Comment Archives: stories: News: Cover Story
Re: “Nashville Opera stages its most daring production yet, David Lang’s avant-garde opera The Difficulty of Crossing a Field ”
REVISED:
Today, sitting in a waiting room, I read this article by John Pitcher. What stuck out for me in the article was the difficulty in making sense of Bierce's piece. True, it does not make any sense, if you read it naturalistically. However, a short story is not an account of natural events. The genre of the short story is a literary one; it is not a nature documentary. "The Difficulty of Crossing a Field" with the disappearance of the planter makes perfect sense when read as a literary work of art. - Perhaps we have lost the mental art of reading symbolically and extracting, mining the thought contained therein.
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
BB,
When did you become an advocate of submitting the rights of citizens to tests of public popularity? The whole point of 'rights' seems to be that they exist independent of popular will.
Since when did 'self-defense' stop being a "bedrock civil liberty?" Are you suggesting that I need to be subject to home invasion and death because that might prevent someone else being killed?
And why isn't a revolver as semi-automatic as a .45 Glock? If 12 bullets clips are made illegal, why not 6 cylinder weapons?
Please be honest and admit that you want nothing less than the abolition of any individual right to bear arms. I will respect you for your honesty.
And, by the way, why is proposed legislation that restricts semi-auto pistols and shotguns and such not a step on the slippery slope but placing a copy of the 10 Commandments in a public school is?
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
Lesley,
"Here's my biggest problem with the people who are against gun-control measures: they subscribe to the slippery slope mentality that's been fed to them by the NRA. They think that putting controls on certain kinds of weapons and ammunition means--HORROR--"the government's gonna take all my guns!""
So if Congress or the Tennessee State Legislature were to pass a law allowing public schools to hold 'Christmas Parties' and sing 'Christmas Carols,' you would not oppose that on the grounds that it set us on a slippery slope to gutting the Establishment Clause? Or you would not suggest that a law banning abortions for gender selection purposes would be the first step to a complete prohibition on abortion?
But that is exactly the logic pressed by opponents of any religious tradition in schools and of opponents of any limits on abortion. And I hasten to point out that while the "right to keep and bear arms' is clearly a part of the Constitution {#2 in the Bill of Rights}, the Constitution is without mention of 'separation of church and state' and a right to 'privacy' or 'abortion.'
So your position devolves to there is no threat to gun rights from major legislative restrictions because the slippery slope doesn't exist but we are under threat to the right to other rights from slippery slope policies.
I hate to tell you but you cannot have that both ways. Either the slippery slope exists or it doesn't. You don't get to decide which rights can be eroded without being threatened with abolition and which can't.
Stacy, your understanding of gun rights fails to appreciate that a 'living Constitution' takes into account the reality that the Framers did not want much of a national army. They preferred state militias. The growth of a national army obviated the value of the militia.
Now you can like that or not. But if you want to argue that we must red the 2nd Amendment that literally, then I have all sorts of parts of the Constitution that we need to change because of revisions in our understanding of their meaning.
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
Stacy, you wrote in part: "As I interpret the Second Amendment, the 'right of the people to keep and bear Arms' is based on 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.' "
It is not. For an expert analysis of the sentence, see http://www.saf.org/journal/4/4_schulman.ht… . You will see that the purpose for guaranteeing the right is stated in the subordinate clause, but the right is guaranteed unconditionally in the operative clause.
You also wrote: "Since the 21st century equivalent of a well-regulated militia that secures the United States' freedom is endangered only by a lack of funding, something our Founding Fathers could not have foreseen, I believe so long as the Second Amendment is not repealed, that Second Amendment literalists should be on board with the prohibition of citizen ownership of all firearms- except muskets! (Active duty military and law enforcement officers would, of course, be exempt from any laws banning firearms ownership.)"
Wrong again.
"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. Ameian Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
"Held:
"1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53." - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
And, as to repealing the Second Amendment, the Court had this to say:
"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." - U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) 92 U.S. 542
This opinion not only never has been challenged much less reversed, but it was also cited in the D.C. v. Heller decision.
You anti- folks seem to believe that you actually have a grasp of the facts. You don't.
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
The "debate" over gun control, with positions bordering on the insanely tyrannical, is moot. You can't put such draconian restrictions on a natural, fundamental, ENUMERATED civil right.
In 1994, the D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago decisions didn't exist. There was no judicial barrier to passing bans. Now, it is precedent that a) the people have an individual fundamental right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes not dependent upon militia service, b) that holding has been incorporated to the states, and c) Justice Scalia (in the Heller holding) clarified what the U.S. v. Miller (1939) decision actually said.
Miller established a two-pronged test to define just what types of arms are subject to Second Amendment protection. It held that small arms "in common use" that "bear[s] some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia" enjoy constitutional protection. Semiautomatic rifles and pistols meet both prongs of this test, hence they are proscribed from any government ban. Since the primary purpose enumerated in the amendment is to place the people in parity with government forces viz small arms, standard-capacity magazines (erroneously dubbed "high-capacity ammunition clips") are protected as well because they are design components integral to the efficiency of the weapons. In other words, the very things that are now scary to the uninitiated are those the amendment was written to protect.
"[T]he Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
The Heller decision also addressed (and dismissed) the argument that the Framers couldn't have envisioned the capability of today's modern weapons. Just as the Internet has supplanted moveable type, so have semi-auto firearms supplanted muskets.
The principle involved in both of these rights is not constitutionally affected by the evolution of the mechanisms to exercise them. Now, this may be bad news to some, but it is pure celestial harmony to others.
And, it is the state of the law.
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
"they subscribe to the slippery slope mentality that's been fed to them by the NRA"
Would also be the same slippery slope mentality spoon fed to us by many internet and free speech advocates regarding SOPA, PIPA, etc.? What about the ACLU and civil liberties advocates regarding The Patriot Act and NDAA? Same slippery slope there Lesley?
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
"Cars are also HEAVILY regulated, require massive amounts of insurance, certification, licenses and titles, safety features, etc. Why are we doing less for guns. "
YES, THIS.
Here's my biggest problem with the people who are against gun-control measures: they subscribe to the slippery slope mentality that's been fed to them by the NRA. They think that putting controls on certain kinds of weapons and ammunition means--HORROR--"the government's gonna take all my guns!" No. That is not the case. This will never be a country where people are not allowed to have any guns at all and the fear of that is completey irrational. And it's what's getting in the way of putting responsible legislation in place to deter deranged lunatics from killing numerous people in seconds.
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
AnglRdr,
That is not what I'm saying. We're not talking about the context (yelling fire in a crowded auditorium), but the vehicles by which free speech might be expressed.
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
@44allin: There is no such thing as an absolute right to free speech. Surely you know that.
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
1984 was twenty-nine years ago, yet we keep getting closer and closer.
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
Stacy, if we follow your logic then "First Amendment literalists" should be on board with the prohibition of free speech as it relates to television, internet, film etc. right?
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
No, 44allin, I'm not talking about the "sum" of deaths; I am talking about the "some" of (i.e. the unknown amount which is not a total) the reduction in deaths. Probably would have been clearer with quotation marks around it.
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
People have glommed on to some policies with a religious-like faith that they might prevent some killings. It follows the logic that "guns are bad. More guns are more bad and fewer guns is less bad." It is not true. It is not even reasonable. This is because there are basically two realms of the gun world: the legal world, which is subject to regulation,and the illegal world, which is not. So since what you are trying to control is not subject to regulation anyway, how would you regulate it?
And wishing we could go back 30 years to some mythical time and ban this or that is the height of wishful thinking, at best.
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
An exclusively-male panel to discus an issue that is most rationally debated at those times when it is least of interest (i.e., when there is no- pardon the pun- triggering event )?
As I interpret the Second Amendment, the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is based on "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."
Since the 21st century equivalent of a well-regulated militia that secures the United States' freedom is endangered only by a lack of funding, something our Founding Fathers could not have foreseen, I believe so long as the Second Amendment is not repealed, that Second Amendment literalists should be on board with the prohibition of citizen ownership of all firearms- except muskets! (Active duty military and law enforcement officers would, of course, be exempt from any laws banning firearms ownership.)
Stacy Harris
Publisher/Executive Editor/Media Critic
Stacy's Music Row Report
http://stacyharris.com
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
This conversation has brought to mind two things. One, it's clear rights are no longer cherished when they can easily be downgraded to hobbies in the minds of some. Two, there are far too many people that think the fix all is government regulation.
For those that wish to relinquish their rights for safety, I seriously suggest investing in some history research. Lord help us all.
Re: “In Memoriam 2012”
Thank you for including my son, DeMarcus, in the memorial. What you said about him was decent unlike the original stories in the paper and on the news. DeMarcus was a good person who made a bad decision. I miss him dearly. Thanks again, LaTonya Ellis and family
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
-@AnglRdr: So, now you're telling me what I mean? "Suicidal" is the word I want. But before he commits suicide he's going to harm others. You're always at least five degrees off the mark with your concept of what was written. Your comment, "wikipedia is not a reliable source..." Because the information is not what you expected? Ha-ha-ha, ho-ho-ho, hee-hee-hee...almost the funniest comment ever written in Pith. Classic.
@44allin: Only liberals think clearly. I think it's the weed.
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
Well if you want to get all snippy about semantics, SOME is SUM.
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
The word "hobby?" So what? I could say that commenting on blogs or writing political essays is a hobby, but that doesn't mean that a constitutional right to free speech is thereby somehow magically denigrated by that word. And guess what -- for some gun owners, target practice, hunting, or gun collecting is a HOBBY.
44allen, you said,"You can outlaw or restrict anything you want but criminals will still get guns, period." I and others are saying, yes, SOME criminals will still get guns. The most determined, the most capable, etc. But if you RESTRICT access to guns, then a whole other class of potential criminals -- the dumb, the lazy, the disorganized, etc. will BE LESS ABLE TO GET GUNS.
For anyone who is thinking clearly, the SOME reduction in gun crime that would result from decreasing easy access to guns (akin to the SOME reduction in alcohol-related traffic death that resulted from restricting access to alcohol for teens) is vastly preferable to just throwing up your hands and saying, oh well, we can't do it perfectly so let's just give up.
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
"For those of you who have some fear of government tyranny, I have news for you: no amount of ammo is going to protect you from the government. I'd tell you to ask David Koresh if you could."
Koresh was a static target. There's no worse option for a citizen than to hole up as a static target.
OTOH, ask JFK how well a few rds of ammo worked, eh? ;)
"For those of you who think we should have armed guards at schools to make them safer, I suggest you ask the armed guard who was at Columbine High School."
Lesley Eats, you neglect to tell the entire TRUTH about Columbine. FACT: department policy forbade said officer from entering the school upon exchanging shots initially. FACT: department policy REQUIRED said officer to REMAIN outside until said department's SWAT team arrived to "secure" the bldg. Meanwhile, unarmed kids were slaughtered. FACT: Once the SWAT team entered, Klebold & Harris were already dead via self-inflected gunshots.
FACT: former police chief of Columbine was FIRED for the failure of his police department to protect the innocent, unarmed kids. FACT: said police department has now CHANGED their policy & REQUIRES ANY police officer to engage & follow any active shooter.
So, Lesley Eats, were you either ignorant of the FACTS or were you purposefully being misleading (a polite way of saying "lieing")??????