Why Is there a Bias Against Guns?

79 posts / 0 new

Hello All. I am new here, and I know there will be some flak over this, but before I state my feeling towards guns and personal gun ownership and the second amendment, let me say that I am NOT a right-wing Republican. I am a firm believer in conservation and alternative energy, like solar (I have solar power array on my home), hydro, wind, geothermal, Hydrogen fuel cells, etc. and am fully against nuclear power. I also am very against big business and corporate interests, tax breaks for businesses, oil companies, banks, etc. I am a supporter of any move to rid Washington of corporate money, and lobbyists, and really think we need to have term limits for ALL public offices. I also support the right of women to have their own choice, as well as equal rights, and people should be able to marry whomever they want.

Now, all that said, I am also a full supporter of the second amendment, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I am one of the people, and I keep and bear arms. I'm not a "right-wing nut-job" or "gun nut" and am not going to go do something as stupid as trying to "Shoot at the radiation" as Randi Rhodes was saying the other day.

I guess what I am trying to find out is why the "left" is so against guns, or trying to stop people from owning them. Guns are needed to defend democracy from those who would take it away or prevent the people from having it in the first place. A prime example of this is the very thing that is going on in Libya right now.

To those who would say, we have a democracy and we can vote, I ask, do you truly trust your elected officials when so many, from both sides of the aisle are constantly caught up in scandal and corruption, or have faith that the next one elected is going to be as trustworthy as they should be?

I have much more to say, however, I would like to see how this conversation will develop first. I am eager to see some intelligent responses.

Midnight4121's picture
Midnight4121
Joined:
Mar. 25, 2011 7:21 pm

Comments

We fear some things and not others. People fear guns but not water. Water kills a lot more people. Drownings are so common that they aren't usually considered news. A swimming pool in the backyard is 100 times more likely to kill a child than a handgun in the house. I have personally known three people who died by drowning in separate incidents, and one who got shot to death. About that guy I say good riddance.

I have never owned a gun, but I'm glad nobody can be absolutely sure I don't have one.

One of the things the Founding Fathers forgot to mention was that at the time, people needed guns to kill Indians and keep slaves in line.

zopalote's picture
zopalote
Joined:
Mar. 25, 2011 7:16 pm

In the first place, No one in New York or Philadelphia or even Washington D.C. is trying to take the guns away from ranchers in Montana. All they want is to take guns away from gangsters in New York and Philadelphia and Washington D.C. If you think their methods are nonsensical, let me explain:

My father was 18 in 1942. Guess what he did for the next three years. When he came home he and everyone with him vowed that they and their children would never have anything to do with guns ever again, and they kept that vow, at least the ones who lived in cities. The result was (at least the urban part) a society that had no first hand - no real - experience with guns. Guns became a magic wand. On tv in the first scene the bad guy proved how bad he was by shooting someone, no one without a badge was capable of defending himself or anyone else, and in the last scene the good guy - the one with a badge - used a gun and instantly everything was good. The end. Only police and murderers have guns, and guns instantly perform miracles, for good or evil.

But there's more. I work in a city where a white person is shot about once every three or four years. (people with dark skin kill other people with dark skin about once a week, but that only matters when the police want more money) When this happens whoever is mayor at the time "does something". He sponsors a city gun control ordinance - which everyone knows is in some way blatantly (and intentionally) unconstitutional - but he gets a headline on the local news. Then, about a month later, the courts throw the ordinance out, and he gets another headline, and a sympathy vote in his reelection campaign. Rinse and repeat. Does that sound like I'm accusing three generations of polititians of cynically allowing people to die so that they can play political games? (and blame their failure on "gun nuts" ) Congratuations - you just qualified for your "command of the obvious" merit badge.

So, Only those inbred hicks are too stupid to realize how evil guns are, and all those city people are nothing but brainwashed fascist sheep. And both sides are too busy sneering at each other to see the real fascist conquerers coming.

doh1304's picture
doh1304
Joined:
Dec. 6, 2010 10:49 am

There was this article at Think Progress about some stupid gun issue in Arizonia. None of these were thoughtful conversation, it was as if someone copied from Free Republic, pasted there and changed Muslim or Mexican to gun owner or gun nut. I added a post pointing this out in a rather antagonistic way (I admit, but I stand by points ). and watched the flags and flames fly my way. It got taken down. It started with a rant about accepting their true selves and letting their inner right wing authoritarian come out. Then I made a list of things I would like to see attached to any gun law. I stand by one, five and six. After it is my last post. Honestly, was the first post over the top?

First post

1)The Anti gun lobby has to start using peer reviewed research with citations with with any of their propaganda rather than continue just making things up as they do now . If intellectual dishonesty is required to push your cause, the cause is not worth fighting.2)families of crime victims can bring a wrongful death suit against Brady et al if the victim followed their advice of submitting to their attacker rather than resist.3)Any politician that votes for safe storage laws can be prosecuted for depraved indifference when ever a home invasion that ends in murder that could have been prevented if a gun were accessible. Google "Jessica Carpenter Merced Califorinia 2000"4)Anti gun celebrities need to surrender their CCWs, sell their guns, and fire their armed body guards. This includes Mike Moore, Dianne Feinstein,and Rosie O'Donnell.5)Jurisdictions with "may issue" laws should be open to federal sanctions when they routinely deny permits to qualified "average people" and approve known members of organized crime (Rick Rizzolo in Californian) and unqualified celebrities like Don Imus (NYC) 6)The statue of limitations be waived for reckless endangerment and depraved indifference to the groups and individuals that perpetrated the cop killer bullet hoax. Even after many police departments begged them not to, the corporate media and groups like Brady ran with it anyway, having two bad results, one was that the public was misinformed that there was such a thing as a "cop-killer" bullet. The second, and more serious, criminals learned that police often wore body armor. This latter meant that the criminals aiming for the head, tripling the annual rate of police duty fatalities, as the police had fearedWith rights come responsibility. I think that is reasonable.

Last post

Is shooting Liberally equally right wing? I think not.

I don't know about right wing. I would have to go through their entire site to tell. If you are assuming that anyone who is against gun prohibition (as opposed to making our current moderate controls work) as right wing, I would have to disagree. It works in reverse too, If you look at the founders and management of Brady or HCI, you will find a lot of Republicans including Paul Helmke.

I don't see it as a right and left thing. Like Canada, it is more of a urban (including suburban) conflict vs rural conflict. That is very apparent. What annoyed me had more to do with the tone. If some propagandist from Freedom Works wanted to screw things up, all they would have to do is copy and paste some of the ad hominem rants and show it around rural or working class Wisconsin and say "See this is how the liberal elite really think of you." without even mentioning guns or hunting. The NRA has been doing that for over forty years. That, my theory, is part of the answer to "What's the matter with Kansas." Judging from some of the posts, I tend to think they are not that far off the mark. Now I know how a Muslim would be treated at Free Republic. That poisons the well for thoughtful discussion on both sides, where pro control gets confused with gun prohibition. Not knowing current federal gun control laws or using buzz words as if they are technical terms you lose all credibility. By the same token, I can relate what goes though your head when Ted Nugent runs his mouth. When it comes to my side poisoning the well, he is one of the worst offenders.

We may disagree specific regulations, but basically pro control, unless you are a prohibitionist like Helmke an Brady, which case I am wasting my breath. I am guessing that we both agree repealing all four or five federal gun laws we currently have would be a bad idea. Please no talk about rocket launchers and automatic weapons, covered since 1934 only a tiny minority are against any regulation. I think they are outnumbered by prohibitionists.

garyej's picture
garyej
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I have two points here. Unfortunately, I don't think actually checks these threads but I have an interesting question for him but I never can get through on the phones. I swear the people that do either have a secret number they call or they call them at 5 AM and wait for his show to start. Anyway here it is:

Numerous times on his show, Thom blatantly says that he does not agree with bans on drugs because they don't work. People find the drugs anyway, etc. etc. Anyone who watches or listens to his show has heard him riff on this many times. He has contradicted his ardent disbelief in bans as a policy mechanism twice to my recollection - First is gun laws. Second was in relation to the oversexualization of teens on the MTV show "Skins". I have yet to hear him articulate why he believes bans on drugs are useless but bans on certain types of guns and television content will work and/or is ethical.

Anyway, for my part, I don't think gun BANS are the solution. I believe gun regulation might be. And when I say regulation, I merely mean mandatory licensing and registration. Most guns sold on the blackmarket were actually first purchased legally and it makes law enforcement much more difficult when there is little paper trail about a gun's sale record. Regarding the licensing, the second Amendment clause is often not quoted in full and the first part of the sentence is "A well regulated Militia..." Thus, the second amendment does not only not bar regulation, it DEMANDS regulated gun ownership. From what I understand is that the militia should be TRAINED to use their weapons. In a modern sense, this would mean that people would need to take training and earn a license (much like a car) to own a gun. For the founding fathers, gun ownership was not simply a right but also something that we need to take social responsibility for.

my .02.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm

That is true, but it was also an individual right, one of those pesky Enlightenment things that is also part of France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen gives them the same right. Up until a few years ago, a French person could own up to three machine guns.

We do have regulation on the federal level. Five or six of them to be exact dating to 1927.

garyej's picture
garyej
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

To me gun ownership is a non-issue. To those who insist that "Liberal elites" are anti-gun, and hold up people like Michael Moore as an example, I laugh. Moore is a gun owner, and even stated such many times in Bowling for Columbine. He is anti-politicizing and propogandizing gun violence, both for positive and negative.

Do I own a gun? No. Do I want to, perhaps, for decorative purposes only. I much prefer a crossbow.

downix's picture
downix
Joined:
Oct. 12, 2010 11:04 am

From a constitutional point of view, I don't really see much a role for the federation government in such a police power. No such police power to control people's gun ownership was delegated to the federal government by the states. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I see no such police power among Congress' enumerated powers in article I, section 8.

Gun control legislation would be a better topic for the people of each of our republics, not the federation.

Centinel's picture
Centinel
Joined:
Mar. 14, 2011 3:13 pm

Confederation? This isn't Canada. Interstate commerce and the sales tax from the Robertson Pittman act of 1937. Written by Pat Robertson's dad, it is a sales tax on guns, ammunition, fishing stuff, and now all out doorsy stuff to pay for wildlife habitat protection and other green projects. Back then the NRA and other gun/hunting groups lobbied for it. I wish those days were back.

garyej's picture
garyej
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

William Tell I presume? My daughter feels the same way about swords and compound bows. To her guns and crossbows are for wimps and skilless. I read an article about a lady who successfully defended herself from a home invader with broad sword, so maybe there is something to it.

garyej's picture
garyej
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Centinel:

From a constitutional point of view, I don't really see much a role for the federation government in such a police power. No such police power to control people's gun ownership was delegated to the federal government by the states. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I see no such police power among Congress' enumerated powers in article I, section 8.

Gun control legislation would be a better topic for the people of each of our republics, not the federation.

I gave the rationale above from the 2nd Amendment. Nothing in Article 3. Section 8. say anything about "anything not listed here is retained by the states". That wasn't ironed out until the 10th Amendment and it was in direct reference to not only the core Constitution but also the rest of the Bill of Rights. Our right to bear arms is specifically garaunteed to fulfill the aim of a REGULATED militia. And militia is talking about citizen-soldiers, not an army. IT does not stipulate how this miltia should be regulated or what the limits of that are. If this Amendment implies (as I believe it does) that a well regulated militia means that all of our citizen-soldiers need to know how to SAFELY use a gun, then a training and licensing protocol would not be beyond its limits. If this is true, then this is NOT a right retained by the states and the responsibility of the federal government.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote ah2:
Quote Centinel:

From a constitutional point of view, I don't really see much a role for the federation government in such a police power. No such police power to control people's gun ownership was delegated to the federal government by the states. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I see no such police power among Congress' enumerated powers in article I, section 8.

Gun control legislation would be a better topic for the people of each of our republics, not the federation.

I gave the rationale above from the 2nd Amendment. Nothing in Article 3. Section 8. say anything about "anything not listed here is retained by the states". That wasn't ironed out until the 10th Amendment and it was in direct reference to not only the core Constitution but also the rest of the Bill of Rights.


The constitution as originally written was structured so that it granted a small set of enumerated powers to the government of the union. It was assumed and argued that these were to be the governments only powers. The bill of rights was added as belts and suspenders. The 10th didn't change anything about article I, section 8. It was merely an emphatic reminder that the government of the union was limited to certain enumerated powers.

But even if I were to entertain your version, (which I don't) where congress' power was not limited until to 10th amendment, which included the other 9 amendments, you'd still have to show me then something in either article I, section 8, or one of those other 9 amendments that says, "Congress shall have power to..." to do with guns. I don't see any grant of power for such a police power.

Quote Centinel:
Our right to bear arms is specifically garaunteed to fulfill the aim of a REGULATED militia. And militia is talking about citizen-soldiers, not an army. IT does not stipulate how this miltia should be regulated or what the limits of that are. If this Amendment implies (as I believe it does) that a well regulated militia means that all of our citizen-soldiers need to know how to SAFELY use a gun, then a training and licensing protocol would not be beyond its limits. If this is true, then this is NOT a right retained by the states and the responsibility of the federal government.

Article I, section 8 describes the roles of both the union and the states with regards to training the militia. Check it out.

Centinel's picture
Centinel
Joined:
Mar. 14, 2011 3:13 pm

Thanks for giving me more fire power to prove my point, Centinel

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Militias are a "land force" that presumably Congress should "govern" and "regulate".

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Nothing really of note here other than that it clearly establishes federal control over the militias.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Holy balls if it couldn't get better than this. If the "militia" is to be comprised of "citizen-soldiers" - which is how the founders understood it - then Article 1. Section 8. Merely provides more justification that the federal government should be "regulating", "governing", and "disciplining" those citizen-soldiers in the way they see fit to carry out the aims outlined in the Consitution.

I see no conflict between that and asking citizen-soldiers to be trained how to use and to safely store and maintain a firearm before they are allowed to carry one. That seems like a reasonable form of "regulating" and "disciplining" to me. Note that this also doesn't abridge anyone's right to own, it merely puts a stipulation on ownership.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote ah2:

Thanks for giving me more fire power to prove my point, Centinel

Well I'm sort of surprised you weren't already aware of these powers.

Quote ah2:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Holy balls if it couldn't get better than this. If the "militia" is to be comprised of "citizen-soldiers" - which is how the founders understood it - then Article 1. Section 8. Merely provides more justification that the federal government should be "regulating", "governing", and "disciplining" those citizen-soldiers in the way they see fit to carry out the aims outlined in the Consitution.

I see no conflict between that and asking citizen-soldiers to be trained how to use and to safely store and maintain a firearm before they are allowed to carry one. That seems like a reasonable form of "regulating" and "disciplining" to me. Note that this also doesn't abridge anyone's right to own, it merely puts a stipulation on ownership.

Interesting, so to you putting a stipulation on a right is not the same as abridging a right. That is a pretty sneaky way to get around violating a person's rights.

As far as the union's involvment in the militia, it is indeed charged with organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia. On the other hand, it has no power to disarm the militia. A federal stipulation at regaring whether or not the citizens of my commonwealth may or may carry arms is beyond the power given to the union.

The Constitution of my commonwealth clearly states: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. The government of the union has been given the power to arm me and train me, and while I am employed in the service of the United States to govern me. But they do not have the power to disarm me or my fellow Pennsylvanians what hoops we must jump through in order to be allowed to carry arms. We never gave the union such a power.

Centinel's picture
Centinel
Joined:
Mar. 14, 2011 3:13 pm
Quote Centinel:
Quote ah2:

Thanks for giving me more fire power to prove my point, Centinel

Well I'm sort of surprised you weren't already aware of these powers.

Quote ah2:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Holy balls if it couldn't get better than this. If the "militia" is to be comprised of "citizen-soldiers" - which is how the founders understood it - then Article 1. Section 8. Merely provides more justification that the federal government should be "regulating", "governing", and "disciplining" those citizen-soldiers in the way they see fit to carry out the aims outlined in the Consitution.

I see no conflict between that and asking citizen-soldiers to be trained how to use and to safely store and maintain a firearm before they are allowed to carry one. That seems like a reasonable form of "regulating" and "disciplining" to me. Note that this also doesn't abridge anyone's right to own, it merely puts a stipulation on ownership.

Interesting, so to you putting a stipulation on a right is not the same as abridging a right. That is a pretty sneaky way to get around violating a person's rights.

As far as the union's involvment in the militia, it is indeed charged with organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia. On the other hand, it has no power to disarm the militia. A federal stipulation at regaring whether or not the citizens of my commonwealth may or may carry arms is beyond the power given to the union.

The Constitution of my commonwealth clearly states: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. The government of the union has been given the power to arm me and train me, and while I am employed in the service of the United States to govern me. But they do not have the power to disarm me or my fellow Pennsylvanians what hoops we must jump through in order to be allowed to carry arms. We never gave the union such a power.

CEntinel, we have gone over this again and again. Your commonwealth's constitution has no authority over the federal government. This is what the supremacy clause means. That clause in your commonwealth's constitution applies to the state level government and nothing more. And yes, I do believe that a restriction or regulation is not the same as taking away a right whole-sale. The difference is quite obvious. You can still make a choice to own a gun or not, you simply have to comply with the regulation to do so. There is no abrigement there, particularly when you consider the structure of the second amendment statement which protects the right to bear arms only in relation to the aim of a "regulated militia" which is clearly a reference to the Congressional Powers outlined in Artcile 1. Section 8.

You'll notice that this reading is a compromise from typical Liberal platforms in two ways:

1. It is not a reading where they consider the milita something like the National Guard. I think there is ample historical evidence to show that the militia referred to the entire population - a nation of citizen-soldiers.

2. I put no mention in there regarding automatic weapons ban. While you might be able to make the argument that the founding fathers could have no idea the type of destructive power that couldbe wielded by one human being in the form of an automatic weapon, I am willing to concede that the current formulation of the second amendment does not give congress the power to put a ban on those types of weapons.

Although then you get into sticky territory because then you ask where does it stop? Should private owners be able to purchase, own, or use explosives? Howitzers? Tanks? Bombers? Fighter jets? chemical weapons? Nukes? Technically the Consitution does not provide Congress with the power to ban those either? Should "consumers" be able to purchase those at their will? Terrorist cells? White Supremacy Groups?

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote ah2:

CEntinel, we have gone over this again and again. Your commonwealth's constitution has no authority over the federal government. This is what the supremacy clause means. That clause in your commonwealth's constitution applies to the state level government and nothing more.


Yes, we keep coming back to this, and cannot agree. I am of the opinion that supremacy clause makes the constitution the supreme law, which must be followed both by the union and any of the states that wish to remain in the union. It is both the rules by which the union must operate, and also the rules each republic must follow in order to be allowed membership.

We differ in our views on how the supremacy clause is upheld. You appear to be of the opinion that the union government is the sole judge of exactly what the constitution must mean and is solely responsible for upholding its requirements. I on the other hand believe that the governments of each of the member republics is also responsible for enfrorcing the constitition. That would mean that if the union government were to act contrary to the constitution, it would be the states that would ensure that the constitution is followed. This may involve nullifying the particular unconstitutional overreach in question, or it may ultimatelyl end in one or more of the republics deciding that the federation is not delivering on expectations and choosing to end their membership.

Quote ah2:
And yes, I do believe that a restriction or regulation is not the same as taking away a right whole-sale. The difference is quite obvious. You can still make a choice to own a gun or not, you simply have to comply with the regulation to do so. There is no abrigement there, particularly when you consider the structure of the second amendment statement which protects the right to bear arms only in relation to the aim of a "regulated militia" which is clearly a reference to the Congressional Powers outlined in Artcile 1. Section 8.

The second amendment limits the federal government. That's all it does. It confers no power. The powers of congress are enumerated in Art I, sec 8. I don't see how the 2nd amendment would be considered in any way in a discussion on congress' powers to regulate arms.

Quote ah2:
You'll notice that this reading is a compromise from typical Liberal platforms in two ways:

1. It is not a reading where they consider the milita something like the National Guard. I think there is ample historical evidence to show that the militia referred to the entire population - a nation of citizen-soldiers.

2. I put no mention in there regarding automatic weapons ban. While you might be able to make the argument that the founding fathers could have no idea the type of destructive power that couldbe wielded by one human being in the form of an automatic weapon, I am willing to concede that the current formulation of the second amendment does not give congress the power to put a ban on those types of weapons.

Although then you get into sticky territory because then you ask where does it stop? Should private owners be able to purchase, own, or use explosives? Howitzers? Tanks? Bombers? Fighter jets? chemical weapons? Nukes? Technically the Consitution does not provide Congress with the power to ban those either? Should "consumers" be able to purchase those at their will? Terrorist cells? White Supremacy Groups?

The questions you ask are interesting but would be the responsibility of each of the republics. You are speaking of police powers, which are not a responsibility of the federation. Article I, section 8 does give congress power to establish the training of the militia. It doesn't give any power to exercise police powers over the citizens of any of the republics in the federation. One could argue that the federal government could mandate some sort of training for all militia members. Okay, that's their responsibility. But where do they get the power to deny a citizen their right to carry arms? I'm just not seeing it.

Centinel's picture
Centinel
Joined:
Mar. 14, 2011 3:13 pm

I'll give you my take on the 2nd Amendment, if anyone is interested. It guarantees the right to have arms (It doesn't say what kind), it guarantees the right to hold it in your arms all you want. It does not guarantee the right to fire a weapon except as consistent with the operations of a well-regulated militia. How and when they can be fired are generally left to the states and local governments.

I am a liberal, but I don't think the left should be trying to limit gun ownership, because we will never win that battle so long as the 2nd Amendment exists in its present form. It is an anachronistic Amendment, but we are stuck with it.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Not only will we lose the gun battle, we lose everything else. When any control fail to cut crime, as history and peer reviewed criminology sudies show, it will all be for nothing because it is one of those culture war things that broke the FDR coalition in the rural mid-west. Not all gun owners are conservatives, just the more vocal ones. There are a lot of gun rights liberals, like me. Most of the people at Brady et al are mostly conservatives, although the rank and file tend to be liberal.

It is also an individual right, SCOTUS set it in cases in the 19th and 21st centuries. The natural right of self defense is also part of the enlightenment. This individual right is also in France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. (Feel free to throw that Ted Nugent and other France bashers, I do.) Yes both countries have regulations. Neither is stricter really, but different. For example, you can buy a silencer for twenty bucks off the shelf. Here, registration and four month background check under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

garyej's picture
garyej
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Centinel:
Quote ah2:

CEntinel, we have gone over this again and again. Your commonwealth's constitution has no authority over the federal government. This is what the supremacy clause means. That clause in your commonwealth's constitution applies to the state level government and nothing more.


Yes, we keep coming back to this, and cannot agree. I am of the opinion that supremacy clause makes the constitution the supreme law, which must be followed both by the union and any of the states that wish to remain in the union. It is both the rules by which the union must operate, and also the rules each republic must follow in order to be allowed membership.

We differ in our views on how the supremacy clause is upheld. You appear to be of the opinion that the union government is the sole judge of exactly what the constitution must mean and is solely responsible for upholding its requirements. I on the other hand believe that the governments of each of the member republics is also responsible for enfrorcing the constitition. That would mean that if the union government were to act contrary to the constitution, it would be the states that would ensure that the constitution is followed. This may involve nullifying the particular unconstitutional overreach in question, or it may ultimatelyl end in one or more of the republics deciding that the federation is not delivering on expectations and choosing to end their membership.

Quote ah2:
And yes, I do believe that a restriction or regulation is not the same as taking away a right whole-sale. The difference is quite obvious. You can still make a choice to own a gun or not, you simply have to comply with the regulation to do so. There is no abrigement there, particularly when you consider the structure of the second amendment statement which protects the right to bear arms only in relation to the aim of a "regulated militia" which is clearly a reference to the Congressional Powers outlined in Artcile 1. Section 8.

The second amendment limits the federal government. That's all it does. It confers no power. The powers of congress are enumerated in Art I, sec 8. I don't see how the 2nd amendment would be considered in any way in a discussion on congress' powers to regulate arms.

Quote ah2:
You'll notice that this reading is a compromise from typical Liberal platforms in two ways:

1. It is not a reading where they consider the milita something like the National Guard. I think there is ample historical evidence to show that the militia referred to the entire population - a nation of citizen-soldiers.

2. I put no mention in there regarding automatic weapons ban. While you might be able to make the argument that the founding fathers could have no idea the type of destructive power that couldbe wielded by one human being in the form of an automatic weapon, I am willing to concede that the current formulation of the second amendment does not give congress the power to put a ban on those types of weapons.

Although then you get into sticky territory because then you ask where does it stop? Should private owners be able to purchase, own, or use explosives? Howitzers? Tanks? Bombers? Fighter jets? chemical weapons? Nukes? Technically the Consitution does not provide Congress with the power to ban those either? Should "consumers" be able to purchase those at their will? Terrorist cells? White Supremacy Groups?

The questions you ask are interesting but would be the responsibility of each of the republics. You are speaking of police powers, which are not a responsibility of the federation. Article I, section 8 does give congress power to establish the training of the militia. It doesn't give any power to exercise police powers over the citizens of any of the republics in the federation. One could argue that the federal government could mandate some sort of training for all militia members. Okay, that's their responsibility. But where do they get the power to deny a citizen their right to carry arms? I'm just not seeing it.

I think it is pretty fair to say that the supremacy clause NEVER implied, was understood, or has been interpreted as that the states decide for themselves what is within the federal government's constitutional power. This is, in fact, directly contradictory to what the supremacy clause intends. If the states could simply decide what Congress can and can't do ad hoc, then the supremacy clause literally is meaningless because then the states would simply do what ever they wanted when ever they wanted based on weak claims of constitutional limits. The Supreme Court has said as much in certain cases. For example, during the dismantling of Jim Crow, many states attempted to defy the federal mandates to integrate in this regard but the Supreme Court, of course, did not allow the states to continue to ignore the federal law.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote ah2:
I think it is pretty fair to say that the supremacy clause NEVER implied, was understood, or has been interpreted as that the states decide for themselves what is within the federal government's constitutional power. This is, in fact, directly contradictory to what the supremacy clause intends. If the states could simply decide what Congress can and can't do ad hoc, then the supremacy clause literally is meaningless because then the states would simply do what ever they wanted when ever they wanted based on weak claims of constitutional limits. The Supreme Court has said as much in certain cases. For example, during the dismantling of Jim Crow, many states attempted to defy the federal mandates to integrate in this regard but the Supreme Court, of course, did not allow the states to continue to ignore the federal law.

You have read the supremacy clause, right?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

The judges in every state are bound by the constitution. The judges in each state must uphold the constitution. It stands to reason that the judges in each state must first come to some understanding about what the constitution says and means before they can judge whether any action is in accord with the constitution. It doesn't say that they are to be bound by what some other judge has said about the constitution, but by the constitution itself.

So in the case where the federal government, including the judicial branch of the federal government, exercises a power that is not allowable under the constitition, it is beholden on every judge in every state to act in accordancy to the constitution and contrary to the unconstitutional act. Otherwise the constitution would not be the supreme law of the land.

Centinel's picture
Centinel
Joined:
Mar. 14, 2011 3:13 pm
The powers of congress are enumerated in Art I, sec 8.
You will never get anywhere using the "enumerated powers" argument with us liberals. Best to save that for Tea Party rallies.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Should private owners be able to purchase, own, or use explosives? Howitzers? Tanks? Bombers? Fighter jets? chemical weapons? Nukes? Please guys don't be absurd.

Actually, you can buy a howitzer if you want to jump through the hoops and have the money. Of course no one is going to sell you ammo for it. If you have the kind of disposable income to spend on any of this stuff (including hiring mechanics and crews for the bombers) and the space to put it, I am more concerned about what kind of damage they can do with a pen and a keyboard. Like the Kochs.

How about this, It is both individual right and have a military system kind of like Switzerland. I think all three of us can agree to dismantle the empire, have an active duty navy (maybe include the marine corps) and air force to defend the US and make the army based on the Swiss model.

garyej's picture
garyej
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Centinel:
Quote ah2:
I think it is pretty fair to say that the supremacy clause NEVER implied, was understood, or has been interpreted as that the states decide for themselves what is within the federal government's constitutional power. This is, in fact, directly contradictory to what the supremacy clause intends. If the states could simply decide what Congress can and can't do ad hoc, then the supremacy clause literally is meaningless because then the states would simply do what ever they wanted when ever they wanted based on weak claims of constitutional limits. The Supreme Court has said as much in certain cases. For example, during the dismantling of Jim Crow, many states attempted to defy the federal mandates to integrate in this regard but the Supreme Court, of course, did not allow the states to continue to ignore the federal law.

You have read the supremacy clause, right?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

The judges in every state are bound by the constitution. The judges in each state must uphold the constitution. It stands to reason that the judges in each state must first come to some understanding about what the constitution says and means before they can judge whether any action is in accord with the constitution. It doesn't say that they are to be bound by what some other judge has said about the constitution, but by the constitution itself.

So in the case where the federal government, including the judicial branch of the federal government, exercises a power that is not allowable under the constitition, it is beholden on every judge in every state to act in accordancy to the constitution and contrary to the unconstitutional act. Otherwise the constitution would not be the supreme law of the land.

You need to take a grammar class bro. Let's look at the break down of that sentence:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; <---- SEMICOLON

You have been confused by this before. In English, a semi colon has TWO uses.

1. To make a list with internal punctuations wherein ALL CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS ARE THE SAME LEVEL. (This was our previous argument regarding the general welfare clause).

2. To separate TWO INDEPENDENT CLAUSES (this is the issue here).

THUS THIS NEXT CLAUSE IS INDEPENDENT OF THE ONE PRIOR TO IT:

and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby,

MEANING: The judges in the respective states can't make up their own damn rules. They are subject to the supremacy clause as well. They are BOUND by it, NOT the arbiter of it.

And finally....

anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Meaning, nothing in your state constitution or laws can undo this....

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote ah2:

You need to take a grammar class bro. Let's look at the break down of that sentence:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; <---- SEMICOLON

You have been confused by this before. In English, a semi colon has TWO uses.

1. To make a list with internal punctuations wherein ALL CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS ARE THE SAME LEVEL. (This was our previous argument regarding the general welfare clause).

2. To separate TWO INDEPENDENT CLAUSES (this is the issue here).

THUS THIS NEXT CLAUSE IS INDEPENDENT OF THE ONE PRIOR TO IT:

and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby,

MEANING: The judges in the respective states can't make up their own damn rules. They are subject to the supremacy clause as well. They are BOUND by it, NOT the arbiter of it.

And finally....

anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Meaning, nothing in your state constitution or laws can undo this....

"and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby," This is an independent clause? Okay, Dr. Grammar, whatever you say.

I read the above to say that the judges in every state are bound by the constitution. It is the supreme law of the land. If you're saying something different, I'm curious what you believe the judges are bound to do.

Centinel's picture
Centinel
Joined:
Mar. 14, 2011 3:13 pm

Sure. They are bound not just by the Constitution but also the Laws of the United States and all treaties made under its authority.

So perhaps in this case the semicolon is separating dependent clauses that have their own internal punctuation.

Again the point is, they are bound by it, not its interpreters or executors as you suggested in your previous post. Nor has this ever been argued in any Federalist Papers to my knowledge.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote ah2:

Sure. They are bound not just by the Constitution but also the Laws of the United States and all treaties made under its authority.

So perhaps in this case the semicolon is separating dependent clauses that have their own internal punctuation.

Again the point is, they are bound by it, not its interpreters or executors as you suggested in your previous post. Nor has this ever been argued in any Federalist Papers to my knowledge.

Perhaps we're not saying anything different. I'm saying that the judges in every state are bound by the constitution. Being that the constitution is a written document, they must read this document and compare the facts before them to the instructions in the document. If they see that the facts before them are in conflict with the document as they understand it, then they are bound to rule against the case in favor of the constitution as they understand it. They are not "interpreting", they are judging a case and endeavoring to uphold the constitution in the process.

The inention is that the constitution is supreme and upheld by every judge in the federation, both federal judges and those of each of the republics.

As far as federalist papers discussing this issue, you might be interested in federalist 46, where Madison describes how the states would take action to uphold the constutition if the federaal government were to violate it.

Centinel's picture
Centinel
Joined:
Mar. 14, 2011 3:13 pm

Well I AM a conservative, but a traditional nationalist conservative.

The reality is both of the two parties are effectively owned by the funding sources that make up the ''donor'' base of the party, so when each of the bribed parties is in power, they attempt to undermine and attack the funding sources propping up the other corrupt party.

Whether its Republicans on jihad against public labor unions, or Democrats going after NRA interests... and many other examples.

Also, most of the Dems proposing this sort legislation Boxer, Feinstein, Lautenberg, etc.. do not personally face any electoral problems with their home demographics for being seen as limiting the second amendment.

The constitutional arguments are clearer cut here than in almost any such case, which leads to a lot of the real hostility and misunderstanding on the part of the public, which ever party they may choose to identify with.

The second amendment did not get to be the second amendement, after only the 1st amend right right to FREE SPEECH and freedom of assembly, BY ACCIDENT. It was placed in second place only to free speech out of the founders intent that the 2nd amendment guaranteed the first amendment.

jeffersonian_conservative's picture
jeffersonian_co...
Joined:
Mar. 27, 2011 3:26 pm

While these guys are discussing 18th century grammer, the SCOTUS in 19th 21st centuries decided it as an individual right (and part of the enlightenment's natural right of self defense) and Jefferson did not like standing armies. How about this, I say we dismantle the empire, have an active duty navy (maybe include the marine corps) and air force large enough to defend the US and make the army based on the Swiss model (as far as allowing troops keeping their machine guns at home like Switzerland, we'll leave that to the generals and sgt majors). Take the boat load of money saved to pay down the debt and fix infrastructure. With me?

garyej's picture
garyej
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
How about this, It is both individual right and have a military system kind of like Switzerland. I think all three of us can agree to dismantle the empire, have an active duty navy (maybe include the marine corps) and air force to defend the US and make the army based on the Swiss model.

That is in fact the founders position as well. The right to bear arms cites a well-regulated militia, which to the founders was the common citizen. They would be appalled at standing million man armies with occupations going on 70 years in length.

The fact that our govt does not have interest to conduct basic drill/training for the avg citizen, is both a failure in the current govts duties under the constitution, and a indication that these folks of whatver party are interested primarily in serving their paying 'donors' as expeditiously as possible. but it does not invalidate the 2nd amendment.

The bottom line is if the 2nd amendment is not inviolable as pertains to todays common arms since the founders did not possess cartridge revolvers or self-cycling pistols, then by that logic it would follow that the 1st amendment does not cover Television, Radio, internet, sattelite communications, since the founders considered free speech to be a personal act, and never dreamed of these technologies.

jeffersonian_conservative's picture
jeffersonian_co...
Joined:
Mar. 27, 2011 3:26 pm
Quote garyej:

While these guys are discussing 18th century grammer, the SCOTUS in 19th 21st centuries decided it as an individual right (and part of the enlightenment's natural right of self defense) and Jefferson did not like standing armies. How about this, I say we dismantle the empire, have an active duty navy (maybe include the marine corps) and air force large enough to defend the US and make the army based on the Swiss model (as far as allowing troops keeping their machine guns at home like Switzerland, we'll leave that to the generals and sgt majors). Take the boat load of money saved to pay down the debt and fix infrastructure. With me?

Absolutely with you on that idea, Garyej. I think such a system would be more in line with the constitution than our current permanent standing army model.

Centinel's picture
Centinel
Joined:
Mar. 14, 2011 3:13 pm
Quote Centinel:
Quote garyej:

While these guys are discussing 18th century grammer, the SCOTUS in 19th 21st centuries decided it as an individual right (and part of the enlightenment's natural right of self defense) and Jefferson did not like standing armies. How about this, I say we dismantle the empire, have an active duty navy (maybe include the marine corps) and air force large enough to defend the US and make the army based on the Swiss model (as far as allowing troops keeping their machine guns at home like Switzerland, we'll leave that to the generals and sgt majors). Take the boat load of money saved to pay down the debt and fix infrastructure. With me?

Absolutely with you on that idea, Garyej. I think such a system would be more in line with the constitution than our current permanent standing army model.

Funny you guys should mention the Swiss. You know what their gun laws are? Oh yeah, they require licensure (a Waffentragschein) to carry and purchase firearms and it only allows you to buy 3 guns per permit. Additionally, there are mandatory records of sales which would include the identification of the seller and the buyer and the serial number of the weapon being sold. Finally, the guns they are issued for military purposes are required by law to be locked up at all times in the home.

You know.... Like EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING THE ENTIRE TIME.

There are finer points to some of the other restrictions they have in place which can be found with simple google searches. But none of the pro-gun outlets mention any of this stuff when they talk about the Swiss. The only thing they talk about is how military aged individuals are issued a rifle by the government.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

http://www.ehow.com/facts_6766770_switzerland-gun-safety.html

Anyway, Centinel, since you give their system full endorsement, I am glad you finally realized I was correct.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm

Neither am I, all though I am accused of it on some sites when the subject comes up. I grew up in Wyoming and been target shooting since I was in grade school. Gave up hunting when I joined the Air Force. To some, who I call ersatz liberals (because of their own eliteism seem to be closet authoritarians. When someone who knows nothing about, in this case guns, other than what talking points they picked up they have no right to tell me what is best for my purpose.) treat anyone who disagrees with them the same way the right talks about Muslims for example. Ironic thing is, most if not all of the founders and management of the gun banning groups are conservative to right wing.

garyej's picture
garyej
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ah2:

Anyway, for my part, I don't think gun BANS are the solution. I believe gun regulation might be. And when I say regulation, I merely mean mandatory licensing and registration. Most guns sold on the blackmarket were actually first purchased legally and it makes law enforcement much more difficult when there is little paper trail about a gun's sale record. Regarding the licensing, the second Amendment clause is often not quoted in full and the first part of the sentence is "A well regulated Militia..." Thus, the second amendment does not only not bar regulation, it DEMANDS regulated gun ownership. From what I understand is that the militia should be TRAINED to use their weapons. In a modern sense, this would mean that people would need to take training and earn a license (much like a car) to own a gun. For the founding fathers, gun ownership was not simply a right but also something that we need to take social responsibility for.

my .02.

I'm liberal and progressive but I oppose registration. I live in a city and I handle and store my guns responsibly. I've been a target/hobby shooter since I was a kid but I don't hunt. I do shoot in competitive target leagues.

I oppose registration because like any other human work, it will ultimately be abused if it's allowed to happen. The Clinton administration tried to abuse it before the courts made them stop. How? Well, when the National Instant Check System (NICS) became law for legal gun sales and it went into effect, one point upon which many pro-gun people supported it was that after background checks were made with it, the data of LEGAL gun owners would be deleted from the system shortly after.

Clinton and Company lied about that. They didn't see that the data on LEGAL sales was immediately deleted, as they'd promised in return for support for the system's institution. Instead, they hung on to the data and tried to use it, de facto, to build a national registration system -- EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID THEY WOULDN'T DO IF THEY COULD GET WIDESPREAD SUPPORT FOR NICS!!! It was only after the courts ordered them to delete info on LEGAL sales that they did so and stopped amassing information on law-abiding citizens' guns. WHO THE HELL DID THEY THINK THEY WERE?!!!

Next, registration would make it ultra-convenient for the government to confiscate the citizenry's guns en masse. All they'd have to do is list-order the addresses of everybody known to have guns and drive up and down streets in linear fashion, stopping and confiscating at every house on the registry. Given current socioeconomic conditions in America, some form of unrest is bound to happen, and it probably won't take all that much longer for that to occur. At times like that, hysteria always hits a fever pitch and nobody can predict what will happen. If it ever gets to that, why make confiscation easy for them in advance via registration?

Third, in cases of societal breakdown, registered guns will be the first confiscated, to the detriment of the honest citizenry. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, cops from all over the country were deputized to keep peace and order in the New Orleans area. Some, most notoriously the California Highway Patrol (CHIPS) went door-to-door in New Orleans, confiscating LEGALLY owned firearms, thus leaving HONEST citizens with no protection against looters, criminals, and newly wild domestic animals made desperate for food and shelter by loss of homes and owners. IS THAT DESIRABLE? IF NOT, WHY ENACT REGISTRATION TO MAKE SUCH CONFISCATION EASY OR FEASIBLE?

I live in Seattle, on a major earthquake fault, so based on the Katrina model of societal collapse, when most of the police ran away, there's no way in hell I'd want to be left without a gun.

REGISTRATION WOULD NOT COME WITH IRONCLAD GUARANTEES AGAINST THESE ABUSES BEING REPEATED!!!

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ah2:
Quote Centinel:

Absolutely with you on that idea, Garyej. I think such a system would be more in line with the constitution than our current permanent standing army model.

Funny you guys should mention the Swiss. You know what their gun laws are? Oh yeah, they require licensure (a Waffentragschein) to carry and purchase firearms and it only allows you to buy 3 guns per permit. Additionally, there are mandatory records of sales which would include the identification of the seller and the buyer and the serial number of the weapon being sold. Finally, the guns they are issued for military purposes are required by law to be locked up at all times in the home.

You know.... Like EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING THE ENTIRE TIME.

There are finer points to some of the other restrictions they have in place which can be found with simple google searches. But none of the pro-gun outlets mention any of this stuff when they talk about the Swiss. The only thing they talk about is how military aged individuals are issued a rifle by the government.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

http://www.ehow.com/facts_6766770_switzerland-gun-safety.html

Anyway, Centinel, since you give their system full endorsement, I am glad you finally realized I was correct.

Rellize you were correct. Good one. ;)

I was agreeing with Gary on the issue of a standing army. The Swiss have a milita and no standing army. Not a bad idea.

As far as the government of the federation, we have to comply with the constitution.

As an aside, if you don't mind my asking ah2, why do you care so much about what me and my fellow Pennsylvanians do? Why do you feel the need to have the federation interfere with our lives?

Centinel's picture
Centinel
Joined:
Mar. 14, 2011 3:13 pm

He and I were refering to their military system not their personal weapons system. Of course they can get more permits for new additions to their collections. Just like anti gun folks who like Canada's 1995 gun laws forget gun owners lose some of their rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms like due process and against self incrimination. Plus I have a problem with getting an old girlfriends permission. The law also lowered the age to buy ammuniton from 16 to 12. That is before you get the cost over runs on the long gun registry and mass noncompliance. In all, a bad idea for the US.

garyej's picture
garyej
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Centinel:
Quote ah2:
Quote Centinel:

Absolutely with you on that idea, Garyej. I think such a system would be more in line with the constitution than our current permanent standing army model.

Funny you guys should mention the Swiss. You know what their gun laws are? Oh yeah, they require licensure (a Waffentragschein) to carry and purchase firearms and it only allows you to buy 3 guns per permit. Additionally, there are mandatory records of sales which would include the identification of the seller and the buyer and the serial number of the weapon being sold. Finally, the guns they are issued for military purposes are required by law to be locked up at all times in the home.

You know.... Like EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING THE ENTIRE TIME.

There are finer points to some of the other restrictions they have in place which can be found with simple google searches. But none of the pro-gun outlets mention any of this stuff when they talk about the Swiss. The only thing they talk about is how military aged individuals are issued a rifle by the government.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

http://www.ehow.com/facts_6766770_switzerland-gun-safety.html

Anyway, Centinel, since you give their system full endorsement, I am glad you finally realized I was correct.

Rellize you were correct. Good one. ;)

I was agreeing with Gary on the issue of a standing army. The Swiss have a milita and no standing army. Not a bad idea.

As far as the government of the federation, we have to comply with the constitution.

As an aside, if you don't mind my asking ah2, why do you care so much about what me and my fellow Pennsylvanians do? Why do you feel the need to have the federation interfere with our lives?

Most illegal gun sales are first purchased legally. And if you think that all guns bought and sold in your state are going to stay in your state, you are mistaken. Nothing happens in a vaccuum.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote garyej:

He and I were refering to their military system not their personal weapons system. Of course they can get more permits for new additions to their collections. Just like anti gun folks who like Canada's 1995 gun laws forget gun owners lose some of their rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms like due process and against self incrimination. Plus I have a problem with getting an old girlfriends permission. The law also lowered the age to buy ammuniton from 16 to 12. That is before you get the cost over runs on the long gun registry and mass noncompliance. In all, a bad idea for the US.

What are you talking about Canada for?

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm

We say Switzerland, they say Canada. It all works out.

garyej's picture
garyej
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote garyej:Ironic thing is, most if not all of the founders and management of the gun banning groups are conservative to right wing.

The so-named 'Brady campaign' was a extension of Handgun control inc, which was created in 1974 by Mark Borinsky.. who is not a right wing politico.

The fact that Brady was permanently disabled at the time he became the name sake of the newly renamed organization was actually a attempt to use a Reagan spokesman to market 2nd amendment infringements TO the right. Brady had difficulty even speaking and no ability to care for himself, so suggesting that these efforts are a manifestation of the the right, is not accurate.

Other than Brady, who was a invalid with his name being reapplied to a existing effort, the infringment of the 2nd amendment is not to my knowledge a effort of the 'right'.

Lastly, I dont know what 'Right' or 'Left' actually means at this point, since Rahm Emmanuel(or Wall St.'s Daley)/Barack Obama are not executing anything less trans-national corporatist in their efforts to gain 'donations' that what Karl Rove/George Bush were engaged in.

The proper designator at this point is Populist Vs. Corporatist / Nationalist Vs. Trans-Nationalist.. sadly.

jeffersonian_conservative's picture
jeffersonian_co...
Joined:
Mar. 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Now you know why Liberals should never say anything about guns in America. Why enter into a known area of insanity? It is like driving into the fog expecting to make things clear.

Point One. The Second Amendment is About Not Having a Standing Army. As some have understood, the constitutional right to be part of the militia and have a gun is the alternative to having a standing army. It is the "well regulated" part that gets lost. And the result is enough to scare the shit out of people who understand how guns and human beings "work."

Point Two. The idea that gun ownership increases safety and counters crime is ridiculous.

Point Three. In some, mostly rural, contexts, guns are both a means of pest control and food gathering. People who are familiar with these tools and who know their limits will not be part of the gun fantasy culture of macho insecurity.

Point Four. The NRA has participated in fostering a macho insecurity gun symbolism that makes discussion of gun regulation or any sensible social policy impossible. The Second Amendment Solutions rhetoric is stupid and dangerous.

Point Five. Local control is ignored by the "gun rights goons" who would make Washington DC the same as rural Georgia. The hypocrisy is amazing. Urban gun laws make sense.

Point Six. While Prohibition does not work, sensible regulation of a privilege like driving licenses could go a long way toward improving our culture of the gun. If it were considered a privilege rather than an extension of the groin, possessing and caring for a gun might become a matter of serious responsibility. As a symbol of "manhood," it gets confused with all the wrong things.

Finally, as many of us have said over and over again, we are not against hunting or sport shooting. Some animal rights people will oppose any killing of animals, but most of us understand good hunting practices and respect those who practice it. We see a lot of the alcohol related incidents, however. And we do not see much admirable gun safety education or public policy advocacy from the gun industry front pr artists.

I would hope that Progressives who like to hunt or shoot would become advocates for better practice within the sports. I would like to have the lies about liberals and guns stopped.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Need to brush up on your history better. It was also an individual right, the natural right of self defense was an important part of the enlightenment according to Locke and Paine. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen also is interpeted as being a right to bear arms as do many of the states. The indidudual rights theory is the accepted theory in 19th and 21st centuries.

Everyone who owns a gun should know how to safely use a gun like anything else but licensing scheme would only work if there are safeguards to prevent abuse by officials which is common in may issue CCW states. These tests should be written by firearms instructers and be for operation and safety and not history of revolvers or some nonsense that would amount to the old literacy tests.

garyej's picture
garyej
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DRC:

Now you know why Liberals should never say anything about guns in America. Why enter into a known area of insanity? It is like driving into the fog expecting to make things clear.

Point One. The Second Amendment is About Not Having a Standing Army. As some have understood, the constitutional right to be part of the militia and have a gun is the alternative to having a standing army. It is the "well regulated" part that gets lost. And the result is enough to scare the shit out of people who understand how guns and human beings "work."

Point Two. The idea that gun ownership increases safety and counters crime is ridiculous.

Point Three. In some, mostly rural, contexts, guns are both a means of pest control and food gathering. People who are familiar with these tools and who know their limits will not be part of the gun fantasy culture of macho insecurity.

Point Four. The NRA has participated in fostering a macho insecurity gun symbolism that makes discussion of gun regulation or any sensible social policy impossible. The Second Amendment Solutions rhetoric is stupid and dangerous.

Point Five. Local control is ignored by the "gun rights goons" who would make Washington DC the same as rural Georgia. The hypocrisy is amazing. Urban gun laws make sense.

Point Six. While Prohibition does not work, sensible regulation of a privilege like driving licenses could go a long way toward improving our culture of the gun. If it were considered a privilege rather than an extension of the groin, possessing and caring for a gun might become a matter of serious responsibility. As a symbol of "manhood," it gets confused with all the wrong things.

Finally, as many of us have said over and over again, we are not against hunting or sport shooting. Some animal rights people will oppose any killing of animals, but most of us understand good hunting practices and respect those who practice it. We see a lot of the alcohol related incidents, however. And we do not see much admirable gun safety education or public policy advocacy from the gun industry front pr artists.

I would hope that Progressives who like to hunt or shoot would become advocates for better practice within the sports. I would like to have the lies about liberals and guns stopped.

This is virtually identical to my opinion. Well written DRC.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm

The word "people" is used nine times in the Constitution and all of the Amendments. Nine. In each of those nine times, who is being referenced by the word, "people"?

"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."

Tell me, if the "people" in each of the eight other uses of the word, have no connection to any organized groups, militia or otherwise, why then should the "people" in the second amendment?

Midnight4121's picture
Midnight4121
Joined:
Mar. 25, 2011 7:21 pm
Quote Midnight4121:

The word "people" is used nine times in the Constitution and all of the Amendments. Nine. In each of those nine times, who is being referenced by the word, "people"?

"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."

Tell me, if the "people" in each of the eight other uses of the word, have no connection to any organized groups, militia or otherwise, why then should the "people" in the second amendment?

Well, for two reasons.

First, is grammatical. the sentence is in reference to "a well regulated milita" and the clauses are dependent upon one another in the sentence structure.

Second, is historical. The founding fathers understood "the militia" as being comprised of "citizen-soldiers". I put quotes around that term because it has a very specific historical formulation for that time period. Essentially, we were intended to be a nation of "citizen-soldiers". That is, "the people" ARE the "citizen-soldiers". "The regulated miltia" is reference to the method of organization.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm

Really? Along with being condensending, illinformed nonsense, I found it to be offensive. It is no different than something you find at free republic. Different "other" ; same ignorance; same arrogant bigotry.

garyej's picture
garyej
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DRC:

Now you know why Liberals should never say anything about guns in America. Why enter into a known area of insanity? It is like driving into the fog expecting to make things clear.

Point One. The Second Amendment is About Not Having a Standing Army. As some have understood, the constitutional right to be part of the militia and have a gun is the alternative to having a standing army. It is the "well regulated" part that gets lost. And the result is enough to scare the shit out of people who understand how guns and human beings "work."

Point Two. The idea that gun ownership increases safety and counters crime is ridiculous.

Point Three. In some, mostly rural, contexts, guns are both a means of pest control and food gathering. People who are familiar with these tools and who know their limits will not be part of the gun fantasy culture of macho insecurity.

Point Four. The NRA has participated in fostering a macho insecurity gun symbolism that makes discussion of gun regulation or any sensible social policy impossible. The Second Amendment Solutions rhetoric is stupid and dangerous.

Point Five. Local control is ignored by the "gun rights goons" who would make Washington DC the same as rural Georgia. The hypocrisy is amazing. Urban gun laws make sense.

Point Six. While Prohibition does not work, sensible regulation of a privilege like driving licenses could go a long way toward improving our culture of the gun. If it were considered a privilege rather than an extension of the groin, possessing and caring for a gun might become a matter of serious responsibility. As a symbol of "manhood," it gets confused with all the wrong things.

Finally, as many of us have said over and over again, we are not against hunting or sport shooting. Some animal rights people will oppose any killing of animals, but most of us understand good hunting practices and respect those who practice it. We see a lot of the alcohol related incidents, however. And we do not see much admirable gun safety education or public policy advocacy from the gun industry front pr artists.

I would hope that Progressives who like to hunt or shoot would become advocates for better practice within the sports. I would like to have the lies about liberals and guns stopped.

garyej's picture
garyej
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Making degrading remarks about a chunk of mainstream America wins us a well deserved trip to the wilderness.

garyej's picture
garyej
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Had the Founding Fathers been able to envision the weapons available over 200 years in their future, the 2nd Amendment would have been worded very differently, if worded at all.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Nonsense unless you have a time machine and showed them.

garyej's picture
garyej
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

will be filled later

garyej's picture
garyej
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Good day all,

Look one thing that is being lost in all this is the fact that many voters on the right are one issue voters. They are voting republican right now because they own guns, their fathers/mothers own guns, their grandfathers own guns....and they want to keep them. For better or worse we are a gun loving country (in my view) hell all our heroes on tv and in the movies used them. Many of our Presidents loved to skeet shoot even if they did not hunt. It is an ingrained part of our culture by now. We need to face this and move on.

Like the original poster of this thread I believe we have a right to own them and this does not stop me from being a card carrying member of the progressive wing of the democratic party. Further wouldn't it be smarter for Dem's to embrace gun ownership and pick up the one issue voters of the republican party? Me thinks there are quite a few.

Guns are not going to go away any time soon. They have been around our country for how long? Why not help out our mutual causes by increasing our voting numbers by embracing reasonable and responsible laws regarding gun ownership.

Thank you midnight for your honest post.

Mick_n_Seattle
Joined:
Mar. 23, 2011 11:48 am

Currently Chatting

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system