the reserves makes the numbers goofy because some countries have huge reserves, like Israel. Here was my source:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        I knew that China had a larger military than the US, and that a handful of other countries had total military active duty personnel in the 1 million neighborhood, so there was no way we could have more active duty personnel than the next highest eleven. You are confusing budget with people. In other countries people cost less. What makes the US military budget so expensive is that we have the only world wide blue water navy and are the only country that has the equipment and infrastructure to deliver bomber aircraft anywhere in the world within 24 hours.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:21:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is a notable point - a worldwide navy (0+ / 0-)
          What makes the US military budget so expensive is that we have the only world wide blue water navy and are the only country that has the equipment and infrastructure to deliver bomber aircraft anywhere in the world within 24 hours.
          We don't hear anyone complain about the size of the US military when it's time to deliver aid to a natural disaster. I think it's also one of those claims that can be manipulated with selective use of numbers.

          As you point out, the cost of personnel differs so if you want the USA to look large you focus on cost, or cost per capita.

          But what about square miles of land mass, or miles of coast line or miles of populated border. Does it mean anything that guarding the eastern and western coasts of the US costs a lot more than guarding a similar length of coast in the artic? I don't think so.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:38:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Of course (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    noway2

    the constitution is amendable. I don't think anyone has disputed that. I'm happy that people are realizing that is what they would have to do to achieve their goals.

    Maybe in a couple hundred years the numbers will be there to ban guns.

    •  There's a lot of room in Heller for regulations (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joy of Fishes

      to be in place LONG before the constitution gets updated. (The 2A is not the only problem).

      this link (6+ / 0-)
      digs into the finer details of the Heller Decision,
      if you are so motivated:

      12/18/12 Assault Rifles should not be constitutionally protected.
by Brian Cunha, Law Offices, -- Dec 18, 2012

      
If only they would read it: Article I, Section 8.

      by jamess on Sun Mar 17, 2013 at 09:08:57 AM PDT

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Sun Mar 17, 2013 at 10:03:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  From the link (1+ / 2-)
        Recommended by:
        Mindful Nature
        Hidden by:
        Glen The Plumber, Avila
        The Heller decision offers “a lot of room” for Congress to act, said Jon Lowy, director of the Legal Action Project of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
        The statement coming from this organization is about as meaningful in terms of legal precedence as the NRA saying, "the only permit I need is the Constitution".

        How about something a bit more balanced:
        Cato Institute: Heller, whats next
        and
        Cato Institute: Gun control doesn't stop violence

        Disclosure on the links, Cato is considered non partisan and does not lobby, and has a long history of supporting and opposing Conservative and Liberal principles alike.  They have plenty to say about the 2nd and Heller.  One of the most important aspects of Heller is that the courts did not declare a scrutiny standard, which I am sure was intentional.  Typically, Constitutional issues usually get strict scrutiny and instead got a standing between strict scrutiny and rational basis.  I read this as a standing that restrictions are permissible, though not nearly as widely as some would like.

        •  r u serious..??..the Cato Institute..?? (4+ / 0-)

          and you link an article supporting McCain over Obama..??

          HR for spewing RW tallking points...you just revealed yourself as a HOS troll.

          for those unsure of this trolls history read...

          here

          here

          here


          We are not broke, we are being robbed.

          by Glen The Plumber on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 06:15:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're asking if I'm serious, please... (0+ / 0-)

            Frankly, your ongoing pattern of following me around and name calling is getting a bit old.  Perhaps it is time for a little chat with the administrators about it.

            Lets also discuss your reading comprehension problem shall we.  "Article supporting McCain over Obama" is that what you call it?  Lets have a look at the section, the only section that mentions McCain shall we:

            There are, of course, national political implications as well. One of the two presidential candidates seems to appreciate the importance of gun owners’ rights. The other candidate appears less supportive. In his May 16 speech to the National Rifle Association, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) claimed solid Second Amendment credentials, despite occasional disagreements with the NRA. Although he reaffirmed support for background checks and closing the “gun show loophole” — both of which are anathema to more fervent advocates of gun owners’ rights — McCain proudly noted, “For more than two decades, I’ve opposed efforts to ban guns, ban ammunition, [and] ban magazines.” Moreover, McCain signed a friend-of-the-court brief submitted on Heller’s behalf by a majority of both houses of Congress.

            Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) did not sign the brief. In fact, he reportedly stated, prior to issuance of the Helleropinion, that he backs the D.C. gun ban and opposes all laws allowing concealed carry. According to a 1996 statement, not subsequently repudiated, Obama would also ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns. And more recently, he has accused Americans of clinging to their guns because they are bitter about the economy. Only recently, post-Heller, has Obama expressed somewhat tentative support for the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment.

            Those contrasting positions are revealing. Voters now have an opportunity to assess both candidates’ positions and determine whether, as president, they would put the weight of the federal government behind measures that build on the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller — securing the right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

            Please tell you how get support for McCain over Obama from this.  What more please enlighten us as to how you extrapolate these statements into claiming I am supporting the RW?

            Besides you are completely missing the point and once again trying to derail the conversation into a person battle.  Try reading the leading byline in the article again.

            What Gun Regulations Will Now Be Permissible?

            Justice Scalia accepted that the Second Amendment, like the First, is not absolute. He noted, for example, that concealed carry prohibitions had been upheld, although he stopped short of stating that all such prohibitions would be sustained under Heller’s reinvigorated Second Amendment.

            Do you see that, "What Gun Regulations Will Now Be Permissible?" Obviously not because your too hung up on some bit at the bottom comparing McCain and Obama from 5 years ago and trying to lay it at my feet.
          •  Thanks for those links (1+ / 0-)

            I find a pretty calm and reasoned commenter who is getting HR'd by people for comments that aren't even remotely HR worthy.  

            I take a radically different position on these issues from Noway2, but clearly you have demostrated that noway is subject to unwarranted attacks.  

            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

            by Mindful Nature on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 03:49:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  BINGO! - 1H - Brady Center Biased Against Guns! (3+ / 0-)

          Brady Center is biased against gun violence. Imagine that?

          Cato is non-partisan. Hahahahahahahahhahahahaha.

          Disclosure on the links, Cato is considered non partisan and does not lobby, and has a long history of supporting and opposing Conservative and Liberal principles alike.
          Google is your friend.
          http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...
          Charles and David Koch, billionaire brothers who own a large energy conglomerate, filed suit on Thursday seeking an option to increase their 50 percent stake in Cato, a large research organization that espouses free-market economics and limited government.

          Charles Koch founded the organization with Cato president Ed Crane over 30 years ago. Uncommon provisions of law in Kansas have allowed the Kochs to remain firmly in control of the think tank, despite the fact that neither of the brothers have been major financial backers in years, according to Cato officials.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 09:45:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  uprated for abuse (0+ / 0-)

          There's nothing whatever HR worthy here.

          Debate the policy and the facts.  Or don't.

          Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

          by Mindful Nature on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 03:50:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  The comments write themselves (6+ / 0-)

    Diarist:

    Anyone pompous enough to tell you he knows the “correct interpretation” of the 2nd Amendment is the same type of inflammatory jackass who insists he knows the real answer to a hypothetical question
    also diarist:
    Owning a gun is not a right.
  •  Interpreting the 2nd Amendment doesn't require (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    noway2, VClib, happymisanthropy

    anything but elementary literacy.

    "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."

    It states that because a "well regulated milita" is necessary to the security of a free state...therefor, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    You will notice that it doesn't say that in order to 'keep and bear arms' one must be a member of a milita (and understandably so....after all, if there was a requirement, then it wouldn't be a right).
    In fact, the only thing it says about the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is that it "shall not be infringed".

    Gun Ownership is a right. That is why it is included in the "Bill of Rights".

    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

    by FrankRose on Sun Mar 17, 2013 at 08:06:17 AM PDT

    •  The first half of the amendment is a prefatory (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, FrankRose, Patrick Costighan

      clause, which has the purpose of explaining or adding emphasis to the secondary, operative part.  In other words, the militia part was not meant to to imply any sort of limitation.  The use of such wording is both standard legalese for the period and the interpretation of the courts today.

      The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
      The meaning of the 2nd is clear, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" and there has already been too much infringement.  In society today we have come to accept the practice of issuing permits in order to carry weapons in public.  This is a practice that I have come to endorse, though as my patience with the antis grows ever more thin, I begin to appreciate the simplicity and elegance of the original statement.  I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that it is time to give the proverbial camel's nose a good kick.
      •  Diary this? (0+ / 0-)

        You seem to have a lot to say on the matter. Would you consider writing a diary putting it altogether in one place?

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:28:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am not following what your suggesting (0+ / 0-)

          I write a diary about.  Would you please elaborate?

          •  Make the case for liberatarian gun safety policy (0+ / 0-)

            in a diary, all in one place, with citations.

            If you do, I guarantee you people will read it.

            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

            by LilithGardener on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 11:27:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site