question about "the left wing"

[Shantel]

So what happened? The weapons where there! The same problems people had where there! What changed that people felt it was OK to gun down your coworkers, fellow students, teachers, police officers because you where upset?

One person mentioned the huge influence of brain altering psychotropic drug use in this country for antidepressants and behavioral modifiers. Another was the suggestive influence of an onslaught of violent films and video games which may be anesthetizing the moral compass in some thus making the act of shooting someone a breeze. Then there are permissive parents who don't pay attention to what their kids are doing as in the case of the psychologist parents of the two Columbine perpetrators. Finally there are those who refuse to exercise common sense and lock away firearms when there are kids living at home. The mother of the Sandy Hook shooter knew that her child was mentally impaired but bought him guns and ammunition in spite of it. So we can assume that the answer to that is moral and societal decay coupled with parental failure is a big part of the problem. The implements themselves are inanimate objects and have little to do with the root of the problem.

[MadeleineG]

The NRA has done more to promote responsible gun ownership than any other body on the planet. Yet you dislike them. Regarding liberals seizing gun rights:

I'm going to call this statement out as precisely the problem with this debate. The suggestion that rights are something that can be "seized" implies that they are essential, inherent, and immutable. But they aren't.

Rights are a social conventions determined through discourse and realized through legislation and it's implementation. They are not "god given" and they aren't not fixed! Rights are and should always be open for negotiation and discourse.

Society dies when rights stop evolving.

[Jill F]

I'm going to call this statement out as precisely the problem with this debate. The suggestion that rights are something that can be "seized" implies that they are essential, inherent, and immutable. But they aren't.

Rights are a social conventions determined through discourse and realized through legislation and it's implementation. They are not "god given" and they aren't not fixed! Rights are and should always be open for negotiation and discourse.

Society dies when rights stop evolving.

Well spoken.

[Shantel]

I'm going to call this statement out as precisely the problem with this debate. The suggestion that rights are something that can be "seized" implies that they are essential, inherent, and immutable. But they aren't.

Rights are a social conventions determined through discourse and realized through legislation and it's implementation. They are not "god given" and they aren't not fixed! Rights are and should always be open for negotiation and discourse.

Society dies when rights stop evolving.

I'm sorry but that's not true according to those who wrote the Declaration of Independence and those who framed the US Constitution later, what you are espousing are the views of the leftists who insist that these documents are not set in stone and refer to them as "Living Documents" that change and morph with the times so that eventually the entire system can be deconstructed and that is what we are in diametric opposition to.

[Jill F]

I'm sorry but that's not true according to those who wrote the Declaration of Independence and those who framed the US Constitution later, what you are espousing are the views of the leftists who insist that these documents are not set in stone and refer to them as "Living Documents" that change and morph with the times so that eventually the entire system can be deconstructed and that is what we are in diametric opposition to.

So if you're not a "leftist", you must believe we should still be playing by the same rules that were established in the late 1700's!?

Women shouldn't own property, slavery is still cool, and only property owners should be able to cast a vote?  No effing way.

And I'm hardly a "leftist". 

[Shantel]

So if you're not a "leftist", you must believe we should still be playing by the same rules that were established in the late 1700's!?

Women shouldn't own property, slavery is still cool, and only property owners should be able to cast a vote?  No effing way.

And I'm hardly a "leftist".

I think those things have already been addressed by amendments underwritten by a majority, that will not be the case with the 2nd amendment.

[Jill F]

I think those things have already been addressed by amendments underwritten by a majority, that will not be the case with the 2nd amendment.

OMG, it IS a "living document"!   

So here's what's up with where I stand on the second amendment- I think I should be able to arm myself.  I would like that option and not have to worry about having my weapon(s) seized.  I would also not want to be denied that freedom because I saw a psychiatrist for antidepressants and HRT once upon a time.  I WAS also once an NRA member...

That being said, the second amendment was written so long ago, that the context in which it was conceived no longer applies.  The country and world have evolved and progressed, yet the second amendment remains the same.  I think it made perfect sense at the time to have your single-shot musket and your local ad-hoc militia ready to go in case the army wasn't around to defend you and your families.

Now it is vague at best.  So what arms exactly do I have the right to bear?  It seems that as worded, I can have all the automatic weapons, grenade launchers, surface-to-air missiles and suitcase nukes I want.  Sound reasonable?  And best of all, as long as my militia is well-regulated I can still have one without issue. 

Why is it that one person's "freedom fighter" is another one's "terrorist"?

/rant

[Shantel]

OMG, it IS a "living document"!   

So here's what's up with where I stand on the second amendment- I think I should be able to arm myself.  I would like that option and not have to worry about having my weapon(s) seized.  I would also not want to be denied that freedom because I saw a psychiatrist for antidepressants and HRT once upon a time.  I WAS also once an NRA member...

That being said, the second amendment was written so long ago, that the context in which it was conceived no longer applies.  The country and world have evolved and progressed, yet the second amendment remains the same.  I think it made perfect sense at the time to have your single-shot musket and your local ad-hoc militia ready to go in case the army wasn't around to defend you and your families.

Now it is vague at best.  So what arms exactly do I have the right to bear?  It seems that as worded, I can have all the automatic weapons, grenade launchers, surface-to-air missiles and suitcase nukes I want.  Sound reasonable?  And best of all, as long as my militia is well-regulated I can still have one without issue. 

Why is it that one person's "freedom fighter" is another one's "terrorist"?

/rant

There is some common sense involved with freedom which is not license. Freedom brings with it responsibilities but there are those who take license with those freedoms therefore we have thousands of laws on the books already intended to enforce controls over gun violence, illegal ownership and criminal activity using guns. The only problem is that the government refuses to do just that thus abrogating their responsibility to uphold the law and blame those law abiding citizens for the government's failures.

[Jamie D]

I'm going to call this statement out as precisely the problem with this debate. The suggestion that rights are something that can be "seized" implies that they are essential, inherent, and immutable. But they aren't.

Rights are a social conventions determined through discourse and realized through legislation and it's implementation. They are not "god given" and they aren't not fixed! Rights are and should always be open for negotiation and discourse.

Society dies when rights stop evolving.

Well, during the Age of Enlightenment, later during the American Revolution, and after the Second World War, the nations of world declared that there were rights to which every human was entitled, as a consequence of their humanity.  The document the nations of the world created was called the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

In the 1700's, Locke, de Vattel, and others formulated the rational basis for the principles of Natural Law.  Natural law exists in the vacuum of positive law.  Jefferson, et al, explained in the Declaration of Independence that there existed "unalienable rights" that no just government would ever abuse.

Human rights are inviolable.  Civil rights, on the the other hand, are subject to the whim of legislation and whatever political majority can be mustered.

So if you're not a "leftist", you must believe we should still be playing by the same rules that were established in the late 1700's!?

Women shouldn't own property, slavery is still cool, and only property owners should be able to cast a vote?  No effing way.

And I'm hardly a "leftist".

The Framers of the Constitution provided multiple ways to for the fundamental law of the land to be revised.  So the intent was not to lock the document in 18th century mores, but rather to allow for growth, provided a supermajority supported the changes.  The principles of the Declaration and the Constitution were considered to be "enduring."

In fact, during the Revolutionary period, women owned property, had the right to vote in some states, and slavery was frowned upon. Civil rights have been expanded during the subsequent 226 years.  That, I agree, is a good thing.  It harkens back to the original intent of the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation (the first constitution of the United States), and the Constitution of 1787.

Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia explains, "The Constitution does not change in its meaning.  What it approved back in 1789, or 1791 if talking about the Bill of Rights, it approves of now. What it forbad then, it forbids now."  Thus, the concept of a "living document," open to temporal interpretation, is nothing less that an invitation for anarchy.  When the Framers of the Constitution, and the authors of the Bill of Rights, and those who ratified these documents and subsequent amendments, protected certain rights, they meant to do so in perpetuity, or until a supermajority re-defined those rights.

[JaneNicole2013]

Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia explains, "The Constitution does not change in its meaning.  What it approved back in 1789, or 1791 if talking about the Bill of Rights, it approves of now. What it forbad then, it forbids now."  Thus, the concept of a "living document," open to temporal interpretation, is nothing less that an invitation for anarchy.  When the Framers of the Constitution, and the authors of the Bill of Rights, and those who ratified these documents and subsequent amendments, protected certain rights, they meant to do so in perpetuity, or until a supermajority re-defined those rights.

I beg to differ. I believe the Founding Fathers WANTED us to change and alter the meaning of the Constitution to suit the times.

"...the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it." -- John Adams

Edmund Randolph, who helped write the Constitution, wrote that the framers should, "...insert essential principles only; lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accommodated to times and events."

Thomas Jefferson echoed this sentiment when he said, "... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times."

Also, when speaking of the president, the Constitution uses only masculine pronouns. A strict Constitutionalist would then have to conclude that only men can be president. Since they could not fathom a woman being president, does that mean we need a Constitutional amendment to allow it? Not at all.

The Constitution is a social contract between US and the government--it is NOT a social contract between the Founding Fathers and the government. WE THE PEOPLE have the right  to implement the Constitution as we see fit--and it doesn't always require a Constitutional Amendment.

Oh, and for future reference, if you're trying to convince liberals of your side in a constitutional argument, you may not want to quote Scalia. He doesn't carry much weight among liberals.

Just when I thought I was out, they suck me back in. LOL.

Jane

[amZo]

The Constitution is a social contract between US and the government--it is NOT a social contract between the Founding Fathers and the government. WE THE PEOPLE have the right  to implement the Constitution as we see fit--and it doesn't always require a Constitutional Amendment.

There's no doubt about that. The constitution is just a document and can be rendered irrelevant at any given moment with no amendment whatsoever. It only has meaning as long as a majority of the people says it does and has the courage to uphold and enforce it. I get the sense most people don't understand this.

I also believe the day we throw out our constitution, it'll be the deadliest day of our history and freedom as we know it will be lost for centuries. Don't scoff, who stops China, Russia, Iran, N. Korea, et. al., if the U.S. falls? Britain? France? Surely not Switzerland. 

Oh, and for future reference, if you're trying to convince liberals of your side in a constitutional argument, you may not want to quote Scalia. He doesn't carry much weight among liberals.

Sounds kind of closed minded. Keep an open mind and the source will be less relevant.

[MadeleineG]

Well, during the Age of Enlightenment, later during the American Revolution, and after the Second World War, the nations of world declared that there were rights to which every human was entitled, as a consequence of their humanity.  The document the nations of the world created was called the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

In the 1700's, Locke, de Vattel, and others formulated the rational basis for the principles of Natural Law.  Natural law exists in the vacuum of positive law.  Jefferson, et al, explained in the Declaration of Independence that there existed "unalienable rights" that no just government would ever abuse.

Human rights are inviolable.  Civil rights, on the the other hand, are subject to the whim of legislation and whatever political majority can be mustered.

Yes, I'm familiar with the Lockean and Jeffersonian concept of rights. I'm also familiar with a broad consensus in contemporary rights scholarship that the notion is an anachronism (albeit one with nostalgic rhetorical value). The ubiquitous position in contemporary scholarship is that "rights are reasons." Most of the rights in UDHR are (at least for the foreseeable future) almost immune to argument (due process), while others (mostly 2nd generation rights) are the subject of ongoing discourse (dare I mention the "right to vacations with pay"?).

My personal view is that civil rights (including constitutional rights) are the legislative mechanisms that realize human rights, which are reasoned consensus claims.

[JaneNicole2013]

There's no doubt about that. The constitution is just a document and can be rendered irrelevant at any given moment with no amendment whatsoever. It only has meaning as long as a majority of the people says it does and has the courage to uphold and enforce it. I get the sense most people don't understand this.

I also believe the day we throw out our constitution, it'll be the deadliest day of our history and freedom as we know it will be lost for centuries. Don't scoff, who stops China, Russia, Iran, N. Korea, et. al., if the U.S. falls? Britain? France? Surely not Switzerland. 

Sounds kind of closed minded. Keep an open mind and the source will be less relevant.

1) No one is talking about throwing out the Constitution. Liberals love and cherish that document as much as conservatives do. The points we are arguing are as old as society itself.

2) I am not closed minded, but Scalia is "way out there" in my book and in the book of many others. I'm sure you'd feel the same way if I quoted Ginsburg or Krugman. Now, if you were to quote Judge Roberts instead, I'd listen.

[Hikari]

I was hearing the story yesterday of the 5 year old girl in Omaha who was killed while eating breakfast because a couple of guys several blocks away decided it would be cool to shoot off a bunch of shots. One stray bullet in the wrong place can end someones life, just like one wrong turn can end someones life. I am still not really buying how I need a license to drive a car (not to mention additional licenses for vehicles over 26Klbs, and another for trailers over 10klbs, and special endorsements for airbrakes, hazmat, etc) but I just walked right into the gun store and with just a short call to the state police walked out of the store with a handgun, no safety class, no license, no registration, just say you aren't crazy on a form and have the cops prove you aren't a felon.

I am all in favor of freedom, but more and more I wonder if we as a culture are even close to responsible enough to exercise freedom when it comes to firearms (or for that matter cars, seems way too easy to get a license for one of those too!). To me it just isn't regulated enough, heck the government mandates how much sleep I am required to get, randomly drug tests me, and requires a certificate of health just to let me operate things not designed to kill anyone; seems like if it wasn't for the questionable but popular interpretation of the second amendment we could get real regulation on firearms, like we have on just about everything else.

That isn't at all saying we need to ban anything, I don't understand that mentality at all, we regulate cars, plenty of them out there. There is tons of government and industry regulation inside of each and every phone, but the FCC hasn't banned phones yet. This is not about banning anything, I don't get why groups like the NRA seem to ignore that.

[Shantel]

I was hearing the story yesterday of the 5 year old girl in Omaha who was killed while eating breakfast because a couple of guys several blocks away decided it would be cool to shoot off a bunch of shots. One stray bullet in the wrong place can end someones life, just like one wrong turn can end someones life. I am still not really buying how I need a license to drive a car (not to mention additional licenses for vehicles over 26Klbs, and another for trailers over 10klbs, and special endorsements for airbrakes, hazmat, etc) but I just walked right into the gun store and with just a short call to the state police walked out of the store with a handgun, no safety class, no license, no registration, just say you aren't crazy on a form and have the cops prove you aren't a felon.

I am all in favor of freedom, but more and more I wonder if we as a culture are even close to responsible enough to exercise freedom when it comes to firearms (or for that matter cars, seems way too easy to get a license for one of those too!). To me it just isn't regulated enough, heck the government mandates how much sleep I am required to get, randomly drug tests me, and requires a certificate of health just to let me operate things not designed to kill anyone; seems like if it wasn't for the questionable but popular interpretation of the second amendment we could get real regulation on firearms, like we have on just about everything else.

That isn't at all saying we need to ban anything, I don't understand that mentality at all, we regulate cars, plenty of them out there. There is tons of government and industry regulation inside of each and every phone, but the FCC hasn't banned phones yet. This is not about banning anything, I don't get why groups like the NRA seem to ignore that.

You present a valid middle of the road argument Hikari I think we are dealing with extremes on both ends and because of that NRA feels that if you give an inch the other extreme will take a mile. It's as much a knee jerk thing as those who would seek an outright ban and seek to rescind the 2nd amendment completely.

[kariann330]

If i may suggest an angle here,

If Diane Feinstine got her way and completely confiscated every firearm in the county....what some of you view as "utopia" I have to ask what do you think will happen to the rest of the amendments? What about all of the freedoms we enjoy as Americans?

Simple answer if one falls, the rest will fall too....Hitler already proved this true when he also confiscated every firearm.

[JaneNicole2013]

If i may suggest an angle here,

If Diane Feinstine got her way and completely confiscated every firearm in the county....what some of you view as "utopia" I have to ask what do you think will happen to the rest of the amendments? What about all of the freedoms we enjoy as Americans?

Simple answer if one falls, the rest will fall too....Hitler already proved this true when he also confiscated every firearm.

Yeah, this is where I check out of this discussion. Diane Feinstein does not want to "confiscated every firearm in the county." She even admitted to owning a gun in the past to protect her family.

And did you really play the "Hitler" card? That's just wrong.

Let me answer your original question: Why does it seem like most liberals hate guns (or something to that effect)?

Answer: It seems like most liberals hate guns because groups like the NRA and other right-wing groups want to consolidate their base and protect their interests by artificially creating an evil enemy: liberals who want to come take your guns and trample the Constitution. IT JUST IS NOT TRUE!

[TerriT]

I'm going to call this statement out as precisely the problem with this debate. The suggestion that rights are something that can be "seized" implies that they are essential, inherent, and immutable. But they aren't.

Rights are a social conventions determined through discourse and realized through legislation and it's implementation. They are not "god given" and they aren't not fixed! Rights are and should always be open for negotiation and discourse.

Society dies when rights stop evolving.

My rights are endowed to me by my creator and no person or group of persons can deny me of them. This is not open for negotiation. End of conversation.

[Jamie D]

Yes, I'm familiar with the Lockean and Jeffersonian concept of rights. I'm also familiar with a broad consensus in contemporary rights scholarship that the notion is an anachronism (albeit one with nostalgic rhetorical value). The ubiquitous position in contemporary scholarship is that "rights are reasons." Most of the rights in UDHR are (at least for the foreseeable future) almost immune to argument (due process), while others (mostly 2nd generation rights) are the subject of ongoing discourse (dare I mention the "right to vacations with pay"?).

My personal view is that civil rights (including constitutional rights) are the legislative mechanisms that realize human rights, which are reasoned consensus claims.

We must remember a couple of important points in American history concerning the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution of 1787.  Though there were some people involved in the framing of both documents, they were a half-generation and a war removed from one another.  Experience played a greater role in the Constitution.

The American Declaration proposed a new paradigm - one in which governmental powers are derived from the governed.  And the concept of natural rights were fundamental to its founding.  And they remain the underpinning of the American judicial system; far from anachronistic.

In the Virginia Declaration of Rights (May-June 1776), the formulation stated: "...all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights.... [these include] the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursing and obtaining happiness and safety."  Furthermore, they retained "... certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity."  It was quite clear these rights were not considered transitory, and the Declaration of Rights is still part of the Virginia Constitution.

During the ratification debates for the proposed Constitution of 1787, the Federalists argued that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary, because the Federal Government had no power to impinge on Natural Rights.  As it happened, the First Congress drafted a Bill of Rights to ensure some of these concepts remained inviolable.  The Second Amendment sprang from the inalienable right of self-defense, providing a means to do so.

1) No one is talking about throwing out the Constitution. Liberals love and cherish that document as much as conservatives do. The points we are arguing are as old as society itself.

2) I am not closed minded, but Scalia is "way out there" in my book and in the book of many others. I'm sure you'd feel the same way if I quoted Ginsburg or Krugman. Now, if you were to quote Judge Roberts instead, I'd listen.

Scalia is an "originalist."  He believes that the words in the Constitution and its Amendments had a contemporary meaning when ratified, and that meaning remains in effect until repealed or modified.  He looks at the original intent.  Thus, when one varies from the originalist interpretation, one is, in effect, changing the law.  That is how you throw out a constitution without changing it.

Scalia has reminded his colleagues that when the Framers of the Bill of Rights wrote, "Congress shall pass no law ..." they meant NO LAW!

Krugman?  The economist?

[Hikari]

My rights are endowed to me by my creator and no person or group of persons can deny me of them. This is not open for negotiation. End of conversation.

So, the "Rights" people have in other countries vary because of what then? You can feel you have rights given to you by some divine force, but the rights that the government talks about are very much things it made, codified in law, and subject to restrictions. Also, if you think no person can deny you of your rights, take a vacation to Saudi Arabia, and see if they got that memo from god on that, because I am pretty sure they view rights there differently than it is viewed here.

The rights that a government defines, have nothing to do with the rights a religion defines, there may be overlap, but they are not one in the same at all.