A Year After Parkland, Mednick Sings A Call To (Dis)Arms

I will give up my 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms when you give up your 1st Amendment right to free speech and freedom of the press.

1979 "I Don't Like Monday's." The weapons change but the screwed up "kids" remain the same.

I can fix the gun problem.All you have to do is go back to Flint Lock firearms.

THREEFIFTHS
Will the press be held to the same standard as flint lock firearms? That means only the technology that existed at the time of the Constitution is protected. Newspapers are not protected by the 1st amendment, since they don't use printing presses, TV is certainly not protected, the internet is not protected. Are you a thinking human being or do you just react?

posted by: redman on February 14, 2019 3:34pm

THREEFIFTHS
Will the press be held to the same standard as flint lock firearms? That means only the technology that existed at the time of the Constitution is protected. Newspapers are not protected by the 1st amendment, since they don't use printing presses, TV is certainly not protected, the internet is not protected. Are you a thinking human being or do you just react?

We are not talking about the Press.Are you saying flint lock firearms are a Violation of your 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms?In fact show me that it does in the 2nd Amendment that it does?

It's pretty rare a legally acquired firearm is used in a crime.

It's curious to me that we all understand the meaning of the word "abridge" but not the word "infringe".

It's also curious to me that no one seems to understand the term "a well regulated militia."

Can't wait to hear this album. We need a complete re-think of gun culture and gun laws.

Also to whoever was revving up for a fight about "legal" vs "illegal" guns: You do understand that the general gun glut in this country, plus the existence of sites like ArmsList (and lawmaker unwillingness to regulate them), plus legal loopholes like the "private seller" clause in the Brady Bill, plus the constant efforts by Republicans to hamper the work of the ATF, are 90% of why "illegal" guns are so readily available, right?

Cherry picking words will usually drastically change the meaning of a sentence or paragraph...let's tweak the topic to one slightly less controversial to make it easier to parse the meaning:

"A well stocked refrigerator, being essential to a well-nourished household, the right of the people to keep and eat cold cuts shall not be infringed."

Who has a right to cold cuts?

Sorry narcan, but "cherry-picking" is when you literally ignore half of the amendment. Especially in a friggin legal document. I can point you to tons of resources tracking the history of restrictions on gun ownership in the U.S. and the novelty of the "individual right" interpretation of the Second Amendment that formed the basis of the Supreme Court's 5-4 Heller decision of 2008, but... I'm pretty sure you also have access to Google. Go forth and educate yourself because quite frankly it's not my job.

P.S. There was yet another mass shooting in yet another Aurora (IL) yesterday. So now I have to use the phrase "the 2012 Aurora mass shooting" for clarity when I teach my gun violence & policy class. Last time I taught the class I had to interrupt it to inform everyone that there had just been a mass shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pennsylvania. I wonder what it's going to take for us as a country to admit that we have a problem.

Well since nobody has yet answered the question, I will answer it for our other readers:

The People. The people have a right to cold cuts.

The prefatory clause of the sentence gives context but does not specify the right being protected, or even modify it. Another question if you dare:

Where else in the legal document does it say "the People" but only mean certain people?

History is littered with laws that were unjust or improperly applied. Fugitive Slave Act anyone? It was 1920 before we got around to making sure the term "citizen" included those with XX chromosomes.

I will be the first to say we have a problem. Through media and lack of guidance, violence has been taught and glorified in the absence of any discipline about when it is actually appropriate. The latest Aurora shooting was terrible to hear. I certainly wish the State of Illinois had noticed the disqualifying criminal convictions on the shooter's record when he bought the gun. Perhaps a functioning background check system would help. Perhaps reducing the number of ILLEGAL guns in circulation by treating their primary sources (burglary and car theft) as serious crimes would help. Doesn't give Chris Murphy something to preach to the proletariat about, but it would actually have an impact.

I'm interested in impact. We also have a problem with drunk driving but I am not teaching classes encouraging the removal of automobiles from society.