C-SPAN Uses Periscope and Facebook Live To Broadcast The House Sit-In (washingtonpost.com) 350
An anonymous reader writes from a report via The Washington Post: C-SPAN has made history for resorting to Periscope to live stream a sit-in on the House floor. C-SPAN spokesman Howard Mortman said: "This is the first time we've ever shown video from the House floor picked up by a Periscope account." C-SPAN had to rely on Periscope for a direct feed to House proceedings because these proceedings aren't exactly official. The Washington Post reports: "Earlier today, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) led a sit-in on the House floor to push for action on gun control, following the failure of four gun measures earlier this week in the Senate. According to an official at the House Recording Studio, the cameras that C-SPAN commonly uses to broadcast House business are 'in recess subject to the call of the chair.' No approved video feed, no problem: C-SPAN has been piping in the Periscope feed from Rep. Scott Peters, a California Democrat." The feed hasn't been as reliable as C-SPAN's official House-proceedings feed. "Well, the Periscope video froze up again," said a C-SPAN anchor. And a bit later: "We're still having some issues with that video feed." At around 3:30 p.m., C-SPAN switched to a Facebook feed where viewers could hear and watch Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) rip the "cowards who run this chamber" for failing to turn on the microphones.
Secret government proceedings? (Score:4, Insightful)
I want to write a lot of interesting and thought-provoking things here, but I'm just stuck on that one thing in the title.
Secret. Government. Proceedings.
Really, guys? Tell me again how your country is a free and democratic nation.
Re:Secret government proceedings? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how many Slashdotters are prepared to fight to the death to keep their browsing History concealed from the FBI, but are more than willing have their 2nd Amendment Rights abrogated by using a list which has no Due Process to be either listed or removed?
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how many Slashdotters are prepared to fight to the death to keep their browsing History concealed from the FBI, but are more than willing have their 2nd Amendment Rights abrogated by using a list which has no Due Process to be either listed or removed?
Today I learned that "not wanting people to find out about my furry porn fetish" is the polar opposite of "not wanting to be shot by a crazy person with a gun."
Re: (Score:2)
Today I learned that "not wanting people to find out about my furry porn fetish" is the polar opposite of "not wanting to be shot by a crazy person with a gun."
And in a few moments you might learn that "banning the sale of weapons that scare me" doesn't equate to "not being able to be shot by a crazy person with a gun." And then, in a few seconds, that the "right to privacy" (which is not explicit in the US Constitution) is on a par with the "right to keep and bear arms" -- which is.
Re:Secret government proceedings? (Score:5, Insightful)
Odds of me shooting someone while I don't own a gun: 0.
You lie. You don't need to own the gun you use to shoot someone, it just has to be in your hands at the time it happens. You cannot guarantee that you will never have a gun in your hands, and thus you cannot guarantee that you will never shoot someone.
The difference between us is that I will never kill you, but you cannot guarantee that you will not kill me.
Another lie. You cannot guarantee that you will never kill anyone. You may run someone down while you drive a car, you may drop something heavy on them from a height, you may accidentally replace the contents of their salt shaker with arsenic, etc. There are many more ways of killing someone than with a gun you own, and your mouth makes guarantees that your butt cannot cash.
If you meant to say that you don't intend on killing me, then there is no difference between us at all, even though you claim not to own a gun and I admit that I do. (I don't take your claim at face value, however, because you've already lied.) I also don't intend on killing you, and I can make exactly as binding a guarantee on that intent as you can.
Your argument devolves into a statement of fear of things you don't understand, and that's a marvelously bad reason to create laws and abridge rights.
Would you object if there were due process? (Score:2)
a list which has no Due Process to be either listed or removed?
Would you object if there were due process to be listed or removed?
How would the due process to be listed work? Someone on the terrorism watch list hasn't committed a crime yet, and they're innocent until they have committed a crime, so how could due process be applied to bar an innocent person from their 2nd amendment rights? Can you suggest any mechanism whereby a suspected "lone wolf terrorist" could be denied a gun purchase through due process? (You can't really charge a lone wolf with conspiracy if the
Addendum (Score:2)
FWIW, the conditions for speech to not fall under the first amendment is that the speech must advocate "imminent lawless action" [wikipedia.org]. So, your co-worker spouting off about how he wants to kill infidels is legal under the first amendment because it is not imminent. He's just advocating lawless action at some unspecified time in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you bar an innocent, legally competent person from their Second Amendment rights?
That's what the Constitution says. Depriving
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you bar an innocent, legally competent person from their Second Amendment rights?
Because they scare me, that's why. My right not to be scared of you trumps your right to keep and bear arms, don't you know?
One of the stupidest comments I ever heard was from a Portland OR area politician (state rep, I think it was) who claimed that she was scared of people who have concealed carry permits. This ignores the fact that getting a CCP requires a vetting by the local sheriff and, the last time I checked, character references from three people. It made me wonder exactly how she behaved in publi
Re: Secret government proceedings? (Score:5, Informative)
The constitution does not grant any rights to the people, the people already had them.
Re: Secret government proceedings? (Score:4, Informative)
Exactly.
The bill of rights is a limitation on the powers of Congress.
"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any matter dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government." - 92 U.S. 542 (1875) [justia.com]
Re: Secret government proceedings? (Score:4, Informative)
It's not working very well, but that's the concept and the purpose. To claim that the Constitution gives rights is patently absurd and profoundly ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
Rights are granted by the people. Nothing is inate. You only have the rights that everyone around you allows you to have. We have more rights today because we have a more organized system of government compared to those given by warlords and conquerors in the past. These rights were written into the laws and constitution by the people as an agreement that they would not be infringed. They were not god given, especially considering many of these rights were denied in most major countries at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
The right to Self defense and the right to a safe home and family is an Innate human right. Which requires the defendee have the same tools as the attacker. hence the Right to carry a firearm.
Re: (Score:2)
What's an innate right, how is it defined and distinct from non-innate rights? Were the first humans born with it and only after many millenia were they finally recognized? This innate business is straying too close to a sort of religious concept of rights, something granted by a deity perhaps. If some rights are innate then why do different societies recognize different rights as the ones that are innate? America is really really big on individualism and our notion of rights is colored greatly by that,
Re: (Score:2)
whats not an innate right is theft, murder, anything against the law. its really not that hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Legal rights, not natural ones.
You should look up the meaning of the term 'inalienable rights' aka natural rights... it starts from the premise of the natural rights being pre-existing.
Even if someone denies/infringes upon your natural rights, does not change whether or not you actually have them/are entitled to them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The militia was, and is, every able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45. The National Guard is not the militia.
Re: Secret government proceedings? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the National Guard is part of the militia. It is, however, not the entire militia; the rest of the militia is made up of the rest of us.
Re: not Secret government proceedings? (Score:4, Informative)
The subject on this thread is asinine. There is nothing secret about what's going on. The cameras are turned off because the house is not in session. That's something that benefits BOTH sides at various times.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Defined by an act in 1903 and thus can be revised and changed by congress.
If this means I'm too old to be in the militia that I can be theoretically denied the right to own an assault rifle? What about females?
Re: (Score:2)
If this means I'm too old to be in the militia that I can be theoretically denied the right to own an assault rifle?
You already need to jump through extra hoops to own what would be honestly referred to as "an assault rifle". Note: an AR-15 is not an assault rifle, except in the mouths of people who think fear is a reason to confiscate inalienable rights from others.
What about females?
They can have my females when they pry them out of my cold, dead hands.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey slow-poke! 'assault rifles' have been rather heavily regulated since the 1934 National Firearms Act... and despite that you can still legally purchase one today... though it's going to cost you a pretty penny and about 9 months of waiting for your tax stamp to show up.
How about you reference a type of weapon that is a bit more common?
'Assault weapon' maybe? Clearly there too, you don't know
Re: Secret government proceedings? (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree that the NRA and company are taking it too far, there is in fact no such determination that the well-regulated militia is the National Guard.
And more importantly, there is no determination that the right to keep and bear arms is directly associated with the well-regulated militia clause.
"U.S. Supreme Court (1997): In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment."
"U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2007): The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias."
So bearing arms is actually nothing at all about the militia.
Don't get me wrong, I don't oppose common sense gun regulation, like background checks and safety training.
On the other hand, I am forced to agree that the current call for cancelling the rights of people on something like a watch list, is almost certainly unconstitutional. The watch lists are for surveillance and removing the right to keep and bear arms cannot be done by regular legislation, particularly if based on a list has just almost zero due process involved.
While again, I agree that the NRA is going too far, that still does not make it permissible to undermine those constitutional rights of those who are not given a proper trial.
Re: Secret government proceedings? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then maybe the solution is to get rid of the no fly list. That's a much larger infringement of rights than requiring checks before purchasing a gun.
Re: (Score:2)
The NRA agree's with background checks, always have. What they want is for law enforcement and the Government to use the Teeth given them by the law and Punish those that break the law. When is the last time you saw a Straw purchaser of firearms arrested and punished. Anything i have ever seen has been a slap on the wrist of 2-3 months parole. And those that break the law USING firearms be harshly punished.
Re: Secret government proceedings? (Score:4, Insightful)
Had they meant the militia they would have said militia. They clearly knew the word, having used it earlier in the sentence.
Argument failed.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite. There's clearly a regulatory angle too since they brought up the whole thing about "well regulated militias" first as context for the second part. So I think it's a safe bet that a future supreme court will see that it makes sense to keep a list of those in our militia.
Re: Secret government proceedings? (Score:4, Informative)
Your historical ignorance is on display (Score:5, Insightful)
The founders of this nation explicitly wrote in their other writings that the militia was every able-bodied adult male who was not a conscientious objector (at that time, this exception generally applied to a very small number of Christian ministers). They also explicitly intended that those American militia men (remember the basic definition - most adult men) would have world-class combat weapons. The American long rifles of the day were superior to the arms of the average soldier of the then-best-in-the-world British army.
Out founders allowed private citizens to own field artillery pieces and naval cannons in addition to as many hand guns, long guns, knives, swords, etc (and unlimited ammunition and explosives) as they wanted. Their presumption was that every citizen had the rights to ANY weapons of ANY type and in ANY quanity.
Gun control advocates have long argued against handguns, claiming they are not for hunting and only good for killing people, as though they are something our founders never intended us to have, but most of our founders had handguns and George Washington explicitly wrote that all American men should own both a rifle and a pistol.
The whole hunting argument is totally dishonest; out founders never intended the 2nd Amendment for hunting and you never find them arguing that it is for that purpose - it's like arguing that they intended the free speech rights only for communication between parents and children (a right everybody assumed every person has and which did not need to be listed because no government opposed it). They very explicitly in MANY places outside the Constitution itself explained what they intended. They never wanted a tyrant to arise in America who would do as so many royals in Europe had done for centuries - used soldiers against their own populations. Therefore, they did not want the US to have a permanent "standing army" which a leader could either use against his own population or on foreign adventures. They intended the nation's men to be so well armed that no foreign force would ever be able to invade and conquer. (incidentally, they DID create a permanent navy and marine corps, and would probably have created a permanent air force had there been militarily-useful aircraft at the time). They also expected that someday, no matter how much the Constitution tried to prevent it, the US government could become tyrannical and they explicitly said the people had the right to violently overthrow it, just as they themselves had thrown-off their former monarch.
The 2nd Amendment gun right is the ONLY reason the government observes any of the rest of the document; fear of an uprising. THAT is why advocates of massive government are always calling for gun control and use every argument for it. The simple fact is that the left-wing argument that the citizens should not be able to have weapons like the ones the military uses is absolutely inverted - THE POSSESSION OF FRONTLINE WEAPONS IS PRECISELY WHAT THE FOUNDERS INTENDED, AND EXPLICITLY SO TO POPULATION COULD OVERTHOW THE GOVERNMENT!!!!!
Serious Americans who have read what our founders wrote KNOW this. Idiots who just want a massive government that will take care of them at the expense of others, and which they can call upon to force their neighbors to do things, know that there is a limit to government power and scope as long as bureaucrats are too scared to push people too much for fear of an armed public - so they want "gun control"
Gun control is absolutely and fundamentally un-American.
Either the government will fear the people, or the people will fear the government. If you want to live in a land where the government has all the guns, you are free to move to any of a multitude of countries. I want to live free in the one country whose government was founded by culturally protestant Christians who explicitly said the population has God-given rights, among which are the rights of free speech, and religion, and property rights and the right to not be abused by malicious governm
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This might be going further than Darinbob:
The biggest danger to us on this topic right now is deranged people using weapons designed to kill people easily. The foreseeable future does not have a danger that the US governm
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Secret government proceedings? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Justice Stevens, is that you? [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's why they are the first to run to the courts and demand redress there, even the creation of rights there.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the part about the AR-15 is not actually a weapon of war anymore than a Ruger 10/22 is. You *could* use it in war, you are still going to be outmatched by the other-side who will have access to fully automatic weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. It should be freer than it is. That's what happens when the constitution is systematically ignored. There are plenty of 'democratic republics' where every government meeting is considered a state secret.
Re:Secret government proceedings? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about how so-called "civil rights leaders" are staging a sit-in with the goal of taking away civil rights?
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They are not advocating the ban of all privately held weapons. All civil rights will remain intact. We already have limits on all other rights, free speech is not absolute for instance and neither is freedom of religious activity. So having reasonable checks on gun ownership can be allowed without it being a removal of a civil right.
Re: (Score:3)
Nice straw-man you've got there. They aren't doing so in legislative form at present... but I guess for the moment we could ignore the wishes to do just that of some of those pushing the latest wave of bills.
Q: Is buying/owning a firearm a civil rights?
A: Yes.
Q: If the democrats are successful in passing their latest wet dream, will that deny some civil rights and due process of law?
A: Yes.
Q: How can 'all civil
Re:Secret government proceedings? (Score:5, Insightful)
Take away the civil rights of terrorists and criminals?
...and everyone else, given that the list they're planning to use (the "no fly" list) has no due process, no accountability, no means of exoneration if innocent, and the people on said list likely don't even know they're on it unless/until they try to board an airplane.
But, you know, they must all be criminals and terrorists.
Re:Secret government proceedings? (Score:5, Insightful)
So someone gets annoyed with you.
They call the police saying you're keeping a bunch of little girls locked up and he's heard them screaming.
SWAT gets called.
You get instantly labelled a terrorist.
SWAT barges in, shoots you dead, and face no accountability because you were a terrorist with no civil rights. Says so right here.
Re:Secret government proceedings? (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you babbling about? People who have been proven to be either are already prohibited. The Dems want to be able to prohibit people by fiat, people on some secret lists with no defined way to get on or off, and with no due process protections.
There was a vote a couple of days ago which would delay purchases, giving the government a chance to prevent them if they could prove anything of substance using due process. The Dems voted against it.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is... the Dems don't want to do that, per se.
They're just too focused on their pet project that they can't see that this is the absolutely wrong battle to fight over gun regulation.
There is nothing unconstitutional about reasonable gun regulation.
There is everything unconstitutional about removing Second Amendment rights from people on lists that are generated without due process, and definitely without them being convicted of a felony in a proper judicial proceeding.
Those Dems need to get up and
Re:Secret government proceedings? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just as there is nothing unconstitutional about reasonable press restrictions. Congress could outlaw all electronic media (radio, TV, Internet), photocopiers, high speed presses, etc., because none of that existed at the time the Constitution was written. They could not have foreseen these new powerful forms of speech. Only the government should have access to such technology.
Likewise, they could reasonably require that all news be written by licensed journalists, and subject to government review and a waiting period prior to publication. They could also set other reasonable terms, like limiting newspapers and magazines to a capacity of 10 pages. I'd also like to see them outlaw metallic inks and perfumed inserts.
Of course, none of this would violate anyone's free speech rights, since they would still be able to whisper to those around them.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet here they are, demanding a clearly unconstitutional regulation.
Call me when they actually advocate for something 'reasonable' with regards to gun 'regulation'.
AWB? Yeah, that worked so well.
Ban 'high' capacity magazines? Oodles already in circulation, and reloading rifle with only 'low' capacity magazines is quite easy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Suspected terrorists. Every single one of these new gun control laws that I'm hearing about (please, correct me if I'm wrong!) has some bullshit about people on "terrorist watchlists" or "no fly lists." These are bullshit blacklists, because there is no due process.
Yes, if some random unaccountable person in the government, without a court, is allowed to put you on some list, then I think that list should have NO POWER. There should not be a single la
Re: (Score:2)
It would be an awful shame if President Trump were to add you to a no-fly/no-buy list or three.
You go to fly to visit your dying parent and oh no, you can't because you were denied due process.
You have a neighbor threatening you and can't afford to hire 24/7 protection and know the cops are a good ways away? Shame you won't be able to buy yourself a handgun for self defense should that nut (who police haven't found s
Nothing is proceeding. Few Dems won't be bipartisa (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing is proceeding. A minority faction of the minority party (Democrats) decided they didn't like the compromise bill, so they shut down the House entirely.
The bipartisan bill that the speaker planned to take to vote would prevent the ~10,00 citizens** and 90,000 foreigners on the terrorism "no-fly"* list from buying firearms without approval, and allow them to appeal the denial in court.
Rather than accomplish SOMETHING that's maybe somewhat reasonable, these 60 or so Democrats decided to shut down Congress until they get their way and ban scary looking guns.
* The "no-fly" list doesn't stop people from flying. It means they can't fly into or out of the country.
** The US has about 300 million citizens, meaning that on in 30,000 is on the list.
Why is it always Democrats? (Score:2, Insightful)
Nothing is proceeding. A minority faction of the minority party (Democrats) decided they didn't like the compromise bill, so they shut down the House entirely.
The bipartisan bill that the speaker planned to take to vote would prevent the ~10,00 citizens** and 90,000 foreigners on the terrorism "no-fly"* list from buying firearms without approval, and allow them to appeal the denial in court.
Rather than accomplish SOMETHING that's maybe somewhat reasonable, these 60 or so Democrats decided to shut down Congress until they get their way and ban scary looking guns.
* The "no-fly" list doesn't stop people from flying. It means they can't fly into or out of the country.
** The US has about 300 million citizens, meaning that on in 30,000 is on the list.
I have to say, denying someone from purchasing a gun based on a secret list seems 'kinda... you know... wrong?
And also, why is always democrats trying to do an end-run around the democratic process?
We don't see Trump supporters blocking highway ramps and flipping police cars when a vote doesn't go the way they want. Why do the democrats think that's appropriate?
Riot in the streets when the government does something bad, yes. White cop shoots an unarmed black kid... go for it! But protest and riot when a can
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That wasn't against the rules (Score:2)
They didn't attempt to defund Obamacare. They DID defund Obamacare.
Shutting down the government happened because Obama refused to accept their budget without Obamacare spending. Since Obama refused to accept the democratically voted on and democratically chosen budget, the only option left was government shutdown. Which is what happened.
January 20th, 2017 and President Trump's inauguration can't get here soon enough.
And both actions were entirely within the rules.
It's entirely within the purview of the legislature and president to get into these situations. Even though it's bad, it's still legal.
And furthermore, it's expected that the legislature will base their actions on conscience, and the president as well.
I've no problem with either side using their power to do this - it forces us to deal with a problem.
The president doesn't order the police to surround congress, preventing people from leaving unless a vote goes h
Playing devil's advocate (Score:2)
I pretty much agree with everything you said. You seem like you might be interesting to talk to, so I'm going to express the opposing view on one point and I'd like to get your response.
> I have to say, denying someone from purchasing a gun based on a secret list seems 'kinda... you know... wrong?
My first reaction, my gut feeling, is the same as yours. HOWEVER, which of these portions is clearly a bad idea?:
a) Counter-terrorism authorities maintain a list of people for whom they have reason to suspect p
Due process (Score:2)
I pretty much agree with everything you said. You seem like you might be interesting to talk to, so I'm going to express the opposing view on one point and I'd like to get your response.
I have no problem with the government having secrets, and I have no problem with secret lists. It's pretty-much expected that criminal investigation has to be done with a measure of secrecy in order to succeed. Terrorism is criminal behaviour, so having a list of suspected terrorists is also not a problem.
The problem arises when there are restrictions without due process.
Saying that someone is prevented from flying, for instance, should be done using due process. It should be evidence presented to the judic
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder where they got that playbook from...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why is it always Democrats? (Score:4, Insightful)
How how short some memories are, here is just one list of examples of how 'full retard' they went: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I even seem to recall a mock impeachment trial in the basement of the capitol for Bush, yet still nothing similar for Obama: http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com] ... and that despite the fact Obama has done far more egregious and impeachable things... things that Democrats are ok with now, but will be screaming bloody murder over President Trump using the precedent of and riding even further.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it is not a government proceeding - at least not any more than if those same representatives went to a restaurant.
By the rules of the House of Representatives the house is in recess. (and the cameras and mics have always been turned off when the house is at recess)
Re:Secret government proceedings? (Score:5, Interesting)
I want to write a lot of interesting and thought-provoking things here, but I'm just stuck on that one thing in the title.
Secret. Government. Proceedings.
Really, guys? Tell me again how your country is a free and democratic nation.
Well, because it's not a proceeding. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't understand Congressional proceedings.
The House is in recess. It's not even in the Committee of the Whole... So as far as proceedings go, they could just as easily be having a slumber party in their offices.
The Chairman didn't really have a choice... the Members were out of order. He could have:
a) had the Sergeant-at-Arms "enforce order", meaning kicking them out of the room for not being in their chairs properly,
b) call a recess
On the whole, B seems like a simpler option.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, that is like the legislatures of most countries, both free and unfree. There is nothing odd about non-public sessions, although I agree that they should be used with care lest they undermine the legitimacy of the legislature.
Re: (Score:3)
I must have missed that part of the Constitution or the House Rules which says that if other members don't vote your way, you can coerce them into doing so by staging a sit-in until they change their mind.
Personally I would have had the Sergeant-at-Arms remove them, but I suppose that would have been bad PR.
How's the wifi? (Score:2)
Someone should give one of those Dems a VidiU.
US House in Time-Out (Score:3)
Funny that it was ... (Score:2)
I wonder if he put that up. (Need to look up if he was one of those who voted against the bill.)
Useless (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Tantrum broadcast on Periscope. (Score:2)
News feed should read as follows:
Elected officials failing to force-feed obnoxious and unconstitutional laws onto the people of America throw a tantrum on the house floor. Broadcasting of this childish behavior is discouraged by the more adult members of the house and senate forcing the emotionally affected to resort to broadcasting their distress on a popular internet streaming service, switching to Facebook when the prior service shut down the feed due to TOS violations.
Centure these anti 2nd ammendment senators (Score:3)
They are completely anti American and are violating their oath of office. They promised to protect and defend the constitution. The 2nd amendment is clear enough. It starts with one preamble that justifies it. But the meat of it is clear: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Keep means to have on your property, Bear means to have in your possession.
Registration and licensing is legal though I would disagree that fees for licenses are.
It is reasonable if you have a fire arm the government can mandate education. You can have the gun but if you fail to be educated they can lock you up. The education is also reasonable in that if you break the law in legal use of it that you can not plead ignorance of the law.
Arms are tools that can harm one or a handful of men. That includes knives, swords, axes, morning stars, and even automatic guns and grenades. Not nuclear weapons or tanks or fighter jets. Not biological weapons such as small pox. Probably tear gas grenades and smoke bombs.
The problem is that constitutional amendments as far a civil rights became the law of the land superseding state statutes. There should have been a constitutional amendment clarifying what past amendments are federally binding and which are state binding as well can requiring future amendments to clarify themselves. The 2nd amendment was meant to only be federally binding. That is why it was so short. The states were to individually decide how to regulate arms.
The only discussion they can have is repealing the 2nd amendment. Anything else is treasonous in my opinion. And to be quite frank I don't see why they are so hesitant to start the movement. Simply clarify in another amendment that the 2nd amendment applies to the federal government and that individual states have the right to regulate them as they see fit. In other words to do what the founding fathers of the 2nd amendment meant.
P.S. The second amendment wasn't about hunting. It was only partially about defending yourself from crime. It wasn't about people being able to rise up in a civil war against a corrupt federal government.
It not even really war, more about people being able to put up a gorilla/terrorist resistance. If one group wants to impose their will against another group then it's going to get really expensive and bloody. It's what the declaration of independence was about. Mistrust of strong governments. With the 2nd amendment if some states wanted to succeed from the USA it would take a long resistance. Imagine if the first US civil war had lasted 50 years. Imagine if even after we had won those states still resisted.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI last constitutional amendment took 200 years to ratify, so not in our lifetime. It would be easier for a state to leave united states than overturning the 2nd.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI last constitutional amendment took 200 years to ratify, so not in our lifetime.
Just because one amendment (the 27th) took that long to ratify doesn't say anything about how long a new amendment would take. The 26th was ratified in 3 months.
Overturning the second amendment won't happen anytime soon, but it's because doing so doesn't have the support of the voting public, not because the process itself has to take a long time.
life stinks. (Score:2)
It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Democrats voted AGAINST two common-sense gun control laws two days ago, and are now throwing a fit because they can't get gun control passed.
Yeah, that reminds me of the story about the kid who killed his parents and then begged for mercy because he was an orphan.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Democrats voted AGAINST two watered-down, NRA-approved control laws two days ago, and are now throwing a fit because they can't get gun control passed.
FTFY
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats voted AGAINST two gun control laws backed by an influential civil rights ogranization two days ago, and are now throwing a fit because they can't get gun control passed.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So, no loaf is better than half of a loaf?
It is called COMPROMISE. Explain to me how a watered-down bill is better than nothing.
Plus, is was "watered down" in order to establish some sort of BALANCE between safety and freedom.
If the Democrats are UNWILLING to COMPROMISE to find something mutually agreeable, they will never get anything passed.
Re: (Score:2)
So when the Democrats controlled the house, the senate and the presidency in 2008-2009, why didn't they past this then?
Senate Democrats didn't have enough votes to override a Republican filibuster.
Re: (Score:2)
Parliamentary inquiry... does 'creimer' actually understand Senate rules? (A: No)
Parliamentary inquiry... was the 'nuclear option' during the 2008-2009 time frames? (A: Yes)
Parliamentary inquiry... do there exist other ways of overcoming or bypassing a threat of a filibuster? (A: Yes, see passage of 'Affordable' Care Act.
No... the dirty little secret is that the Democrats couldn't be bothered then or now to spend any serious polit
Re: (Score:2)
Parliamentary inquiry... was the 'nuclear option' during the 2008-2009 time frames? (A: Yes)
The nuclear option during the Obama Administration wasn't used until 2011.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Use_of_nuclear_option_during_Obama_presidency [wikipedia.org]
No... the dirty little secret is that the Democrats couldn't be bothered then or now to spend any serious political capitol on gun control.
All the political capital got spent on ObamaCare, which required the reconciliation process to pass through the Senate on a majority vote (56-43).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Care_and_Education_Reconciliation_Act_of_2010 [wikipedia.org]
[...] the only reason they are throwing the hissy fit they are now is in the hopes of picking up some votes come November.
The Republicans can't govern because they're stuck between the Tea Party extremists in the House and Donald Trump ru
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone paying attention is aware... that you just admitted how cowardly the Democrats were to use it when it mattered (ie during the time-frame referenced above (when they viewed themselves as having a mandate)).
Water is also wet and the sun is a mass of incandescent gas. Your point? Oh righ
Re: (Score:2)
[...] that you just admitted how cowardly the Democrats were to use it [...]
You're saying that the Republicans were cowards for using the same exact reconciliation process to repeal Obamacare on a majority vote (52-47)?
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/262071-senate-approves-bill-repealing-much-of-obamacare [thehill.com]
I seem to recall Obama getting fewer votes than 08
Obama is the first president since Eisenhower to win two consecutive elections with 51% of the votes. Roosevelt won four consecutive elections with 53% or better. That's a very impressive historic record for any president.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-01-03/fi [bloomberg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats are sitting on the floor. Republicans are sitting on their hands. That's what democracy looks like in the 21st century.
Actually, given that the vast majority of congressional activity results either in higher taxes or in a loss of individual liberty, I'm inclined to see this inaction as a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, given that the vast majority of congressional activity results either in higher taxes or in a loss of individual liberty, I'm inclined to see this inaction as a good thing.
But they're still getting paid for doing nothing. If I did nothing on my government IT job, I would get fired and find myself unemployed.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a big difference between doing nothing and accomplishing nothing.
Gridlock is the best we can do with government.
Re: (Score:2)
There is an even bigger difference: Most of us are at-will employees and can be let go for just about any reason and at any time, Senators however are on a 6-year contract (Congressmen 2-year) during which time, little short of an expulsion, resignation or death can remove them from their position.
More so, unlike those of us who work for someone else... Article I, Section V gives both bodies of congress pretty wide latitude with regards to setting their own rules and agendas.
Of course, I doubt creimer would
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, I doubt creimer would be complaining of his party was in control of the house/senate and wasn't the most cooperative with a Republican President.
What party do you think I belong to? (Hint: I'm a moderate conservative.)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the first step is to vote out the terrorist-supporting Republicans who are determined to satisfy their NRA paymasters even if it means keeping ISIS armed to the teeth.
I am laughing. I can't tell if this the writing of someone genuinely insane, or just meant to look like it.
Either way well done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that's not what I read in the original transcripts... given the very clear reference to 'god' (ie not 'allah', he was clearly a bible thumper, Baptist maybe?
For all we know, [omitted] was inserted because of his pledges of loyalty to Pat Robertson & the Pope... which clearly makes him a christian terrorist.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if there is a legal equivalency between the right to fly on a commercial airline and the right to arms.
Bad news... there isn't, alas the Democrats really don't care about due process.
Re:A sit in (Score:5, Insightful)
Using the no-fly list to keep bad guys from guns is a terrible idea, here is why:
None of the shooters in any of the mass shootings were on the no-fly list.
It's just a bad idea that can and will be abused to keep law abiding citizens from possessing guns, which the federal government has no legal power to do.
If you actually want to solve the mass shooting problem, and not just use fear to remove freedoms from individuals with thunderous applause, this is what I propose:
Let guns be in schools. As part of P.E. or even on its own, students will be in a firearm safety course. They will be target practicing. They will be tearing their guns down. They will be cleaning their firearms. They will be using hand guns, and rifles, and shotguns, etc. They will be taught that they are tools just like the circular saw or the welder in shop class, or knives and scissors in art class and home economics. They will take this class every year they are old enough to hold a weapon safely.
Just like at 16, when they are given a license to operate a tool that "kills" on average 3,287 people per day, at 18 they will take a test and if passed they will get a concealed carry license issued by their state of residence. The CCL will be valid in every state and territory of this nation. All of our children will be taught to not fear guns, and if they so chose they will be armed. That way the next time someone decides to bring a semi auto rifle to a night club to kill innocent people, that person would potentially be staring down a hundred barrels of trained good guys.
There will be no fear for the government to use to tighten gun control. People will not fear guns and will know how to use them. There will not be a gun control problem. Who knows, if everyone is armed, perhaps people may be more respectful to each other.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that the grabbers aren't interested in an endpoint, they're interested in stripping our rights away completely, so every step back is a permanent loss.