Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

TYT: I'll Trade You the 2nd Amendment for the 4th

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 » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 06:11 PM
Original message
TYT: I'll Trade You the 2nd Amendment for the 4th
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/ill-trade-you-the-2nd-ame_b_109531.html

Conservatives are thrilled about the Supreme Court decision settling the 2nd amendment issue in favor of individual gun owners (versus the idea that gun rights are only within the framework of a well-regulated militia). They are celebrating the constitution today. God bless their hearts. I wish they did that more often and about more amendments.

I believe in gun control. I believe that guns do kill people. In fact, they are designed to kill things. It is indisputable that they make killing a lot easier. That's what they're made for.

But I believe my side has lost this issue for now in the court of public opinion and in the Supreme Court. There are actually two different issues here. One is the policy argument concerning how much gun control we should have. The other is the constitutional argument of what the second amendment means.

I think it is reasonable to disagree on the meaning of the second amendment. In fact, I'm torn on it. If I heard this case myself as a judge and ultimately came down against the majority decision (which is not a certainty at all, I think this presents an excellent and close constitutional question -- apparently the Supreme Court agreed since they split 5-4 on it), I still wouldn't find the majority position unreasonable.

So, I am happy to concede that we should follow the second amendment to the letter of the law (as interpreted in this case). Now, can conservatives find it in their heart to agree that we should also follow the fourth amendment to the letter of the law? And if they can't, what possible logical or constitutional arguments can they have for fervently defending one amendment and rejecting another?

The fourth amendment clearly states that the government needs a warrant with probable cause in order for it to conduct a search or seizure. The Bush administration has been in flagrant violation of this for seven years now. They refuse to get warrants to wiretap conversations of Americans speaking with or emailing people abroad. This is clearly illegal and unconstitutional. But here conservatives find the constitution a little more inconvenient.

Justice Scalia warned after the recent Guantanamo Bay case, that the majority had almost certainly caused the deaths of many Americans with their decision. I think that's absurd hyperbole. But what is entirely possible is that the second amendment decision written by Scalia will lead to many more American deaths http://www.slate.com/id/2193813/entry/2194311/. But I don't begrudge him that. If he thinks that's the correct interpretation of the amendment, then our only recourse is to pass another amendment overriding it (not going to happen). We'll have to live with the extra deaths. Freedom isn't free.

But here, I propose a very fair trade. I will trade the second amendment for the fourth amendment. If the Bush administration releases the fourth amendment that it is currently holding hostage, I'm happy to consider the Supreme Court decision on the second amendment final and decisive. You keep the second amendment, we keep the fourth.

That seems like the fairest possible trade. My guess is that conservatives won't bite. They will continue the party line about how crucial it is that we follow the constitution when it comes to the second amendment and how important it is that we ignore the constitution when it comes to the fourth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS---Keep in mind that you can download the first hour of The Young Turks free every day through Itunes. Also, the show loops 24 hours a day at www.theyoungturks.com . Finally, there is great news for XM radio subscribers: The Young Turks will be on starting July 14th! Also check out this Great Citizen Tube Interview of Cenk: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x151697


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. We liberals are also thrilled with the Heller decision, it confirms the Democratic Party promise
"We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms".

If we liberals are thrilled and conservatives are thrilled, what adjective is appropriate for those who are not thrilled with the Heller decision?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. How about "appalled" at the gun worship? It is such a sickness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. Liberals & Conservatives are "thrilled" with Heller because it upholds the Constitution with its
enumerated natural, inherent, inalienable rights among which is the right to keep and bear arms; i.e. they support the American Way.

Do you really want to classify as "appalled" those who oppose natural, inherent, inalienable rights enumerated in our Constitution?

IMO that's a bit harsh, :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. You're damned right many of us liberals are very happy about the decision
There are one hell of a lot of us who are firm believers in the individual's right to keep and bear arms and we are well pleased to see the Supreme Court reaffirm this inalienable right. Go back to the forefathers of both parties, Hobbs and Locke; both saw it as a duty demanded by the creator to defend his own life and saw that no man or king had any right to take away a man's ability to defend himself.

It was dismaying after the decision was released to see officials from DC standing before the microphones telling the world how they intended to circumvent the decision and even more disturbing to see them making up their own "law" on the spot, telling the people of DC that nothing had changed and they would make sure guns would not become available. The arrogance was nauseating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1Hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. Right to bear arms quotes, quotes against the 2nd amendment, freedom quotes, for your enjoyment
Edited on Fri Jun-27-08 09:34 PM by 1Hippiechick
RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS QUOTES
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..." - Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Member of the First U.S. Senate.

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." - Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850. 2, col. 2.

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." - Senator Hubert H. Humprey (D-Minnesota)

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." - Mahatma Ghandi

"...to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them..." - George Mason

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" - Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d Ed. Philadelphia, 1836.

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press." - Thomas Jefferson

"What the subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear -- and long-lost proof that the Second Amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for the protection of himself, his family, and his freedom." - Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Preface, "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms"

"If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, and the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 - establishes the repeated, complete, and inevitable failure of gun laws to control crime." -- Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) quoted from "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Report of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1982, p. vii."

"Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe, 20 Feb 1788;


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTES AGAINST THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
Quotes by people who want to take away your Second Amendment right to bear arms.
"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given the political realities - going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, `This is a great law. The problem is solved.' And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal - total control of handguns in the United States - is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get all handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal."- Mr.. Nelson T. Shields, III. "Pete" founder of the National Council To Control Handguns, which became Handgun Control, Inc. quoted from July 26, 1976 issue of The New Yorker Interview "A Reporter At Large - Handguns", page 53.

"Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed by sister democracies such as Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today. Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. " - Charles Krauthammer,The Washington Post, Friday, April 5, 1996, page A19 op-ed piece entitled "Disarm The Citizenry"

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." Senator Howard Metzenbaum 1994

"Gun registration is not enough." - Janet Reno (Attorney General) December 10th, 1993

" can't be so fixed on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans." - President Bill Clinton Piscataway, NJ March 1, 1993

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true! We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We're going to beat guns into submission!" - NY Representative Charles Schumer November 30, 1993

"The American people must be willing to give up a degree of personal privacy in exchange for safety and security." - Louis Freeh 1993 (FBI director)

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. , Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)

"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins." -- Former Mafia hit man turned informant Sammy "the Bull" Gravano

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

LIBERTY & FREEDOM QUOTES
"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire: a dangerous servant and a terrible master." - George Washington

"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." - Daniel Webster

"The ultimate authority...resides in the people alone." - James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.

"The whole of the Bill is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has the right to deprive them of." - Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

"Those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget in time that men have died to win them." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

"We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts -- not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution." - Abraham Lincoln

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (Pitt the Younger)

"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but with tyrants, I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost." - William Lloyd Garrison

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." -Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged

"You don't expect governments to obey the law because of some higher moral development. You expect them to obey the law because they know that if they don't, those who aren't shot will be hanged." - Michael Shirley

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
##

"I thank you for your attention, and I'm outta here."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. Well said, and completely accurate. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-28-08 02:05 AM
Response to Reply #1
22. uh, not all of us are "thrilled" -- perhaps you mean in the sense of "thrill kill?"
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-28-08 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #1
24. We Liberals are not thrilled
Why do you presume to speak for more than yourself? I would venture that the great majority of Liberals are very much in favor of gun safety and regulation in fact "well regulated"....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-28-08 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. DU members are among the most liberal liberals and respondents to DU polls show 60% plus support the
natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

The Democratic Party identifies itself as liberal and we say "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms".

For what group do you presume to speak?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
2. Here's the irony. Loss of their 4th Amendment protection is what will lead
to the discovery of the machine guns and armor piercing ammo they've been hoarding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CherylK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
4. K & R!
Hypocrites!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
6. As a gun owner myself,
I just don't understand the average Republican way of thinking. Don't take our guns away, but taking our privacy rights away is "okay." :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. Gun owner?!
Uh oh, I'm not sure I can talk to you anymore...

;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-28-08 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #12
30. Hey Dude,
If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night (or by day these days) I intend on protecting myself.

Not going to talk to me anymore, eh? Oh, that's right...you're part of the "elitist" group now. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flashl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
7. Anybody remember Katrina?
The New Orleans Gun Confiscation -- A Response

In a provocative ... David Kopel argues that the confiscation of firearms in New Orleans is "blatantly illegal" under the Louisiana statute governing states of emergency, 14 La. Stat. § 329.6. He contends that the state, local, and federal officers have committed "perhaps a criminal act" by participating in the confiscation, and that they can be sued for this under 42 U.S.C. 1983 or perhaps impeached.

The core of David's argument hinges on the meaning of the power to "regulat{e}" the possession of firearms. The statute states that officials are empowered to make orders "{r}egulating and controlling the possession, storage, display, sale, transport and use of firearms, other dangerous weapons and ammunition{.}" David argues that the confiscation of firearms is not within this authority:

...

The problem with this analysis is that the statute creates more than the power to "regulat" the possession of fireams. It expressly creates the power to "regulat{e}" possession and the power to "control the possession" of firearms. Even if the power to regulate does not encompass the power to prohibit — a conclusion that seems plausible but not obvious, especially in the absence of any cases construing these terms — an order that individuals must give up possession of their firearms does seem to me to fall within the plain meaning of "controlling the possession" of firearms. It's not free of doubt, I think. But on balance, it seems to me that "controlling the possession" of an item in a state of emergency would include the authority for the state to take possession of the item. That is particularly likely because the statute grants the power to control possession in addition to the power to regulate possession; presumably the legislature intended control to be something beyond mere regulation.

The Volokh Conspiracy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
navarth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
8. Fair and Honest as always, Cenk. Bravo.
Edited on Fri Jun-27-08 06:57 PM by navarth
I've been thinking about this very thing all day. 2nd amendment, yeah!!! Fourth amendment?....ehh we'll get back to you on that one.

And I agree we should be asking: what about the timing of this? The second and fourth amendments being in 'question' at the same time, seemingly?

And I also agree with Cenk that Obama doesn't look as good as he did a week ago regarding his position on the 4th amendment. Obama, at the very least, gives the appearance of letting us down on this one. Disappointing to say the least. Does he have to take these positions to get elected? Or does he really mean it?

SURE I'll still vote for him, I have to. I'm still hoping he'll surprise me and make a great Prez. That would be awesome indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-28-08 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #8
28. I'm cautiously optimistic myself n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
9. That's right..all the amendents should count
not just the 2nd Amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
matthewf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
10. k & r!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1Hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
13. What an awesome post - if I could recommend it 1000 times I would, but since I can't here's my 1
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wiley50 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
16. The Constitution, all or in part, is not negotiable
Either all or the articles and ammendments are in effect

or none of them are

And, if it be the second option


YOU ARE GONNA HAVE A FUCKING FIGHT ON YOUR HANDS!

(and I'm glad to have a firearm to fight it with)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theFrankFactor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
17. More Guns, More Prisons, More Homicides
Edited on Fri Jun-27-08 10:34 PM by theFrankFactor
The right to own certain types of fire arms should be guaranteed in a free society. That said, in a healthy society the ownership of such a contraption would be embarrassing and not perused with pride and machismo. It figures with the state of the nation that Americans want to arm themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #17
35. Perhaps you can explain.
Why the places with the highest rates of legal ownership have some of the lowest crime rates and why places like Chicago and DC with very low rates of legal ownership have such high crime rates? The criminals already have guns, what possible reason could you give for the law abiding to not have the same means for self defense?

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
18. I think the second amendment only aplies to those weapons actually in existence then.
So you can only possess muskets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-28-08 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. In those times, ordinary citizens often owned weapons equal to what the army fielded.
Do you want the equivalent?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-28-08 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. You forget the Kentucky rifle...
and the flintlock pistol.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #18
37. I think the second amendment only aplies to those types of speech actually in existence then.
So you can only possess quill pens and hand cranked presses
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Plucketeer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-28-08 01:15 AM
Response to Original message
21. Waa - waa - waa....
... I wanna be able to keep my tools of death! You never know when I may have to kill someone! :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Window Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-28-08 07:35 AM
Response to Original message
23. K/R.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hangingon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-28-08 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
25. I'm not ready to give up any of the amendments!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CherylK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-28-08 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
27. Bump!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-28-08 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
29. The Supreme Court needs less current members - impeach them.
I couldn't agree more on the 4th amendment. Since they ruled on the gun issue, it's the law but they can't extend their deviance to the 4th. They will try however. They are a shameful bunch, that majority.

Scalia needs to go along with Thomas. They must be impeached. Scalia for Cheney, Thomas for lying to Congress about Hill but both for being total idiots.

As for those who voted for the gun festial and denial of local rights, states rights, they simply can't read. It's that simple. Just read the damn amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #29
36. I'm sure they did.
I'm quite sure they read the 2nd Amendment. What qualifications do you have that would lead us to believe your interpretation over theirs? Did you read the briefs many of them were quite good and written by people far more qualified than yourself? Many of those people also disagree with your interpretation. The Supremes are going no where, keep up the fantasies though.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-28-08 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
31. Oh well, did the people of Iraq need any relief from Search and seizure? Or any ol' habeaus corpus?
Nope they don't need those rights, and as they are the newest members of the Democracy Club, it goes to show what the word "democracy" means these days. So why should we Americans fret over this loss?

I mean, it's not like any military is gonna come crashing through our doors at four in the morning, right??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-28-08 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
32. K&R - this is GREAT! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-28-08 08:18 PM
Response to Original message
33. Why a trade?
The gun control movement should never have concentrated on restrictions on the otherwise law abiding, in the first place.

The end result of doing so, is allowing those that would view narrowly (republicans) the 4th amendment to control the issue, through being able to attract people to whom the firearm issue is very important. The demographic in question, isn't going to listen to any message - even one that includes strong 4th amendment protections - if it includes grabbing guns from them, or their progeny, or if it includes unreasonable restrictions that offer no equal return in public safety.

And that end result where we are today. Its also what got us here.

The solution, is to take the issue back, yolk the strengths of that demographic, and be empowered by it.

Then take back the 4th amendment. End the war on drugs. Attack poverty with an equal amount of resources as are being spent on the "war on terror".

Why not have it all?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-29-08 06:17 AM
Response to Original message
34. I appreciate your point of view,
and I appreciate your recommendations on the other ammendments.
I would love to see the supremes overturn all of the bushie's unconstitutional "security" measures.
I am in favor of freedom, period, and bush for sure is not.

What you got wrong is, I am not a conservative, but a liberal, 3rd generation Democrat and also a lifelong gun nut.

You also don't take into account that the number of people LEGALLY carrying firearms for self defense has gone up considerably over the last 7 years, and the number of violent crimes has gone down.
The county where I live in PA had over 25 THOUSAND people licensed to carry a firearm -not gun owners, but gun carriers. There is no blood in the streets other than that caused by the druggies and ganbangers, who cannot legally own guns, but do and will no matter what.

You have the right NOT to own a gun, and I'm glad I have the right to own all of mine.

After reading so much raving crap about the stupid, evil, masturbating, bloodthirsty gun worshipers, it was a pleasure to read your OP.
Thanks again for being courteous.
Lets agree on what we agree on.
Get the fucking republicans out.
mark
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 Apr 19th 2024, 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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