General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGun Control? We Need Domestic Disarmament (Huffington Post)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-etzioni/gun-control-we-need-domes_b_2718536.htmlNowhere is the defeatist liberal approach to American politics more evident than in the post-Newtown campaign for gun control. Liberals are rushing to repeat, like a devout incantation, hand on one's heart, that "we believe in the Second Amendment" -- in an "individual's right to own a gun." Half of the legal and moral battle is lost right there and then. Instead, liberals should emphasize that throughout the total American legal history until 2008, the Supreme Court -- which at times has been very conservative -- has always held that the right to own guns belongs not to the individual but, as the Second Amendment states, to a "well regulated militia." (For details on the cases involved, go here). That the right to own guns is a communitarian right, not an individualized one. True, the Roberts Court recently ruled otherwise, but liberals are still free to urge the court to reconsider this ruling and fashion arguments that will make it easier for the Court to fall back in line with all who preceded it. It would also help to recall that other civilized societies hold that the fewer guns there are out there, the fewer people will be murdered by guns.
...
As someone who fired guns for over two years in combat, I hate to tell you that the conservatives are right when they argue that banning big magazines and assault rifles -- the current "liberal" opening gambits -- will make very little difference. It takes only a second or so to replace an empty magazine with a loaded one, and there are so many assault rifles out there that it would take at least a generation (assuming no new ones were sold nor imported nor smuggled in nor stolen from military bases) before these guns would become significantly less available than they are at present.
...
A true liberal position, the place to start, is to call for domestic disarmament. That is the banning of the sale of all guns to private parties coupled with a buyback of those on the street (Mexico just moved to so control guns). Collectors can keep their guns as long as they remove the firing pin or fill the barrel with cement. Gun sports can be allowed -- in closed shooting ranges. And hunters can be allowed to have long guns (if they pass background checks) with no scopes, which are not sporting. But, these exceptions aside, liberals should call for a gun-free nation and point out the much lower murder rates and fewer deaths due to accidental discharge of fire arms found in those civilized nations where most guns have been removed from private hands -- and often even from those of the police.
(excerpt, full article at link)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)I'm going to stick with that and say good day, sir.
RC
(25,592 posts)
As apposed to this:
roxy1234
(117 posts)You know what else they did not include, the right to eat, take a dump etc etc. They might that thought that those things were commonsense ideas that they didnt have to explicitly write it down as an amendment. But the line from the declaration of independence should at least reassure you that they were not all women killers like you imagine em to be.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness
It is also very telling how your are only concerned about protection of women and children because we all know men dont need any of that.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Saying that women's rights are implied in the Constitution, in fact, may be the fucking stupidest thing anyone has EVER said. Commonsense ideas my ass. The fact that women couldn't vote until the 1920s, that women were considered property, and that men could rape their wives at will should tell you something about "women's rights" in colonial times. My god. Can you really be that dumb?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 25, 2013, 01:10 PM - Edit history (1)
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Please try not to ignore the other two clauses, or the history that gave rise to it. Trust me, Jefferson and Madisson, polar opposites in many ways, would be rather confused by the Heller decision. (The heart of the argument of the OP)
malaise
(295,761 posts)
Taverner
(55,476 posts)There is a second part ya know
mattclearing
(10,109 posts)
Brainstormy
(2,539 posts)someone has stated MY position. Every time I hear someone with a puny proposal mumble, "but of course we don't want to take your guns away," I think, I do. I do! I would love to live in a gun free nation.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Fill barrels with cement, eliminate scopes, turn in or sell all guns?
These thing will never happen here.
Nor should they ever happen here.
We should just put all our faith in the National Guard, State Police, and the US Army?
Nope, I don't think so.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)There is no public support for it. At any given time, even now after the shootings at Newton and Aurora, two thirds to three quarters of the American public support the right of Americans to own guns.
You have to accomplish what can be done, which is gun control. Trying for drastic, dramatic, undoable measures like getting rid of all guns in private hands only alienates a lot of people, and makes it much harder to achieve the doable.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Typical authoritarian.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Weird. The latest plank I can find for the Democratic party is
We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms.
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/democratic_party_gun_control.htm
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Yes they are extreme.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... and a gun owner.
Same here.
There is no way - under no conditions - that I would voluntarily surrender any of my firearms.
I cannot understand this hysteria. The problem is certain people coupled with certain societal sicknesses.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)It's not like the 2008 decision tore down roadblocks to buying guns for the general public.
And I don't know of any other "communitarian rights". I've heard this argument before and still don't understand it!
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)An armed police force or army was a given.
The author argues for "communitarian rights" but doesn't seem to be interested in describing what that would look like.
Would he accept a non-governmental militia, like a well-regulated "shooting club", with a well-regulated arsenal?
I doubt it.
dairydog91
(951 posts)What if a very rural, very red state like Idaho declares that all citizens over the age of 18 are members of the Idaho People's Militia, with a narrow exception for people who have shown themselves unfit for militia service (History of violent behavior or such)? Furthermore, what if Idaho declares that such members of the Idaho People's Militia may purchase and keep at home arms appropriate for frontline military service, including machineguns and rocket launchers?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Their arguments fail.
Proponents of an outright gun ban and confiscation, like the other and some DU members, want us to believe that these are different times, that we don't need the Second Amendment, and that we can trust the police and the army for all our needs, forever and ever!
I call that crazy talk right there.
dairydog91
(951 posts)Realistically, I imagine the only thing that could get through the Amendment process would be an Amendment which prohibits most Federal-level gun laws while leaving states broad latitude to regulate (Federal gov. probably limited to banning interstate transfers of weapons into states which have laws against them).
I agree with the proposed "ends" of the "state's rights" or "collective rights" argument, namely that states should have broad authority to choose their own gun laws. I think that reading the existing Second to allow for broad gun control or gun prohibition requires one to resort to interpretive methods which are of dubious credibility and which are potentially destructive to other Constitutional rights; For example, reading a right "of the people" to only protect a right of the states or of a select group of people who are members of state-controlled entities. The other Constitutional rights belonging to "the people" protect all Americans, not just specific subgroups of Americans chosen by the state or Federal governments.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)A rocket launcher is nothing more than an empty tube with a battery, a switch, and some wire. If your rocket is big enough you can make a rocket launcher from a piece of rope and a couple of trees. It is the rocket that is tightly controlled.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)I can point to Etzioni's opinion piece.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But you knew that.
Regardless, the sacred texts do have the concept of change in them, and they were not given by god to man at mt. Sinai. I know this s shocking, but the originalist position, (Jefferson) is for these documents to...I know shocking, evolve and change with the times. He, in fact, believed a new Constitution was needed every generation.
Not this generation, but as the US becomes an increasingly urban culture I can see a serious change in the Second...countries do evolve.
I at times think a historian who once said democracy came too early to the US might have a modicum of a point. In some ways whole swaths of the population are still stuck in the 17 century...why things like national health care and a safety net are seen as "un american."
Yes, even the view of the second is changing...and a few, more than a few, are looking at the Second and actually taking a more we look at it, instead of I, which Heller did not get rid off either. It still gives the state the right to regulate and an AWB is not against that ruling either.
Nor does it mean anybody is coming to take away my guns.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)...Who or what were the framers of our government, that they should dare confirm and authorise such high-handed villany—such flagrant robbery of the inalienable rights of man—such a glaring violation of all the precepts and injunctions of the gospel—such a savage war upon a sixth part of our whole population?—They were men, like ourselves—as fallible, as sinful, as weak, as ourselves.
By the infamous bargain which they made between themselves, they virtually dethroned the Most High God, and trampled beneath their feet their own solemn and heaven-attested Declaration, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights—among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They had no lawful power to bind themselves, or their posterity, for one hour—for one moment—by such an unholy alliance. It was not valid then—it is not valid now. Still they persisted in maintaining it—and still do their successors, the people of Massachusetts, of New-England, and of the twelve free States, persist in maintaining it. A sacred compact! A sacred compact! What, then, is wicked and ignominious?
William Lloyd Garrison
http://fair-use.org/the-liberator/1832/12/29/on-the-constitution-and-the-union
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)system.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)not his disarmament at a cost of empowering the state and its own lethal machinery over the individual.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)
EastKYLiberal
(429 posts)And it will feel good to take things from them.
Most importantly, though, it will save a lot of lives.
hack89
(39,181 posts)That is a right wing attitude that has no place here.
dairydog91
(951 posts)Wog is from the Red Tribe. Red Tribe bad. Therefore, Wog bad. Therefore, it is good to take stuff from Wog.
Lurker Dave
(7 posts)"At the very least, because gun nuts are annoying...
And it will feel good to take things from them."
...that this sentiment is what's really at the heart of the gun control movement.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)OceanEcosystem
(275 posts)"Feminists/environmentalists/teacher's unions/labor unionists/etc. are annoying, and it would be good to hand them a political defeat."
It's little more than us vs. them reasoning.
IveWornAHundredPants
(237 posts)On the other hand, gun nuts are extremely annoying. What is this attraction to popguns, anyway? Seriously, I want to know: what is the big draw?
actslikeacarrot
(464 posts)...included his time in combat as if it gives his argument more weight. There IS a middle ground between what we have now and what the author is proposing. Full background checks are a good starting point. What the author suggests, is ludicrous.
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)My favorite part that almost made think this was an Onion piece.
Mexico? With a homicide rate over 4 times ours?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Eta: "Amitai Etzioni is proud to announce that he just made the NRA anti gun enemy list. For more discussion see his book My Brother's Keeper."
Right. Just another load of red meat bullshit for the consumption of those who don't care to think overmuch about anything beyond the care and feeding of their own ideology. And cheering their favorite talking heads in the clash of bullshit flingers.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)OceanEcosystem
(275 posts)It would be almost politically impossible, I think, to repeal that Amendment within the next decade or so.
dairydog91
(951 posts)However, most calls for amending the Constitution seem to be political temper tantrums rather than serious proposals. "That law was overruled under the such-and-such Amendment?!? Overrule that amendment!"
Currently, I could imagine an amendment which forbids most federal regulation of guns, except for interstate transfers, while allowing for broad state-level laws. Total removal of the Amendment, with no protection for a right to keep guns, is a political non-starter; in order to kill a proposed Amendment, you only need to get 1/4 of the states to veto it. I can pretty strongly guess that Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, North/South Dakota, Kentucky, Missouri and Tennessee will vote against the total removal of the Second, hence any prohibition-type amendment will fail.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)And you have a ready made set of rules for all liberal Democrats who own firearms?
Apparently you reason that no true liberal Democrat would own a firearm.
Are you familiar with the "no true Scotsman" fallacy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
IveWornAHundredPants
(237 posts)
SpartanDem
(4,533 posts)
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)We will get there eventually, and every interim step is important.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)As both law enforcement and the military will be armed.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)...or some other derailment of the unlikely scheme you envision.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)All the gun nut fantasy scenarios.
Well, good luck with your fantasy about a country without a second amendment.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)and I'll support it.
OceanEcosystem
(275 posts)How are the police supposed to handle violent crime situations if they do not have firearms?
Get the cops to talk the bad guys down?
Send out a SWAT team armed with Tasers against criminals armed with rifles and shotguns?
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)A bad place from which to start, because cops are criminals too. Anyone involved with or having closely watched the Occupy movement will fully understand this, much less if they've paid attention to how the poor, homeless, and people of color are often treated.
DHS are purchasing hundreds of millions of hollow-point rounds of ammunition, and they are domestic terrorists by the FBI's own definition. I won't stand for it! BULLSHIT on disarming the general public while the monsters militarize. Not enough people are paying attention and are swallowing this exceedingly dangerous "Disarm" meme hook, line, and sinker.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)was a nightstick and a firm voice.
guardian
(2,282 posts)follow the link. One OP suggested using a SuperSoaker and tobasco sauce.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2061427
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Unless you implicitly trust your state police and national guard for eternity, then it's a bad idea to extinguish the right to bear arms, individual or communal.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)that's never stopped people from posting such rantings here on DU. 
guardian
(2,282 posts)how 'nobody wants to take away your guns'. Come on. Tell me again. Anyone who promotes that antigunner LIE is a LIAR.
Per the OP "...A true liberal position, the place to start, is to call for domestic disarmament. That is the banning of the sale of all guns to private parties..."
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)17. Both sides have fringe folks who scream loudly
But you knew that.
Regardless, the sacred texts do have the concept of change in them, and they were not given by god to man at mt. Sinai. I know this s shocking, but the originalist position, (Jefferson) is for these documents to...I know shocking, evolve and change with the times. He, in fact, believed a new Constitution was needed every generation.
Not this generation, but as the US becomes an increasingly urban culture I can see a serious change in the Second...countries do evolve.
I at times think a historian who once said democracy came too early to the US might have a modicum of a point. In some ways whole swaths of the population are still stuck in the 17 century...why things like national health care and a safety net are seen as "un american."
Yes, even the view of the second is changing...and a few, more than a few, are looking at the Second and actually taking a more we look at it, instead of I, which Heller did not get rid off either. It still gives the state the right to regulate and an AWB is not against that ruling either.
Nor does it mean anybody is coming to take away my guns.
guardian
(2,282 posts)do you have to pull your head out of sand to take a breath?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I no longer alert, but I don't tolerate personal attacks either.
Ciao, have a good long life.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
closeupready
(29,503 posts)You don't know what liberalism is.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)And to keep a few so-called "liberal" folks armed up is a pretty high price for allowing yahoos like that to walk around polluting our society.
Cork
(44 posts)All I see are a bunch of people posing for a picture with their weapons.
If they're not doing anything illegal, why do you care?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I see a bunch of armed bigots, probably republicans and freepers.
Lots of things are legal, yet reprehensible.
Cork
(44 posts)And what about the middle picture? How can you tell what they're political leanings are?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)bigots to parade around in public with a few lethal weapons from their precious cache.
Cork
(44 posts)And how do you know if they have a weapons cache? Have you visited their homes? Are you friends with these people and know how many weapons they have?
What do you consider a weapons cache?
Are you for civilian disarmament?
CTyankee
(68,152 posts)down between his legs! That's just asking for a caption that the gunners just hate to hear...
Cork
(44 posts)
I wouldn't parade any of my weapons open like that, but if they're within the law and are being peaceful, so be it.
CTyankee
(68,152 posts)I sure would laugh and point...
Too, too funny.
CTyankee
(68,152 posts)But I tend not to judge people's intelligence by their looks.
But them carrying their weapons openly like that may be legal, it's not the smartest thing to do and not something I would do.
Cork
(44 posts)Are you just assuming that they are right wing yahoos just because they own/carry firearms? Are liberals not allowed to own/carry firearms?
What leads you to believe that?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)What's that? And where can I get one? Or is that your personal thing?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)rdharma
(6,057 posts)
wercal
(1,370 posts)Why don't advocates of gun control quite trying to intrrpret the second amendment....and just repeal it?..
Because the will of the people would never pass it
valiberal26
(41 posts)I've always believed that government derives its ultimate authority by having a monopoly on force. That's why every lawful international organization and most nations actively try to prevent nuclear arms from falling into unauthorized hands; its the ultimate force of violence. But WMD's are outside the scope of gun control in the United States of America but the principle is the same.
We no longer have to fear raids from Native Americans, nor a foreign invasion landing on our shores. Most of us don't have to worry about large predators killing our livestock, nor do we have to hunt to put meat on our table. The times have changed and so should our culture. We have well established law enforcement to deter, if not always prevent crime; and courts to bring us justice. There is no reason the common man should have any weapon at his disposal; much less firearms. On the rare occasions the common man must make violence, then sticks, stones, and fists are adequate for his needs.
The state is the rightful holder of deadly force; it alone has the authority to use violence for any lawful cause. The threat of violence implied or inherent, be it the weapons of war (tanks, bombs, artillery), or the weapons of security (tasers, clubs, handcuffs); are what gives the government the ability to enforce its laws upon its citizens. Having an armed citizenry gives them the ability to resist the will of the government. In a righteous society this cannot be tolerated.
I'm not drawing the line at firearms either; knives, swords, stun guns, archery equipment... All of that gives the common man the ability to subvert the state's monopoly on violence and thus should be removed from the citizenry. A sensible nation cannot take one thing while allowing another on this.
So yes, I am in favor of total civilian disarmament because I want a peaceful, well ordered society in which to live. Your so-called recreational shooters can find another hobby to fill their time; and those in fear of the world should find other means to cope.
uppityperson
(116,017 posts)actslikeacarrot
(464 posts)
Abq_Sarah
(2,883 posts)Of allowing the "State" to do your thinking for you?
Seriously, that's one of the most insane and demented screeds I've ever read and I'm surprised to see it on this forum.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)all 7 posts seem to be extreme.. I'm thinking.. not serious.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2432543
Would actually be to encourage women to have more children and for families to have six or seven children as opposed to just one or two. In an ideal world, the government would have free daycare and other support programs to help alleviate the cost of raising children so it would be more feasible to have large families again.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2433106
Is wearing a government uniform. There might be a few bad police officers or military personnel, and there might be a few good armed civilians; but the OP shows why I viewed armed citizens as nothing less than dire threats to an established government.
Aside from the fact that lawful violence is the domain of the state; this illustrates why civilian disarmament is the only logical end to the gun control debate.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2432717
We need to encourage reproduction through some sort of government action; either by making it easier financially to have and raise children, or perhaps even paying women for it.
valiberal26
(41 posts)I do tend towards ideals that are in the realm of current liberal thought; I'm very proud to be progressive. I stand for gun control, social programs, and social equality amongst other things. My solutions might be considered extreme by some, but they are quite heartfelt and I feel that they are the best solutions.
The definition of conservative and liberal as I was taught them is as follows... A conservative wants to maintain the status quo, whereas the liberal seeks change. I voted for change when I cast my vote for President Obama in 2008 and again in 2012; and it is change I want to see.
I do not believe that civilians should be armed in any capacity; and I do believe that we need more future taxpayers to fund government programs in the future. My first point might be reasonably argued, but you cannot reasonable argue the second point; gentrification isn't a solid plan for the future. Yes, I also believe that the state is the only legitimate wielder of violence. The ability to force the citizens in a certain direction makes a nation; a handful of armed civilians a nation does not make despite the blustering of the Tea Party.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)valiberal26
(41 posts)In your opinion, what am I, if I am not liberal?
Rhiannon12866
(255,037 posts)Abq_Sarah
(2,883 posts)They'd fall into the authoritarian category.
Rhiannon12866
(255,037 posts)There's nothing like finding out where you really stand...
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Very much so.
dballance
(5,756 posts)I'm rather tired of people here using the low post count of others to attempt to impugn them. I don't care if one has only one post or several hundred-thousand posts. Their opinion may be just as valid either way or just as worthy of being hidden either way.
Why anyone finds some superiority in having a large number of posts here on DU is beyond me. I have recently seen people with many thousands of posts be banned by the admins.
One's genital size is not demonstrated by the number of posts one has on DU.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)We seem to get two kinds of disruptors- those who take positions opposite the majority of Democrats on many subjects (those tend to flame out pretty quickly thanks to MIRt); and those who caricature our party's positions, thereby ridiculing the Democratic party in a reductio ad absurdum.
Seriously? Proposing that the government pay women to have five or six children? If that doesn't make your spidey sense tingle, I can't help you.
JVS
(61,935 posts)I'll consider whether it is worthwhile to give up another. So you can get back to me when the warrentless wiretapping is over and we can sue the phone companies for being stoolies.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)In both cases, such policies have been effective in other nations, but I'm not sure it's the right thing for the US. Beyond that, neither single-payer nor a handgun ban are politically feasible in the US, at least not anytime soon. However, this article brings up a valid point in that by taking liberal positions off the table from the get-go, it moves the window of policies considered "acceptable" to the right.
The media, of course, has been complicit in this -- as much as right-wingers like to complain about an "anti-gun media", in order to even be allowed to speak about gun control in the MSM you have to start your sentence with "I'm a gun owner" or "I support gun rights".
However, progressives and Democrats must share some of the blame for this. And it's a repeating pattern. For example, with the stimulus, it was obvious from the start that what Obama was proposing was too small, and what ended up happening is the economy didn't recover quickly enough, giving the GOP the opportunity to argue that the stimulus was a failure and what we really need is austerity. Similarly, although Obama's proposed gun control measures are a step in the right direction, they probably aren't enough to achieve large reductions in gun violence, particularly after the GOP drills loopholes through them, which might open up the charge that gun control is ineffective.
One thing the GOP is very good at is getting right-wing policies into the national debate. They get their think-tanks to produce "studies" and get right-wing pundits to talk about things like flat tax or privatizing social security, and even though these are well to the right of what the American people want, they become part of the national dialogue. In contrast, the Dems often seem scared that if they discuss policies that are too liberal, they will be painted as socialists and rile up the right-wing base.