Mass shooting at a synagogue in Pittsburgh today.

I wonder if the same politicians that are somberly declaring their undying condemnation for this attack will even stop and think that it’s at least partly their own hateful rhetoric and encouragement of heavily armed racists that leads to these things. That, and a culture where guns and violence are considered everyday, legitimate tools for discourse. Trump even managed to say that the synagogue should have had an armed guard in the sanctuary. I dare say that there isn’t a rabbi, priest, minister, or imam in the country that would want armed security in a service. It’s just so wrong.

And of course, every time we think about how our own shul security is somewhat annoying, we get reminded why it’s there…

This is the hatred the Republican rhetoric has wrought.

That Tweet is a pretty interesting argument, and one that I think has some merit. You have to look at the Constitution as a whole, not isolate one of the parts.The mechanism for fixing it though requires a degree of common thought and belief that is totally lacking, and probably will be lacking for the conceivable future. At this point, a huge chunk of the country is literally willing to destroy everything in order to hurt the people they have convinced themselves are responsible for the world not being they way they want it to be.

This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.

I’m sorry to hear about all the victims today.

“The way the 2nd Amendment is currently interpreted”

I couldn’t agree more. The key words are “currently interpreted”, and I think he’s quite right.

Updating my Facebook cover page to piles of dead Germans at Stalingrad and my picture to Zhukov was cathartic.

Are you referring to the Tweet about the Second Amendment? Just curious, because while one could disagree with the idea, it’s hardly a dumb idea, at least IMO. We live in a time when people openly use their right to own weapons to intimidate others and suppress political activity. Seems like at the very least a good starting point for a discussion about the utility of an amendment that was of questionable value when it was implemented and has grown progressively less relevant.

Or perhaps at least the way it is interpreted and treated in the modern culture. We issue laws to clarify and iterate on parts of the constitution constantly without massive appeals of unconstitutionality. We cannot seem to regulate gun laws without such appeals, which tend to make policy in that direction a non-starter.

I don’t see that as the case. Amendments are there to restrict government power.

Your speech has always been “limited” by other people. Go into a gathering of unarmed black dudes and call them all the n-word. They don’t need firearms to “limit” your free speech.

It’s a dumb argument. It sounds good at first, but it’s silly because you don’t have a right to freedom of consequence. It’s the same argument the right uses when someone says something racist or whatever and gets fired for it. “Oh noes social media is restricting their 1st Amendment rights, we’re all doomed.”

No. The First Amendment protects you from the government, not everyone else telling you to go fuck yourselves, whether that “go fuck yourself” is literal, financial or physical.

Edit: And the government comes after those who use physical in damned near every case because assault and murder are illegal.

Don’t let the murder of 11 people stop you from peddling the conspiracy theory that probably got them killed.

They know what they are doing.

Link

The Amendments are there to restrict the power of the central government vis a vis what were/are considered the essential rights of citizens. No argument there. But the 2nd is a hard sell as restricting government power in the 21st century. Yes, when the government’s ability to use force was pretty much the same as the average citizen’s, only on a larger scale (and often on a not that much larger scale), that is hardly true today. The right to own some rifles or pistols does absolutely nothing to protect you from a hypothetical abuse of governmental power. It probably makes it easier, as it gives the government an easy excuse to use overwhelming force. And “force” in terms of what citizens have and what the government has is so disparate today that at least to me the 2nd Amendment becomes a relic of a bygone era with zero actual utility.

Even if, for the sake of argument, you could say that private ownership of firearms provided a level of protection against abuses of power, it would be difficult in my view to show that the minimal gains were worth the horrific cost.

Mind you, I’m not a fan of simplistic “take away the guns” rhetoric. With hundreds of millions of weapons in circulation, I’m not even sure they can be controlled, let alone eliminated. I just think all of the arguments about rights and protection against abuses of power are a crock, and that the real issue is purely cultural. People have come to so identify guns, violence, and the thought that if someone pisses them off they can shoot them with the essence of being an American (particularly though far from exclusively an American white male) that they cannot conceive of a self image that isn’t rooted in the ability to kill people.

It’s clear from the Federalist papers that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to create a body of free citizens that could be called upon as an alternative to a standing army (which the original Founders worried would be an instrument of oppression by the state upon the people).

FEDERALIST 24

Previous to the Revolution, and ever since the peace, there has been a constant necessity for keeping small garrisons on our Western frontier. No person can doubt that these will continue to be indispensable, if it should only be against the ravages and depredations of the Indians. These garrisons must either be furnished by occasional detachments from the militia, or by permanent corps in the pay of the government. The first is impracticable; and if practicable, would be pernicious. The militia would not long, if at all, submit to be dragged from their occupations and families to perform that most disagreeable duty in times of profound peace. And if they could be prevailed upon or compelled to do it, the increased expense of a frequent rotation of service, and the loss of labor and disconcertion of the industrious pursuits of individuals, would form conclusive objections to the scheme. It would be as burdensome and injurious to the public as ruinous to private citizens. The latter resource of permanent corps in the pay of the government amounts to a standing army in time of peace; a small one, indeed, but not the less real for being small. Here is a simple view of the subject, that shows us at once the impropriety of a constitutional interdiction of such establishments, [establishing a standing army] and the necessity of leaving the matter to the discretion and prudence of the legislature.

FEDERALIST 25

Here I expect we shall be told that the militia of the country is its natural bulwark, and would be at all times equal to the national defense. This doctrine, in substance, had like to have lost us our independence. It cost millions to the United States that might have been saved. The facts which, from our own experience, forbid a reliance of this kind, are too recent to permit us to be the dupes of such a suggestion. The steady operations of war against a regular and disciplined army can only be successfully conducted by a force of the same kind. Considerations of economy, not less than of stability and vigor, confirm this position. The American militia, in the course of the late war, have, by their valor on numerous occasions, erected eternal monuments to their fame; but the bravest of them feel and know that the liberty of their country could not have been established by their efforts alone, however great and valuable they were. War, like most other things, is a science to be acquired and perfected by diligence, by perserverance, by time, and by practice.

All violent policy, as it is contrary to the natural and experienced course of human affairs, defeats itself. Pennsylvania, at this instant, affords an example of the truth of this remark. The Bill of Rights of that State declares that standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up in time of peace. Pennsylvania, nevertheless, in a time of profound peace, from the existence of partial disorders in one or two of her counties, has resolved to raise a body of troops; and in all probability will keep them up as long as there is any appearance of danger to the public peace. The conduct of Massachusetts affords a lesson on the same subject, though on different ground. That State (without waiting for the sanction of Congress, as the articles of the Confederation require) was compelled to raise troops to quell a domestic insurrection, and still keeps a corps in pay to prevent a revival of the spirit of revolt. The particular constitution of Massachusetts opposed no obstacle to the measure; but the instance is still of use to instruct us that cases are likely to occur under our government, as well as under those of other nations, which will sometimes render a military force in time of peace essential to the security of the society, and that it is therefore improper in this respect to control the legislative discretion. It also teaches us, in its application to the United States, how little the rights of a feeble government are likely to be respected, even by its own constituents. And it teaches us, in addition to the rest, how unequal parchment provisions are to a struggle with public necessity.

Clearly you’re not familiar with the first draft of the amendment:

A bunch of smirking Douchebags taking Selfies with semiautomatic Rifles at a Chipotle, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Feds are charging on hate crime statutes. Means they’re likely to ask for the death penalty.

These fucking muderers, good people on both sides my ass.