Have we become comfortably numb

[slowGEEZR]

You certainly are entitled to your personal opinion. You are free to disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court's declaration as to the meaning of the Second Amendment.

But is your disagreement based on any actual understanding of Constitutional law and the origin of the Second Amendment amendment or the legislative history and political culture behind it, or is your disagreement based simply on your personal opinion, because you know better?

Many Americans today think they would like to re-evaluate the First Amendment. Are there any other guarantees of personal liberties in the Bill of Rights you feel like throwing away?

Fortunately, the Constitution, enforced by the U.S. Supreme Court, protects people like me from people like you.

Please Ron, don't be insulting. Here is a list of decisions made by the Supreme Court regarding the 2nd Amendment. I'd say they reinforce what I believe.
http://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

 

[RonR]

Your linked article begins with an accurate explanation of the "collective right" view versus the "individual right" view, and provides an excellent summary of the relevant caselaw. The article reports correctly that in District of Columbia v. Heller the U.S. Supreme Court held that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia . . ." and thus upheld the "individual right" view that the Second Amendment guarantees to individuals the right to own firearms.

Thank you for posting this link.

 

[RCHeliGuy]

One reason that I don't think we are going to see a resolution on this issue is the following:

Politics is now all about extremists and no longer around moderates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ws-how-republicans-are-an-endangered-species/

 

[RonR]

One reason that I don't think we are going to see a resolution on this issue is the following:

Politics is now all about extremists and no longer around moderates.

I, for one, would not worry about that. That looks like a blog post, not an ostensibly objective news article.

I reviewed all of the recent articles by the author and he is not at all subtle about being a Left-leaning Democrat, so his political bias makes his essay suspect to begin with.

The conclusion of the study referred to in the article depends entirely on the subjective application of "moderate" or "not moderate" to a variety of political positions. Since we do not know how members' positions on issues were determined or how positions are defined in terms of "moderate" or "not moderate" we do not know anything logically sound about the study.

If I asked a Conservative Republican I am sure he would have no trouble finding a large number of Liberal Democrat "extremists" in the House. It is not surprising that a Liberal Democrat has no trouble defining, and then finding, a large number of Republican "extremists" in the House.

Both parties certainly have extremists. But one side tagging the other side with self-defined labels is not, to me, a fruitful way forward toward compromise and progress on the issues of the day.

As far as Second Amendment issues go, now that we have established that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, we can turn to policy ideas which are, in my opinion, Constitutional. These include:

1) background checks at gun shows just like the background checks federally registered firearms dealers have to perform; and

2) requiring people who want to purchase a firearm to pass a written test and a live-fire range proficiency test.

Of course these policies do not deal with mental health regulations and the critical issue of requiring hospitals/doctors/mental health officials to notify local police or the federal background check database of people who have experienced serious mental health issues or attempted suicide (like the recent Oregon school shooter).

Finally, I believe that a ban on semi-automatic firearms is unconstitutional.

 

[amey01]

Dear amey01,

I was hoping for a more thoughtful and reflective reply.

I was hoping you'd be thoughtful and reflective enough not to need it. I already said that I'd only be repeating what I have already said. I'm not going to waste bandwidth.

PS - no need to be patronising or condescending.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Mark,

Your article reminded me of something. I know this is off topic but what the hell. And it's a chicken and egg conundrum.

Some of the politicians in Washington cite the electorate as the reason they have become "ideologues" and unwilling / unable to compromise.

But most of the electorate would respond that they are disgusted with Washington because the pols don't get anything done and are stuck in constant "gridlock". They want the pols (I think) to discuss, determine common ground, compromise, accomplish something.

This is part of the issue we and others have in trying to resolve differences that are ideologically charged. And sadly, I see nothing in the future that is going to change this stalemate.

GG

 

[asindc]

To answer the question posed in the thread title, unfortunately yes.

 

[RCHeliGuy]

Mark,

Your article reminded me of something. I know this is off topic but what the hell. And it's a chicken and egg conundrum.

Some of the politicians in Washington cite the electorate as the reason they have become "ideologues" and unwilling / unable to compromise.

But most of the electorate would respond that they are disgusted with Washington because the pols don't get anything done and are stuck in constant "gridlock". They want the pols (I think) to discuss, determine common ground, compromise, accomplish something.

This is part of the issue we and others have in trying to resolve differences that are ideologically charged. And sadly, I see nothing in the future that is going to change this stalemate.

GG

I saw another interesting article that will be a documentary soon. The filmmaker sited his Dad as being a non-political Democrat who ended up with a long commute to work, and who turned into a radicalized Republican because he listened to talk radio on his way to work. The son decided to research this and found a large group of people who have been effectively brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh etc.. When you say enough lies over and over again and feed fear to people you can manipulate them pretty easily and that is exactly what has happened in the name of ratings.

 

[amey01]

When you say enough lies over and over again and feed fear to people you can manipulate them pretty easily

Yep - it's amazing what people will believe when they are told to through brainwashing. Total loss of perception and situational awareness. Remember - it was only 70 years ago that the entire population of Germany thought that Jews had to be exterminated. Countries go to war based on these differences in perception. Doesn't make it right though.

 

[Gordon Gray]

When you say enough lies over and over again and feed fear to people you can manipulate them pretty easily and that is exactly what has happened in the name of ratings.

Only to those who don't do their homework and are prone to "drink the water" presented by the "name your media, organization, etc." my friend, which unfortunately is much more the norm than the exception.

And that sad fact (misinformation / propaganda) exists, not only within politics, but in literally all informational sources of our "connected" generation regardless of topic and / or issue.

 

[RCHeliGuy]

Unfortunately a large number of voting Americans don't do any homework what-so-ever.

Our country DEPENDS on informed citizens. We no longer have that. Democracy is failing in the US because we have allowed the rules to become corrupted. Unfortunately it will be a LOT harder to put things back on track than it was to let it fall into this state.

 

[RonR]

. . . turned into a radicalized Republican because he listened to talk radio on his way to work. . . . a large group of people who have been effectively brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh etc.. When you say enough lies over and over again and feed fear to people you can manipulate them pretty easily . . .

Effectively, you are saying that anyone who does not believe in the policies espoused by Liberal Democrats -- anyone who is a Republican -- has been brainwashed?

You lament the lack of fellowship and co-operation and compromise in Washington, D.C. If you want to know why Members of Congress (who faithfully represent the ideologies of the constituents who sent them to D.C.) in each party fail to understand or appreciate the other party's views, making compromise and national problem solving-impossible, just look in the mirror.

 

[RCHeliGuy]

That is not what I'm saying.

The GOP and the Democratic party used to have a core group that were moderates and some that were a bit further to the left and to the right. They could work together to get things done.

Everything has shifted since then. If you look at all of the issues Nixon and Reagan would be labeled liberal Democrats.

I know a number of people who have left the Republican party over the last few years, not because they are Democrats, but because they were embarrassed to be associated with the Republican party who they felt no longer represents them. Internally the GOP is fractured right now. I expect that it will eventually need to break into two parties. The Tea Party really needs to be its own separate entity, and the Republican Party needs to regain it's conservative roots. Conservative used to mean small careful change. The Tea Party is almost revolutionary by comparison and I believe that the Tea Party has hurt the Republican party a great deal.

Our country needs a strong Republican party with financially conservative and socially moderate people running the show.

If you compare the Democratic and Republican debates you see something very different. The Democratic debate was all about the issues. The Republican debates have been a free for all, trying to enrage people and attack each other.

I'm an Independent and I have voted both sides of the ticket. I have never considered myself anti-Republican, but I am anti-Tea Party and I HATE what they have done to the Republican party.

 

[RonR]

I agree completely that the 40 or so "Tea Party" Conservatives in the House, and Ted Cruz in the Senate, are doing far more damage to the Republican Party than Democrats could dream of doing! The "Tea Party" people will never break off into a third party. A variety of political science and structural factors make America a two-party political system.

I do not agree that Nixon and Reagan would today be labeled Liberal Democrats. I do not agree with your debates analysis. In the Democratic debate all participants know that Clinton will be the nominee. It is a different dynamic than in the Republican debate, where the nominee remains an open question.

Like you, I am not registered as a Democrat or a Republican. It is shocking to me how little smart, sophisticated Republicans like Ted Cruz seem to know about political science in America.

As a registered Libertarian I agree with some of the "Tea Party's" underlying philosophies, but I disagree entirely as to their methods. I agree with you that I, too, do not like what the "Tea Party" has done to the Republican Party. The "Tea Party" seems, blindly and unwittingly, determined to make sure that for the foreseeable future no Republican is elected President.

 

[RCHeliGuy]

With regard to the debates, even if Hillary wasn't considered a shoe in, I can't imagine Bernie saying something like "Look at that face!" or one of them referring to a video that was a complete hoax to get people upset. Whether you agree with them or not, the Democratic candidates are at least behaving like rational and mature people. Even if Bernie doesn't get the nomination, I think he has gotten the Democratic base fired up and he has changed some of the talking points.

Hillary is a consummate politician and she will make some of Bernie's talking points her own( that will be his legacy), but she will be a lot more moderate.

The Republican candidates fell just short of throwing feces at each other on stage. It was embarrassing!

I want a strong GOP candidate badly, but nothing good can come from what is going on right now.

Kasich might have actually stood a chance of winning a Presidential election, and could have gotten a lot of independents behind him, but sanity and moderation doesn't seem to matter these days.

I agree that the Republican's will not be able to elect a president.

 

[slowGEEZR]

Your linked article begins with an accurate explanation of the "collective right" view versus the "individual right" view, and provides an excellent summary of the relevant caselaw. The article reports correctly that in District of Columbia v. Heller the U.S. Supreme Court held that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia . . ." and thus upheld the "individual right" view that the Second Amendment guarantees to individuals the right to own firearms.

Thank you for posting this link.

You are welcome. It shows that the amendment is interpreted differently, depending on the Supreme Court at the time. What I'm saying is that it should be interpreted again.

The United States Supreme Court addressed the Amendment three times in 1876, 1886, and 1939 and on each occasion held that it granted the people a right to bear arms only within the militia. [See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886); United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).] The word “militia” is defined in the Constitution itself:

“The Congress shall have Power . . . To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” [Article 1, § 8.

 

[RonR]

Kasich might have actually stood a chance of winning a Presidential election, and could have gotten a lot of independents behind him, but sanity and moderation doesn't seem to matter these days.

I like John Kasich a lot, and I contributed to him the individual maximum amount. I think he is the only Republican who could win a general election.

 

[slowGEEZR]

I agree completely that the 40 or so "Tea Party" Conservatives in the House, and Ted Cruz in the Senate, are doing far more damage to the Republican Party than Democrats could dream of doing! The "Tea Party" people will never break off into a third party. A variety of political science and structural factors make America a two-party political system.

I do not agree that Nixon and Reagan would today be labeled Liberal Democrats. I do not agree with your debates analysis. In the Democratic debate all participants know that Clinton will be the nominee. It is a different dynamic than in the Republican debate, where the nominee remains an open question.

Like you, I am not registered as a Democrat or a Republican. It is shocking to me how little smart, sophisticated Republicans like Ted Cruz seem to know about political science in America.

As a registered Libertarian I agree with some of the "Tea Party's" underlying philosophies, but I disagree entirely as to their methods. I agree with you that I, too, do not like what the "Tea Party" has done to the Republican Party. The "Tea Party" seems, blindly and unwittingly, determined to make sure that for the foreseeable future no Republican is elected President.

Something we can agree upon!

 

[RonR]

Finally!

 

[Gordon Gray]

The problems with the "Tea Party" folks is becoming quite evident in the search for the next Rep. House speaker.

I think they call themselves the "Freedom Caucus" now.

What a flippin circus of dysfunctionality in full public display.