Hey, there! Log in / Register

The First Amendment in action

Gun protester

Roving UHub photographer Rhea Becker filed this photo from the Common, where gun lovers are holding a protest today that featured a little boy reciting the Second Amendment.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 

Ad:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Right wing uses kids, Limousin Liberals scream. Obama uses kids during anti gun speak, Limousin Liberals praise his every word.

Far right nuts are no worse than far left nuts, we need more rational people in this country.

up
Voting closed 0

I drive a Prius, not a limousine. Get your 21st-century insults correct, please.

In any event, I'm sorry you don't see a difference between people trying to protect children from mass murderers and people who would only encourage them.

I'm also not sure you'd find a lot of true leftists who think Obama is one of them. It's kind of a sad comment on the state of American politics that a centrist is now held out as a "leftist" when for the most part he espouses a program that would not have been out of place among a meeting of Northeastern Republicans up through, oh, the 1980s, when they magically started disappearing from the face of the earth.

up
Voting closed 0

Two side (Both extremes), both are using children to try any further their agenda. Why side you agree with is irrelevant, it the fact that people hold others to different standards than those they tend to agree with.

up
Voting closed 0

you always know what a right winger is going to say, but you NEVER know how he will spell it.

up
Voting closed 0

The only user here who rides around in a limo is dvdoff...and it's their job.

up
Voting closed 0

all of the limousine liberals who insist on hybrid vehicles when they're tooling around LA, but love their SUV's in Boston where TMZ can't see them.....

up
Voting closed 0

The difference is that one side is on the right side of history and the other isn't. Kids were the victims. The NRA and fringe right wing don't care about the kids. It's all smoke and mirrors that even the public sees through. They only care about their own profits and alleged right to unload 30 bullets into a child in milliseconds.

A key word that the right wing tends to forget in the 2nd amendment is the word "regulated." The amendment itself calls for gun regulation, yet even things like background checks are "too much" for conservative politicians. Public opinion (even Gallup polling) clearly shows broad support for regulations.

up
Voting closed 0

Militia is the Fraking word of the day. As in a States standing volunteer army, ie, yes, the government.

Only recently has that definition slid into weekend warrior territory. And don't get me started about the false idea that people have the right to succession and armed conflict against the state just because they don't agree with the democratically elected representation.

That shit was outlawed in the first few years of the nation (Whiskey Rebellion anyone), and settled once and for all with the Civil War.

The threat of violence against a duly elected Representative government IS treason.

up
Voting closed 0

The militia consists of all citizens capable of wielding arms.

This definition of militia was the one in use before, during, and after the Revolutionary War. This particular concept of the citizen/soldier dates back to the city states of ancient Greece, where full citizenship was dependent upon the possession of arms and service in the army, and was quite obviously what the classically educated framers had in mind. Socrates and Plato were not just idle thinkers; they also carried spears into battle and actually killed people with them, just like every other Athenian citizen.

Massachusetts, like almost all of the colonies except Quaker-run Pennsylvania, actually had laws requiring all citizens to purchase and maintain firearms and ammunition under penalty of a fine. The militia (men of military age, usually 16-60) were required to present themselves, with their arms, on certain days for training. Massachusetts went so far as to mandate which types of firearms were acceptable for militia service (muskets with a barrel longer than three feet nine inches). Furthermore, Massachusetts mandated that all boys between 10 and 16 should be instructed in the use of firearms, pikes, and bow and arrow. During particularly dangerous intervals, Massachusetts colony even mandated that all members of the militia bring their guns with them into church, so as to be ready to defend their fellow-citizens against attack.

While we're at it, let's tackle the phrase "well-regulated"

Edward Gibbon, master of english prose style and author of the monumental "History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," first published in 1776, says in the foreword to his magnum opus, that he hopes that his readers will find his history to be "well-regulated." Was Edward Gibbon hoping his readers would be pleased with the laws Parliament passed regarding copyright? Of course not. He was using the phrase "well-regulated" to mean "orderly," and this was the common meaning of "well-regulated" at the time.

In a military context, this orderliness is to be found in military discipline and practice. The militia is not meant to be kept from arms by laws passed by congress, but to be drilled and disciplined enough to ensure the security of a free state, rather than break and run under fire. The framers wanted no hinderance in the way of citizens owning arms, and furthermore, would have encouraged frequent drill so that all citizens would be competent to use them alone, and as a group.

Mao said: "Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." The framers of our constitution understood that a government that vested power in its people would be short-lived without an armed populace, and thus provided for all citizens to be armed. Mao understood this too, and ensured that his citizens were disarmed.

Finally, in our constitution, the crime of treason has a very specific definition, and yours is not it.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

So, yes, participating in the Whisky Rebellion and the Confederate Army would count, but it's also rather telling that Washington pardoned those who were convicted of treason in the Whisky Rebellion, and that President Johnson issued a blanket amnesty for all those indicted on charges of treason in connection with the confederacy. To me, this clemency suggests that this insurrectionist type of treason was regarded as being different, from the Tokyo Rose or Rosenbergs sort of colluding with a hostile foreign power sort of treason.

But, to turn to your final point, threatening violence against a duly elected representative would not count as treason. It might be another crime, but it's not treason.

up
Voting closed 0

Why can't I have a rocket launcher?

up
Voting closed 0

You can, just not in Massachusetts, and not without a lot of paperwork.

up
Voting closed 0

while you were talking past me

1) You just described a civic militia controlled and called up by the state, which is exactly my point.

2) The duly elected representative Government != A representative.

up
Voting closed 0

We here in Limoges are very disappointed with the way the American right wing rears its children.

up
Voting closed 0

Mostly because I don't bother to interpret Straw Man arguments...

up
Voting closed 0

Why is it that almost all the people angrily demanding the right to own and carry weapons designed for mass murder are middle aged/old white men?

Anyone in the crowd protest the NRA for certifying Adam Lanza?

up
Voting closed 0

When it comes to guns, many non-white men don't show up to demand their rights or to do things legally, they just go ahead and shoot each other, laws be damned. Gun homicide rates for black males are 15.3 times higher than for white males. If you think new gun laws will stop the epidemic of violence in black communities nationwide, then I have a scooter to sell you. I can't use it in Boston since Menino banned scooters to stop the violence. Ha!

up
Voting closed 0

Gun legislation isn't about stopping gun violence. It is about curbing it. Even one life saved is a success.

up
Voting closed 0

"Drug legislation isn't about stopping drug use. It's about curbing it. Even one life saved by the drug war is a success."

If banning drugs hasn't stopped drug use, why would banning guns stop gun use?

up
Voting closed 0

You're harshing the two minutes of hate on gun owners.

I've come to the conclusion that this is mainly a tribal thing. The picture posted is the flipside of the dirty hippie with the giant puppet. A walking representation of "the other".

Want abortion to be safe and legal? BABY KILLER

Feel that current gun laws are sufficient? BABY KILLER

up
Voting closed 0

No one (reasonable) is suggesting we ban firearms. Like drugs, it would become organized crimes next cash crop.

Background checks, Education, Insurance and Licensing isn't a ban. Neither is regulating high capacity clips to shooting ranges.

We have laws on the books, and no they don't stop ALL crime. Only a fool would think that means laws are useless and we don't need them.

up
Voting closed 0

Insurance, no. Look at how many firearms maintain their serial numbers once they're stolen. Very few. There also isn't, at least to my knowledge, a database of each firearm and rifle ballistic finger print. So what will an insurance requirement do?

My NRA membership came with insurance for my firearms. It only covers personal accidents, and stolen firearms though.

*Many clubs in the area require an NRA membership in order to join the shooting club.

up
Voting closed 0

You're allowed scooters. You're not allowed Segways unless you're impaired and can prove it (and being a tourist isn't an impairment, believe me). I begin to suspect you might qualify :)

up
Voting closed 0

Flying Toaster, the "Segways are dangerous unless operated by a disabled person" ordinance is also absurd but allow me, or better yet, Back Bay Patch, to educate you on yes, Menino's Home Rule Petition against scooters. It stemmed from inaccurate witness statements that initially pegged teens on scooters as having been involved in a playground shooting two years ago. Welcome to the discussion.

up
Voting closed 0

You make an interesting point. The only case of minorities loudly standing up for gun right were the Black Panthers, and they were, um, not invited to meetings at the VFW hall with the rest of the NRA.

Part of thinks that the fastest way to get the NRA to STFU, and get old white guys to drop the subject instantly, would be for some large, well-funded group to start advocating for all black males to apply for concealed-carry permits. Then we could watch as 10% of the country imploded from cognitive dissonance!

up
Voting closed 0

By an accident of history not in any way under my control, I happen to be white. I am also a gun enthusiast. (Okay, "gun nut" is the term that many folks would use, since I have fourteen devices that are legally classified as "firearms," including two that are regulated by the National Firearms Act--a silencer and a short-barreled rifle.)

I think that Reagan was an absolute villain for reacting the way he did to the Black Panthers and their exercise of their basic human rights at the California capitol building. I am 100% in favor of every non-insane, non-murderous black person, white person, brown person, purple person, etc., possessing and owning firearms. As a former shooting sports instructor for the Boy Scouts, I have personally taught boys of a variety of ethnicities about the basics firearms safety, rifle marksmanship, shotgunning, and archery.

I favor a "constitutional carry" regime in which poor people aren't discriminated against when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms, like they are in Massachusetts. But as an incremental measure I would be very much in favor of a private charitable effort to subsidize the cost of firearms training and licensure for folks of all "races" who can't easily afford it within their own means.

If anything, it is _more_ important for minorities (who for a variety of reasons find themselves in poverty with greater frequency than do "whites") to be free to keep and bear arms, because they tend to live in neighborhoods where the chance of violent victimization by both private and public criminals is far greater.

up
Voting closed 0

I don't remember Uhub sneering at the anti-war and occupy protestors for their looney signs.

up
Voting closed 0

If you care to go back to those times, many commenters cracked on the Occupy protesters, myself included.

up
Voting closed 0

You believe (erroneously) that the Constitution gives you the absolute right to own implements of killing and mayhem like assault weapons.

Now please give us a legitimate reason why you need to own and use someting that can kill 27 people a second.

up
Voting closed 0

157 shots were fired at Sandy Hook, using 30-round clips and only stopped because the gun jammed. Had those clips been reduced to even 10 per-clip, only 57 shots would have been fired and he would have had to reload considerably more often making it more likely for the gun to jam earlier on and letting more people escape. Yes, those 57 shots could very well still kill 20+ people, but the chances are considerably lower and even one life saved is a victory for gun control.

up
Voting closed 0

then less people might have been killed. Now please explain how this is a legitimate justification to allow a person to own assault weapons (whose sole purpose is to inflict death) at all?

up
Voting closed 0

... because it's their pursuit of happiness?

I don't see a problem with gun ownership; I do have a problem with irresponsible gun owners (as in Adam Lanza's mom). Storage requirements and magazine/clip size regulations seem to be a sane regulatory scheme. Insurance requirements (a la automobile ownership) would be even better.

up
Voting closed 0

Um, I wasn't justifying ANYTHING. I was actually SUPPORTING your point. I'm 100% for the banning of assault weapons. I bleed blue (which is often evident on here). I was simply stating that one (more attainable) step along the way is for smaller clips.

Since the assault weapons ban right now is sadly DOA, liberals like myself need to push whatever other legislation that has a better chance of succeeding like background checks and smaller clips. Like I said, ANYTHING helps. One life saved is a success.

up
Voting closed 0

But if you couldn't save everyone, why bother at all!

The law obviously doesn't work in a black and white world.

up
Voting closed 0

The greater a number of rounds in a magazine/clip does increase the number of rounds a person has the ability to unload, this is true. What isn't taken into account is how fast a shooter can swap out these devices, nor does it taken into account how much easier it is to change these out when no one is fighting back.

This is the fastest I have ever seen anyone change out a magazine/clip in any firearm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI

up
Voting closed 0

Can you explain what a "clip" is? I have never heard of a part of a firearm that's called a "clip".

You may be referring to the magazine. It takes less than two seconds to swap out a magazine. Magazine size is completely unimportant when it comes to mass shootings. At Columbine, Eric Harris brought thirteen 10-round magazines and fired 96 bullets before killing himself. At Virginia Tech, Seung-hui Cho had nineteen 10- and 15-round magazines, and he fired about 170 shots before killing himself. Neither killer was deterred by magazine size limitations. These incidents demonstrated not only the futility of magazine size limitations, but also the amount of mass murder one could pull off in a "gun-free zone".

For people who claim that no one needs more than ten rounds in a magazine - consider that a) people who own property on the US-Mexico border may come into possibly violent contact with armed drug smugglers on their land who presumably don't follow magazine size limits and b) even within 10 feet, b) people only successfully shoot their target 38% of the time (I believe this even includes law enforcement), and c) three shots might not stop a violent attacker, particularly if they're drugged out. 80% of people shot by handguns survive, and some people can take quite a few bullets before either mentally stopping (due to pain or fear) or physically stopping (due to blood loss or disruption of the central nervous system).

And if you were to shoot someone without stopping them (that's the goal - to STOP, not to kill - if the attacker dies, that's his problem), then it's pretty likely that they're going to want to kill YOU in response with whatever tools they have at their disposal after you hear the "click" of an empty magazine.

up
Voting closed 0

And if you were to shoot someone without stopping them (that's the goal - to STOP, not to kill - if the attacker dies, that's his problem),

What part of "Never point a firearm at anything unless you intend to destroy it." did you not get?

then it's pretty likely that they're going to want to kill YOU in response with whatever tools they have at their disposal after you hear the "click" of an empty magazine.

Maybe you should have thought of that before you escalated the situation with a gun.

up
Voting closed 0

What the hell is this person made of? Is there a person in existence who can take 10 rounds, and still go at their attacker? I'm thinking if you send 10 rounds, and haven't knocked your target down, then you just might be missing said target. Which brings us all to another rule of firearms: KNOW WHAT'S BEYOND YOUR TARGET

Those rounds are going somewhere, and they may just be going into innocent people, or are possibly coming close to sleeping babies:
http://www.universalhub.com/2013/bullet-last-night...

up
Voting closed 0

For people who claim that no one needs more than ten rounds in a magazine - consider that a) people who own property on the US-Mexico border may come into possibly violent contact with armed drug smugglers on their land

So that's great for people who own property in southern Texas, Arizona, California, etc etc etc.

What's the excuse up in CT, NY, OH, VA...? Frequent assaults from armed Mexican drug runners there?

up
Voting closed 0

The historical reasoning behind the Second Amendment was that no government should have the monopoly on weapons, that citizens would and could not fall to a tyrannical government if they were armed equally to the government. This was to keep the balance of force, and therefore power, equal and therefore democratic, between the citizens and the government.

Theoretically, this is quite logical. You cannot use weapons to oppress citizens if they have the same weapons as you- this provides a check and balance against military force.

However, the Second Amendment was written when the strongest weapon the government had was black powder muskets and cannons. Now, the government has unmanned drones, satellite guided intercontinental ballistic missiles, nukes of all sorts, fighter jets, and biological or chemical agents of unspoken horrors.

The question, then, is to what point should a citizen be allowed to be armed "equally" to the government, when being armed equally to the government is practically impossible. Most people are comfortable with citizens being allowed to have a rifle, but they'd balk at everyone being handed a vial of ricin and a bar of uranium because, hey, that's what the government has.

up
Voting closed 0

Everyone seems to assume that since America raised up a rag tag army of farmers to kick out the British, the Second Amendment was created to ensure that would never happen again, or something.

Except that the right to bear arms was already established in other countries, and US needed a lot more help making sure their newly founded country, which had a ton of open borders and a few enemies, had a ready militia. Some sort of Democracy by gun was never an issue. If someone had wanted to confront the newly formed government, they could have without the protection of the second amendment (much the same way we did against the British).

up
Voting closed 0

you slept through history class.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/23/t...

tea party was about taxes too, right?

up
Voting closed 0

Per the founding fathers, the country was never supposed to have a standing army. Our nation held true to this until the mid-20th century, and the result of divergence from our constitution and principles has been disastrous.

The well-regulated militia had to keep and bear its arms so it could serve the function of army when army was needed.

If we want to restore the 2nd amendment to its original purpose, the first thing we must do is dismantle the entire military-industrial complex and disband the army.

up
Voting closed 0

That can also be a bus, a plane, a train, and many other types of devices. Just because someone wants to fire off insane amounts of rounds doesn't mean they want to kill someone.

up
Voting closed 0

You bring up...

A bus, a plane, a train, or many other type of devices

...like, for instance, kitchen knife, or a baseball bat, or a wrench, whose primary purpose is to provide a service (like "transportation," or "cooking") and if they are indeed used to harm another it's because of an accident or because of malicious tampering of the above purpose.

What's the primary purpose of a firearm, again?

up
Voting closed 0

What's the primary purpose of a firearm, again?

To protect your second amendment rights from the government, of course!

It's a vicious cycle...

...literally.

up
Voting closed 0

And bats? Baseball bats? You just picked two of the most violent devices ever thought of. Do you honestly think the first knife maker thought about whittling wood? And you do also truly believe the first baseball bat ever, which most likely started out as a club, was used to hit a little white ball?

According to the International Olympic Committee, the primary purpose is to get the best score:
http://www.olympic.org/shooting

Another primary purpose of firearms is in starting racing events:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starter_pistol
Don't even get me started on the canon (just a really big gun), which is used to start the New York City Marathon every year.

Let's not forget those times when people have been stranded, and reached for the flare gun. Who's primary purpose was to save their asses at that point in time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flare_gun
Of course, you would never pick that up right? I mean after all it's a gun, meant to kill, maim, and make one suffer.

Planes, they've been used as weapons. So have buses, cars and many other modes of transportation.

I'd like to continue this conversation. Although it's not too clear to me if those horse blinders you're wearing come off.

up
Voting closed 0

To begin with, calm down. There wasn't any personal attack in the post you're responding to, but you're radiating so much anger you're setting your strawmen on fire.

I picked kitchen knives and bats precisely because they've been used as weapons, but they're not weapons in and of themselves. While the most ancient origins of the blade do indicate its use as a weapon, either in hunting on with intent to harm another, its use as a tool is almost as ancient and there is now a very clear distinction between all the types of knives --hunting, whittling, butchering, or, yes, switchblades and combat knives. Basically, it's the same scenario as with your comparison with flare guns: a flare gun's primary purpose is as an emergency tool, but it can and has been used to harm another person.

Bats, now, that's a different story. Their very inception was as a sporting implement. Does it double as a club? Yes. But so can any blunt object that can be grasped with one's hands, so directly tracing its origin to clubs is disingenuous. A table leg or a pool cue can be used as clubs but weren't conceived as such. When the inventor of the baseball bat first thought it up, he or she probably wasn't thinking of how it could be used to hurt another person. THAT is what "primary purpose" is.

As for your argument regarding secondary uses of firearms, from Olympic sports to cannons, that's because civilization has found value in proving skill at martial exercises (like shooting, or judo, or tae kwon do, or wrestling) which first started as a means to hurt other people. It allows for competition to exist in a non-harmful manner, removing the violence that was implicit in the origin, or primary purpose of these activities. The use of cannons in music, or guns in racing, also attempts to elevate these weapons beyond their primary purpose as implements of violence --like it first happened with knives when people stopped using them for stabbing each other and started cutting food or fabric with them.

I would like to continue the conversation, if your responses are more measured and less personal.

up
Voting closed 0

No, we believe that the Constitution's 2nd Amendment recognizes a natural human right, not that it "gives us" that right.

up
Voting closed 0

I'd suggest the answer to really understanding and trying to prevent violent crime is to study the demographics of who is disproportionately represented as committing violent crime.

Males [obviously, it's the testosterone thing]

YOUNG males [again, obviously]

The mass shooting [which register as a blip on the violent crime radar screen in the USA, they aren't typical, they're atypical] seem to be committed by young white/Asian males, socially isolated, mentally ill, often on powerful psychotropic drugs, some untreated for their mental illness. Some have simply personality disorders not a real mental illness. I'd suggest we as a society overhaul or mental health system, and by that I don't necessarily mean dump more $ into it. There are obviously problems with reaching people, and with our legal system in regards to treating seriously and potentially dangerous mentally ill people. We as a society also seem to have a problem with alienation and a disconnectedness with community, family, etc. among a sizable number of people. These people also are statistically at risk for lashing out in rage.

Regarding our run of the mill violent crime, especially gun related violent crimes and homicides, the bulk are by and large an urban phenomena, often connected to illegal drug trafficking and gangs. But in some neighborhoods a lot of it is also just purely random, violent street crime of opportunity. In Boston and other U.S. cities, these are by far the typical violent street crimes, gun related crimes, and homicides, by a wide margin. And these in turn, are responsible for the bulk of our violent crime, gun related crime, and even murders, in America. The perps are usually young minority males, disproportionately black. They generally come from broken and/or single parent [mom] homes, grew up in the 'system' [public housing, welfare, social services, etc.]

What I wrote above is known by responsible public officials. They do little to proactively combat it, partially because this would involve laws regarding civil liberties. I personally don't know what the answer is. Our American society [people of all political ideologies] seem content with the now 40 plus years of our modern era violent crime problem. No one seems to want to make the hard choices. So I imagine the status quo will simply continue.

=========================

The United States is a geographically huge country, with many rural and semi rural areas. People in these areas use firearms, even need them. This should not be surprising to urban/suburban citizens. As for urban and suburban areas, some people want a firearm for protection, I suppose the same way politicians, business people, well known entertainers, athletes, persons, generally have armed bodyguards and/or have firearm license themselves. And finally, there's this thing called the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution that allows private citizen firearm ownership.

I believe we need some more firearm restrictions, some multi-shot rifles, clips, types of ammo, should be banned, at the federal level. And I believe to set up a system to prevent or try to prevent mentally ill and other obviously potentially dangerous people from legally obtaining firearms.

All this is fine to talk about, but the reality is where there's a will, there's a way. The ability to obtain ILLEGAL firearms is fairly easy, ask most criminals who use them. So in essence, for the vast bulk of violent crime, armed robberies, homicides, gang activity, etc., will be relatively untouched by gun restrictions or outright bans. These things mostly affect law abiding firearm owners, naturally.

up
Voting closed 0

White people...

up
Voting closed 0

I absolutely HATE the "if even one life is saved, the law is worth it" argument. Gun control advocates that use this argument are ridiculous because you can literally apply that line of reasoning to banning ANYTHING.

For example, according to the CDC, from 2005-2009, there were an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day and 19 percent of drowning deaths involving children
occur in public pools with certified lifeguards present. Swimming pools are death traps (even with lifeguards present!) and, like guns, serve no real "purpose" other than the enjoyment of those using them. Under the premise of "even one life can be saved," swimming pools should also be banned. But banning swimming pools won't stop accidental drownings (in lakes, ponds, oceans, bathtubs, etc.) just like banning guns won't stop violent crime (with illegal guns or other weapons).

Laws that curb individual freedoms should be made when they serve a legitimate and rational purpose. Sorry to say that "saving a single life" is an irrational purpose when such logic can be used to ban swimming pools... and cigarettes, candy, golf clubs, fireworks, and a million other things people use for enjoyment with no other "purpose."

up
Voting closed 0

or at least that Strawman over there. Or maybe some DFH in the corner.

You think Obamas going to take away all three million guns? Lock people in FEMA camps? Turn government over to the hippie commune?

You are arguing that "seatbelts don't save every life, so why bother force cars to have them"? Seems a bit preposterous and disingenuous to me.

up
Voting closed 0

You mean 300 million guns.

up
Voting closed 0

If you don't have to pass a check or register the thirty or forty guns you buy at a trade show ...

You don't have to explain who you sold them to, either.

The gun manufacturers are using ... REPEAT USING people like these to front their illegal arms market sales through second parties.

Joe Gun Buyer buys them up, and then sells them at a profit to Mexico, to gang bangers, to paramilitaries, to whomever and nobody gets to ask any questions? That ain't got jack shit to do with the second amendment. It has to do with the transfer of large numbers of weapons to people who would not be able to buy them directly in bulk from manufacturers. Yep - weapons exports and resales.

Start asking questions? HOW DARE YOU YOU COMMUNIST I GETTA OWN ANY GUN I WANT AND AS MANY AS I WANT BLAH BLAH BLAH BLHABLAHGHGA.

MEANWHILE ... the death machine keeps churning them out and quietly selling them to all sorts of nasty shitheads in the US and elsewhere via "second amendment rights" purchasers.

Follow the money and you can see for yourself.

up
Voting closed 0

For better or worse, the Supreme Court has affirmed that the 2nd Amendment refers to an individual right to bear arms. The right to own a gun is a civil liberty just like the 1st Amendment right to free speech is a civil liberty. In some states, the State ACLU has allied with the NRA to protect 2nd Amendment rights.

up
Voting closed 0

like the first amendment, it is far from absolute.

. “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” Justice Antonin Scalia, explained. In a sentence the NRA and many gun-rights extremists apparently missed, Scalia wrote that the Second Amendment is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Let’s say that again: Justice Scalia, hero of the most intransigent conservatives in the country, stated unequivocally that restrictions of Second Amendment rights are constitutional.

Indeed, Scalia’s opinion in Heller warned that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt” on a wide range of gun laws, including bars on felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns, restrictions on guns in “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” or laws “imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” These categories capture the vast majority of gun laws in America.

In short, there’s plenty of room under the Second Amendment for gun control.

up
Voting closed 0

Shall not be infringed!

up
Voting closed 0

Connecticut citizens votes to protect its citizens. Great news!
from the Boston Globe:

Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, center, signs legislation at the Capitol in Hartford, Conn., Thursday, April 4, 2013, that includes new restrictions on weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines, a response to last year's deadly school shooting in Newtown.

up
Voting closed 0