Slog Comments

 

Comments (94) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
That's some amazing journalism there.
So now you're conflating gun control and abortion.
Maybe if you took a few minutes to actually think about the issues rather than randomly spewing unrelated segments you could make some progress in addressing the issue?
No?
So Chicago has (had) very strict gun laws but lots of gun-related violence and crime.
Meanwhile Seattle has very lenient gun laws but far less gun-related violence and crime than Chicago.
Which means ... traffic laws!
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 17, 2013 at 2:58 PM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 2
@2: Are you illiterate?
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on February 17, 2013 at 3:04 PM · Report this
meanie 3
Straw buying for someone unable to legally buy a gun, or is going to commit a crime is already a felony, if existing laws were not applied, how would additional laws help?

A double felony?
Posted by meanie http://www.spicealley.net on February 17, 2013 at 3:09 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 4
@1

It's important to compare guns with things like abortion. It's yet another example of a Constitutionally protected right which nonetheless has strict controls and limits. Wingnuts warn of the evils of "abortion on demand" yet this is what we have in the case of guns: instead of "a well regulated militia" we have "guns on demand", with no checks. It is inconsistent with how all of our rights and freedoms are understood to pretend that access to guns must be utterly unrestricted.

Why should freedom of speech or privacy or even religion have more strings attached than the right to bear arms? Only gun nuts think the right to bear arms is special and should be elevated above all other rights. As they sit idly by and let every other right be stripped away, and then try to fool us into believing they are some kind of sentinels of freedom. Sentinels of gun ownership is all gun nuts are.

If you really did believe that any speed bumps or barriers between a citizen and his firearm were unconstitutional, then what about bombs? Or missiles? Or weapons of mass destruction? We know there must be safeguards for these weapons, and even fully automatic firearms.

But we are to believe anything short of a machine gun is in some kind of arbitrary free for all zone? Anton Scalia said quite explicitly that while you can't ban handguns outright, you can regulate them in all manner of ways.

The ineffectiveness of state and local gun laws bears repeating as well. We don't have state border guards. Gun regulations must be nationwide to work. What's so hard to grasp about that?
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on February 17, 2013 at 3:12 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 5
@2

He's Russian. His English is quite adequate, considering all he's had to overcome.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on February 17, 2013 at 3:13 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 6
@1: chicago fan isn't a "journalist". he's dan savage's brother (i think), and he has opinions and blogging privileges.
Posted by Max Solomon on February 17, 2013 at 3:18 PM · Report this
7
@6
"chicago fan isn't a 'journalist'."

I can agree with you on that.
And yet someone at The Stranger thought that of all the possible options the best one was to run that as is.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 17, 2013 at 3:28 PM · Report this
TheMisanthrope 8
You trust a government to restrict gun purchases? The same government that imprisons people for months on end due to their "associations" with people?

You want THAT government to tell you who can and can't do something?
Posted by TheMisanthrope on February 17, 2013 at 3:34 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 9
@3 is correct. Why aren't more straw buyers in prison? Why are straw buying laws not being enforced?
Posted by Urgutha Forka on February 17, 2013 at 3:36 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 10
@8: i "trust" the government to do lots of things. don't you trust them to deliver mail, regulate food safety, vehicle safety, administer national parks, etc. ad nauseum? why is guns where you draw the line?
Posted by Max Solomon on February 17, 2013 at 3:59 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 11
@9

Because the NRA's flunkies in Congress work hard to prevent the ATF from functioning, for one thing. They won't seat the director, they won't allow gun stores to be inspected more than once a year. They won't let the ATF enforce proper record keeping, or give them the resources to track all that antiquated paperwork.

And how the hell are you supposed to track down straw buyers when there's no documentation for private sales. Jesus, it's appalling to have to keep stepping you fucks through this stuff. One, the first gun sale is legal. A cursory background check is done. Two, all sales after that are in the shadows. End of story.

How can you prosecute the straw buyers when there is zero paperwork on the sales they made?

If we had universal background checks, and tracked every sale, then we'd have just as many black market sales as we do machine guns sales, which is to say, hardly any. Sure, criminals could in theory have a lively trade in machine guns, even though that's illegal. But do they? No. Why? Because the illegal gun market mirrors the legal gun market. Control the legal gun market and you control the illegal market too. It works.

Ask yourself why criminals in the UK or Australia don't import vast numbers of restricted guns. It's possible to do, in theory, but in practice? Hardly ever happens.

Criminals simply aren't willing to go to great effort or expense to get guns. They use what is cheap and easy to get. And thanks to the criminal's best friend, the NRA, guns in America are cheap and easy to get.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on February 17, 2013 at 4:16 PM · Report this
TheMisanthrope 12
@10 No, I don't trust them for food or drug safety.

In both cases, they've been shown to be bought more than once by our corporate overloads.

Why do you trust them so much when they've been shown, time and again, not to be working for the people? Seriously. These are the same people who not only imprison American citizens for no reason other than associations and refusing to answer questions, but also do not imprison or punish their "law enforcement" when they commit murder.

Why on earth do you trust the government law enforcement, made up of people and working for corporate interests, more than the rest of the public? Why do you trust, for example, the police that burned a man alive inside a cabin enough to judge who gets access to guns? Or the police who killed an innocent kid outside Cinerama for nothing more than running?

What makes the government trustworthy for things like guns and weaponry, which were, in part, meant to be able to take down a corrupt government?
Posted by TheMisanthrope on February 17, 2013 at 4:46 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 13
@12

Can't you just buy yourself a bus ticket to Somolia so you can go enjoy your anarchist's paradise and stop wasting everyone's time?
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on February 17, 2013 at 4:57 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 14
@11,
So all the current laws being proposed are essentially meaningless then, because even if they all pass, gun sales will still be legal and the black market will mirror that.

I'd have to guess that the only solution you think would work would be to completely ban all guns. Period.

Even if the NRA ceased to exist immediately, the majority of people in this country still want to be able to own guns, so banning them is simply impossible - the people will not accept it. You'd have to change everyone's mind to make a total gun ban happen.

Is that your proposal then? To change people's minds from wanting to own guns to wanting them banned?

If so, you should probably start with the media and with schools. Get them to stop glamorizing guns and start teaching that guns are undesirable.

Anything else (e.g., trying to pass background check laws) is a waste of time, in your own words.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on February 17, 2013 at 5:05 PM · Report this
TheMisanthrope 15
@13 Diversion. Ad hominem attack.

Lets try again. Why do you trust the government enough to allow them to make the decision of who gets armed?
Posted by TheMisanthrope on February 17, 2013 at 5:10 PM · Report this
16
@1, yeah, ChicagoFan is a Distinguished Senior Lecturer at Norhwestern University. He is part of what makes Northwestern one of the greatest American universities, which has helped it gain among all its peers one of the largest endowments, which you can suck.
Posted by gloomy gus on February 17, 2013 at 5:24 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 17
@15

The alternative is to trust plutocrats and armed thugs, also known as "anarchy" or "libertarianism".

You don't get to hand over all the power in the world to an all-seeing, all-powerful, omnibenevolent God who will care for each and every one of us like a dear lamb. You get a choice: abdicate your democratic authority, which means letting the plutocrats and their hired goons run things, or else try to make your democratic governemnt work as best it can.

"Trusting" governemnt to work correctly is like "trusting" your car to run for infinite miles. No car runs forever; you don't "trust" that it will. You have to make it run by perpetually maintaining and repairing it.

And even then, all cars break down. All governments break down too. But the alternative is worse.

This has been another episode of "Explaining What's What to Teenagers."
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on February 17, 2013 at 5:39 PM · Report this
emma's bee 18
+10 to Ph'nglui mglw'nafh, etc, for your patience in explaining "what's what" to the gun nuts of Slog.
Posted by emma's bee on February 17, 2013 at 5:47 PM · Report this
19
@16
And yet he still writes articles that could only charitably be called "stream of consciousness" and uncharitably "word salad".
He starts with "gun nuts". Nice.
Then he goes into a story about a girl who was shot.
More "gun nuts".
Chicago has strict gun laws.
Now it's about red lights and hit-and-run.
Onto straw buyers and the "gun show loophole".
Segue to drivers licenses and abortions.

So, was the girl in the first story shot with a gun that the criminal got via a straw buyer who got it via the "gun show loophole"?
Maybe yes. Maybe no. He did not bother to cover that.

He may be a "Distinguished Senior Lecturer" but if I had turned something like that in for an English assignment in high school I'd have gotten a D at best.
Which is the point here.
It's more about the politics than about the facts.
He can put together a trash article but as long as he's ranting against the right people then it is okay.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 17, 2013 at 5:48 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 20
@14

My proposal is to try not to waste so much time with complete boobs such as yourself.

The currently laws being proposed include putting an end to the NRA orchestrated obstruction of law enforcement. You have so much time to bang out drivel and yet you can't be bothered to read Obama's gun violence proposals? Read, motherfucker, read.

But those proposals are dead on arrival as long as it's business as usual in Congress. You have to convince voters how malevolent the NRA is, and you have to unseat more then a few legislators with A ratings from the NRA. They're a small special interest whose power rests on the illusion that they're powerful. You have to explode the myth of the NRA, then set to work passing rational laws and regulations.

And even then, it will take decades to undo the damage of the 300 million guns that flood the country. It's impossible to clean up a mess this size overnight, but it will never be cleaned up at all if we never get started.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on February 17, 2013 at 5:49 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 21
@19

This from a guy who only succeeds in writing a passable sentence maybe one try out of three, and who has never managed to write what could charitably be called a "paragraph". Do you write your comments in Russian and then paste them into Google Translate to get English?
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on February 17, 2013 at 5:54 PM · Report this
TheMisanthrope 22
@17 So what happens when a government breaks down?

Maybe I should rephrase the question: Why should we trust THIS government (which I thought was implied in my question)? I'm not advocating anarchy, here.

This government is still getting close to being the booted thugs for the plutocrats. See handling of Occupy protests. See arrest and indefinite imprisonment of people for no crime outside of not cooperating with a government protecting the plutocrats' interests. See DMCA abuse.

So, I guess the question isn't why do we not have a government, but why do we trust THIS government?
Posted by TheMisanthrope on February 17, 2013 at 6:03 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 23
@20
My proposal is to try not to waste so much time with complete boobs such as yourself.
Based on the amount of time you spend commenting here, I'd say your proposal is an absolute failure.

You're overly fixated on the NRA, by the way. Guns were popular long before the NRA arrived, and it seems likely that movies, tv, and the evening news do far more to glamorize guns than the NRA does.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on February 17, 2013 at 6:08 PM · Report this
Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In 24
8, talking about "the government" is like talking about "books." You don't even seem to understand the difference between a WH administration and federal law.

23, Tthe NRA is the most powerful pro-gun lobbying group, backed by a lot of money and corporate allies. They set the tone of the debate, and their talking points are front & center in public discussions. So when you mention how movies, tv, and the evening news present the issue, you're really talking about how the NRA wants the issue to be presented.
Posted by Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on February 17, 2013 at 6:49 PM · Report this
25
Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans, Newark, Camden, Boston, Philadelphia, AND SEATTLE are proof that America needs "Negro Control", not "gun control".
Posted by NegroControlNow on February 17, 2013 at 6:51 PM · Report this
TheMisanthrope 26
@24 The White House has influence over federal law. And the FBI, CIA, ATF, and Homeland Security are all a part of our government, just as is the FDA, the EPA, the legislature (Senate and House, if you're confused), the WH administration and the Supreme Court and a whole litany of other departments. They form a nebulous entity better known as a government, or, more specifically, our government.

Im not challenging this as a Republican. Or as a Democrat. I'm not challenging it because Obama is president. I'm asking because our government - and, by inclusion, all the departments within the government - has been increasingly influenced/corrupted by the wealthiest parts of our society.
Posted by TheMisanthrope on February 17, 2013 at 6:59 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 27
@26

You're a Republican. Like the Teabaggers, you think it's cool to pretend your pro-corporate, pro-plutocrat agenda is based on some noble principle. But the bottom line is that by opposing any and all progressive policies out of fear of government power, you cede power to the rich. That's the only thing the Republican party stands for.

You don't think 300 million guns have made gun owners more powerful do you? They've enriched Wal-Mart, and the arms manufacturers, but left gun owners with nothing but credit card debt and a false sense of security and empowerment.

You're a deregulator. A Grover Norquist foot soldier. Drown the beast is your goal. You're a Republican.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on February 17, 2013 at 7:11 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 28
THIS government HAS already decided who will have guns - when it wrote the constitution. and the SCOTUS, led by Scalia, who is THIS GOVERNMENT, affirmed it in DC v Heller. you get to have a gun, and outside of BS slippery-slope arguments, you TRUST that THIS GOVERNMENT will continue to permit that right.

now we're just arguing about the particulars: which guns, when, what responsibilities. the majority of THE PEOPLE favor moving the line to more responsibilities and less powerful guns.

Posted by Max Solomon on February 17, 2013 at 7:23 PM · Report this
TheMisanthrope 29
@27 You can try to destroy every other gun advocate on here with that kind of bullshit by labeling and demonizing them as a Republican. But, I got news for you, moron. I'm not one of them.

Try again asshole and use some content, instead of labeling/demonizing everybody to fit your audience. Fucking troll.
Posted by TheMisanthrope on February 17, 2013 at 7:36 PM · Report this
TheMisanthrope 30
@27 also, 4/10.

I responded, but really...you could try harder. The troll was far too obvious. I've seen you troll better.
Posted by TheMisanthrope on February 17, 2013 at 7:47 PM · Report this
dirac 31
@27 This is the sorta straw man bullshit that turns me off of supporting the tribalists in the D party. I'm all for background checks, etc, but the Democrats are about as concerned with getting those through Congress as preventing massive cuts to the safety net, which they've essentially been orchestrating since 2011.
Posted by dirac on February 17, 2013 at 8:03 PM · Report this
Farbe 32
Certainly not fan of Scalia but to take him up on the notion of regulating firarms, the following should be enacted.

That being: every gun must be titled exactly as an automobile is. Hence, every firearm must have a registered owner who would be financially responsible for said firearm in the same way an automobile owner is liable. The boon to insurance underwriters would be huge although injury and death claims attributed to firearms may reach great sums, I'm sure the premiums charged to licensed owners would be set accordingly.
Posted by Farbe on February 17, 2013 at 8:03 PM · Report this
33
Hahaha.... funny people...
Posted by pupuguru http://www.godsweed.org on February 17, 2013 at 8:20 PM · Report this
34
I have a question. What does the 2nd amendment phrase "well regulated" mean?

Pro gun folks, anti gun folks, what does it mean?

"well regulated"?

Just asking.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on February 17, 2013 at 8:51 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 35
@34: from what i've learned, it means "not regulated".
Posted by Max Solomon on February 17, 2013 at 9:02 PM · Report this
TheMisanthrope 36
@34 And who does the regulating?
Posted by TheMisanthrope on February 17, 2013 at 9:54 PM · Report this
seatackled 37
Gun nuts are so sensitive. They should be troubadours.
Posted by seatackled on February 17, 2013 at 9:56 PM · Report this
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 38

Rahm Emanuel, a political appointee with no city management experience, is to blame. He is unable to curtail the thugs and gangs who rule his city. No matter...so long as they make sure the districts are 100% Democrat.

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com on February 17, 2013 at 10:03 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 39
@22

When has some part of the government not been broken down? It's too big a machine to have all of it working the way it's supposed to at once.

Give me one instance when the solution to any of our government's failings has been a mob of yahoos with guns. Ever time we've ever fixed anything, it has been through organization, communication, and peaceful resistance. Young hotheads don't have the patience for it. It's like gardening.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on February 17, 2013 at 10:03 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 40
@29 @30

Well then go cry in your pillow. Go ask for your money back. Your hurt feelings aren't my problem. Come back tomorrow and I'll tell you the truth again.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on February 17, 2013 at 10:05 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 41
@36

No, that's a stupid question. We know who.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on February 17, 2013 at 10:07 PM · Report this
42
Chicago Fan, time to get a new term. Nine out of your last ten articles have been headlined "Gun Nut(s)...". Perhaps you should call us "Gun Idiot(s)" or "Firearm asshole(s)" or "Person/People I hate because they exercise rights I disagree with".
Posted by Tawnos on February 17, 2013 at 10:12 PM · Report this
seatackled 43
@42

Gun nuts is a much better term. It's easy to remember, it's short, it's colloquial, and it doesn't use profanity, so the kids can remember it, too. The two short "u" sounds give it a good rhythm, and two n's make for smooth pronunciation. None of the alternatives you suggested come anywhere close to being as good.
Posted by seatackled on February 17, 2013 at 10:27 PM · Report this
44
@34
"I have a question. What does the 2nd amendment phrase 'well regulated' mean?"

To coin a phrase ... Let me google that for you.
http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.ht…

And to help you out in the future:
www.google.com
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 17, 2013 at 10:36 PM · Report this
TheMisanthrope 45
@39 American Revolution.
Posted by TheMisanthrope on February 17, 2013 at 10:39 PM · Report this
TheMisanthrope 46
@40 1/10 boring
Posted by TheMisanthrope on February 17, 2013 at 10:41 PM · Report this
47
@45
The Battle of Athens in 1946
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_A…
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 17, 2013 at 10:43 PM · Report this
48
@ 41 no 36 did not ask a stupid question he/she/cis engaged in a weak attempt at deflection.

The whole basis for the discussion ultimately revolves around what does the 2nd amendment mean. He/she/cis knows this. Implicitly by arguing the issue he/she/cis, recognizes that the Constitution and by extension the government regulates.

Now one could nit pick and quibble about Federal vs. State vs. Local government and which one regulates. At which point the answer basically boils down to local governments may be less restrictive to civil liberties then State governments but not more, State governments less restrictive then the Federal government but not more.

The answer also is, Local government may fill in the blank where the State government has not ruled, and the State may fill in the blank where the Federal government has not ruled.

Unfortunately that is a by design a complex system. Such complexity allows individuals to glibly respond as 36 did and think they made a point. When they did not.

My question remains untouched, under the Second Amendment what does, "well regulated" mean?
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on February 17, 2013 at 10:52 PM · Report this
49
@48
"My question remains untouched, under the Second Amendment what does, 'well regulated' mean?"

You had asked that @34
"I have a question. What does the 2nd amendment phrase 'well regulated' mean?"

To coin a phrase ... Let me google that for you.
http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.ht…

And to help you out in the future:
www.google.com
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 17, 2013 at 10:55 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 50
@45

What? But all the American Revolution did was replace the old government with a new government? How can you TRUST the new governemnt?

But at least we didn't end up forever in abject tyranny, like Canada.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on February 17, 2013 at 10:58 PM · Report this
51
I know.
Strange as it may sound, there are people who feel qualified to comment on this subject who don't even know what the terms used in the 2nd Amendment mean.
http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.ht…

And those same people are unable to use google to look up the terms.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 17, 2013 at 11:00 PM · Report this
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 52

2 dead girls.

Reason: Obama put a nincompoop in the form of Rahm Emanual in charge.

Because: He is too weak to fight the gangs who control the districts and deliver 100% Democrat votes in exchange for zero prosecution.
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com on February 17, 2013 at 11:01 PM · Report this
53
@44 yours is certainly an amusing response but again none responsive. I give you.

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/su…

or if you prefer this one.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FinkelmanC…

We could play with google all day but you'd still be dodging my question.

What does "well regulated" mean? I'll spell the question out a bit more for you since you appear to not want to answer. What does "well regulated" mean to you, today, in today's world and context?

Personally I wasn't around on 09/17/1787 so I can't speak to that world and context only speculate. I have my short comings.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on February 17, 2013 at 11:26 PM · Report this
54
Bwahah..... funny people..
Posted by pupuguru http://www.godsweed.org on February 17, 2013 at 11:30 PM · Report this
55
Gun nuts is a good term for these blood thirsty vampires whose most important element of self-identity is their belief they are a persecuted group in constant danger from the society around them and who need the constant bloodshed to justify to themselves that they are in danger. Their soulless gun manufacturer puppet-masters can rely on their single minded manipulability to get them through a tough holiday retail period. The way this intersects with their demographic make up is unsurprising.
Posted by cracked on February 17, 2013 at 11:33 PM · Report this
56
@53
"What does 'well regulated' mean?"

And this is the third time that I am answering that question.
http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.ht…

From that site:
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

"I'll spell the question out a bit more for you since you appear to not want to answer."

No.
The problem is that you are using one question that has a very easy answer to try to imply a different question.

"What does 'well regulated' mean to you, today, in today's world and context?"

Irrelevant because the meaning is based upon what the usage was at the time the 2nd Amendment was written.
You do not like that the original term has a meaning that does not suit your agenda but that is your problem.
The SCOTUS has already ruled on it and they did not agree with you.

"Personally I wasn't around on 09/17/1787 so I can't speak to that world and context only speculate. I have my short comings."

Which is why the link I supplied has relevant usages given during the same time period.
It's called "research".
Try it sometime.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 18, 2013 at 12:04 AM · Report this
57
I know the solution. Let's take central banker money, and conduct social engineering and fabricate consensus opinion.

First we will influence people's beliefs about what others are doing (e.g., the Slog).

Then we'll increase social disapproval of the frowned upon behavior (gun ownership), so that the desired behaviors are more convenient or more visible.

Next, we'll put taxes, fines or subsidies in place to signal the importance that society places on certain behaviors.

Finally, we'll lock it into place with laws and regulations.

Done! The frog has been slowly boiled in water.
Posted by Dale Evans on February 18, 2013 at 12:12 AM · Report this
58
@ 52 has it occurred to you that lack of prosecution might have something to do with restraints that the NRA has successfully lobbied for and placed on the ATF's ability to enforce existing gun regulations? Damn there's that pesky what does "well regulated" mean question again.

Oh and it'd be nice if the Republicans would let us hirer someone to head up the AFT. But perhaps I am asking too much.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on February 18, 2013 at 12:13 AM · Report this
59
@56 and I went and looked at your pathetic weak link and answered it with two links, which apparently you didn't bother to go and look at. But lets not snipe at each other.

My question remains. In your own words, what does "well regulated" mean to you? Fine you don't want to define it with a view to today's world and context, ok, I still challenge you to define it. In your own words, as one might propose as legislation.

For given your love of historical research your fully aware our founding fathers proposed and enacted all sorts of gun regulations prior to and after 09/17/1787.

In your own words and todays language, what would you consider reasonable "well regulated"?

Quite dodging the question.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on February 18, 2013 at 12:24 AM · Report this
seatackled 60
Funny, I understood that "in your own words" was implicit the first time the question was asked about "well-regulated."

But if the insistence is that well-regulated and all other meanings about 2-A must be based on the context of 1787, then the reason the gun nuts want their guns is to fight slave insurrections.

Which makes sense, since they never, ever cite the Black Panthers protecting themselves from government tyranny (Oakland cops) by walking around with shotguns as an example of why guns are needed.
Posted by seatackled on February 18, 2013 at 12:39 AM · Report this
61
@59
"In your own words and todays language, what would you consider reasonable 'well regulated'?"

That has already been addressed by the link I have already provided.
http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.ht…

From that link AGAIN:
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

What you are indulging in is the logical fallacy of "equivocation".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocatio…

The definition in use at that time has been provided to you FOUR times now.
You do not like that definition so you want to substitute a different definition.

What you are REALLY asking is what kind of regulations I would accept BUT you are trying to define that as "well regulated" in the context of the 2nd Amendment.
They are NOT the same.
And I fully expect to be explaining this to you a fifth time.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 18, 2013 at 12:43 AM · Report this
62
@60
"Which makes sense, since they never, ever cite the Black Panthers protecting themselves from government tyranny (Oakland cops) by walking around with shotguns as an example of why guns are needed."

At least use a decent example.
Such as the Deacons for Defense and Justice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for…
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 18, 2013 at 1:04 AM · Report this
63
@61 so six year old children being shot multiple times and killed in their school class rooms equals "something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected." Ok I'll accept that since it is clearly your only answer.

True the Property i.e. the guns were in "proper working order" as evidenced by the loss of life. Though not in the hands or under the proper control of the rightful owner of said property, she was killed by her property. An event that begs the question was that property "calibrated correctly, functioning as expected"? At least as expected by the owner, if not society at large?

And thus we are back to my question, how do we achieve this "well regulated" state. Where the property in question functions as intended, indeed what is the understood and agreed upon function of this property we are trying to regulate.

Calibrated brings its own problems, are we talking about the purely functional calibration of the property in question, i.e will it shoot a bullet down it's barrel accurately, or are we talking about about it's function and calibration within the context of a Militia?

I'll let the term militia here just hang as a stand in for society at this point. Since in the hands of the NRA Militia has lost all other meaning.

You see my unbalanced friend the definition you are pointing to is simplistic and lacking.

Please feel free to play again.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on February 18, 2013 at 1:18 AM · Report this
64
@62 your just too easy to slap around I'm going to bed.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_…
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on February 18, 2013 at 1:23 AM · Report this
65
Misanthrope, shouldn't you be mansplain' to some women how rape ain't no thing? Or is this your freelance trolling day?
Posted by FonsieScheme on February 18, 2013 at 3:58 AM · Report this
TheMisanthrope 66
@50 0/10 See also @47

@65 0/10

The trolls here suck. I wish they'd at least come off as honest or intelligently droll.
Posted by TheMisanthrope on February 18, 2013 at 6:30 AM · Report this
67
"Levaine Tanksley"

The name says it all doesn't it folks....
Posted by Le'vaine Ta'nksley on February 18, 2013 at 6:59 AM · Report this
68
@63
"so six year old children being shot multiple times and killed in their school class rooms equals 'something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.'"

I'm pretty sure that if you check the legal status you would find that that would be classified as a "crime".

"True the Property i.e. the guns ..."

At least do the basic reading. The 2nd Amendment starts with:
A well regulated Militia, ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amen…
And yet, because you are losing, you have decided to replace "Militia" with "guns".

"And thus we are back to my question, how do we achieve this 'well regulated' state."

And now you're back at the logical fallacy of equivocation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocatio…
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 18, 2013 at 8:07 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 69
@48

Since we're not going to build thousands of miles of Berlin Wall barriers between each state and city, it's obvious that the job must be done by the federal governemnt. Otherwise anybody can drive for five minutes and be in a different jurisdiction. This is obvious in New York, Chicago and across the country.

We also know that it is absurd on its face to let just any citizen have a dirty bomb without so much as filling out a form. And it's absurd to let any citizen have bazookas and mortars. We don't let machine guns be bought and sold with no restrictions. Any claim that arms like these should be unregulated is flat out crazy. There is massive precedent that regulating arms is constitutional.

So do we have to stop at machine guns? Or why not allow unrestricted trade in machine guns and stop at bazookas? The Second Amendment doesn't answer the question. Congress has to decide. It's as simple as that. It's purely a question of what degree of regulation we want to have on firearms and other arms.

The idea that there is a principle that there must be certain firearms where buyers absolutely must not be made to jump through any government hoops or meet any standards at all is baseless.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on February 18, 2013 at 8:58 AM · Report this
TheMisanthrope 70
@69 Would you say that banning types of guns is different than dictating who gets guns? Would you say that registering guns is different than dictating who gets guns?

I would. In both cases.
Posted by TheMisanthrope on February 18, 2013 at 9:43 AM · Report this
71
@69, So, if guns are equally available everywhere (your argument, not mine) why is it that firearm related violence is generally most severe in very specific areas? Generally high population density areas with lower income levels.

As we've discussed before, Vermont doesn't have a problem, Virginia doesn't, Wyoming doesn't (all places with high levels of firearm ownership). New York City does, Chicago does, Los Angeles does (all places with theoretically low levels of firearm ownership and high levels of income inequality).

Maybe the problem is related to other factors? Maybe?

I've said it before, I'll say it again - if you 'gun-control-nuts' spent as much energy on raising the minimum wage to $12-15/hour, as you do on feel-good-gun-control-measures, you'd probably save more lives. If you stopped the war on drugs and spent that money on rehab and counseling, you'd save even more lives, not to mention we'd have a whole new revenue stream.

This is where you start talking about suicide rates, even though, as we've discussed before, areas with high rates of firearm ownership and suicide are also very rural areas which also have high rates of suicide even in similar population densities with lower rates of firearm ownership.

Incidentally, in your response @11, you state that the NRA only allows one inspection per year. That's true - the ATF can only have one WARRANTLESS inspection per year. If they have enough reason to get a warrant, they can have as many inspections as they want. If they have nothing to go on, they're limited to one fishing expedition.

http://www.atf.gov/publications/factshee…
More...
Posted by randoma on February 18, 2013 at 9:45 AM · Report this
TheMisanthrope 72
@71 Shut up, tea partier. ;-)
Posted by TheMisanthrope on February 18, 2013 at 10:39 AM · Report this
73
"Buying a gun should be at least as difficult as getting a driver's license (if not an abortion)."

Yes.
Posted by Patricia Kayden on February 18, 2013 at 10:51 AM · Report this
74
*yawn* I must say my unbalanced friend you are consistent in your dogged attempts to avoid the question.

In your own words, not ones you googled up, but your own.

What does "well regulated" mean to you and how do you propose to achieve it? Answer as if you were living in 1787 if you wish, all I ask is you use your own words.

Since you've clearly thought about this a lot this shouldn't be difficult for you, or perhaps you haven't really thought about in any detail but just parrot current NRA propaganda.

There is no equivocation here, it is quite clear. "Well regulated" what does it mean to you and how would you achieve it? In your own words please.

No google links, no cut and paste your own words and thoughts.

Betting you once again won't answer but will continue to cry about how unfair the question is.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on February 18, 2013 at 11:20 AM · Report this
lark 75
Sloggers,
I just read this terrific piece by Ta-Nehisi Coates of the Atlantic regarding urban gangs and gun violence:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arch…

I recommend it.
Posted by lark on February 18, 2013 at 11:39 AM · Report this
76
You've got to get all the way to page three to find this:

"Two other issues deserve mention. Failed national housing policies have really hammered Cook County's African-American communities. The same heavily-segregated African-American communities that top the homicide statistics dominate the list of communities checker-boarded with foreclosed or abandoned properties. It's hard to stabilize a community to address crime when this is the economic reality. I myself live in a predominantly African-American neighborhood within the south suburbs. Many houses on our neighborhood stand empty or are in various stages of foreclosure. It wouldn't surprise me if median household wealth among African Americans here has gone negative."
Posted by randoma on February 18, 2013 at 12:26 PM · Report this
77
@74
"In your own words, not ones you googled up, but your own."

I've already done so. But I can copy-paste again.
http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.ht…
It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

As I predicted, that is the FIFTH time I have provided that for you.
And I predict that there will be a SIXTH time.

"There is no equivocation here, it is quite clear."

Yes there is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocatio…
You keep trying to use a different definition of "regulated" in the original statement "well regulated Militia".
And you are trying that AGAIN.

"No google links, no cut and paste your own words and thoughts."

Why do you have a problem with supporting documentation?
Is it because you cannot provide any?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 18, 2013 at 12:40 PM · Report this
78
While it is true unbalanced you continue to link to a site that offers examples of the phrase "well regulated" being used in sentences around the time the constitution was written, examples are not definitions. Though I'll grant you they often accompany definitions to assist the reader.

True those usage example are followed by an interpretation of the meaning of the phrase "well regulated" within those examples by a 21st. century writer. But seriously that just runs us around in a circle.

Ok so to you the phrase "well regulated" applies only to the "arms" themselves, and has nothing to do with the "militia". Alright. So we can then pass legislation addressing the functional features of the arms and their calibration.

Cool so we can pass legislation requiring safeties on guns, trigger locks, finger print recognition software on the grip so it can only be fired by its rightful owner. We can pass legislation with regards to the caliber of the gun, and it's firing capacity. Legislation regarding the ammunition would be ok. None of those things would violate your definition of "well regulated" since the arms would still function as expected.

Good to know thank you.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on February 18, 2013 at 2:30 PM · Report this
TheMisanthrope 79
@76 This week's edition of This American Life is about the lives of the kids going to Harper High School in SW Chicago.

It's tragic.

It's also strange how they don't focus on the circumstances of life surrounding it. They don't go into the economics of the school. Maybe next week's part 2 will address it.

But, there is a Google+ review of the high school which complains about the principal...but also says she ran into problems and her and her family had to live in a shelter for a while. This demonstrates how tenuous life is for these kids, and the families as a whole.

It's really distressing.
Posted by TheMisanthrope on February 18, 2013 at 2:33 PM · Report this
80
@78
"Ok so to you the phrase 'well regulated' applies only to the 'arms' themselves, and has nothing to do with the 'militia'."

The phrase is "A well regulated Militia, ..."
So you don't even know the phrasing of the 2nd Amendment.
Not surprising.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amen…
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 18, 2013 at 2:42 PM · Report this
emma's bee 81
@77: since I see you are a constitutional originalist, I have a great deal for you: you get to keep your definition of "well-regulated" from 1787 and I get to restrict you and your gun nut friends to the small arms that were available then. Mkay?
Posted by emma's bee on February 18, 2013 at 2:42 PM · Report this
82
@81
"I have a great deal for you: you get to keep your definition of 'well-regulated' from 1787 and I get to restrict you and your gun nut friends to the small arms that were available then."

Perhaps you can do some research and find where the SCOTUS has already ruled upon the private ownership of semi-automatic guns?
Yes? Can you do that?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 18, 2013 at 2:47 PM · Report this
emma's bee 83
@82: yes unbalanced, you've pointed that out ad nauseum. Tell me, have they also pronounced on your precious little definition of "well-regulated"?
Posted by emma's bee on February 18, 2013 at 2:56 PM · Report this
84
@83
"yes unbalanced, you've pointed that out ad nauseum."

And yet you felt the need to bring it up.

"Tell me, have they also pronounced on your precious little definition of 'well-regulated'?"

Perhaps you can do some research and find what the SCOTUS has ruled on that as well?
Is there a reason you keep bringing up items that the SCOTUS has already ruled upon?
Is it because you do not know what the SCOTUS has ruled upon with regards to the 2nd Amendment?

Maybe this will help you do some research so you can engage on a more informed level.
www.google.com
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 18, 2013 at 3:06 PM · Report this
85
@80 oh dear it seems I misunderstood you, so it is the function and calibration of the militia that "well regulated" refers to not the arms themselves. I'm sorry when you wrote "It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected." I just assumed that "property" referred to the arms not to people since I don't consider people property. Then again we are talking about 1787 and people were property. My bad.

I think I understand you now. "A well regulated Militia, ..." with "well regulated" meaning the function and calibration of the militia, in other words, people not the arms themselves. Ok, the function and calibration of people hmmmm tricky, to me a militia is a group of people not individual person.

If militia is a group of people and that group of people is "well regulated" i.e functional and calibrated as a group, which I guess would mean they have rules and regulations by which the govern themselves, then they collectively could have arms. Like say the police, or the Knights of Columbus, the Black Panthers, ect... but individuals could only have guns within those "well regulated" groups. Ok I'm cool with that.

I suspect though you my unbalanced friend would tell me that every individual is a militia of one. So the trick would be determining whether the individual was "well regulated" i.e. functional and calibrated. Seems to me that would require some sort of screening process on the individual level, like say back ground checks, registration, gun safety classes, periodic renewals like we do with drivers licenses and so on. But I'm good with that.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on February 18, 2013 at 3:29 PM · Report this
86
@85
"oh dear it seems I misunderstood you, ..."

Well I did only post that link FIVE times.
Maybe a sixth time will be enough for you to read it?
http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.ht…

"I just assumed that 'property' referred to the arms not to people since I don't consider people property."

And yet the 2nd Amendment begins with the phrase "A well regulated Militia, ...".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amen…
And you were questioning what "well regulated" meant.
Yet somehow you missed the very next word which is "Militia".
And so you decided to substitute "guns" for "Militia" because ... well that's what you do.

"I suspect though you my unbalanced friend would tell me that every individual is a militia of one."

Well you could do the research on your own but that isn't going to happen, is it?
After all, it's only been 85 posts here and you still haven't read the 2nd Amendment.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 18, 2013 at 3:46 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 87
@86

The bottom line for you (and the NRA, who hand you your talking points) is that the phrase must be rendered neuter and meaningless, like so much window dressing. You would have us believe that they threw words around the Bill of Rights just to be long winded. Just for the pleasure of hearing the sound of their own voices as they read them. As if they didn't take their task seriously?

No. No doubt a clown such as yourself would have done such a shoddy job, but the Bill of Rights was written by serious, thoughtful men. They wrote what needed to be written, no more. The phrase is there because it has the force of law; because the exercise and boundaries of our rights would be fundamentally different if they'd left those words out.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on February 18, 2013 at 4:17 PM · Report this
88
I have indeed read the 2nd amendment my unbalanced friend and I had questions.

I have also read the link you keep posting to a serious of quotes from around the same time period the Constitution was written providing examples of the phrase "well regulated" in sentences. Followed by a 21st century man's attempt at a definition of the phrase "well regulated" based on those examples of usage. Interesting I'll grant but as I said examples of usage by themselves are not definitions. So that didn't get us any closer to knowing what those living in the 18 century understood the definition of "well regulated" to be.

I accepted your definition of "well regulated". To refer to the "function and calibration" of the object, arms, whatever. The definition then changed to "well regulated" referring to the "militia" i.e. people, individually or collectively.

I can now only conclude based on your last response that "well regulated" refers to all three. It refers to the object (arms/guns), militias comprised of a group of people, and militias comprised of one individual. I'm good with that.

In fact it actually makes sense to me. So long as "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So long as the people have access to them. We can pass legislation regarding the "function and calibration" of the arms themselves (the object, guns). We can pass legislation regarding the "function and calibration" of groups of people owning guns collectively, militias comprised of more then one person. We can pass legislation regarding the "function and calibration" of "militias of one" individuals.

In fact it gives people multiple routes to bearing arms, they can own them collectively (a cost effective way for me to get at a gun I might not be able to afford, so long as I follow the rules of the group I join) or I can be a militia of one, state my intention to be so and register. I like it.

Plus we can pass legislation regarding the arms themselves to ensure they are "functioning and calibrated as expected". I like that too.

Thank you for clearing all that up for me my unbalanced friend. Your definition of "well regulated" has really cleared things up for me.

More...
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on February 18, 2013 at 6:33 PM · Report this
89
@88
"I have indeed read the 2nd amendment my unbalanced friend and I had questions"

And yet you did not know that the phrase was "A well regulated Militia, ..."
You claimed that the "well regulated" phrase was referring to the guns themselves.
So no, I don't think you had read it.

Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 18, 2013 at 7:52 PM · Report this
90
Silly of you to assume that unbalanced. I asked about "well regulated" because that is the phrase the anti-gun control folks tend to dodge. True they don't address "militia" either but it is pretty apparent they don't believe the word has any collective meaning. Like an "Army of one" a "militia of one".

But again I thank you for your clarification that "well regulated Militia" means legislation can address the "functioning and calibration" of not only the Arms themselves but militias as well, both collective and individual. As intended and defined by our 18 century forefathers. You've been very helpful.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on February 18, 2013 at 8:10 PM · Report this
91
@90
"Silly of you to assume that unbalanced. I asked about 'well regulated' because that is the phrase the anti-gun control folks tend to dodge."

No assumption needed.
You posted it.
#78
"Ok so to you the phrase 'well regulated' applies only to the 'arms' themselves, and has nothing to do with the 'militia'."

So, either you did not read the 2nd Amendment or you somehow thought that the phrase "A well regulated Militia, ..." did not refer to the militia when the word "Militia" is right there.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 18, 2013 at 8:37 PM · Report this
92
This thread is a complete shitshow.
Posted by CPN on February 19, 2013 at 9:50 AM · Report this
TheMisanthrope 93
@92 Agreed...
Posted by TheMisanthrope on February 19, 2013 at 10:12 AM · Report this
Bonefish 94
92- Just wait until 5280 gets a spare minute, and he'll scribble some bullshit about how the REAL reason he needs guns is for protection from brown people. Then you'll see a real shitshow.
Posted by Bonefish http://5bmisc.blogspot.com/ on February 20, 2013 at 11:56 AM · Report this

Add a comment