National Review says it is impossible to end routine gun massacres, given 2nd amendment

[Dems to Win]

by Dylan Byers

The Price of the Second Amendment

The editors of the conservative National Review respond to calls for increased gun control -- overrepresented, they say, by "the media of the coastal, urban Left" -- with a rather stunningly candid argument:

"On Friday, the president promised “meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.” We doubt that something like this is possible, in a way consistent with the principle and the fact of the Second Amendment. If the possibility of terrors like Newtown are a reminder of why we need politics, their reality is a reminder that politics can do only so much."

Deconstruct that caveat: "We doubt that something like this is possible, in a way consistent with the principle and the fact of the Second Amendment." Or, preventing more tragedies might be possible, but it is not possible unless you repeal the Second Amendment, which you cannot do. Thus, therefore, ergo: The tragedy in Newtown, Conn., is a price that is paid for protection of the Second Amendment.

more at link [link:http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/12/the-price-of-the-second-amendment-152172.html|

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/12/the-price-of-the-second-amendment-152172.html

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Human sacrifice? Is that what they're basically advocating?

We are to sacrifice people to the "religion" arising from their twisted interpretation of the Second Amendment (and they are so fanatical that "religion" is a completely accurate metaphor)? I thought our society considered human sacrifice abhorrent and primitive (at least when other cultures do it).

[AZ Progressive]

12. Things like this make a mockery of America to the world

[Dems to Win]

50. Yes. Human Sacrifice is EXACTLY what they are demanding in tribute to their sacred Second Amendment

continuing with the article linked above:

Garry Wills, who was hired to the National Review long ago by its founder William F. Buckley, Jr., but later became a staunch advocate for limiting the reach of the Second Amendment. The day after the shooting, as if in anticipation of his alma mater's editorial, he argued that the gun is the American "Moloch":

Few crimes are more harshly forbidden in the Old Testament than sacrifice to the god Moloch (for which see Leviticus 18.21, 20.1-5). The sacrifice referred to was of living children consumed in the fires of offering to Moloch. Ever since then, worship of Moloch has been the sign of a deeply degraded culture. Ancient Romans justified the destruction of Carthage by noting that children were sacrificed to Moloch there. Milton represented Moloch as the first pagan god who joined Satan’s war on humankind:

First Moloch, horrid king, besmear’d with blood
Of human sacrifice, and parents’ tears,
Though for the noise of Drums and Timbrels loud
Their children’s cries unheard, that pass’d through fire
To his grim idol. (Paradise Lost 1.392-96)

Read again those lines, with recent images seared into our brains—“besmeared with blood” and “parents’ tears.” They give the real meaning of what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School Friday morning. That horror cannot be blamed just on one unhinged person. It was the sacrifice we as a culture made, and continually make, to our demonic god.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

65. Disgusting, aren't they?

It's things like this which almost make me lose faith that we can somehow repair this country. The propaganda has become almost beyond what you'd traditionally think any person would believe. Yet there are people out there who do. They swallow statements like this whole and then live by them.

[WCGreen]

71. Is it any different than saying "God moves in mysterious ways..."

[Lone_Star_Dem]

80. Not really.

I've never agreed with using religion as an excuse for things you don't want to find solutions for, though.

[NYC_SKP]

2. Does the National Review support eliminating the Second Amendment???

It may well be true. That would be consistent with an authoritarian government.

[Skip Intro]

6. The ease with which so many are willing to sacrifice their rights is scary. nt

[white_wolf]

11. Oh please you don't need a gun.

Many countries that are more free than the U.S. get by without a "right" to own guns. Most of Europe does fine without a "right" to keep guns.

[Scootaloo]

62. Interestingly, I have a right to own a gun, but no right to own a home

I have a right to own a gun, but no right to own a car.
I have a right to own a gun, but no right to health care
I have a right to own a gun, but no right to fair wages for my labor
I have a right to own a gun, but no right to burn deadfall.
I have a right to own a gun, but right to keep a pet.

The scary thing is what rights some people put priority on in our society.

[fujiyama]

63. We lost our dignity and we sacrificed various rights long ago

Ever fly? Removing belts and shoes...after the rare attempted bombing incidents.

I find it amusing that Americans are so freaked out about "banning guns" (which will never happen in a country that seemingly worships them), yet are so passive when it comes to the security state implemented to fight a never ending "war on terrorism".

What a joke.

[riderinthestorm]

22. How're you liking your Mossburg 500 killing machine? Happy with its sleek design?

Still glad you bragged about purchasing a weapon designed to slaughter people so soon after the Sandy Hook massacre?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022002711

[NYC_SKP]

27. Since you ask: It actually is neither semi-automatic nor using a high capacity magazine.

It is a single shot pump action short range low capacity scatter gun.

It's not at all related to the shootings, it isn't designed to slaughter people, and your post reveals significant misinformation on your part.

I would challenge you to describe how it is you deign yourself entitled to decide how people across this nations should be armed.

Some of us live miles and miles away from any hope for law enforcement to come to our aid, others live among dangerous animals, in the mountains, deserts, and sparsely populated areas.

Really, how DARE you find yourself fit to have even a little bit of an influence over how we decide to protect ourselves.

You reveal an embarrassingly low level of empathy with your posts and replies, in my opinion.

Still, I'll be happy to engage in a conversation with you.

`````

[riderinthestorm]

37. Info taken from Wiki. Your words in the (deleted OP) admiring its sleek design.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossberg_500

"Mossberg claims the Model 500 is the only shotgun to pass the US Army's Mil-Spec 3443E test, "a brutal and unforgiving torture test with 3,000 rounds of full power 12 gauge buckshot". (The updated 3443G specification requires a metal trigger guard, so only the Model 590A1 variants, which have a heavier barrel and use metal trigger groups instead of the standard Model 500's plastic trigger groups, will fit the requirements.[2])"

Frankly, your gun-porn OP on that other thread was a major turn-off. Feel free to get your jollies off someone else in debating the delights of your latest toy.

[NYC_SKP]

42. What, exactly, is your complaint about this AWB compliant single shot limited magazine firearm????

Honestly, is it that it is Stainless Steel, or that it has a "mil spec:?

It's a simple single shot pump action, less than ten in the magazine gun.

Here's a picture:



I am worried about the level of concern you show for my discussion of a perfectly legal thing that is totally unrelated to any mass shootings ever.

And I am going to ask you to kindly leave me alone.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

74. The citizens of Newtown just shed a single collective tear for your hurt feelings. NT

[Dems to Win]

55. Oh no. NR supports sacrificing human children to the great god, Smith and Wesson

[Cali_Democrat]

56. Ya...look at all those countries in Western Europe with strict gun laws

Every one of them is run by an authoritarian government, right?

[reformist2]

3. If they want to paint themselves into a corner, fine. Everyone else is moving on.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Cause we all know we have never ever, cross my heart,

Had gun regulations in the US....oh wait...what? We have? From colonial times even!

[riderinthestorm]

5. Heartsick K, and despairing R for more eyes on this story... nt

[Recursion]

7. But gun regulations aren't (or shouldn't be) about preventing all notorious tragedies

For that matter I don't like the focus on mass shootings when the vast majority of gun deaths are someone killing someone else they know with a handgun.

[Dems to Win]

58. OK fine, let's try to prevent the thousands upon thousands of anonymous tragedies

None of the proposals I'm hearing from Washington will make even a tiny dent in the death toll.

I demand real change. It IS the guns.

It should be no more a constitutional right to own a lethal weapon of mass death than to own a car. That is a reasonable goal to seek, even if it will be hard, which will then allow us to fashion rational policies to end the gun carnage.

Repeal the Second Amendment Now

[jody]

8. Govt is not obligated to protect an individual unless in custody. Self-defense is a personal

responsibility.

How does anyone expect a person with below average physical strength to defend themselves against violent crime?

810,000 LEO choose a handgun for self-defense.

Why shouldn't law-abiding citizens have the same choice?

[white_wolf]

15. Your subject line is utterly false.

The government is obligated to provide for the security of the citizenry though a police and military force. Hell, security is the whole reason we have government. It's the whole point of the social contract that we give up certain liberties in exchange for security. Hobbes recognized this in the the 17th century. He took it much too far, but he was right on the basic level. The State is obligated to protect the citizenry that's a fact of the social contract.

[X_Digger]

16. An individual? Nope. "the public"? Yes.

In multiple states, at the local, state, and federal level, police have not been held accountable for failing to protect individuals.

South v. Maryland (1858)
Cocking v. Wade (1896)
Riss v. City of New York - 1967

http://lawschool.courtroomview.com/acf_cases/10107-riss-v-new-york

[div class='excerpt']Brief Fact Summary

Plaintiff was harassed by a rejected suitor, who claimed he would kill or seriously injure her if she dated someone else. Plaintiff repeatedly asked for police protection and was ignored. After the news of her engagement, the plaintiff was again threatened and called the police to no avail. The next day, a thug, sent by the rejected suitor, partially blinded the plaintiff and disfigured her face.

Rule of Law and Holding

The municipality does not have a duty to provide police protection to an individual. It has a duty to the public as a whole, but no one in particular.

Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968)
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969)
Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrance (1974)
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App.3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)

[div class='excerpt']The first amended complaint alleged in substance: On September 4, 1972, plaintiff's decedent, Ruth Bunnell, telephoned the main office of the San Jose Police Department and reported that her estranged husband, Mack Bunnell, had called her, saying that he was coming to her residence to kill her. She requested immediate police aid; the department refused to come to her aid at that time, and asked that she call the department again when Mack Bunnell had arrived.

Approximately 45 minutes later, Mack Bunnell arrived at her home and stabbed her to death. The police did not arrive until 3 a.m., in response to a call of a neighbor. By this time Mrs. Bunnell was dead.
...
(1) Appellant contends that his complaint stated a cause of action for wrongful death under Code of Civil Procedure section 377, and that the cause survived under Probate Code section 573. The claim is barred by the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.), particularly section 845, which states: "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service."

Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977)
Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978)
Stone v. State, 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

[div class='excerpt']The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection. This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.

Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981)
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)
Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11611213653413829948&q=Davidson+v.+City+of+Westminster&hl=en&as_sdt=2,44&as_vis=1

Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (Only those in custody are deserving of individual police protection)
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845
Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County (1986)

[div class='excerpt']In 1986, the Maryland Court of Appeals was again presented in Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County with an action in civil liability involving the failure of law enforcement to enforce the law. In this case, a police officer, Freeberger, found an intoxicated man in a running pickup truck sitting in front of convenience store. Although he could have arrested the driver, the police officer told the driver to pull the truck over to the side of the lot and to discontinue driving that evening. Instead, shortly after the law enforcement officer left, the intoxicated driver pulled out of the lot and collided with a pedestrian, Ashburn, who as a direct result of the accident sustained severe injuries and lost a leg. After Ashburn brought suit against the driver, Officer Freeberger, the police department, and Anne Arundel County, the trial court dismissed charges against the later three, holding Freeberger owed no special duty to the plaintiff, the county was immune from liability, and that the police department was not a separate legal entity.
...
The Court of Appeals further noted the general tort law rule that, "absent a 'special relationship' between police and victim, liability for failure to protect an individual citizen against injury caused by another citizen does not rely against police officers." Using terminology from the public duty doctrine, the court noted that any duty the police in protecting the public owed was to the general public and not to any particular citizen..

DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

[div class='excerpt']During divorce proceedings, Jessica Gonzales, a resident of Castle Rock, Colorado, obtained a restraining order against her husband on June 4, 1999, requiring him to remain at least 100 yards from her and their three daughters except during specified visitation time. On June 22, at approximately 5:15 pm, her husband took possession of the three children in violation of the order. Gonzales called the police at approximately 7:30 pm, 8:30 pm, 10:10 pm, and 12:15 am on June 23, and visited the police station in person at 12:40 am on June 23, 1999. However, the police took no action, despite the husband's having called Gonzales prior to her second call to the police and informing her that he had the children with him at an amusement park in Denver, Colorado. At approximately 3:20 am on June 23, 1999, the husband appeared at the Castle Rock police station and instigated a fatal shoot-out with the police. A search of his vehicle revealed the corpses of the three daughters, whom the husband had killed prior to his arrival.
...
The Court's majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia held that enforcement of the restraining order was not mandatory under Colorado law; were a mandate for enforcement to exist, it would not create an individual right to enforcement that could be considered a protected entitlement under the precedent of Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth; and even if there were a protected individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order, such entitlement would have no monetary value and hence would not count as property for the Due Process Clause.

Justice David Souter wrote a concurring opinion, using the reasoning that enforcement of a restraining order is a process, not the interest protected by the process, and that there is not due process protection for processes.

Gonzales v City of Bozeman (2009)

[div class='excerpt']On the evening of April 3, 2005, Gonzales was the lone clerk at a Town Pump store on East Main Street in Bozeman, Montana. At 9:55 p.m. a man later identified as transient Jose Mario Gonzalez-Menjivar entered the store wearing a ski cap. He held a knife to Gonzales' throat and demanded money. Gonzales was able to surreptitiously dial 911 on her cell phone shortly after Menjivar entered the store but could not talk to anyone and never knew whether the call went through. In the meanwhile, Gonzales began removing money from the safe, which was limited by a security device to dispensing $100 every two or three minutes.
..
..
Meanwhile, Leah will no doubt be dumbfounded by the Court's decision. During the course of a robbery, she managed surreptitiously to call 911. The call went through, the dispatchers ascertained what was occurring and where, and the police were sent to Leah's location. Upon arriving, they established a perimeter around the Town Pump, determined that the door was unlocked, and observed two individuals inside. They ascertained that one of the individuals (Menjivar) was directing the other individual (Leah). When the call from Leah's cell phone was dropped, the dispatchers established a connection on the store's land line. They told the officers that the male (Menjivar) was "threatening" the female (Leah) and that she was "crying" and "very frightened." The police saw Menjivar and Leah enter the restroom, where it turns out Leah was then raped. They arrested Menjivar when he left the store of his own volition. They then threatened Leah with a dog, at which point she exited the store, barefoot and wearing her Town Pump apron. They forced her to the ground and handcuffed her—although she was six months pregnant and one of the officers had recognized who she was.

Leah claims the officers acted negligently and unreasonably, but the Court holds that the officers owed her no duty to exercise reasonable care when they responded to her distress call. The Court explains that because the officers owed all members of the public a duty to protect and preserve the peace, they did not owe this duty to any members of the public. Opinion, ¶ 20. If Leah is confused by this, I, for one, do not blame her. Indeed, the Court's decision makes no sense. We have now ruled, as a matter of law, that when the police respond to a crime in progress, they have no duty to protect the victim of the crime because they have a duty to protect everybody. Thus, the victim is simultaneously entitled and not entitled to reasonable police protection. We have also ruled, as a matter of law, that regardless of expert evidence that the police breached the appropriate standard of care, they are nonetheless immune from liability for such breach.

[white_wolf]

23. I actually thought of those cases after I posted

While you are correct on the legal issue, I do think Jody is over simplifying things a bit. The State does not have to protect individuals, but where do you draw the line between the "public" and an individual?

[X_Digger]

29. It was a bit of shorthand on his part, I'm sure.

While growing up, and even today for most of my family, the police are who you call to investigate crime. The police there certainly aren't in a position to stop violent crimes unless it's by serendipity. Even where I live, 911 dispatch times for 'man with a gun' are about seven minutes, for our county. Longer if you happen to live in a predominantly minority neighborhood like I do.

The police's role in both places w/r/t protecting the public is more about catching criminals than preventing crime.

[jody]

18. Sorry I'm right, see CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES (04-278) 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZS.html

[DisgustipatedinCA]

94. Sorry, you're wrong. Book a 2-week vacation to Somalia. If you get back

...you can tell me all about how it isn't the government's job to protect people.

[jody]

95. Read X_Digger post #16 a more complete explanation than my single Castle Rock v. Gonzales nt

[GreenStormCloud]

26. SCOTUS has ruled against you.

Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

No Duty to Protect: Two Exceptions
Special Relationship and State created danger.
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=341&issue_id=72004

Also: Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975).

Excellent discussion in DU: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x401065

You are wrong. You and you alone are responsible for your own safety, not the state. .

[morningfog]

24. You can't get off the cops using handguns. That is such a strange argument.

The needs of a cop are vastly different than those of everyone else.

[white_wolf]

31. Fair enough. You're right on this point. n/t

[jody]

32. Thanks and have a great evening. nt

[treestar]

79. Problem is we hear many stories about crime

but none where someone having a gun protected them.

Then there are the George Zimmerman's of the world. And that guy in Texas who shot his neighbor.

It does not seem to be truly effective - not so effective that we should not be able to do something to deal with the rights of the rest of us to be free as possible from violent crimes with guns used against us, gun accidents, etc. The balance of factors does not favor the idea that having a gun for self defense is so essential that it trumps the possibilities of mass shootings, accidents, greater number of homicides and suicides and the misjudgments of the Zimmermans of the world. IOW I don't see that these children had to die so that others could feel a little better about having a gun that is more likely to be used in other ways in any event.

And to add the chance that self-defense itself goes awry, and bystanders get killed in the attempt.

[jody]

81. Please browse DU's RKBA group and you'll find thousands of stories about guns protecting victims. nt

[treestar]

82. Many of them have been discredited too

But they are simply not greater in number than the number of events occurring otherwise - let alone the fact that the confrontations need not happen at all if guns weren't so easy for anyone to get.

[jody]

84. Please provide a link to a DU post of use of a firearm to prevent a crime that has been discredited.

[treestar]

92. It's easy enough to find if you read all the posts

There's an OP on that specifically. If I run across it again, I'll link it.

[jody]

96. Thanks, I'll wait for your reply. Until then I'll believe you're wrong. nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

9. Then Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, the Second Amendment's got to go...

The right to won a gun must not trump the right to life.

No right is unlimited.

[Llewlladdwr]

10. That includes the right to life.

We all die sometime....

[Agnosticsherbet]

13. The national review seems to think gun ownership trumps children's right to life.

and is good for removing amendments 1 and 3 through 27. We can do nothing to limit the right to own a weapon, and dead bleeding kids can go to thell.

Screw them.

No right is unlimited. One right can not trump another. Freedom of Speech has real limits, as do the other rights. To ensure that people can enjoy other rights some limits can be placed on gun ownership. If we can not, then those other rights don't exist.

[Glassunion]

14. You have a point. From my unscientific studies

I have found that the leading cause of death in all individuals is birth.

[X_Digger]

17. *tsk tsk tsk* Post Hoc Propter Ergo Hoc ;)

[Glassunion]

35. Blah de blah...

Prove me wrong... Everyone who has ever lived, that is now dead, at some point in their existence had been afflicted with birth.

All scientifical and shit!! I should write a paper or sumpthin' I think if we focus our efforts on preventing birth, we can save millions of lives.

[X_Digger]

38. Correlation does not imply causation! :P

Reminds me of the joke, though.. a guy hears the statistic that 75% of all traffic accidents happen within five miles of home- so he moves 5 miles away.

[Glassunion]

40. I get how the guy was feeling.

I used to pinch skin in my zipper all the time.

Stopped wearing pants. Problem solved.

[LanternWaste]

76. The world revolves on an axis because I wake up every day.

The world revolves on an axis because I wake up every day.

"blah de blah...prove me wrong..." (or read a book on logical fallacies... which may be more edifying in your case)

[jody]

33. Does that mean abortion prevents death? nt

[Glassunion]

36. Perhaps.

Bit of a paradox there though.

[jody]

41. But if one believes life begins at conception, then abortion is death? nt

[Glassunion]

43. However, they have not been afflicted with birth.

Therefore, there are 2 causes of death.

Must continue my bubblegum studies. I should buy a microscope and some beakers. Maybe they'll help.

[jody]

44. Time to relax with a martini. I'm buying! nt

[Glassunion]

45. Cheers!

[Paladin]

70. Have Several, Jody. Please. (nt)

[jody]

75. Paladin, nice to hear from you. Hope all is well with you in Texas and peace be with you and yours.

[Paladin]

86. Same To You, Jody. (nt)

[samsingh]

19. the National Review is in support of eliminating the second amendment

i would suggest interpretting it correctly pre 1977

[MrSlayer]

20. I remember wanting to risk terrorist acts to keep civil liberties.

I distinctly remember being against the Patriot Act and warentless wiretapping and torture even if it meant being susceptible to terrorist attacks because freedom is more important than fear and giving in to the terrorists.

We lost that argument and fear prevailed.

Is that not nearly the same thing that's happening here?

If the right was so scared of terrorists that they insisted on giving up our civil liberties, why are they so reluctant to restrict terrorists from using semi-automatic killing machines with giant kill capacity clips to slaughter a bunch of kindergartners?

[white_wolf]

25. I don't think they are the same.

The freedoms restricted by the Patriot Act are fundamental to a democratic and free society. Gun ownership is not.

[Selatius]

28. The logic is the same, though. Regardless, the Bill of Rights is a foundation of this Republic.

An attempt to repeal the Second Amendment may provoke a dissolution of the Union, I fear.

[Dems to Win]

61. Wow.... Hadn't thought of that. Thanks for putting that out there for me to think about

Doesn't mean I won't keep saying what is clearly the reality. The first step for us to make gun massacres and gun deaths as rare in the US as in the UK or Australia is to remove the constitutional right of Americans to own lethal weaponry.

Making gun murders rare is a worthy goal. I've been in favor of gun control for decades. I'm even more committed now, since during my lifetime I've seen other countries make dramatic changes in gun laws and have dramatically positive results. I want that positive change for my own country.

If it means the country splits up, maybe that will be for the best. I hope we can divorce peacefully.

[MrSlayer]

30. It's a right guaranteed in the Constituion.

As are the rights to privacy and unlawful searches and the like that we threw out the window with the Patriot act.

Owning a gun may not be as important to maintaining a free society but the right is equal to those aforementioned rights under the Constitution, yes?

So why is ok to give up the 4th with no problem but not the 2nd?

I'm going to work with this idea for awhile, there is way to make it a forceful argument. Or at least a logical one.

[jody]

46. You introduce "freedoms . . . fundamental to a democratic and free society". Did the authors of our

Constitution use them and if so how were they different from the rights enumerated in the BOR?

ON EDIT ADD On reflection I believe you refer to the "freedoms" listed in the First Amendment.

Those "freedoms" are rights.

Problem I have is trying to interpret 18th century writing burdened with 21st century use.

[white_wolf]

54. I'm not speaking purely from a legal perspective here.

If you look at the various democracies in Europe many of the strictly restrict the ownership of firearms and yet they are just as free, if not more so, than the U.S. However, you cannot have a free society without freedom of speech and expression.

[jody]

57. Agree but when one considers the history of rights, philosophers always place right to defend self at

or near the top of natural rights.

Since Europe was the source of those ideas circa 14th century or so it seems to me they would be basic to the free society to which you allude.

[bettyellen]

66. well, that's easy to say if you don't live in NYC. i think the security thing is overdone in the

flyover states. but you can be sure if there were repeated attacks close to your home, you and your neighbors would be damned grateful for some measures taken to prevent more.

[MrSlayer]

67. I live in Philly.

And I don't think any/all of us should have to give up our rights because one city is threatened. That's exactly the cowardly thinking that enables them to do what they did. Let's face it, we let the terrorists, whomever they were, win that game.

I'm saying the right wing (and some others apparently) very easily gave up real, tangible guaranteed rights out of fear of Islamuc terror. But homegrown terror requires less regulation and greater freedom and access to killing machines in order to fight it off.

It's weird but typical of their "I'm pro-life but pro-war at the same time." thinking.

[bettyellen]

68. i don't know anyone who really minds the airport screenings in NYC. but we have been targeted

repeatedly after 9/11. And hit too often.
philly has not. no comparison.
i don't feel like i'm giving up a thing, i like to travel and don't mind the extra ten minutes when i do.

"But homegrown terror requires less regulation and greater freedom and access to killing machines in order to fight it off. "
i dont understand this point. Who needs less regulation to fight of homegrown terror- regular citizens? Gee, no thanks.

[MrSlayer]

69. It's Bagger logic.

It really doesn't matter.

[bettyellen]

89. no, it comes from real life experience. we smelled the WTC burning through the Christmas holidays

all knew people who were scarred by being there that day. We remembered people evacuating the first time it was bombed.
Sorry, it's not paranoia if it's based on real life experience. I saw the rest of the nation get needlessly paranoid, and thought it ridiculous. I was offended what a nation wide grab there was in flyover states for money security they don't need, and all the angry people who don't even like NYC wanting revenge against all Muslims when NYers did not. That was insanity.
But if you lived through that shit, an extra 10 minutes in the airport feels like no biggie at all. If that's what it takes, I'm happy to do it. I'm sure if I lived in Miami or Philly I'd thoughtlessly think it was overreacting. Because as much as you all claimed to be, over and over again.... you were't New Yorkers that day. You have no idea.

[MrSlayer]

90. It's not the ten minutes in the airport.

Though that in itself is invasive, annoying and utterly pointless. It's the spying, the warentless wiretapping, the email invasion, the torture, the indefinite detention, the needless wars and looting of our economy. Those are the things that we capitulated to out of cowardice. Those are the freedoms, capital and lives we'll never get back.

9/11 was a professional one off, it was no amateur job and it accomplished exactly what it was supposed to. Being afraid of it somehow happening again as a justification for giving up your rights is silly. There was no need to do it again. All they have to do is play video of it now and the easily led shit their pants all over again.

You'll never convince me that giving up freedoms was the right thing to do even if it meant attacks every month.

[bettyellen]

91. i agree the spying, the warentless wiretapping, the email invasion, the torture, the indefinite

detention, etc. the country went overboard.

But you all forget the WTC was bombed before. i know a few people who survived 9/11 only because they refused to work there after the first bombing. I don't think they are idiots at all.
There were a lot of instances where local police added crazy security because chatter was picked up on plots. GW Bridge was a common one. Dozens of times that never made the national news. If it stopped one or two other bombings, the extra time I spent in traffic was well worth it.

I think NY had a reasonable response to what has happened there. It was pretty much everywhere else except NY that went overboard with the facist bullshit you've mentioned.

[Honeycombe8]

21. No, murder can not be prevented 100% of the time. Even mass murders.

Whether by gun or bomb or fire. One of the most notorious serial killers thrived in Russia for many years, even under a closed society that kept tabs on people.

But as Obama said, the fact that something can't be prevented completely is no reason not to take steps to lessen them.

[Recursion]

34. Yeah, the inability to do everything is not an excuse to do nothing

I catch a lot of flack on DU for being skeptical of a lot of particular gun control laws, but I don't like the idea of saying "it won't stop everything so we can't do anything".

[Pretzel_Warrior]

39. Which is why 2nd Amendment should be repealed

[Dems to Win]

47. Do you facebook? Check out this page, "Repeal the Second Amendment"

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Repeal-the-Second-Amendment/371249309570118

I've resisted facebook, but I might have to join in for this. Still thinking about it

[sanatanadharma]

48. and the first amendment should be strengthened...

Words, discussion, argument can change minds,
guns can only blow them away.

[jody]

49. If 2A were repealed, RKBA would be protected as an unenumerated right by the Ninth Amendment. nt

[Dems to Win]

52. When the second amendment is repealed, I shall see you in court.Deadly weapons are not a human right

[jody]

53. Please read DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago on RKBA protected by our Constitution. nt

[rustydog]

51. There you go, so don't even try! 20 dead completely innocent children

hundreds upon hundreds of innocent people murdered every year, but we've been told it won't work so don't do it.

Fuck, I'm glad we didn't listen to the whimps who said we couldn't go to the moon. why try to cure cancer?
global warming, just accept it!

totally innocent people wiped from the face of the earth and enablers are saying why try?, this article says it won't work!!!!

[Dems to Win]

60. Please don't misinterpret my posting of this article. Go ahead and work in the way you deem most

productive, by all means. I sure don't mean to dissuade anyone from trying anything, everything, to prevent more Sandy Hooks.

I will work for meaningful, effective action. Similar to the response of Australia or the UK. I want guns to be rare in American homes, not ubiquitous. That's how we can hope to reduce our gun murder rate to something like 58 people per year, as it was in the UK recently, rather than the almost 9,000 gun murders in the US the same year.

In order to make a significant dent in the gun carnage death toll, as other countries have done, we need to repeal the second amendment as the first step. That's the reality, and we might as well say it out loud.

[Voice for Peace]

59. excellent, thanks for posting.

k&r

[Lone_Star_Dem]

64. They also said the shooter was successful because there wasn't any big man to save them.

There was not a single adult male on the school premises when the shooting occurred. In this school of 450 students, a sizeable number of whom were undoubtedly 11- and 12-year-old boys (it was a K–6 school), all the personnel — the teachers, the principal, the assistant principal, the school psychologist, the “reading specialist” — were female. There didn’t even seem to be a male janitor to heave his bucket at Adam Lanza’s knees. Women and small children are sitting ducks for mass-murderers. The principal, Dawn Hochsprung, seemed to have performed bravely. According to reports, she activated the school’s public-address system and also lunged at Lanza, before he shot her to death. Some of the teachers managed to save all or some of their charges by rushing them into closets or bathrooms. But in general, a feminized setting is a setting in which helpless passivity is the norm. Male aggression can be a good thing, as in protecting the weak — but it has been forced out of the culture of elementary schools and the education schools that train their personnel. Think of what Sandy Hook might have been like if a couple of male teachers who had played high-school football, or even some of the huskier 12-year-old boys, had converged on Lanza.

Link to article here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022032264

Which was a total lie, outrageously sexist, and disrespectful to all the women there who put themselves in between the shooter and the children.

The National Review is a RW conservative rag spouting their talking points and pushing their agenda. They make me ill, and their subscriptions have been growing for the past several years.

[Paladin]

72. This Thread Serves As Confirmation Of What We Already Knew:

The gun militancy movement in general, and our resident DU Gun Enthusiasts in particular, are unwilling to do anything with regard to preventing the next Newtown-style gun slaughter, or the next 100 such slaughters, for that matter. Gun militants look upon such killings as an acceptable trade-off for their having largely unfettered access to as wide a selection of firearms as possible. Nightmare incidents like the Newtown killings do not matter to these people---it's just some bad PR, which they figure will blow over.

Will the Newtown incident result in anything meaningful in the way of political and societal change? I'd like to think so, but my confidence is waning.

[librechik]

73. Repeal the 2nd amendment and ditch the electoral college

Nationalize the Federal reserve and put a little tiny tax on stock exchange transactions, say one quarter cent. There. That should fix just about everything, Oh, and add a line to Medicare that says all legal residents of the US are eligible to receive it.

Perfect. And so easy to do, if not for the soul-crushing oppositional insanity.

[moondust]

77. 2A is whatever you want it to be.

Last edited Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:01 PM - Edit history (1)

The Second Amendment is so ambiguous that it can be interpreted to mean whatever anybody wants it to mean. Does it apply to individual citizens or only to a militia or both?

I suspect it may have been intended to guarantee a militia for the common defense, but a lot of semi-literate Americans didn't (and still don't) understand dependent clauses so the parts about a militia and a free state were lost. Here's the straightforward/easy part that everybody can understand so that's the interpretation that gained wide acceptance:

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

And so we have a gun culture that many/most Americans consider a "normal" way of life, and it's not likely to change much until 2A is repealed or rewritten for disambiguation.

And if Republicans had their way in rewriting it, they would very likely make it even worse with more gun guarantees leading to even more carnage.

[treestar]

78. The Second Amendment can indeed be repealed

There is a procedure for it. It might be tough, but it's time to start trying. The NRA can thank itself for insisting so long that it meant they were immune from reasonable regulation.

[Dems to Win]

83. Please sign the petition to repeal the second amendment, see my sig

I agree that when we succeed in repealing the 2nd amendment, NRA will need to thank itself for inspiring our activism.

[treestar]

93. Tried to

It already got a response, so maybe new people can't sign it?

[Bucky]

85. Chill the fuck out, National Review. Barack's got this one.

I hate quitters.

[smirkymonkey]

87. Does anyone really think the National Review is even relevant anymore?

I mean, seriously.

[truebluegreen]

88. I am shocked, shocked...

that this is their contribution to the discussion.