You disagree with what I’m saying and think what I’m advancing is wrong. That’s fine. But being wrong or making an error is not the same as intellectual dishonesty.

I’m happy to be corrected, and I’m happy to have my positions assailed, but I really don’t attempt to lie, nor do I deliberately attempt to be intellectually dishonest. I’m quite certain you don’t do either of those either.

So my request is that even though you think I’m wrong, even dreadfully embarrassingly in error, do me the kindness of assuming my motives are honest. I think that’s fair. I assume the same of you.

I’m not totally married to the idea I’m expressing, but I don’t think it’s as stupid as you think it is. I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise (and I previously held very different, more typically liberal views on the matter), but I do find myself having more trouble with what I see as pick-and-choose defenses of constitutional rights. Just because the NRA interprets things one way, doesn’t make the possible confluence of opinions wrong.

This whole thing hinges on the militia bit of the second and I’ve seen wildly different interpretations from reputable people on that issue.

You breeze right past that and back to a debate on where the line should be drawn on what arms we can bear, but that’s not germane to my point.

I breezed right by it since it didn’t seem within the scope of the conversation. It perhaps proves that there are limits on the definition of “arms”, but in the most trivial way, since there is no rational position which defends this view (that is, that you can own a nuke).

I concede, then, that some limits are permissible, but that this only becomes a real-world issue if we talk about the kind of weapons that could conceivably be thought of as useful for a “militia” or for self-defense of some reasonable kind.

The thing I’m trying to tease out here, (which the charge of “absolute freedom” is glossing over), is that there are people, and I have many friends like this, who will fall on their swords for the first amendment, but don’t give a fig for the second. In fact, they would gladly see all (or almost all) guns banned. And they don’t think the amendment should be repealed or altered first. Never mind if that is a political impossibility right now.

This is the part that I find hypocritical. But, more, I find it dangerous for the reason I mentioned before: because the right can make the same claim to disregard what they don’t like.

But whatever those limits ought to be, I still find the desire to maximize the boundaries of the first amendment while simultaneously minimizing the boundaries of the second to be hypocritical if not contradictory.

That’s simply a lie; “those of us on the left” do not desire that the boundaries of the second amendment be minimized. Fuck, you sound like the very cretins that Marc wrote about, who think that “Obama is gonna take your guns away.”

It was germane to the intellectual dishonesty of your attack on “those of us on the left” who supposedly honor an absolute reading of some parts of the Constitution but not others — we don’t; any example of how we accept limits on both the 1st and 2nd amendments will do, so I picked the most obvious/defendable ones.You breeze right past that and back to a debate on where the line should be drawn on what arms we can bear, but that’s not germane to my point.

we’ve clearly demarcated the weapon limit around guns.

I don’t see the word “guns” in the Constitution. Do try to remember that that’s the document you referred to in your charge of hypocrisy.

We could fall back on the argument that restricting the second amendment is a matter of public safety, but that assumes a causality that seems unclear to me.

Why do we restrict the ownership of nuclear weapons if not for public safety? Why do we draw the line at guns? Sorry, but the hypocrisy is all yours. People can take different positions on the balance between safety and liberty in regard to arms, but as long as those who draw one somewhere on arms also draw one somewhere on other matters, such as speech, they aren’t being hypocrites — at least, not on that basis. Really, I’m being quite kind here, because your charge is really very stupid (and thus surprising from you). People who favor gun control are not simply choosing not to honor the 2nd amendment. Rather, they do not believe that the NRA’s preferred interpretation to today’s circumstances is the one that the authors of the document would have favored.

Your point is well taken, but I don’t think your example of a nuclear weapon is germane at all (nor do you, I’m sure): we’ve clearly demarcated the weapon limit around guns.

When we start to become more restrictive than automatic weapons (that is, drawing the boundary more finely, not more broadly), that’s where the rationale for such bans become much muddier. Although I’ll grant an argument can be made that the “automatic” distinction I’m making could be muddy as well.

But whatever those limits ought to be, I still find the desire to maximize the boundaries of the first amendment while simultaneously minimizing the boundaries of the second to be hypocritical if not contradictory.

We could fall back on the argument that restricting the second amendment is a matter of public safety, but that assumes a causality that seems unclear to me.

Wrong. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre and you can’t own a nuclear weapon. Once one achieves the rationality of recognizing that absolute freedoms are untenable regardless of what the Constitution says, they then face the messy business of defining the limits of those freedoms so as to make them as broad as possible within reason.

Of course you do, despite the fact that this is not an example of that.

Woody and Marc share their view of DailyKos, via the same application of intellectual integrity to evidence.

But I’ve never really gotten the “need” argument as a way of denying the rationality of owning an assault weapon. I didn’t “need” a turbo charger on my car, but I bought a car with one just the same. Why? Because I wanted one. Because it was fun to drive. I suspect for the vast majority of gun owners it’s much the same.

Which, of course, glosses over the definitional problem here. My understanding is an assault weapon is one that is fully automatic. It seems to me that a reasonable argument can be made that these rifles should be restricted, but that still leaves semi-automatic weapons. And I guess I don’t really see the effective difference here if what we’re talking about are these horrific civilian massacres.

To even potentially change this situation you’re in the territory of much more restrictive gun control and then you’ve run afoul of the second amendment. As I’ve said before I think it’s amazingly hypocritical for those of us on the left to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution we get to honor. You don’t like warrantless wiretapping? Tough shit; the right just doesn’t think that bit of the Constitution applies, same as the left treats the second.

You can educate only after I get a lobectomy.

Fortunately you are not one to have a child with the intelligence to make it into a college where he or she would run the risk of being mowed down by some other kid who spent too much time watching Rambo– or even make it through high school where they could be mowed down by some budding crypto fascist fantasist or even one who might have a kid that could get taken out at a McDonalds while stuffing its little gob with a Big Mac.

The incidence of slaughter by assault weapon bearing red blooded killers just in the past month–against their own sorta makes poop of your argument about:

“Speaking of the right to bear arms, I think the Somali Pirates are a classic example of what happens you when make it illegal. for the law abiding to defend themselves. The word gets out quickly you can now have your way with them, at will and without fear.”

…dosn’t it, Jim.

Texas Gov. Backs Resolution Affirming Sovereignty Under 10th Amendment…
‘Federal government has become oppressive in size… intrusion into lives of citizens’

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/world/13shipping.html?scp=1&sq=pirates%20weapons&st=cse

Protecting tankers from pirates is especially difficult. They are a favorite target in Asia and Africa because they are relatively slow moving and may carry valuable cargo like gasoline and diesel, which are easily unloaded and resold.

Accidental fires are a constant worry for tanker crews, which train for them constantly. A tanker crew that is exchanging gunfire with pirates could run the risk of igniting vapors from the cargo, or the cargo itself, shipping executives have said.

I wouldn’t want to be on a tanker carrying LNG exchanging gunfire with someone.

Peace through weakness. It never works.

Actually, that is a diary written by KLS and is not the host of Daily Kos, much like you and the rest of the Vitterfolk post in the comments section here.