Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Anyone have any thoughts on today's "Ask Auntie Pinko" column?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 04:20 PM
Original message
Anyone have any thoughts on today's "Ask Auntie Pinko" column?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. I do. I'm a liberal/progressive and socialist even
And I support the 2nd ammendment as much as the NRA'ers pretend to.

Heck, I even thing automatic weapons should be legal.

The irony of gun control is that easy access to guns or no access to guns does not change the crime rate in any way. You have Switzerland, a country where there is easy access to guns, and everyone has one, and England, where guns are heavily regulated. Both countries, same size. Both countries, same crime rate.

Criminals will always get guns if they want them and alternatively, having a gun does not make you any safer.

I do think, however, we should make a truce with the gun lobby. We will allow all guns, without waiting period, without registration - on the condition that gun safety be hammered into consumers heads, and gun locks given free of charge. You see, I'm not worried about criminals, I'm worried about gun owner's kids accidentally hurting themselves or others. Add a gun lock and you've beat that problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. I use to be for total gun control but since brush decided to make himself
King, I've had second thoughts. I mean an unarmed civilian populist is easier to control and round up into "dissenter's camps". I think I would rather hang onto my rifles and guns, for my own protection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SMSTRICK Donating Member (23 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
55. You GET IT !

You hit the nail on the head. The 2nd Amendment is there to serve as a safeguard to our liberties,....and untimately our FREEDOM. Without the 2nd Amendment,...we are only as free as the government tells us we are. Without the 2nd,...we would cease to be citizens and would become subjects.....Beautifully stated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
displacedtexan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
3. I thought Auntie's response was brilliant, as usual.
What I still can't fathom is how we were able to sell
Jennifer Granholm (female MI Gov candidate) to the Ted Nugent types
in '02, but our national Dems act like gun safety is a
kiss-of-death issue.

BTW, Granholm is facing some big gun (no pun intended)
religious rightsters in her '06 re-election bid!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dolomite Donating Member (689 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. What penalty was Auntie proposing for citizens that were reluctant to
follow her mandatory storage idea?

We're just talking about ideas here right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
displacedtexan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. I didn't see anything about a penalty.
Did I miss something?

Auntie presented both sides of the storage idea.
Actually, my husband grew up in England, and his dad
registered and stored his guns at the local
police station.

I don't know if they still do that in England, BTW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickinSTL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
4. "individual possession of arms is a basic human right."
I disagree with this, personally.

I have serious questions about the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

However, I expect that I'm not necessarily in the majority here (and, despite my above remarks, I'm not really trying to take anyone's guns away)

:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. yeah that line is an NRA sponsored talking point
confused with the right to defend oneself from harm, when harm is threatened. By that logic the 60,000 volt trapdoor, laser cannon and razor tipped crossbow bolt trap on my front door (just kidding) is my basic human right, but it just ain't so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. She only lost me on one suggestion
That people be required to store their service rifle competition rifles at the range.

If I'm responsible enough to own a firearm of any type, I'm responsible enough to store it in my own home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
6. " Like it or not, individual possession of arms is a basic human right."
Crazy insane bullshit. The guy needs therapy, all kidding aside.
I'm sorry this guy needs a gun in his hand to believe he still has a penis, but that's his problem. They have pills for maladies like that these days, don't they? Perhaps a doctor or an understanding woman could make him feel better about himself.
For the record: I own some guns, but I don't attach myself to them. If handguns are made illegal (which is an idea I completely support) then they go and good riddance. It certainly would not turn my world upside down and I wouldn't feel diminished by not having them. And I damn sure don't make up lunatic crap like "individual possession of a firearm is a basic human right" to put a high sounding excuse on my pervy obsession with boomsticks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I agree his wording was bad, but how about
"self preservation is a basic human right."

It's tantamount to the same thing, and its the spirit which the 2nd ammendment was based on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. 2nd amendment guarantees rights of states to maintain militias
which they have. In those days militias were bring-yer-own-musket affairs. Officers made up their own uniforms and infantrymen had their own lead forms for musketballs. Nowadays and for a long time already, militias are not bring your own weapon deals.
The sole justification of the language of the second Amendment is the legal provisioning of well regulated militias. That doesn't mean anything about "..and you get to keep a gun at home!" Or in your car or boat. Now that well regulated militias are not consistent with bringing your own uniforms or muskets, which is seen in the fact that no state operates their militia on that basis anymore, there can be no Second Amendment based argument which makes individual gun ownership a sacrosanct unquestioned right, forever beyond the reach of legislation.

Before the Civil War, a valid argument could be made from necessity: in order to have militias at all, individual gun ownership had to be allowed as a practical matter. States were perfectly entitled to maintain militias, individual gun ownership was the only way that then existed in the colonies/fledgling states to realize/satisfy that goal. But that argument won't hold water now and hasn't held any for over a hundred and fifty years. States can, and uniformly do, maintain militias and individual purchases of and ownership of firearms is not necessary (to say the least) in order to realize the goal of the militia. Therefore, since a law forbidding individual manufacture/sales/possession of for example handguns or fully automatic weapons, or "assault-weapon" style carbines, do not infringe on the 2nd Amendment guarantee of states to maintain their militias such a law is in no way un-Constitutional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AGKISTRODON Donating Member (290 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. OBVIOUSLY
Many voters disagree with you! B-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thirdpower Donating Member (695 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. You have a time machine?
Obviously to prove this :

The sole justification of the language of the second Amendment is the legal provisioning of well regulated militias.

I could quote quite a bit from the FF's to show otherwise.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
thirdpower Donating Member (695 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. And I posted commentaries on the interpretation of the Amendment
along w/ the FF's justifications and the history thereof.

Do you have any evidence supporting your statement?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Commentaries? Interpretations? I think the Amendment is the authority
The ONLY authority as a matter of law, and its clarity is all the evidence I need.
Keep your apocrypha wherever you usually stow it.

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.

As long as well regulated militia exist, drawn from the people in the states and not under the direct control of the Federal government, the United States Congress may make laws regulating sales and possession of firearms and weapons (pistols, machineguns, rifles, explosives, aerial bombs, cannon shells, nerve gas, fission warheads etc....) to their heart's content, without exceeding the limit of the Second Amendment.

No I don't think you should have machineguns, assault rifles, explosives, aerial bombs, cannon shells, nerve gas, fission warheads, and the very fact that you would claim a right to personally own these, any of these, would make me completely certain that society cannot afford for you to arm yourself with them. Should you own handguns? If the Congress decides the answer to that is a heavily qualified yes--or an absolute no--then it would be within the scope of its power to so decide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thirdpower Donating Member (695 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. SCOTUS disagrees..
Edited on Thu Jan-19-06 05:58 PM by thirdpower
The ONLY authority as a matter of law, and its clarity is all the evidence I need.

As thier job is to "interpret" the constitution and the writings of the FF's, well as commentaries on such, are used in said interpretation.

and from Emerson:

"Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read " well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." (U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999))


"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. . . . "

--- The U.S. Supreme Court in Cohens v. Virginia (1821)

the very fact that you would claim a right to personally own these,

I said this? Really? Show me the link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Therealhelmetcase Donating Member (180 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #24
30. I love how..
...people like our anti-RKBA friends have yet to offer a rebuttal to Emerson. Heh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thirdpower Donating Member (695 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Lexingtonian tried in the other thread.
by claiming the federal judges were influenced by racist policies,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-21-06 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #24
41. Awesome. I looked up the full opinion. Bookmarked.
The things one learns here on DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #23
32. I don't think you should have snuff films and child porn, either...
Edited on Thu Jan-19-06 08:53 PM by benEzra
As long as well regulated militia exist, drawn from the people in the states and not under the direct control of the Federal government, the United States Congress may make laws regulating sales and possession of firearms and weapons (pistols, machineguns, rifles, explosives, aerial bombs, cannon shells, nerve gas, fission warheads etc....) to their heart's content, without exceeding the limit of the Second Amendment.

No I don't think you should have machineguns, assault rifles, explosives, aerial bombs, cannon shells, nerve gas, fission warheads, and the very fact that you would claim a right to personally own these, any of these, would make me completely certain that society cannot afford for you to arm yourself with them. Should you own handguns? If the Congress decides the answer to that is a heavily qualified yes--or an absolute no--then it would be within the scope of its power to so decide.

The exact same logic applies to the First Amendment. If Congress can restrict child porn and snuff films, then it can outlaw political discussions on DU, right? Well, no. The fact that some things are considered beyond the pale of protect speech doesn't mean the First Amendment doesn't protect individual speech and press.

The Second Amendment refers to arms (small arms), not ordnance. And arms that can be kept and borne, not crew-served weapons.

From a pragmatic standpoint, its scope was settled 71 years ago by a compromise that still stands to this day, despite the best efforts of the neoprohibitionist lobby to shatter it--the National Firearms Act of 1934. Most gunnies I know are OK with the NFA restricting explosives and automatic weapons and such as long as non-automatic civilian firearms meeting the other criteria of the NFA are NOT restricted. That's where the current gun control debate lies--the prohibitionists' attempt to shatter that compromise and ban anything and everything else they can.

FWIW, every item you mention--machineguns, assault rifles, explosives, bombs, cannon shells, nerve gas, and fission warheads are already restricted by Federal law. To own non-WMD weapons on this list, you already have to pass what amounts to a Secret-level government security clearance, and of course you can't own WMD's at all. That doesn't invalidate the 2ndA, any more than restrictions on child porn invalidate the 1stA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-21-06 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #23
40. We make a distinction between arms and ordnance.
Trying to compare a pistol to a nuke is silly.

You are trying the exact same logic, when you do that, against guns that Rush does against a minimum wage raise. Rush says, "If a raise in the minimum wage is so good, why don't liberals make a real raise in the minimum wage and make it $100 an hour?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #14
25. Militias back then were lynch mobs
Life was very different back then...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
java-fiend Donating Member (85 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #25
50. Lynch mobs?
So when George Washington and George Mason founded the Fairfax County Militia Association in 1774, they were forming a "lynch mob"?

Did a colonial "mob" under Militia Captain John Parker face down a regiment of British regulars under Major Pitcairn at Lexington Green on 15 April 1775? From the point of view of King George III, the Americans were nothing more and a "mob" and "rabble."

I for one am glad that the "mob" won the Revolutionary War.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hansberrym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #14
29. the rights of states to maintain militias shall not be infringed ?

can a rational person really maintain that these are equivalent statements?

"the rights of states to maintain militias shall not be infringed"

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"



2 + 2 = 5 ?
















Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Massacure Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-20-06 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #14
34. But who regulates the militias?
It sure as hell wasn't Britain at the time the revolution...

So hypothetically, does that mean if all hell breaks lose and there is ever a need to overthrow the U.S. government, the U.S. government does not have the authority to regulate a third rebellion (second being the civil war) of sorts? Do the framers of the constitution intend that the majority of the civilian population constantly maintain that kind of power or are they merely endorsing the fact that the government they made would have to be gotten rid of sooner or later?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-20-06 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. The government has the authority to put down a rebellion
Edited on Fri Jan-20-06 07:50 AM by benEzra
but not to take away civilian guns in the name of preventing one.

FWIW, I think the most important function of the 2ndA as a defense against tyranny is as a deterrent, by vastly increasing the political capital (and police-state measures) necessary to carry out a tyrannical program, and increasing the chance that such a program will fail and/or result in the government's overthrow.

The Declaration of Independence makes it abundantly clear that the Founders felt that the citizenry has the authority to overthrow a government that becomes tyrannical:

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States...


It would be hoped, of course, that the authority and capability that the 2ndA leaves in the hands of the citizens would give would-be tyrants pause, and deter them from doing anything that might lead to a widespread uprising. It may not stop the small-scale tyrannies, but it may help deter the big ones.

When a citizenry is not armed, the most severe tyrannies, even genocide, can be enforced by a simple police force, as it was in Nazi Germany. The Nazi Gestapo were not heavily armed and didn't have to be.

In the U.S., every city (except D.C. and Chicago), every small town, and every rural area is vastly better armed than the citizens of the Warsaw Ghetto in WW2 Poland. Imagine if when Hitler tried to implement the Holocaust, EVERY city, town, and enclave had responded by shooting the Gestapo in the streets as they came to round up their victims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
java-fiend Donating Member (85 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #35
51. Discussed by James Madison in the Federalist Papers
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed46....

What fi the federal government turned into a tyranny? "Extravagant as the supposition is," observed Madison, "let it however be made."

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."

Observe how he uses the term "militia." He's referring to the class of able-bodied adult males capable of bearing arms. He's not referring to some select corps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dolomite Donating Member (689 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-20-06 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #14
37. Samuel Adams: Good beer! Even greater Massachusetts Senator:
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.Samuel Adams

Yeah, the first thing they wanted after getting rid of one standing army was to create 13 individual ones right away :crazy:

If they wanted the 'state' to keep the guns, they would have left it out and said: "the people have the right to bear arms" - why is that so hard to understand?

Also, how can anyone read the BoR and assign different meanings to "the people" as they see fit?

Amendment I the right of the people

Amendment II the right of the people

Amendment IV The right of the people

Amendment IX rights retained by the people.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-21-06 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #14
39. Here are a couple of laws on the subject.
U S Law

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.
(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

------------------

U S Law

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 311

311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wiggles85 Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-01-06 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #14
46. Interpretations
I don't consider a militia to be a state-sponsored army such as the National Guard. A militia is made up of armed civilians.

Also, well regulated in no way refers to who leads or controlls the militia. In 18th century speak, well regulated would mean well equipped and trained.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
java-fiend Donating Member (85 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #14
49. I respectfully disagree
The 2nd Amendment does say "The right of the states to keep and train militias shall not be infringed."

Have you read decision of the US Supreme Court in US vs. Miller?
http://tinyurl.com/9zqs6
The terms "national guard" or "state militia" do not even appear in the decision.
The Court informs us that "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

Also, have you read _The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction_ by Akhil Reed Amar, profesor of constitutional law at Yale. http://tinyurl.com/a8k3e
It's clear that Amar's politics are progressive. You can read a review of his book here.
http://tinyurl.com/chcfv

Beginning on page 51, Amar explains: "Several modern scholars have read the (second) amendment as protecting only arms bearing in organized 'state militias,' like SWAT teams and National Guard units. ...

"This reading doesn't quite work. The states'-rights reading puts great weight on the word militia, but the word appears only in the amendment's subordinate clause. The ultimate right to keep and bear arms belongs to 'the people,' not the states. As the language of the Tenth Amendment shows, these two are of course not identical: when the Constitution means 'states,' it says so."

Also consider the words of Laurence Tribe, professor of law at Harvard, in his _American Constitutional_, used as a textbook in law school across the nation. Law 902 n. 221 (2000): "That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes -- not a right to hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons -- a right that directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may well, in addition, be among the privileges or immunities of United States citizens protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against state or local government action."
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thirdpower Donating Member (695 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. And so it goes to show..
That AP had the right idea.

Translation: "I own some guns but I don't care if they ban ones I don't have and would support those measures".

Making personal attacks just fuels the fire. Thereby giving the "pro-gun" even more ammunition.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #8
19. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
thirdpower Donating Member (695 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. Do you know what an "Assault Rifle" is?
or which law regulates them?

Have you ever tried converting an "assault weapon" to fully auto or is the meme that it can be "easily" done just stick out?

In fact my experience tells me you're probably human scum.{/b]

And why is that? Because I ask for sources behind wild accusations and don't insult you back? Because I own firearms as well and disagree w/ further bans? Or is it that your arguement is so weak you can only resort to insults?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. Yes I have read those clauses
It's not very difficult for me to understand that a combination of characteristics makes a weapon especially dangerous to society if it's allowed to circulate and accumulate. Do you need a folding stock? A flash suppressor muzzle? A 30 round clip? Like hell you do. Like hell you do.

You want a combination of these as found in a military assault rifle? I DON'T THINK YOUR DESIRE SHOULD ACCOMODATED. Why people pretend to be confused about the definitions and try to invent all manner of borderline cases is a mystery. All definitions include a measure of arbitrary distinction. They ask, Can you identify this assault rifle as legal or illegal from this single photograph? No, not always because the picture will be picked to present a stealthy borderline case and there's only one picture of it and I'm not sitting there with BATC guidelines in front of me. If I was a gun dealer I would make sure I knew what I was dealing with when somebody came to me trying to sell something that approached these precisely spelled-out borders, or trying to involve me in third party purchase of one. All businessmen have rules to follow, gun dealers should too. Can they look at a picture that I choose of a car and correctly tell if it's street legal and up to all regs? I can make them fail that test 100% of the time if I work at it. Any car dealer would have to know, when taking a car in trade, where it stood with respect to regulations for cars. Well OK actually it's not a mystery why they act confused. It's not mystery at all. They're gun nuts and they resent any legal restrictions on the kinds of dedicated human killing machines they can own. In public they complain and wail about the incoherency of assault rifle definitions. In private they freely admit to wanting to own a "full auto". I know them. I've known some people like this most of my life. My sympathy meter reads ZERO.

Converting a "civilian" version of assault rifles these days to full auto is VERY DIFFICULT if the gun is new production. That's ONLY because of "gun control laws"--and the threat of further laws-- which have mandated changes to receiver plate designs and other internals that make the conversion through simple part swap-outs impossible. It used to be child's play. What was David Koresh doing at Waco that brought the BATC down on him? Modifying "civilian" rifles into full auto assault weapons. (AND YEAH David Koresh was HUMAN SCUM. I'm sorry he took so many mentally ill followers down with him, but the pity of their deaths doesn't change the fact that he was pure scum)

People who believe the Second Amendment applies to them personally guaranteeing their individual, unconditional right to be armed to the teeth with assault rifles decry these manufacturing changes ("drives up the price of a AR-15 goddammit!") and they decry such regulations as Un-Constitutional burdens on the manufacturers and on themselves as citizens. The right of society to protect itself against criminals armed with fully automatic rifles firing rounds each sufficent to kill an elk (or people behind car doors) from magazines that enable saturation covering fire appears to be nonexistent in their thinking. They can go on crying forever because as far as I'm concerned they're sociopaths. They want a full auto that badly--that's proof enough to me that the rest of us should keep them from getting one. No one needs an assault weapon and if you think you "need" one that can be converted cheap and easy to full auto, and that it's un-Constitutional for society to insist that this be made more difficult than in the bad old days, then you have a screw loose and I'm not kidding.

My experience with people who own guns and who hunt and shoot targets for kicks goes all the way back. Gun people come in 2 different kinds in my experience and nothing anybody says will change my opinion about that. I "owned" a shotgun at 9 years of age. (A 28GA was fitted with a short stock and it became 'mine') I got a .22 at 12 years and still own it. (If they want that one, they may have a fight--but I'm not losing sleep over the idea that "they're coming for my old tin can plinker") I hunted for a while as a kid. My father was a hunter's hunter you could say, his life outside of business basically revolved around his identity as an man who hunted and fished . I did him proud with rifle, shotgun and revolver up until the time I decided I had no good reason to be killing game I wasn't going to eat. I have no problem with real hunters. I understand them well. My family allows hunting on our property and I am happy enough for this policy to continue forever since the hunt club help to keep the place up and that means I don't have to. I am not a hunter but even though I don't participate in their sport or their society, I support their right to do what they do--which is not endangered or in question, and never will be. There is however a different group of people who have a sick interest in military style weapons (a distinct fetish for which there probably is an official diagnosis) and I know them from normal hunters and varmint shooters in a very short time by their manner, which has little in common with the hunter who shoots for his table or the farmer with henhouses to keep. I have no sympathy with the "need" of this class of people feel for certain forbidden firearms.

People who think they have a right to personally own and bear all kinds of firearms and that society should bend to the pleasure they get from the idea of owning a military assault rifle and that society has no contravening, superior interest in regulating firearms and no legal right to interfere with their private pleasure in gun ownership--yeah damn right I think they're scum. If that applies to you, then only you would know about that. Society regulates and has a perfect right to regulate what kind of engine I can have in my car, and these people don't chafe much at that. Society also regulates--and for a much more immediate reason relating to the common safety--what kinds of firearms people can individually possess. Unlike in the case of car engines, though, in the case of firearms this type of person will bristle at the mere mention of such laws, or proposals, and begins to threaten other people's lives and talks about rising up against "the gummint". That's not a legal argument of any sort I feel I must respect, that's just a symptom of their illness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thirdpower Donating Member (695 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. The classic "Do you need "arguement"...
I never get tired of that one.

Do you really want the Gov't deciding what we "need"? I sure don't. Yet You've called me scum. Go figure.

You want a combination of these as found in a military assault rifle?

So you recognize that the only difference between what is and what is not an "assault weapon" is purely decorative? The way it "looks"?

Converting a "civilian" version of assault rifles these days to full auto is VERY DIFFICULT if the gun is new production.

So you're now claiming that the internal functioning of "assualt weapons" has changed due to "gun control laws"?

I'ld love for you to prove that one.

Koresh used fully auto weapons? Source it.

(AND YEAH David Koresh was HUMAN SCUM.

So now you're comparing me to Koresh?

with assault rifles decry these manufacturing changes ("drives up the price of a AR-15 goddammit!") ,The right of society to protect itself against criminals armed with fully automatic rifles firing rounds each sufficent to kill an elk (or people behind car doors) from magazines that enable saturation covering fire appears to be nonexistent in their thinking, etc



Once again confusing fully-auto w/ semi-auto weapons. You really like trying to compare the AWB to fully-auto's don't you?

in military style weapons (a distinct fetish for which there probably is an official diagnosis)

So you're a physician now? More personal attacks? Good arguement.

People who think they have a right to personally own and bear all kinds of firearms and that society should bend to the pleasure they get from the idea of owning a military assault rifle

Once again the confusion between the AWB and fully auto weapons and the personal attacks.

You keep claiming you "support" hunting and that "they'll never be banned". You do realize that Kennedy and Kerry both attempted to ban ammunition used in hunting and that HCI,MMM,VPC are trying to redesignate hunting rifles as "intermediate power sniper rifles" ? Right?


Do you really want to go into the car/gun comparison thing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Therealhelmetcase Donating Member (180 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. Time for some gun education
The right of society to protect itself against criminals armed with fully automatic rifles firing rounds each sufficent to kill an elk (or people behind car doors) from magazines that enable saturation covering fire appears to be nonexistent in their thinking.
You do realize than an AR15 fires a .223, right? That's actually considered a very weak round. A .270, 308, 30-06, .454, etc are all way, wayyyyyyy, more powerful and any number of hunting weapons fire them that aren't covered by the ban, don't you?

.223 is NOT sufficient for big game like elk. Sorry if you had that impression, but you're way off and unfortunately fall into that pantheon of anti-gunners who know nothing about guns.

No one needs a weapon? Hey, we have a bill of rights, not a bill of needs. Frankly AWBs are stupid--most criminals can't afford such weapons and prefer not to use them. Criminals tend to toss crime guns, so they prefer disposable ones; rifles are hard to conceal. Handguns are easy. This is why AWs are so rarely used in crimes in the first place.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Therealhelmetcase Donating Member (180 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #19
26. Fish in a barrell
I look forward to the day handgun possession is made more difficult than getting a car (including registration, tags, plus insurance) complete with driver's license. If there was a ban on handgun ownership entirely (too much to hope for but let's say there was for sake of argument) I have no fears about there being a ban on rifles and shotguns.
You're joking right? There are no waiting periods on buying a car. There are no criminal background checks when buying a car. Unbelievable.

If you want a "military style" gun, just got to get your hands on one, and you don't go join the Army, I got no sympathy for you. In fact my experience tells me you're probably human scum.
Really? I own such devices. Am I human scum? Or just an enthusiast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SMSTRICK Donating Member (23 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
56. Better men


Better men than you and I have died as sacrifice to our freedom and liberty. I , therefore , will never give it away out of cowardice or conveinience.....If a man breaks into my home and is armed , I consider him a threat to the welfare of me and my family. Justice would be served by putting a couple of rounds in his chest. When I was married,...I took vows to "love , honor, and to PROTECT." I have never taken these vows lightly and never will. I am no wacko,...I just value life and choose to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights to preserve life if nessessary.

It never ceases to amaze me how people bash the republican administration on this site, and then are willing to give up their 2nd Amendment rights to only then become totally dependant on the very government for PROTECTION that they mistrust. This really blows my mind.

Benjamin Franklin once stated that if a person were to be willing to sacrifice liberty for protection,....then he deserves neither liberty nor protection......I AGREE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dolomite Donating Member (689 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
9. The only thing she left out was madatory testing for gun owners
- ala Janet Reno.


The worst thing is the Rosie O'Donnells of the world who say, 'I'm sorry, but we have to take away everybody's guns'.

- Russ Feingold
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1620rock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Well I used to be for complete gun control too...
...but with the country descending into a fascist state, starving people just around the corner, and jack booted government thugs a reality (I am one with Dept. of Homeland Security.) I come around 180 degrees. :hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-20-06 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #15
36. that's charming

"starving people just around the corner"

So the obvious answer is to buy a few guns.

Yeesh. What a philosophy of life.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
57_TomCat Donating Member (527 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-20-06 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #36
38. Excellent idea...
I will head out right now and pick up the Springfield Armory M1911A1 MilSpec I have on layaway. Best not wait, I might want to add a few more for the hard times ahead. Best stock up on ammo as well. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
12. yeah
It's incredibly stupid.

Why would any rational person not attempting to drive voters away from "liberal" parties say something like:

For one thing, there are lots of liberals over here on the left who are against banning firearms possession by private citizens.
That only makes sense if there is some significant number of "liberals over here on the left" (what an odd turn of phrase ...) who are IN FAVOUR OF banning firearms possession by "private citizens". (I'm sorry, I just can't use these odd expressions without putting them in quotation marks.)

Why would anyone want to make someone else think that that is the case?

The side concerned with safety simply will not listen to the very reasonable concerns of law-abiding sportsmen and collectors
And gee, if only anything had been offered to back up that incredibly and ludicrously broad statement.

What evidence is there that the "side" in question will not listen to anything?

What argument is there to show that whatever these concerns might be, they are reasonable?

Both sides utterly refuse to see shades of gray, to embrace compromise, or to sacrifice some part of their agenda to address the perfectly legitimate concerns of others.
Ah, if only we had some inkling as to what those "shades of gray" or "compromise" might be.

Does Aunti Pinko routinely refer to every public policy position taken by anyone as an "agenda"? Or is that word not more commonly used, and understood, to refer to something kinda despicable?

And again, if only we knew what these "perfectly legitimate concerns" were.

The Constitution does not protect anyone's right to infringe on the rights of others, as I have to continually remind my Libertarian friends.
Yeah, whatever. The actual issue is whether your Constitution allows some individuals' exercises of some rights to be restricted to protect what is regarded as an overriding public interest.

Really. Was someone asserting that exercising a constitutional right to possess firearms infringed on someone else's rights? I don't think so, and I think that if an opponent of firearms control offered an argument against that assertion, I'd be accusing him/her of engaging in one of those straw thingy arguments.

Shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre doesn't infringe on my right not to hear "fire!" shouted in theatres, or any other right of mine. It creates a risk of serious harm to the public or individual members of the public, and so prohibiting it is regarded as a justifiable limitation on the exercise of the otherwise mostly sacrosanct right of free speech.

But why not just do the job first -- make one's self the other side's straw thingy without the other side even having to do the work?

The pro-regulation side suspects that the real agenda of the anti-regulation side is driven by insecure, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who need the comfort of a big, bad, "piece" close at hand to prove their machismo.
Actually, the pro-regulation side knows that part of the agenda of the anti-regulation side is to maximize the profits of the corporations involved in commerce in firearms, without regard for the public interest or individuals' interest. But hey, why mention that, or a number of other things one might mention that the pro-regulation side knows or thinks, when one can construct a moronic stereotype of "the pro-regulation side" and offer it up on a platter to the other side so that it can forever more hold it up as something "liberals" say?

Auntie Pinko is evidently her own straw grandmaw.

On the other side, take a news story about the gun collector whose collection was stolen from a highly-secured, specially-built facility in his vacation home by thieves who had to work for two solid days to circumvent the security. The pro-regulation folks who immediately speak up and demand even more stringent regulations on the number of guns that can be stored in one household and the types of security required, etc., do a fabulous job of reinforcing the anti-regulation folks' worst stereotypes and fears.
Should Auntie Pinko not at least get her facts straight?

Unless she knows of another amazingly similar case, the facility in question wasn't in anyone's "vacation home", it was in a rental unit in a high-rise building in what we up here in Canada (where it was) call a "social housing" development: i.e. it was a $40,000 collection of firearms being stored in a subsidized housing unit that happens to be in a high-crime area by someone who claimed not to be able to afford market rents in Toronto and who owns a $200,000 US home in Florida, and that, oh, somehow came to the attention of a high-profile member of an organized criminal gang who the police believe entered through the door of the apartment and whose efforts, oh, somehow failed to be detected by the motion-detector alarm system allegedly in place in the apartment.

And of course there was the fact that this was the THIRD theft of a large number of firearms, and specifically the criminal's firearm of choice - handguns - from "collectors" in the area in a very short period of time ... and the fact that several firearms from one of the other thefts had already been apprehended after being used in crimes, including homicide.

Stereotype of people in favour of firearms control, anyone? No cause for alarm at all, you irrational lily-livered sissy gun-controllers?

Until we all start listening to each other, and concede that everyone will have to accept some compromise, things will only get worse.
That's wonderful. Can we now look forward to Auntie Pinko proposing some particular "compromise" for our consideration?

Maybe all those jolly rural hunters and sports"men" would like to start by accepting the tiny bit of inconvenience they might some day have to endure if sales by private vendors at gun shows in their states were made subject to the same procedure as sales by licensed vendors, to take one small step toward keeping firearms out of the hands of people who use them to kill, injure, terrorize and facilitate crimes on the streets of the cities where their urban neighbours live in other states.

Do I hear a unanimous "yea"?

Jeez, "liberals" get up my nose.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
java-fiend Donating Member (85 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #12
52. i disagreed with her
Especially right here.

>Yet as you point out, William, those weapons also have perfectly legitimate sporting uses (your "Service Rifle" competition, for instance.)

"Legitimate sporting use." The sole reason I own legal defensive firearms is, according to the bloody ATF, not "sporting." I don't like to hunt because I do not like to kill. I carry a .38 revolver because I routinely carry precious cargo - my life, and the lives of my loved ones. And I have one in-case-of-emergency-break-glass rifle in my closet just in case there's a Katrina situation, riots or other breakdown in civil authority. It's an ugly black rifle that accepts 30-round and 75-round magazines.

I have two guns. Does that make me a "legitimate collector"? Or does that mean that I have a "weapons cache"?

>Lots of people living in high-crime urban areas (those who are most likely to have sharp and immediate safety concerns that they don't want to address by turning their neighborhoods into a latter-day Dodge City with everyone having to have a six-shooter on their hip to feel safe) are Democrats.

High-crime urban areas like D.C., New York, Chicago, L.A., are notorious for their "sensible gun laws" which essentially forbid responsible law-abiding adults from carrying sidearms. Crooks can be reasonably certain that their victims will be unarmed.

The 38 states that have shall-issue concealed carry laws have NOT turned into "latter-day Dodge City with everyone having to have a six-shooter on their hip to feel safe."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paladin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-12-06 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. Given Your Tone And Evident Political Stance.....
...I think it's safe to say you have a "weapons cache."

And a big Gun Dungeon welcome to you and all the other brand new posters currently turning up---as usual, in a group, and as usual, spouting the same gun activist talking points. Just a coincidence, I'm sure..... :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AGKISTRODON Donating Member (290 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-12-06 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #53
54. Must be a conspiracy!
Or, maybe some people have opinions that don't jibe with yours. I don't have a personal clue who any of these people are, do you? :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Burning Water Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
17. Yes,
I think she avoided the issue, and didn't really give a straight answer. This is unlike her, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Endangered Specie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-21-06 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
42. My opinion on her article is mixed...
and this is coming from someone who has been on both sides of the issue (long time posters will remember I used to be pretty anti-gun; amongst other things, recent events have changed that).

She seems pretty pessimistic about both sides reaching a compromise, and how both sides are pretty nasty toward each other. I'd like to think that there are plenty on both sides willing to honestly debate and not just hurl broad smears at one another. (of which I am somewhat guilty of in the past... live and learn I guess).


I do agree with her when she says the current gun laws patchwork are a nightmare for both owners and law enforcement alike.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pert_UK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 04:16 AM
Response to Original message
43. It's a far more eloquent version of what I've been saying....
in this forum for years, and it's also just plain common sense.

Bravo Auntie P!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlipperySlope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 02:19 AM
Response to Original message
44. Far more balanced then I expected on the home page of DU
It gives me hope that the party may some day regain sanity on this topic. First we get the leadership to acknowledge our position exists, and then we push from there.

My god, how many frigging elections does the party want to lose over this issue? It is about time this wave of change starts, I just hope it is a tidal wave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anarch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
45. just to comment on one point in the article
As a resident of DC, where I have legitimate concerns about gun crimes, and we also have some of the most restrictive gun laws anywhere in the U.S., I don't feel like loosening the regulations (which really amount to a prohibition of legal gun ownership, and at any rate of legal use for self-defense) would turn the town into the Wild West.

The way things are now, criminals can (and do) use guns to threaten nearly anyone they encounter with a great degree of confidence that their victims will be unarmed. Now, I know there are varying interpretations of the statistics as far as whether legal gun ownership deters crime, but I can think of a dozen examples just from my own or my friends' experiences where a gun could well have prevented robbery, and in one case serious injury.

So, yeah, I guess I mean that particular point is treated sort of simplistically. Good article overall, though, for sure.

Anyway, just my two cents worth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-02-06 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. thank you for your perspective!
Romulus
MoCo, MD resident.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nulnvoid Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. Not Yet...
"It gives me hope that the party may some day regain sanity on this topic. First we get the leadership to acknowledge our position exists, and then we push from there."

Sorry, Hillary Clinton has too many ties to gun control groups and too many enemies on the other side. If she is our nominee, then she will define us.




My god, how many frigging elections does the party want to lose over this issue? It is about time this wave of change starts, I just hope it is a tidal wave.

At least four more years, she will be our nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #48
57. Welcome to DU
and I certainly HOPE that Hillary isn't our nominee. She's certainly not MY nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 18th 2019, 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC