{Amendment II Democrats} Change vs. More Of The Same

[derby378]

I grew up in a fairly conservative family, my childhood values shaped by my mother's Pennsylvania sensibility and my father's East Texas tenacity. We always kept hunting rifles and shotguns in the house, but my brother Steve and I were taught at an early age that these guns were not toys. My first experience with actually firing a real rifle (as opposed to a gas-operated BB rifle for plinking) was when I was probably 8-9 years old. My dad took Steve and I to a ravine in the woods around Gilmer for a little target practice. I can't recall if I hit that can in the ditch, because the report of that rifle was so loud, and none of us wore any hearing protection. Needless to say, I preferred the quiet of a BB rifle over the noise of Dad's hunting rifle. But we learned about guns from our father in a carefully supervised setting, just as millions of children across America learned how to shoot from their parents.

At an early age, I realized that I was never cut out for hunting – I felt guilty about killing any animal purely for sport, and my experience with trying to hunt drove me to embrace wildlife as I grew up, to realize that animals have a right to exist for their own sake, that they have a right to their own habitat in which to make their homes. This conviction was further reinforced by my wife, Ginny, who has the most gentle heart in any person I've ever met. She rescues stray cats, nurses wounded birds back to health, and feeds pigeons, grackles, and sparrows in the park every chance she gets. Her care for wildlife in general has demonstrated to me that although humans may be at the top of the food chain in modern society, we should not dominate wildlife, but instead respect wildlife and coexist with it.

This is not to say that I have anything against hunters. I respect the American tradition of hunting if it is done in a responsible manner, the hunter becoming one with his or her surroundings, enjoying the fresh air, the rustling of the tree branches, and the companionship of his or her fellow hunters. I despise poaching, loathe canned hunts, and do not look kindly on shooting at game from a helicopter. And although I understand the desire to display the head of a majestic buck over the mantle, I believe that any game should be harvested for food and possibly pelts, never hunted purely for sport. But that's just me.

Simply put, I will never do anything to endanger America's heritage of hunting and shooting sports, and I will enthusiastically support efforts towards responsible wildlife management and conservation, including efforts to halt and reverse the disastrous effects of man-made climate change. And I also understand that protecting our forests and wildlife is linked with the preservation of our rights as gun owners. All that I ask of America's hunters and sport shooters - all that I ask - is that they respect my rights as an American to keep and bear arms that are not designed for any explicit hunting or sporting purpose.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/19/10253/0589/475/603633

Or check out our blog here:

http://www.myspace.com/a2dems

[jody]

1. Outstanding. sad that it can't be posted in other DU forums. n/t

[Hangingon]

5. Nice piece.

[benEzra]

2. Very well said. Excellent article, sir. (n/t)

[iverglas]

3. not garnering a whole lot of plaudits, is it then?

Other than from the usual suspect gunheads.

I'm still waiting for the day when somebody will answer the question put there, for the numpty-nth time:

That's also my understanding - my question was what you think of this law, based on your (in my opinion) strict reading of the Second Amendment. The text doesn't expressly limit the right to keep and bear arms to non-felons, but you seem alright with reading that limit into it. If you're OK with that, would you be OK with other types of limits being read into it?

[iiibbb]

6. Maybe felons should worry first about their right to vote, and then work on

their right to arms.

[iverglas]

7. well, maybe you should tell someone who disagrees

I have many times pointed out how the blanket denials of the exercise of both rights that occur in the US are regarded as unconstitutional here in Canada.

Prisoners in correctional institutions vote (the right to vote being a constitutional right here), and a criminal conviction is not an automatic bar to obtaining a licence to possess a firearm. (A firearms prohibition order often accompanies a conviction for a serious/violent offence, and I believe is automatic in the case of some firearms offences, but it is imposed as part of the individual sentencing process if so.)

Odd that, eh?


The question nonetheless remains of how a blanket prohibition on the exercise of such a big important constitutional right in the US could possibly be constitutional.

And nobody here ever wants to offer a reasonable, knowledgeable answer.



grammar fixed

[iiibbb]

8. Well... you don't actually have an argument from me about that...

I don't necessarily think that felons should lose the right to vote...

... and I don't necessarily think they should automatically lose their right to arms.

I've occasionally read about some court cases where some ex-felon is fighting their denial to arms.


At the end of the day it's probably the simple answer. Felon-rights positions are probably universally political suicide.

[iverglas]

9. what the courts are for

Virtually all of the major constitutional rights fights in Canada have been won in the courts -- same-sex marriage rights, women's reproductive rights, inmate voting rights, refugee rights, minority-language rights, aboriginal rights, etc. etc. Mind you, there are areas where our courts have fallen down, no doubt about that.

A survey a while back showed that a large majority of Cdns trusted the courts to protect their rights way above elected legislators or any other institution in society.

Courts have to make their decisions publicly in a way the legislative and executive branch don't -- they actually have to state reasons for their decisions. ;)

[jody]

10. Fed law says when a person's civil rights are restored without exception, RKBA is included. n/t

[iverglas]

11. Simon says put your hands over your ears and go "wah wah"

and then make a fool of yourself by keeping on talking at the same time.

[gorfle]

14. It's simple, really.

Rather than restrict the rights of all for the sake of a few, we have chosen to restrict the rights of the few who have proven themselves too dangerous to exercise them.

But if pressed, and we were forced to have an all-or-nothing view of the Second Amendment, I'd opt for everyone to retain the right. But I'm not going to advocate that felons and the adjudicated mentally impaired have access to firearms, and I don't think you are, either. It sounds like you are making a point that if we allow some restrictions on the right to bear arms, then other restrictions are valid also. My response to this would be there are already numerous additional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, and I do not have a problem with most of them. I think you will find that most firearm owners do not have a problem with restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, so long as the intent of the founders is preserved - that is, the right to resist oppression and tyranny by force of arms if necessary.

[aikoaiko]

4. Good work Derby.

You've been growing A2Dems steadily for a long while now.

[derby378]

12. Thanks, guys

Never mind the catcalls from the peanut gallery. I appreciate your feedback very much.

[SteveM]

13. Excellent. "Gunheads" see the light; Can-heads see dark galvanized metal (nt)