HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Mother Jones: "The N...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 02:51 PM

Mother Jones: "The NRA Surge: 99 Laws Rolling Back Gun Restrictions"

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/map-gun-laws-2009-2012

The NRA Surge: 99 Laws Rolling Back Gun Restrictions
In the past four years a barrage of measures across 37 states have made it easier to own, carry, and conceal firearms.

—By Mark Follman, Tasneem Raja, and Ben Breedlove
Wed Sep. 26, 2012 3:01 AM PDT

Since 2009, the NRA and its allies in state capitols have pushed through 99 laws making guns easier to own, easier to carry in public—eight states now even allow them in bars—and harder for the government to track. More than two-thirds of the laws were passed by Republican-controlled legislatures, though often with bipartisan support...


At least MoJo allows dissenting voices in the comments- and boy, are there quite a few dissenters, mostly about the conspicuous lack of new gun crimes.
I'd also note that we were assured here at DU not so long ago that the influence of the NRA was overstated. Looks like the antis want it both ways...

88 replies, 6748 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 88 replies Author Time Post
Reply Mother Jones: "The NRA Surge: 99 Laws Rolling Back Gun Restrictions" (Original post)
friendly_iconoclast Oct 2012 OP
villager Oct 2012 #1
friendly_iconoclast Oct 2012 #2
hack89 Oct 2012 #3
DonP Oct 2012 #7
villager Oct 2012 #15
hack89 Oct 2012 #16
DonP Oct 2012 #18
PavePusher Oct 2012 #19
Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #85
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #23
beevul Oct 2012 #65
bongbong Oct 2012 #5
DonP Oct 2012 #8
bongbong Oct 2012 #12
PavePusher Oct 2012 #27
Tuesday Afternoon Oct 2012 #31
Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #33
Tuesday Afternoon Oct 2012 #34
Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #40
bongbong Oct 2012 #56
bongbong Oct 2012 #36
hack89 Oct 2012 #43
bongbong Oct 2012 #46
hack89 Oct 2012 #49
bongbong Oct 2012 #55
hack89 Oct 2012 #57
ManiacJoe Oct 2012 #69
Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #86
hack89 Oct 2012 #10
bongbong Oct 2012 #11
hack89 Oct 2012 #14
bongbong Oct 2012 #26
hack89 Oct 2012 #41
Tuesday Afternoon Oct 2012 #32
bongbong Oct 2012 #39
Tuesday Afternoon Oct 2012 #58
bongbong Oct 2012 #60
Tuesday Afternoon Oct 2012 #62
Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #87
Tuesday Afternoon Oct 2012 #88
PavePusher Oct 2012 #21
bongbong Oct 2012 #28
PavePusher Oct 2012 #29
bongbong Oct 2012 #37
PavePusher Oct 2012 #45
bongbong Oct 2012 #47
Glaug-Eldare Oct 2012 #50
bongbong Oct 2012 #54
PavePusher Oct 2012 #64
bongbong Oct 2012 #73
friendly_iconoclast Oct 2012 #80
Tuesday Afternoon Oct 2012 #30
bongbong Oct 2012 #38
Tuesday Afternoon Oct 2012 #59
bongbong Oct 2012 #61
Tuesday Afternoon Oct 2012 #63
aikoaiko Oct 2012 #77
bongbong Oct 2012 #78
Starboard Tack Oct 2012 #42
-..__... Oct 2012 #4
GreenStormCloud Oct 2012 #6
former-republican Oct 2012 #17
GreenStormCloud Oct 2012 #20
former-republican Oct 2012 #22
Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #9
Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #13
Starboard Tack Oct 2012 #44
gejohnston Oct 2012 #48
Glaug-Eldare Oct 2012 #51
Starboard Tack Oct 2012 #53
Glaug-Eldare Oct 2012 #66
Starboard Tack Oct 2012 #67
Glaug-Eldare Oct 2012 #68
Starboard Tack Oct 2012 #75
Glaug-Eldare Oct 2012 #79
Starboard Tack Oct 2012 #81
Glaug-Eldare Oct 2012 #82
Starboard Tack Oct 2012 #83
Glaug-Eldare Oct 2012 #84
beevul Oct 2012 #70
Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #52
Atypical Liberal Oct 2012 #71
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #24
PavePusher Oct 2012 #25
Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #35
Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #72
PavePusher Oct 2012 #74
Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #76

Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 03:04 PM

1. "the conspicuous lack of new gun crimes..."

I guess that's what passes for humor in proliferationist circles?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 03:15 PM

2. Not humor- fact. Violent crime and murder rates are down, per the FBI.

I rather doubt that 'proliferationists' are cooking the FBI's "Crime in The United States" reports to show a decrease that isn't there.

(Note: added on edit- had to dig these up)

I also stand by what I said about you lot wanting it both ways:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117215392

The Myth Of NRA Dominance Part I and II: The NRA’s Ineffective Spending and Overrated Endorsements

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117218901

The Myth Of NRA Dominance Parts III & IV: Two Elections the NRA Lost and the Declining Role of Guns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 03:16 PM

3. You are aware that gun violence is at historic lows and steadily falling? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #3)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 03:55 PM

7. Doesn't matter

As long as any citizen owns a firearm the gun control "fans" won't be happy.

My favorite is the one we have now that keeps insisting that the IRS audit the NRA and then force them to disband.

They think about a minute and a half into the future and what kind of precedent that would set.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #3)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:22 PM

15. *crime rates* are falling, generally, which is of course, good. But the episodes of gun violence

....become more horrific.

And are just generally met with a marked lack of empathy, and snarky "humor" in this subforum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #15)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:25 PM

16. No - there are fewer shootings, injuries and deaths.

We have empathy for the victims of violence. We have no tolerance for people waving the bloody shirt to justify their anti-gun agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #15)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:31 PM

18. "Empathy" You have to be fucking kidding me!

Another gun control "fan" telling us all how they are a superior being because they have "empathy" for victims.

Please, share with us all the empathetic things you do in the real world to support gun control. Contributions to a gun control organization? Petitions passed to repeal concealed carry in your state?

Do you do anything besides whine and snark poorly online about it?

BTW violent crime with guns is also way down. Try to find a new hobby horse to ride.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #15)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:32 PM

19. What do you mean by "become more horrific"?

 

Specifics, please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #19)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 02:11 AM

85. Maybe he thinks they are more deaderer.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #15)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:47 PM

23. Substitute a quantitative argument, which you will lose, for a qualitative argument

 

Claim: more guns will mean more crimes!
Decades of meticulously cited data later: er ok it will mean fewer crimes BUT THEY ARE WORSE SOMEHOW!

It's like arguing that welfare increases poverty, then finding actually no it relieves poverty, so instead saying "well the poverty is worse on and individual basis not by any objective measure, but I feel those in poverty are suffering more now than before".

Hence the need for an entirely emotion based argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #15)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 07:55 PM

65. When "empathy" is strictly measured by degrees of capitulation...

When "empathy" is strictly measured by degrees of capitulation on gun control, or lack there of...


I can see how it might seem that way to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 03:54 PM

5. The Delicate Flowers

 

The Delicate Flowers (the gun-nuts, as Tom Tomorrow puts it) like to trot out this misleading falsehood (I get alerted on by those Delicate Flowers if I call it 'lying')

Statistics, in this case, are put in the service of the NRA to mislead the public. Correlation does not equal causation.

The Delicate Flowers know this, but they just keep posting the same - well, a word that starts with "L" - but the Delicate Flowers are oh-so-sensitive and alert when their widdle feelings are hurt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #5)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 03:58 PM

8. Hmmm? Unsupported hot air versus the FBI UCR, tough call.

I think I'll go with the annual FBI UCR, known lackeys of the NRA that they are under Eric Holder of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #8)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:13 PM

12. Too bad

 

I know it's not in the interest of Delicate Flowers to understand the basics of statistics - the REAL basics, say, a class called "Remedial Statistics 101" - but some of us do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #12)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:12 PM

27. Feel free to cite numbers and explain how less is more.

 

Ya lil' blossom, you...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #27)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:27 PM

31. he can't do it. he's too busy hitting the bong

worse yet he bogarts the mutha.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #31)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:32 PM

33. Boy, in my circle, if you bogart you are out. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #33)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:34 PM

34. pretty much my point --

iffen ya get my drift

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #34)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:44 PM

40. Still don't qualify for Medicaire? Then try Green Cross/Green Shield! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #31)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 06:54 PM

56. LOL

 

> he can't do it. he's too busy hitting the bong

Or maybe I'm just destroying the "arguments" of Delicate Flowers. Pretty easy, don't even need a bong to do it. See post #54.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #27)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:37 PM

36. LOL

 

First off, correlation is not causation.

Secondly, you can't claim that more guns = less crime, since crime might have gone down more if guns had stayed the same. Which would mean that the added guns actually made crime worse.

I know, hard for a Delicate Flower to imagine, but it could have happened.

Thus ends your lesson in Basic Statistics 101.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #36)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:47 PM

43. The measure of guns making crime worse is more shootings, injuries and deaths.

what other measure is there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #43)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 06:02 PM

46. LOL

 

You've never heard of a gun used as just a threat?

Here I am, educating Delicate Flowers on the uses of their Precious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #46)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 06:24 PM

49. So armed robberies are up? Oh wait... maybe not.

what gun specific crimes are actually up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #49)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 06:49 PM

55. Just more for you to prove

 

To make the implication you're making, you'll have to prove that all crimes with a gun (actual crimes, attempted crimes, and threats) are reported to the cops.

Now there's a study I would pay money to see!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #55)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 06:56 PM

57. You are one implying something

I have merely stated that all known measures of gun crime are down. That is a fact. I am more than happy to leave things there - I am not scared of things I don't know or can't measure. Are you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #36)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 10:06 PM

69. Nice strawman.

> First off, correlation is not causation.

You get that right.

> Secondly, you can't claim that more guns = less crime

Lucky for us, no one here is making that claim. However, what is easy to claim is that more guns != more crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #27)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 02:18 AM

86. Blossom? Like the kind Karl Rove referenced? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #5)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:04 PM

10. Regardless of the cause, you do agree that there are fewer shootings, injuries and deaths, right?

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #10)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:11 PM

11. No thanks to guns

 

-

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #11)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:19 PM

14. But more guns have not made things worse - my only point. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #14)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:06 PM

26. Nope, can't say that

 

You'd have to prove that things would have stayed the same if guns hadn't increased.

I wonder why I have to keep educating you on this, but you keep repeating the same, ah, misstatement?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #26)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:45 PM

41. All I can prove is that there were less shootings, injuries and deaths.

you can't prove anything to the contrary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #11)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:28 PM

32. fine. don't like 'em. don't buy 'em. problem solved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #32)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:42 PM

39. LOL

 

The problem with laissez-faire gun laws and lax regulations (probably only Somalia has more lax gun laws) is that said guns seem to have a big influence on ending the lives of people that don't own them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #39)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 07:05 PM

58. not by you. you would be innocent, big daddy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #58)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 07:18 PM

60. And

 

Innocent of what? Getting gunned down by a Delicate Flower?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #60)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 07:26 PM

62. you are a total innocent. period. end of story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #62)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 02:22 AM

87. This guy sounds like a tape loop of a former poster.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #87)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 08:58 AM

88. boingboing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #5)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:33 PM

21. Wharfgarble from you? What a surprise.

 

Get bent, troll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #21)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:15 PM

28. Wharfgarble

 

Really? Pointing out logical errors in the use of statistics is wharfgarble?

You learn something every day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #28)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:20 PM

29. You haven't "pointed out" anything.

 

You made a claim, then utterly failed to support it with evidence.

Wharfgarble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #29)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:39 PM

37. LOL

 

See my post #36.

Now don't you feel foolish?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #37)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:56 PM

45. LOL, more Wharfgarble.

 



I urge you to review the First Rule of Holes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #45)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 06:05 PM

47. LOL

 

If you don't understand the argument, just say so.

I'll make a simpler version just for you!

Let's imagine that gun ownership stayed the same, and that crime decreased from 100 to 80. Now add in the increased guns, and lets say the crime decreased from 100 to 90.

A Delicate Flower would say that "more guns = less crime", but people who stayed awake in Logic class would know otherwise.

How's that for wharfgarble?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #47)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 06:24 PM

50. Let's imagine that gun ownership stayed the same,

and that crime increased from 100 to 110? Now add in the increased guns, and let's say crime decreased from 100 to 90. Is there anything that supports one guess over the other, or should we just pick which hypothetical result we like better?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #50)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 06:45 PM

54. LOL

 

> should we just pick which hypothetical result we like better?

All you can say for sure is that "gun ownership is a factor in the crime rate". You can't pick either hypothetical.

But the Delicate Flowers are fond of saying "more guns = less crime", so we can see that they've made a Logical Fallacy.

That's all I know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #47)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 07:47 PM

64. But you can't, or won't, demonstrate such a phenomenom.

 

So.... Wharfgarble, my dear gentle blossom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #64)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 12:32 PM

73. Strawman alert!

 

I never claimed I could demonstrate "such a phenomenon">

All I've ever said is that when Delicate Flowers claim, or imply, that "more guns = less crime" or "more guns = more safety" they're basing that on a logical falsehood.

The wharfgarble is all on the Delicate Flowers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #73)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 04:52 PM

80. Cites, please...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #5)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:25 PM

30. some citizens are more equal than others. tell that to Tom Tomorrow and while you are it

tell him that Tuesday Afternoon said to Kiss My Ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #30)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:40 PM

38. Tell him yourself

 

He has email. Probably even has a special address for complaints from Delicate Flowers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #38)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 07:06 PM

59. I am laying odds on you. any takers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #59)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 07:19 PM

61. LOL

 

Laying odds on what? Is this some kind of inside joke among Delicate Flowers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #61)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 07:27 PM

63. why do you care what delicate flowers do? trust me - we are just blowing in the wind.

big daddy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #5)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 03:14 PM

77. Congratulations, BongBong, you're down to 18 hidden posts in the last 90 dats.


This is growth for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #77)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 03:24 PM

78. LOL

 

Why do you think I call you guys "Delicate Flowers"?



"I'm tough as nails, carry a gun, but am ever-so-sensitive! Oh, and BTW, I'm too scared to leave the house without a weapon!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:47 PM

42. I thought that was pretty funny too. Priceless!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 03:31 PM

4. Now we just need to "roll back" 99 more gun control laws.

 

Especially in the more restrictive states.

If it can't be done via the legislatures... it'll have to be done via the courts/legal system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 03:55 PM

6. So far this year over 30 NRA backed bills have become law. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #6)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:25 PM

17. That's a good thing

 

NRA
life member

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #17)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:33 PM

20. Yes, it is.

I keep a file and at the end of the year post a list, with links,of all the NRA backed bills that have become law. I did the same thing last year. The discusion on that thread was enjoyable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #20)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:38 PM

22. This was during the midterms , too bad some Democrats can't get over this

 

RIDICULOUS anti gun stance they have. If they did the republicans would never have power again.








The NRA has earned a reputation over the decades as a pro-gun advocacy group that's solidly in the Republican camp.



But in what will no doubt come as a surprise to many, the organization is endorsing 14 House Democrats in close races because their Second Amendment views line up with the with those of the gun-rights group.

It's an unwelcome move as far as Republicans are concerned. They've come to take NRA endorsements of their candidates as a given

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:01 PM

9. There is nothing liberal about gun-control...

MoJo needs to get off this wheel-less bandwagon; everyone's gone home and taken the beer with them. Liberalism is about expanding the rights of the people, not constricting them. THAT'S why they are catching flak.

I wonder: Has MoJo even thought out the whole notion of gun-control, or they reflexively signaling some kind of "progressive" agenda that "everyone else" is supposed to follow? The more you challenge the system in this country, the more appreciation you have for the Second. Is MoJo more worried about guns in bars, or more worried about corporate hegemony and safety net rollbacks?

"The Constitution of the United States guarantees to you the right to bear arms…You have the unquestioned right, under the law, to defend your life and protect the sanctity of your fireside. Failing in either, you are a coward and a craven and undeserving of the name of man.” — Eugene V. Debs

Again. There is nothing liberal about gun-control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #9)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:15 PM

13. The link to MoJo absolutely freezes up on the first page of its article. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #9)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:54 PM

44. " Liberalism is about expanding the rights of the people, not constricting them. "

Not true! That's what LIBERTARIANISM is about, not liberalism. Liberalism is about balancing the rights of the individual with the needs of society.

The second amendment does not talk about individual rights, but the rights of the people. The people is society and the rights of the people come before any individual. Eventually, we will have a SCOTUS that understands that.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #44)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 06:18 PM

48. hate to break it to you but,

you are describing conservatism. The primary difference between modern conservatives and what you describe as "liberalism" is what individual rights are curtailed for the "good of society" and who curtails them.

What is described as "libertariansim" today (but is really neo feudalism or corporatism) claims to have its roots in classical liberalism of the Enlightenment, but they don't know the complete history. While classical liberals like Washington and Paine was cool with a gun in every house, they also supported social safety nets (DC had a welfare system started by Washington) for example.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #44)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 06:28 PM

51. So, because "people" does not mean individuals,

does that mean that no individual can sue for violations of the rights to assembly, privacy, or suffrage?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #51)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 06:42 PM

53. Of course they can. It's about balance.

An individual has rights until the exercise of those rights is detrimental to society as a whole. That's what happened when we climbed down from the trees and gathered together. The group's rights must trump any individual rights, or the group ceases to exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #53)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 08:30 PM

66. So, what restraints are actually placed on Congress?

If legislatures deem assembly, privacy, or suffrage detrimental to society as a whole, can they be prohibited?

If not, why can they deem RKBA detrimental and prohibit it?

If so, what is the purpose of a Bill of Rights with no actual effect?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #66)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 08:46 PM

67. If you study history, suffrage was considered detrimental at the time of the constitution.

RKBA is only detrimental when wrongly applied, as it presently is. The BoR exists to list specific rights which apply to the people and by extension to individuals. However, when the individual right encroaches on the right of the group, then it is subject to restriction. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is the classic example. An individual carrying a loaded weapon around for "personal protection" fall into the same category, IMHO. Unfortunately, our RW leaning SCOTUS currently disagrees with me. Hopefully, all that will soon change and we can join the civilized world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #67)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 09:21 PM

68. It's not a historical question --

In 2012, the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments to the Constitution now delineate exactly who has the right to vote. The Congress can only restrict suffrage on the basis of citizenship, age, and criminality. This right applies to individuals, and can be sued for by individuals. The Congress cannot deem Catholic suffrage detrimental to society and restrict it. Similarly, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" cannot be waved away simply for being deemed "detrimental to society." It requires a Constitutional amendment to remove Constitutional protections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #68)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 02:14 PM

75. I'm not getting your reference to Catholic suffrage.

Do you think concealed gun carriers constitute a "minority"? The right of the "people" cannot be waved away. It is paramount, as it is for individuals who are part of a minority. Minorities are defined in terms of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, age, level of infirmity and legal status, not in terms of what they choose to conceal about their person or carry around. They are categorized as such by the majority, who in their democratic benevolence, accord these minorities equal rights. An imperfect solution, but a noble attempt at fairness. Those individuals who want to publicly carry loaded firearms, concealed upon their person, hardly fit the description of a minority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #75)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 04:23 PM

79. It's not about minority or majority

I'm comparing a Congressional prohibition on bearing arms, a protected act, to a Congressional prohibition on Catholics voting, another protected act. The gun carrier and the Catholic both have an enumerated individual right which cannot be legislated away because it's deemed detrimental to society. If one right can be arbitrarily revoked, any of them can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #79)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 05:13 PM

81. Any right can be revoked, like the right to own slaves.

You confuse "prohibition on bearing arms" with legislating against particular arms being borne in a particular way. Catholics are a minority group, based on their faith, not on which tools they carry around and how that behavior reflects on society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #81)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 06:04 PM

82. The implicit right to own slaves

by the absence of federal authority to prohibit same, was rectified by a Constitutional Amendment. Even in the middle of a war, the Congress understood that they could not accomplish this goal without one. Not that it prevented Lincoln from wiping his ass with the concept of law...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #82)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 06:58 PM

83. And 2A mentions no implicit right to carry concealed handguns.

Neither does 2A mention the issuance of permits, which contradicts any notion that carrying any particular type of weapon is a right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #83)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 08:32 PM

84. Nor does the Constitution mention voter registration



By the way, it's nice being able to participate in a friendly back-and-forth like this. I appreciate your input!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #67)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 02:47 AM

70. No, youre completely wrong there.

"The BoR exists to list specific rights which apply to the people and by extension to individuals."


No, BoR exists specifically, to tell the government what it may NOT do.

One need look no further than the preamble to the bill of rights itself, for clarity on such matters:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org


"Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is the classic example."

And yet we just don't gag people before they enter the theater to prevent it, do we?

People ARE allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater if and when theres a fire.


"An individual carrying a loaded weapon around for "personal protection" fall into the same category, IMHO."

Then, in your opinion, something which istelf causes no harm, carrying (and only carrying) a loaded weapon around for "personal protection", is equivalent to yelling fire in a crowded theater (when there isn't a fire).

One of those is inately harmful, quantifiably, and the other is not.

You really couldn't have picked a better way to show everyone that your seneibilities outweigh common sense and logic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #44)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 06:28 PM

52. Liberalism is always on firm footing when it seeks to EXPAND the rights of the individual.

Liberalism does not preclude "promoting the general welfare". But laws and legislation to promote the general welfare must comport with the Constitution.

Review the Fourth Amendment wherein "the people" is cited within the same sentence as "individual." This individual-vs-communitarian rights issue is fatuous. The Constitution's writers understood that. Further, guaranteeing individual rights was and is the best way to guard against social "movements" or "causes" which, by their own convenient definitions, declare their interests superior to those of the individual, and thereby seek to restrict individual rights. This danger is always present in prohibitionist outlooks.

Of course, you should by now know that the big majority of constitutional scholars, historians, and political scientists who have studied the Second see the amendment as protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms, a view now shared by Laurence Tribe, the (formerly) most-cited promoter of the "militia clause" in earlier writings. The individual rights interpretation is the Standard Model.

You may find some state constitutions use similar language to guarantee individual rights (esp. "First Amendment rights") using similar language structure. This was discussed in a recent thread.

In short, the "militia clause" does not condition the RKBA, it only states the Federal government's own limited interest in that right: To call out the militia; the powers to do so are outlined in the Articles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #44)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 08:48 AM

71. There is no right that can be exercised by a collective that cannot also be exercised by an individu

 

The second amendment does not talk about individual rights, but the rights of the people. The people is society and the rights of the people come before any individual. Eventually, we will have a SCOTUS that understands that.

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.


There is no right that can be exercised by a collective that cannot also be exercised by an individual.

And as a corollary, if an individual cannot exercise a right, two or more individuals cannot exercise it, either.

Let us look at free speech. Individuals have the right to speak freely against the government, just as a group does. And if individuals could not speak freely against the government, they could not do so in a group.

Let us look at the right to be secure in our persons from unreasonable searches and seizures. An individual has as much right to this as two people do together. And if individuals are not so secure, two people together are not any more secure.

Let us look at the right to freely practice religion. An individual has the right to practice religion as he sees fit without interference from the government just as a group of people do. And if an individual cannot practice their religion as they see fit, then a group of people cannot, either.

And on and on.

Militia service requires many people to succeed. But in order for it to succeed, the individual must bear arms. Even though it empowers the individual to keep and bear arms, If 1, 2, or 20 people decided to take up arms for some cause they would be gunned down by the authorities and the rest of the people. The founders knew this. If the people needed to engage in warfare, they would have to act in concert to succeed, and fringe lunatics would never be able to hold sway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:49 PM

24. I'd take these articles more seriously if they weren't all predicated on: the NRA wants X,

 

the NRA is bad, therefore X is bad.

X could be anything. Rescuing kittens from trees. Doesn't matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:04 PM

25. Will someone PLEASE, in the name of all that is Holy, tell MJ to unfuck their site....

 

as it seems to freeze up anything running Windows....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #25)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:35 PM

35. HA! Maybe they got too much objection to the article and put out a World-wide Hoo-Doo!nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 10:19 AM

72. Finally got mojo's link to work. Didn't realize they had...

A strong pro 2A contingent. I've always considered gun-control to be an elitist outlook, so does mojo have gun prohibition written into it's journalistic DNA? Any pro-2A columnists there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #72)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 01:12 PM

74. How did you get it to work?

 

It's still freezing up everything I try to open it with....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #74)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 02:36 PM

76. Opened it on my Samsung D600 smartphone...

Of course, I was in the tub at the time. That probably made all the difference in the world considering my vast knowledge of computers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread