Forum Replies Created
-
Some more good articles on the way the right has massively distorted the meaning of the 2nd amendment, and why this has been done. Boiled down, it’s a corporate coup.
So You Think You Know the Second Amendment?
Another thing to consider: People who write these articles going against the far-right’s reinvention of the 2nd amendment virtually always receive multiple death threats. That is what they live with, simply by speaking truth to the power of the gun lobby and its fanboys. Part of the success of this radical right movement is that it has intimidated good people into silence — in the Media and in DC. I find the entire thing beyond despicable, and the people involved fascistic.
Edit: Was shocked to see Seth Meyer “going there” on his show. Perhaps the stranglehold of the NRA is loosening:
bnw is framing the debate — or it was framed for him — in an extremist, radical way, that was considered on the edges of the fringe in America for more than two centuries. It was NOT a part of American jurisprudence to view the 2nd amendment as bestowing an individual right to own weapons or use them. It was, for two centuries, considered tied to membership in state militias, and only for those state militias. And, in the 18th and 19th centuries, the term “bear arms” referred to presentation of arms in a military context — not in the home, not for private citizens in their day to day lives.
As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”
It is only due to a concerted, organized effort on the right to reinvent the 2nd amendment, pushed by the gun industry, that bnw’s wildly radical vision is even known by more than that fringe. The conservative judge, Earl Warren, called this right-wing movement to rewrite the SA “fraud.”
Tons of good articles on this subject:
How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
Originalism as Popular Constitutionalism in Heller
For starters . . . .
Congrats. You have equated her wanting a semi-auto hand gun in her purse with her owning a nuclear powered submarine. I’ll use your own words in closing.
I didn’t equate the two. At all. I just showed that what we may “want” isn’t always possible in a society with rules and regulations — and all of them have them. Again, at least for the last 6000 years. It’s the price we all play to live with one another. It’s not in any way unreasonable to set limits to things, and when it comes to weapons designed to kill, it’s more than reasonable. It’s actually insane not to.
The other key factor: Those limits do not prevent her from having a weapon, or protecting herself with it. Those limits do not stop her from “keeping and bearing” arms. They just limit the number of bullets she can fire without reloading, and the way she reloads.
BS. You determine all for her and everyone else. Such pomposity. The lady might prefer a semi-auto. Licensing and registering doesn’t do anything to make anyone safer. It does make money for the government for doing nothing. Which is how government likes it.
Society has laws, regulations, rules. That’s been the case at least since the dawn of the first “higher civilization” in Sumeria, 6000 years ago. The Constitution sets this up as well, with the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, the General Welfare Clause, the Equal Protection Clause and Article One, Section Eight in general. You seem to be suggesting that it’s “tyrannical” to have our Constitution at all, because it sets this up. This, apparently, is “determining all for her and everyone else.”
As for what she may prefer. She may prefer her own nuclear submarine, but we have rules and laws in place to prevent that. She may prefer to own lions, tigers, crocs and take them with her on the streets. But we have laws and rules to prevent that. She may prefer to blow things up with explosives, because that looks cool and everything. But we have laws and rules to prevent that.
You like to use “BS.” Your take is the epitome of that. Basic rules on firepower, registration and licensing don’t in any way, shape or form “determine all for her and everyone else.” That kind of extremist hyperbole is the real “BS” here.
I don’t know which one is the worst, but religion as a whole is certainly an anchor holding back progress. I don’t know if a any sort of global ‘utopia’ is actually possible but I know it isn’t possible as long as religion exists.
We agree on that one, definitely.
I also don’t think “utopias” are possible. Perhaps they’re not even desirable. But I do believe we can do immensely better. Doing much better is the key for me. We have a ton of room between our current barbarism and that utopian high.
I’m reading a biography of the Romanovs right now, and judging from the norms of the 16th, 17th and early 18th centuries — I’m up to 1740, roughly — we’ve already reduced a great deal of commonplace barbarism in the world. Obviously, we have tremendous work still ahead. But it gives me some hope for the future.
I mean, think about it. It’s harder to get a prescription for a sinus infection than to get an AR-15. It’s often harder to open the damn bottle once you get the medicine than it is to slap in 30 rounds and blast away.
We took asthma inhalers off the shelf because a few kids got high from them. And we can’t stop the arms race of ever-increasing firepower, readily available to anyone with the money? Mateen got a concealed carry license and purchased weapons of mass destruction with ease. It’s much harder for people to purchase help for serious, persistent colds and the flu than it was for Mateen to do what he did.
It’s just flat out insane.
Also, WV,
That fear people have? Where does it come from, and what (and whose) purpose does it serve? The most obvious source is the Gun Industry. Whip up fear, in any way possible, through the NRA, the GOP, Hate Radio, craven Democrats, etc. etc. . . . and you get a huge increase in gun sales — as in, profits for billion-dollar corporations. Since we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that more guns means more death and injury, those people who live in fear, including the poor, are being radically hurt by this steady stream of propaganda.
Crime has actually fallen for decades — though mass shootings have increased. People should be LESS fearful than ever of most kinds of crime — but more fearful of those mass shootings. But they’re being fed lies about the way to solve this, which is actually the opposite of what SHOULD happen. More guns at home means more deaths and injuries, and more guns on the streets means the same. The most effective possible means of reducing the only kind of violent crime on the rise — those mass shootings — is radically limiting firepower available to Americans. Get rid of all detachable ammo containers, and any kind of gun that can use them. That, mixed with licensing and registration, “smart technology,” closing all loopholes in the gun-check process, will make these people safer.
No it is not the gun. It is people. Whether mental illness, rage, neglect, carelessness etc. the gun did not discharge on its own. Capacity BS. Anyone that wanted to give such heinous goal a thought can achieve more without a firearm. 2nd Amendment is a right and must not be infringed because a few people abuse it.
It is people WITH guns. “Guns” are the common denominator, and the only thing we can control for. We can’t change people, or predict their actions. But we can make it impossible for them to obtain weapons of mass destruction.
And, again, your 2nd amendment right has never included unlimited consumer choice, or unlimited access to any gun you might want, or unlimited lethality. It just says “keep and bear arms” if you’re a part of the state militia — which no longer exist.
Your rights wouldn’t be “infringed” one iota if we banned all semis/assault/military style weapons. Not one iota.
Also, bnw,
In almost EVERY case, these mass shooters are stopped when they have to reload. They’re almost always tackled by very brave people without guns. The reloading part is what gets them, nine times out of ten.
Logic tells us that if we do away with all large capacity guns, ammo containers, accessories, etc, they’re going to have to reload a hell of a lot sooner, and this should dissuade all kinds of people from attempting mass carnage going in. If they know, up front, they’ll have just their six-shooter, with its internal chambers only, and will have to hand-load each bullet, one at a time . . . . rather than grabbing a magazine and slapping it in place . . . . their Rambo visions will disappear.
It WILL save lives.
