what if.....?

[kpete]

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

1. I love it! This cartoon needs to go viral.

[Fla Dem]

2. Illustrates exactly how screwed up our priorities are in the US.

[SCantiGOP]

3. The theory is that life precious

But only before it is born. After that, it is subordinate to the 2nd Amendment and Grover Norquist's no tax pledge.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

31. Perfectly put.

[mountain grammy]

4. K & R and 100% true.

[jaxind]

5. Love this cartoon!

And, also, when Trump says "let's just ban Muslims from entering the US until we figure it out," why not ban assault rifles until we figure it out! Trump says Obama can't even say "radical Islam" .....well, can Trump even say "Assault rifles don't need to be in the hands of ordinary people?"

[AntiBank]

10. ban Grover Norquist too as long as you are at it!!

[FailureToCommunicate]

6. K & R

[Gothmog]

7. Great cartoon

[CrispyQ]

8. Posting on FB.

So fucking perfect.

Thanks for sharing.

[Indydem]

9. Tell you what;

If you could manage to pass an amendment to the constitution guaranteeing that:

"The right to an abortion shall not be infringed"

then I bet there will be a clear argument to nullify these restrictions.

As it stands, owning a firearm is a right, guaranteed by the Constitution. Any roadblocks placed on those rights are a violation of our basic rights guaranteed by that document.

The fact that this has to be explained time and time again gives me a fucking headache.

[lunatica]

11. It's a woman's Constitutional Right to choose what to do with her body

People like you give me a headache.

The Decision to Have an Abortion is Protected under the Constitutional Right to Privacy. In the 1973 landmark case Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court applied this core constitutional principle of privacy and liberty to a woman's ability to terminate a pregnancy.

[Indydem]

16. I agree.

But that is a SCOTUS ruling.

It is subject to the whims of the court in power. They have allowed a multitude of restrictions on that "right" and thus, these whims become clear.

A specifically delineated amendment guaranteeing a right is not subject to those whims.

Therefore, the Amendment caries more weight and more authority.

Comparing these two things is apples to avocados, and that is the root of the problem.

Surely you understand the difference.

[lunatica]

18. How do you define well regulated

I define regulated as exactly what gun regulations is all about.

It's convenient to forget that part isn't it, or the part about it being a militia.

And the right of Privacy is written into the Constitution by the way.

[Indydem]

22. As the Founders Did.

Well-Regulated in 1780 was short hand to reference a well-operating (or regular) thing. A person, an institution, a piece of equipment. If it was well-regulated, it was functioning as intended.

It did not mean "has a bunch of regulations on it." That would have been antithetical to the likes of Jefferson and his Anti-Federalist colleagues.

"The Right to Privacy" is implied by the fourth amendment. It is neither specifically delineated, or even named.

[baldguy]

34. You think that having a mass murder every few weeks means the law is functioning as intended?

We've tried it your way. It has been a spectacular failure.

[Indydem]

35. Unfortunately, yes.

Freedom means having the freedom to do terrible things, as well as wonderful things.

Freedom is messy, and that's just a price to be paid for free will.

Taking away rights only makes us more controlled. If that's what you really want stand up and be proud about it.

[baldguy]

36. That is literally insane. And means America is not in any way a free & civilized country.

The Constitution was enacted in part to establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility. Allowing mass murders to occur on a regular basis in anathema to those goals. Freedom means not having to live in fear.

No other liberal democracy on the planet has to deal with this shit.

[packman]

12. Fuck the Second Amendment and all those declaring its "holiness"

Those putting it on a pedestal and rabidly defending it give me a fucking headache. The only "Basic Right" one has when all is done and said is to live in a society that has some guarantee of safety from weapons of mass destruction. Why can't those defenders of the Second admit that it just might have been a mistake or has outlived its usefulness?

[Indydem]

17. Maybe is was / has.

That's not my point at all.

If it has outlived it's usefulness, repeal it.

You can't. Even Democrats don't support such a move.

So, since you can't repeal it, live with it. Stop trying to restrict a freedom. Stop trying to act as if the Amendment doesn't exist and you can just pass whatever law you want and it will stand. Stop trying to force your universal solution for violence onto the hundreds of millions of Americans with "easy" access to guns that won't kill someone today, or ever.

Unbridled hatred is really the root of these killings, and no one seems to care about addressing that. Just about ginning up more of it for whomever is the target of their ire today.

[packman]

21. You are on the wrong board

Not going to "live with it" and I'll try to restrict that so-called "freedom" every chance I get. History has too many examples of people who were asked to just "live with it". You and your buddies seem to have passed many pro-gun laws you want - can't wait for this country to wake up from the stupor of the slavery imposed on ALL Americans by the few fanatics that hold gun ownership as a basic right. Fuck that.

Unbridled hatred and the means to express that hatred (via guns) is the issue - wake up.

Not going to pound my head against that 2nd Admen. lock you have in your mind, this dialogue is unproductive on your part because of the blinders you are putting on yourself.

[Indydem]

23. No, I am not.

Supporting greater freedom is a founding principle of the Democratic Party.

One of those freedoms is the right of the people to be armed for their own defense.

Your desire to restrict those freedoms, making people less free, would actually imply that YOU are on the wrong board.

Taking away people's rights and freedoms is a right-wing thing, not a liberal/ left wing principle.

[progressoid]

25. Really? That old trope?

What freedoms have been taken away from you to prevent you from armed defense?

I have liberal and conservative family members that own a butt load of fire arms. No one has ever had a problem obtaining a firearm. Nor have they ever complained about any restrictions. That's a non-issue.

[Indydem]

27. Read around.

There are all sorts of crazy restrictions being supported on the DU in wake of the most recent mass shooting.

[progressoid]

28. That's not what I asked.

What people on DU want and real life are two separate things.

So, back to the question, what freedoms in the real world have been taken away from you?

[Gore1FL]

13. "Well-Regulated": It's not just for breakfast anymore. nt

[Amimnoch]

15. LOL, I was typing mine while you typed yours.

[Indydem]

19. Perhaps you should investigate some more.

How you define "Well-Regulated" isn't how the architects of the Constitution defined it; it isn't even the same concept.

"Well-Regulated" in 1780 referred to an item that worked well. Not as in "Had a bunch of regulations upon it."

But you probably already knew that, and have disregarded that piece of knowledge because it doesn't support your argument to grab the guns.

[Gore1FL]

32. It'snot well-regulated enough now.

Terrorists can buy weapons thanks tot he NRA and GOP.

Perhaps if we cannot well-regulate, the second amendment should be repealed. It sounds like that is the only answer if you listen to the GOP and NRA.

[IronLionZion]

26. Who regulates the militias?

and how do we know if they are well-regulated or just medium-rare?

[Amimnoch]

14. Bullshit.

So, Bill Gates want's to buy a few Nuclear warhead ICBM's. That's falls under "arms". Is he constitutionally protected to do so??

2nd Amendment: ""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."

All the pro gun crowd tend to completely forget that first clause. "well regulated"- right there we have the authorization of regulation. It is not, as written, a blank clause for unlimited access and ownership.

Then, there's the second clause of it stating "being necessary to the security of a free state". It is very easily argued, that as a new country, most of which was frontier and had a very low level of development, there was a necessity for a musket wielding population to ensure the security of a free state. Here's a hint, we are no longer in 1776. The entire nation is developed, well established borders are in place, and there is no threat to to the security of a free state. Additionally, any threat to the security of a free state that today's highly advanced military couldn't handle, no amount of gun toting civilian population is going to have the capability to thwart.

Additionally, even the tenants of the first amendment.. the prime amendment of guaranteed freedoms is not without legal regulation. No law regarding an establishment of religion, yet since Bradfield v. Roberts (1899) there's been a number of laws regarding established religion and their place in our society and what they can/can't do with regards to the government. The first amendment clearly states "prohibiting the free expression thereof" which had traditionally meant anyone could pray and lead prayer anywhere. Now, there are laws and interpretations in place to separate prayer from publicly funded and official places. A great step forward at that imo.

Freedom of speech and the press? Ever heard of libel and slander? Not rights without limit.

As you say.. "The fact that this has to be explained time and time again gives me a fucking headache."

Yeah, I agree.

[Liberal In Texas]

20. +1000

[TeddyR]

24. "Well regulated"

In the Second Amendment simply means a well-trained or smoothly functioning militia. I don't think I've seen any serious argument that it means anything else. In fact, the notion that the founders intended "well regulated" to mean subject to strict control or regulation is completely at odds with the language of the Amendment itself. For example, suppose the Amendment read "A militia subject to stringent regulations being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In that iteration, the statement of purpose in the first clause is completely disconnected from the right guaranteed by the second clause. And even if the "militia" were subject to some sort of strict regulation, there is no reasonable reading of the Second Amendment that conditions the "right to keep and bear arms" on service in a militia. Finally, the Amendment prohibits government interference on the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms, i.e. everyone, not the right of the "militia."

And to clarify, I'm not arguing that the right to keep and bear arms is unlimited. No right guaranteed by the Constitution is unlimited. What I am arguing is that the Second Amendment prohibits the government from unreasonably infringing on that right. I don't know what the limits are on such infringement -- several courts have upheld bans on "high capacity" magazines, typically defined as magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Courts have also upheld assault weapon bans. And the Ninth Circuit recently upheld a pretty draconian California concealed carry law. However, it is also clear that a ban on handguns in the home would be unconstitutional.

[Crunchy Frog]

37. I'm deeply saddened to hear that you're suffering from a headache.

My thoughts are with you in this time of personal tragedy for you.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

29. K&R nt

[That Guy 888]

30. Kick and Rec

[SaveAmerica]

33. All true except they forgot the required internal probe