Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: In your opinion, what is the Second Amendment? n/t [View all]Straw Man
(6,627 posts)64. I beg to differ.
But the high powered types of guns,
Very few guns available today are more powerful than a good old-fashioned hunting rifle.
the overwhelming collections,
I think you'll find that it isn't the collectors who are killing people.
the reactions to shootings where deaths of young people are secondary to people's rights to own these killing machines -
The bulk of the killing is done by people who have already forfeited their right to own guns. If anything, it's a failure of enforcement rather than a question of rights.
that's where the one size fits all doesn't work. That's where the world today is much different than that 200 or more years ago.
One size never did fit all. There are already numerous restrictions on the Second Amendment, all designed to further the goal of public safety, and most of them are abject failures. The fact is that we live in a society where the social fabric is unraveling, for a variety of reasons that are partly cultural but mostly economic. Take away the guns and the ills will still exist and the rage still erupt. The body count may be reduced to more tolerable levels, but all that will mean is fewer bumps in the road to serfdom.
Two hundred years ago in this country, non-whites and women were not considered people. Economic development rode on the backs of slaves and indentured servants. The Bill of Rights did not apply to all the people of the Republic, but it did open doors to much greater enfranchisement down the road. I would caution against closing any of those doors on the pretext that "things are different now."
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
71 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Sure - it was written a few hundred years ago. Militia. Muskets. Totally different country
NRaleighLiberal
Jul 2015
#5
here's the other issue - differences of culture, opinions, backgrounds.
NRaleighLiberal
Jul 2015
#17
I've loved this exchange. thanks! if I don't learn something each day, I am disappointed.
NRaleighLiberal
Jul 2015
#29
Protects people's right to own muskets should a militia be needed to protect the U.S. ...
Auggie
Jul 2015
#6
As I recall it was a compromise and only 10 of the 12 proposed made it
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Jul 2015
#32
I think the militia qualification was a "yes, and" and not an "only if" clause.
HappyPlace
Jul 2015
#16
That's how I read it as well, as far as plain English is concerned: the preface is
petronius
Jul 2015
#21
I agree. The government needs the 2nd to fulfill its Article 1 obligations. And I have my own.
Eleanors38
Aug 2015
#66
Prohibits the government from infringing on the inherent and universal right of the people to be
Nuclear Unicorn
Jul 2015
#44
The Constitution recognizes enumerated and non-enumerated individual rights. 2A is one...
Eleanors38
Jul 2015
#58