Dennis Kucinich: The Constitution Guarantees the Right To Bear Arms

Dennis, one of the only liberals I just happen to like is the first liberal to be pro-gun!

It's great to see someone you like from the other side of the fence think like you, it kind of just makes the person more authentic and confirm that you didn't like him just for a facade.



I like his pink tie, groovy!

I think he touched on a few good points in this interview about the history of guns in the U.S. and how tax is increasing govt. size.

I'm glad he said that, it's a little self-contradictory coming from a socialist but hey it's better than nothing!

I'm glad he said that, it's a little self-contradictory coming from a socialist but hey it's better than nothing!

Socialist? Is it because he said we need a society that cares for people?

I'm liberal and pro-gun. Mark me as the 2nd to your list

Speaking of Dennis and Fox...


Fox News hires outspoken liberal Dennis Kucinich as contributor

YAWN...
Talking heads suggesting we need less privacy all the while sidestepping the real issue.
The US is drugged out of their minds on prescription drugs from dealers with diplomas.
Chemical babysitters...

reply to post by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Dennis, one of the only liberals I just happen to like is the first liberal to be pro-gun!

You need to get out more. Just because liberals don't generally wear their "piece" to the JC Penney or political rally to prove a point, doesn't mean there are no liberal firearms supporters and enthusiasts. You've probably "met" plenty, they just don't lead with their guns.

I have always loved Dennis.

.

I find myself liking Dennis more and more.
Too bad Biden can't get the boot and Obama adopt Dennis as #2.
Maybe Hillary will pick him up in 2016 ....

I'm a progressive, and while I don't personally like guns, I believe in the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. I just think we need to be reasonable about what those arms are for. I am in favor of weapons for hunting and personal protection - NOT the ability to kill a large number of people in a matter of minutes.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
I'm a progressive, and while I don't personally like guns, I believe in the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. I just think we need to be reasonable about what those arms are for. I am in favor of weapons for hunting and personal protection - NOT the ability to kill a large number of people in a matter of minutes.

So the question begging to be asked then is: how do you separate the two? A car, fertilizer, or even a knife has its intended uses, but can be utilized for mass-murder; why not include them in this debate?

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by kaylaluv
I'm a progressive, and while I don't personally like guns, I believe in the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. I just think we need to be reasonable about what those arms are for. I am in favor of weapons for hunting and personal protection - NOT the ability to kill a large number of people in a matter of minutes.

So the question begging to be asked then is: how do you separate the two? A car, fertilizer, or even a knife has its intended uses, but can be utilized for mass-murder; why not include them in this debate?

Yes, those other things can cause mass harm, but taking them away will hurt society more than help. Taking away guns fashioned after military-grade weapons, and taking away high capacity magazines will not hurt society. Taking away all cars WILL hurt society, as you remove the ease of transportation. Removing all fertilizer will be detrimental for crops necessary to feed us. Taking away all knives will have a seriously negative impact.

Taking away all guns will have a seriously negative impact as well, so I don't advocate that.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


How can a car or a knife be utilized for mass murder?

I agree with Dennis. The Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. That is not being challenged in the least.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I agree with Dennis. The Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. That is not being challenged in the least.

Yes, and I also agree with Dennis that we need to take a broad approach with this, including the mental health issue.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
How can a car or a knife be utilized for mass murder? :

A person can get behind the wheel of a car and plow through a crowd.
A person can take a knife and butcher a whole lotta folks in a crowd.
(like on a crowded dance floor)

Easy peasy.
Google - car plows through crowd ... lots of videos and stories ...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

How can a car or a knife be utilized for mass murder?

Run over crowds of people in a "car free zone" such as a festival. Sadly many people have done this already.

As for a knife, there was that guy in China at that school...and he wasn't the first unfortunately.

It has even been done with kool-aid, Jonestown. But that never brought the kool-aid man into question. Nor Tylenol with those poisonings in the 1980's, although it did end caplets and forced tamper evident packaging which was a good thing other than driving up the cost of OTC medicines and everything else like ketchup.

For all of those that lean left, do you want to keep the 2nd Amendment as a "right" or have it changed to a "privilege"?

Originally posted by beezzer
For all of those that lean left, do you want to keep the 2nd Amendment as a "right" or have it changed to a "privilege"?

It is a right, but like the Supreme Court said in the Heller case :

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks for answering my questions. I was genuinely confused about the assertion.

As I said, no one is challenging the right to bear arms. I LIKE the safety measures on ketchup, Tylenol, carrying a knife and cars. Call me crazy, but there are a lot of actual crazy people out there who do unthinkable things for reasons I cannot fathom. I agree with common sense safety measures and balance. I feel better when I open a bottle and see it hasn't been breached by someone else.

Beez, it's a RIGHT. The right to bear arms. It's enumerated in the Constitution. It's clear.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


Beez, it's a RIGHT. The right to bear arms. It's enumerated in the Constitution. It's clear.

edit on 1/26/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

Agreed. But universal background checks makes that "right" a privilege instead. I'm trying to illuminate the distinction.

reply to post by kaylaluv


While I do agree that people who violate other peoples rights forfeit theirs, I don't agree with background checks. Again, just trying to differentiate.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

While I do agree that people who violate other peoples rights forfeit theirs, I don't agree with background checks. Again, just trying to differentiate.

But how else are you going to deny the right to bear arms to those who have violated other people's rights if you don't check to see if their background involved violating other people's rights??? And, as per the Supreme Court, certain mentally ill people should not own guns -- how are you going to know if someone is mentally ill if you don't check their medical background???

reply to post by beezzer


There are certain restrictions on Free Speech and Freedom of Religion, too, but that doesn't make them privileges. In order to have a complex functioning society, individual rights much have limits and the individuals must be prevented from infringing on other people's rights.

Without limits, you're supporting people like proven dangerous felons and the mentally ill to own guns. There is a balance, Beez.