Liberals love the Constitution.

Ask anyone on the street. They'll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization.
I know liberal couples who give each other pocket size copies of the Constitution for Christmas.
Ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they will invariably say the words "shredding" and "Constitution" in the same sentence. They might also add "Fourth Amendment" and "due process." It's possible they'll talk about "free speech zones" and "habeus corpus."
There's a good chance they will mention, probably in combination with several FCC-prohibited adjectives, the former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

So, Liberals love the Constitution. They especially love the Bill of Rights. They love all the Amendments.
Except for one: the Second Amendment.

(Read More)
Daily Kos: State of the Nation

It is an accident of Nature that when you look at a map of the US, the left points towards the wild
West with cowboys shooting rustlers, Indians and rattle snakes...trust me...we know which way
Evolution is going.

Whose we...?

We Liberals who are most liberated from traditional sources of authority and most
committed to the common good.

Thank you!...You have just proved the authors point of the hypocracy of the Liberal Left!

Or maybe the collective good? I figure liberty is the greatest common good.
Success or failure should be as much a personal struggle as a collective one, IMHO.

While I found the neo-con version of America appalling...I am concerned that an overbroad
collectivism can also be dangerous. I do like realistic cowboy movies though.

You are the one who introduced the concept, "collective." A Dictatorship of the Proletariat is
no better than a Fascist Dictator. Fortunately, we don't have to settle for either. We can have a humanitarian constitutional democracy with a democratically regulated Market Economy. We can have Merritocracy and Technology and Democracy. We just need to keep the emphasis on
Democracy.

Your version of it, or the Constitutions?

I am eager for feedback on how my version of democracy is inconsistent with the Constitution.

How about the gun issue. You seem not to be fully onboard with the 2nd. Amendment...Hence the article.

I consider that everything that is, is relative. I consider the concept and methodology of
Amending the Constitution of greatest significance. Of the first 10 Amendments, I consider the Second to be of less significance to our current Ecology and the least well defined. I also believe
that a carefull analysis of the US since the Civil War, will show that this issue heats up most when
there are other pressing issues on the ballot. So I mostly ignore the issue.

While I would personally wish for a return to the days of Swords and Bows there is something to be said for the "Great Equalizer". The "Gun Issue" as has been stated by rla is often raised as a wedge when a corrupt party wishes to distract attention from their gross mal-governance.

I think we actual Liberals have learned our lesson regarding the Second Amendment. I hope actual Conservatives have learned theirs regarding the rest of the Bill of Rights.

AMEND to that, Brother.

The right to bear arms is outdated. It was written at a time when cannon balls and torches were the most destructive weapons, and concealable hand guns were not easy to come by. Had they even imagined the kind of destructive power that a 10-year-old could get their hands on these days, they would have at least worded it more carefully. They probably would have found a different way to limit the power of government over it's citizens.

Who cares? Fact is, anyone can buy a gun, legal or not, for self protection or for murder.

What delights me is that the gun nuts can no longer scream that if you elect (fill in the blank) he will take away your guns.

That game is now over.

Thank you, supremes.

Obviously there are many here that do not believe in the fundamental right of self-protection...Good luck!

It's not a game and it's not over.

The gun control debate is not a zero-sum game with clear winners and losers.

The US Supreme court has interpreted the second amendment to mean that gun ownership is a right of US citizenship. I accept that as the law of the land. There are reasonable and compelling arguments in support of the decision.

Laws banning gun ownership in a certain communities will no longer be enforced; however, the text of the decision did stipulate that many other gun control laws are prudent and are not an infringement of the Second Amendment.

The debate will go on and we need to hear about it in the 2008 campaign.

We need to reframe the debate to show how everyone can win. Why not work toward communities where the choice to own a gun or not to own a gun is a truly a free choice snd not one of necessity.

Voters have legitimate concerns about gun violence in their communities. Drive by shootings, school shootings, workplace shootings, gang violence, domestic gun violence, and children being killed or injured in gun mishaps are events that shatter people's sense of security. It's reasonable to propose, debate, and enact legislation reduce the likelihood of these events. Such legislation can only be effective to that end if it establishes and sustains community norms involving guns. I'm seeing some rhetoric on this forum that seems to erode common sense norms about carrying firearms into certain public venues.

I'm concerned that existing norms (and campus regulations) will be overturned allowing students and faculty to carry guns into the classroom. That's where I have worked during most of my career. If norms w/r to guns on campus erode to the point wherein everyone feel a need to be packing for protection, I expect a lot worse gun violence than what we saw at V-Tech and NIU------and very little tolerance for dissent and exploration of alternatives in lifestyle. To preserve the Second amendnent on campus we will throw out the First.

I personally feel that if a person pulls a gun in public (in school, a mall, on a bus, etc.) and it is not in response to an immediate, credible, serious, witnessed and unprovocted physical threat, they should be considered a threat to public safety, and spend a few years in jail just for that.

The propensity to brandish firearms should be the next issue to debate.

No it's not.

The Japanese considered invading the United States at the beginning of WW2. What stopped them? The knowledge just about every household back then was under arms AND knew how to shoot.

Brandishing a firearm is a no-no virtually everywhere, and (depending on state or municipality) will get you punishment.

So what is your answer, Bill? What is your problem with the SCOTUS ruling?

All we have to do is outlaw fertilizer (registration of purchases is actually happening)
and deisel (bomb-making materials), gasoline (fire bombs) and other things
violent folk have used. Then we should surely do without cars (they kill more
than guns).

Maybe it's a city problem...let's outlaw cities!
Or a mental health problem...hummm, if we could just get a test for whom to incarcerate.
Since criminals and whack-os endanger most adults with guns and since abuse and pedophelia
endanger children more than guns statistically.

Maybe we ought to outlaw trucks since McViegh filled one full of diesel soaked fertilizer.

I would have stricter control over the selling and licensing of fire arms.

I don't have a problem with the DC vs Heller ruling. I have a problem with the 2nd amendment. It's too vague and outdated.

.

I would make it illegal to sell a fire arm to any customer without clearance for that customer from the FBI criminal database. Every gun owner would have to get a gun safety license including mental health screening and have it renewed periodically. Every owner could face criminal negligence charges if a crime was committed with a gun they own that wasn't reported stolen.

It doesn't spell out any limitations on what could be considered arms necessary to the security of a free state. That can be anything from knives to nuclear missiles.

I think we've had this debate before. You said something about a ban on crew weapons. But that's not from the 2nd amendment.

I suggest you read the decision, Bill. It takes the vagary out of the Amendment.



It already is. it's called a form 4473 and a NICS check.



Should we suggest the same thing for automobile owners? Would this rule hold true for the criminals too?

Bill...We have approximately 22,000 local, state and federal gun laws on the books now...How many more would you like to add to assuage your troubled mind?

Try a little logic, Bill...See how it fits!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Guns, Antonin Scalia is Right For Once, and Keith Olbermann Isn't
Jackson Williams Sun Jun 29, 8:15 PM ET

Keith Olbermann declared Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia the "Worst Person in the World" on the Thursday, June 26 edition of MSNBC's "Countdown." What got him up in arms was the Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment.

I'm tempted to give Olbermann a pass on this since he made a midlife career change at the age of 40, from sports to news and analysis. Plus, I'm no fan of Nino Scalia. Yet Keith's reasoning on this issue is so beyond specious that it merits comment.

Here he is explaining what the 27 words of the amendment "really" mean:
"Despite years of fog created by the NRA and right-wing organizations, {this} isn't very complicated: for the purposes of forming a state militia, you're entitled to keep and bear arms. Obviously, those would have to be {the kind of arms} in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was passed; the musket, the wheel-lock, the flint lock, the 13th century Chinese hand canon. Stuff like that."

That makes no sense. After all, the First Amendment applies to forms of communication the Founders never dreamed of, from TV to the internet. And as a civil libertarian, I believe deeply that the Fourth Amendment, dealing with warrants for search and seizure, must absolutely encompass modern inventions like wiretaps and heat-seeking infrared devices that law enforcement can aim into your home from the outside. They certainly didn't exist "when the Bill of Rights was passed."

The logic of a "living Constitution" can't apply to some amendments, such as the First and the Fourth, yet not to the ones I don't care for or find problematic. Such an approach courts disaster by encouraging others to use the same means in purging the parts of the document they don't care for.

It sounds like Keith stands foursquare with George W. Bush when it comes to constitutional analysis.

I, on the other hand, stand foursquare with famed liberal constitutional scholars Laurence Tribe of Harvard and Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas, two among many -- Barack Obama included -- who have acknowledged that the Second Amendment applies to individuals. The ancient meaning of the opening clause ("A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State) refers to the closing clause (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.)
As for gun control, I'm a huge supporter and I oppose carrying concealed weapons. There are simply too many guns on our urban streets. I believe in waiting periods, banning assault weapons and cop-killer bullets, closing the gun show loophole, etc.

But even free speech isn't absolute, so I don't think the right to own firearms is somehow incompatible with rules and regulations designed to protect society. Indeed, civility demands a regulatory structure to function smoothly and safely. Scalia seems to agree, writing the following in the opinion:

"It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.....The court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." (Emphasis added.)

If we don't like the Second Amendment, then we should agitate to get rid of it in the methods the Founders prescribed. But we might want to think twice.

Former Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis is widely cited for the following quote: "You know, I do not believe in individuals owning firearms. Only the police and military."

I don't know if the line is accurate or apocryphal, but think of it: Only the police and military? That's bone-chilling in its implications for a country already at risk of losing constitutional liberties, from warrants to habeas corpus.

And I don't even own a firearm.

On Guns, Antonin Scalia is Right For Once, and Keith Olbermann Isn't - Yahoo! News

Which decision? DC vs Heller?

There's always the private sale/gun show loophole.

Sure, why not. I would even go a step further and make stricter penalties for moving violations.

That supports my original point that the 2nd Amendment is too vague. A less vague law would not require so many additional laws to fill in the blanks.

I'm not quite as bad as Michael Dukakis. I think its OK for more than the police and military to own firearms. But I also think the fear of government power over citizens is not a good reason to own firearms. The government has weapons that makes AK-47s look like pea shooters. And the Constitution won't protect or guarantee our right if it's the government that's undermining it. It's just a broken promise.

.

It removes a little vagueness, but not the vagueness about how much lethality is necessary to protect the state.

It should be federal. One can buy a gun at a gun show in Virginia and use it in California without an FBI clearance.

Lawfully purchased guns are used for crimes too. Gun control laws at the least make ATF's job a little easier.

I trust my government a little more than I trust my gun-toting survivalist neighbors. Especially in a time of crisis. I at least have some say in how my government should operate.

Broken promises are not OK with me. But I don't think I can force the government to keep its promises by pointing a gun at it.

I'm weary of this Bill...Have a nice day!

On a higher note, Frenchy - the policemen of DC are very happy for the lifting of the ban. They had quite a long story on it with the police weighing in on the subject on CNN.

And now for something completely different:





ATLANTA, Georgia, (AP) -- The Supreme Court's landmark ruling on gun ownership last week focused on citizens' ability to defend themselves from intruders in their homes. But research shows that surprisingly often, gun owners use the weapons on themselves.
The Supreme Court's landmark ruling on gun ownership last week focused on citizens' ability to defend themselves.

The Supreme Court's landmark ruling on gun ownership last week focused on citizens' ability to defend themselves.

Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There was nothing unique about that year -- gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years. In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 3 percent. The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent.

Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater.

Studies have also shown that homes in which a suicide occurred were three to five times more likely to have a gun present than households that did not experience a suicide, even after accounting for other risk factors.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court on Thursday struck down a handgun ban enacted in the District of Columbia in 1976 and rejected requirements that firearms have trigger locks or be kept disassembled. The ruling left intact the district's licensing restrictions for gun owners.

One public-health study found that suicide and homicide rates in the district dropped after the ban was adopted. The district has allowed shotguns and rifles to be kept in homes if they are registered, kept unloaded and taken apart or equipped with trigger locks.
MORE THAN HALF FIREARMS DEATHS THE RESULT OF SUICIDE

The American Public Health Association, the American Association of Suicidology and two other groups filed a legal brief supporting the district's ban. The brief challenged arguments that if a gun is not available, suicidal people will just kill themselves using other means.

More than 90 percent of suicide attempts using guns are successful, while the success rate for jumping from high places was 34 percent. The success rate for drug overdose was 2 percent, the brief said, citing studies.

"Other methods are not as lethal," said Jon Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore.

The high court's majority opinion made no mention of suicide. But in a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer used the word 14 times in voicing concern about the impact of striking down the handgun ban.

"If a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense, then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence," Breyer wrote.

Researchers in other fields have raised questions about the public-health findings on guns.

Gary Kleck, a researcher at Florida State University's College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, estimates there are more than 1 million incidents each year in which firearms are used to prevent an actual or threatened criminal attack.

Public-health experts have said the telephone survey methodology Kleck used likely resulted in an overestimate. iReport.com: Watch William Bernstein share his views on gun ownership

Both sides agree there has been a significant decline in the last decade in public-health research into gun violence.

The CDC traditionally was a primary funder of research on guns and gun-related injuries, allocating more than $2.1 million a year to such projects in the mid-1990s.

But the agency cut back research on the subject after Congress in 1996 ordered that none of the CDC's appropriations be used to promote gun control.
advertisement

Vernick said the Supreme Court decision underscores the need for further study into what will happen to suicide and homicide rates in the district when the handgun ban is lifted.

Today, the CDC budgets less than $900,000 for firearm-related projects, and most of it is spent to track statistics. The agency no longer funds gun-related policy analysis.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/30/guns.suicides.ap/index.html

MORE THAN HALF FIREARMS DEATHS THE RESULT OF SUICIDE

obviously, this was meant to be the title of the above piece.

Hanging seems popular too. We had a guy last week that did himself with a
TV cable, strung to the top handle of a refrigerator. Maybe his drug abuse and
lack of family support, or his being evicted in days had something to do with it.
Some harden under pressure, others crack. Those who harden deal with the
results of those who crack...but, it doesn't make us any happier or better...
in fact, maybe sadder...if only we could have talked to them first...keep
reaching out...giving a damn...and maybe...maybe...your works will be sufficient.

Shizen...this desperation has just started in earnest and will become more pronounced...
steel your hearts support personnel...you're gonna see many, many more.

Yeah, this is scaring me, too, IH.

Some do both, crack then harden or harden then crack. Everyone has a breaking point and everyone has the ability to harden, but it has a price.

A few stress flaws in a gem may make it less in an appraiser's mind...and more in the mind of a true collector.
In basic police training they asked who wouldn't sell out...most held up their hands, but me. Then they mentioned
a situation where wives and children were held hostage and every hand went down...and they turned to me for their
class president. Nothing special, just real....not hard...just comitted to cause. Not much, just me...in respect of
Jesus, Ghandi and a few dozen Vietnamese Buddist priests...Will is humbling when paid for with the ultimate price.

I was raised that if you have to you pay as long as you have to, then you don't let them die.

This reflects the general condition of our society.

I don't feel like fighting with you any more today. But I have no idea what you mean by this.

Your damnation is that you care. May we all suffer from the same malady.




A hint at why we are brothers. Infected with the same social disease.

The degraded social fabric of the nation. The feeling of helplessness and namelessness.

This assertion seems highly speculative to me. Do you know of any hard data to support it?

I've heard this for years, but what evidence is out there is anecdotal.

That's why community development and volunteerism is so important. The grassroots thing....people watching out for one another, advocating for one another, taking care of the children, the poor, the lonely, the elderly and the mentally and physically disabled within their communities...enjoying leisure time with one another (parks,recreational activities, cultural activities). Since the time of extended families living close together is past, members of communities need to fill the void.

You are so misinformed on this issue...and so prone to exaggeration...

I would like you to produce statistics that support your statement that in World War II just about every household had a gun and knew how to shoot...

From 1899 to 1994 the ATF estimates that there have been 223 million guns made available in the US...

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms (ATF) estimates that from
1899 to 1993 about 223 million guns
became available in the United States,
including over 79 million rifles, 77 million
handguns, and 66 million shotguns.
The number of guns seized,
destroyed, lost, or not working is
unknown.

Now there were 150 million people in the US in 1940...

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/doc...73538v1ch02.pdf

Probably 60 million households...

Show me where 75% or more of the households had a gun in their house...

And Japan never had any plans for invading the US...

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1661.html

Japan intended to cripple the United States Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, then quickly overrun Thailand, Malaya, the Philippines, and the Netherlands East Indies. It would then complete its conquest of China, and unite all East Asia under Japanese domination in a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Japan had no plans for invading the United States mainland.

The Second Amendment case was a perfect instance and another place where I disagree with Barack Obama.

To me, it clearly ties the right to bear arms --- to use with a militia...use with a militia does not imply an individual right but rather a sovereign right -- the right of a state to defend itself...

But Scalia and friends perverted this meaning with their suggestion that the right was intended to allow revolution against the government should it be necessary to revolt against an unjust sovereign...which to find that meaning in that phrase in the Second Amendment is preposterous...

So, in my mind --- I do not know if the Constituiton was used against itself...but it certainly was not held to its original intent IMHO...

The whole purpose of the Constiution was to set up a system of checks and balances so that the revolution that had just taken place would not have to take place again...why would they write into it -- well if this effort of ours proves worthless and despite all these checks and balances -- the government acts against the people's interests -- you may keep guns to revolt --- but we aren't going to say anything about this idea in the Federalist Papers or in any other commentaries...contemporary to the time of the const convention is beyond my understanding....

I think that decision was another representation of the court wanting a result and twisting the history to get it ---

How can you reconile this interpretation with the US v. MIller case?

You cannot...