HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » When did the Second Amend...

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:31 AM

When did the Second Amendment become holy scripture?

I mean, I've read holy scripture, man, and that shit ain't in there!

We have local governments ordering "The Catcher In The Rye" to be removed from school libraries. Unjustly so.

Threatening the President's life is a Federal offense. Justly so.

You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater if there isn't a fire. Justly so.

You can't make damaging, unfounded allegations about someone in the public press without being slapped with some sort of sanction. And justly so.

The rights of "free speech" and "free press" are infringed all the time in the interest of public safety and the public good. It's a (mostly) fair trade-off.

But don't you dare take away my weapon of mass murder?

God, I fucking hate the gun-crazies...

Gun-troll attack in 3...2...1...

35 replies, 2307 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 35 replies Author Time Post
Reply When did the Second Amendment become holy scripture? (Original post)
Aristus Jan 2013 OP
Puzzledtraveller Jan 2013 #1
Aristus Jan 2013 #5
Puzzledtraveller Jan 2013 #9
Aristus Jan 2013 #12
One_Life_To_Give Jan 2013 #19
kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #30
joeybee12 Jan 2013 #2
el_bryanto Jan 2013 #3
Aristus Jan 2013 #6
el_bryanto Jan 2013 #7
Aristus Jan 2013 #10
el_bryanto Jan 2013 #13
Aristus Jan 2013 #16
el_bryanto Jan 2013 #20
sheshe2 Jan 2013 #11
RockaFowler Jan 2013 #17
sheshe2 Jan 2013 #21
Bake Jan 2013 #32
LeftinOH Jan 2013 #4
Robb Jan 2013 #23
jberryhill Jan 2013 #8
fleur-de-lisa Jan 2013 #22
Bake Jan 2013 #33
Recursion Jan 2013 #14
dkf Jan 2013 #15
jberryhill Jan 2013 #24
dkf Jan 2013 #25
jberryhill Jan 2013 #27
swayne Jan 2013 #18
Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #26
ileus Jan 2013 #28
jmg257 Jan 2013 #29
kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #31
Johonny Jan 2013 #34
Hangingon Jan 2013 #35

Response to Aristus (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:32 AM

1. Why not ask the same about the 1st?

Or anything else we are guaranteed. Just asking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:43 AM

5. That was the whole point of the OP. The First Amendment is infringed all the time

for various reasons in the name of public safety, a civil public discourse, etc. Sometimes we push back, and with good reason, such as the banning of books, also mentioned in the OP. But by and large, we accept that there are at least a few limits to "free speech".

But no limits to the 2nd Amendment, even considering the intent of the founders, and the literal definition of the text itself? Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:54 AM

9. We accept them as idealogical correct?

But there are laws that define those limits of speech as you noted, are there not laws that limit the acquisition and ownership of guns, as well as those that are ideaological in nature. I'm not disagreeing with you, I don't even own a gun or guns, not my thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:04 AM

12. Sure there are laws, but IMO, the wrong kinds of laws.

There are laws stating you can't bear a gun within 1,000 feet of a school building. But that's icing on a turd. There ought to be laws that a private citizen can't own a firearm. Keep and bear? Sure, if one is a member of a well-regulated militia. But own? Unlimited numbers? Thousands and thousands of rounds of ammunition?

If, despite the First Amendment, I'm am disallowed from accessing and reading, to say nothing of publishing, classified military documents, why can we not reserve military-grade weaponry for the military alone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:19 AM

19. If you live in eastern Alaska

probably going to have a different view. Not sure it matters how many thousands of weapons one owns when you can only employ one or two at a time. Some of the earliest restrictions were placed upon the storage of Powder. DOT and the fire service still have restrictions on how much of certain types of materials such as explosive and blasting agents can be transported/stored.

Military Weapons is a moving target. 20mm explosive round detonates on impact or range/flight time is military. Brown Bess was military but today is an antique. Shotguns long used by the military have also been the subject of proposed bans from military service.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 01:24 PM

30. No rights are absolute. NONE. Not even the right to life - look at our very legal

death penalties and laws which permit killings like Florida's stand-your-ground.

So, as the First Amendment's free speech and religious rights can be and are routinely abridged as part of ensuring that other folks' individual rights are not violated, then so can the Second Amendment's gun ownership rights be abridged to ensure that other folks' rights are not violated. Plus there's that little matter of gun rights only applying to a "WELL-REGULATED" militia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:33 AM

2. I kow, a relic of colonial days that was never intended to be interpreted the

way today's nutjobs have interpreted it...pretty firghtening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:35 AM

3. So you posted this hoping for a Gun Troll Attack - baiting I think the term is? Why?

Slow day at work?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to el_bryanto (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:46 AM

6. Thursday is never a slow day at work. In fifteen minutes, I'll be moving so fast,

it would make your head swim.

And it doesn't take much bait to bring the gun trolls skittering out of their trailers and tar-paper shacks, anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:50 AM

7. You must really hate those gun trolls - are you worried your hatred blinds you?

Or are the Democratic Underground Gun Trolls so repulsive as to have earned your disdain and hatred?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to el_bryanto (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:58 AM

10. What am I being blinded to? The beautiful, life-affirming things you can do with guns?

The breath-taking contribution guns have made to art, music, dance, literature, public speaking, child-rearing, medicine, gardening?

Disdain, yes. Hatred? No. Pity, certainly, for anyone who lives a life so full of fear, anxiety, mistrust and self-inflicted uncertainty that they have to go heeled every minute of every day.

Does my support for gun control make me a better person than the gun-crazies? In a few abstract ways, yes, perhaps. But mostly, I imagine I'm simply happier, and less full of fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:05 AM

13. Yeah those Democratic Underground Gun Trolls are just punishing themselves

In a way they are beneath your notice . . . except you just did a post calling them out.

Bryant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to el_bryanto (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:12 AM

16. I didn't say they were beneath my notice. If they were, I wouldn't have noticed them.

By definition.

Anyway, the gun -lovers have some rather awful ways of making themselves noticed. And if it takes the deaths of 20 young children in order to get one's name in the papers and on TV, well, small price to pay...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:24 AM

20. See if i didn't notice that sarcasm tag I'd think you were suggesting that

Democratic Underground Gun Trolls were somehow responsible for what happened at Sandy Hook. But clearly you aren't insinuating that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:03 AM

11. So true, Aristus. A sneeze will bring them out...

and speaking of sneezing...

If you have a runny nose and run to the store to purchase a decongestant, don't be too surprised if a detective shows up at your door shortly thereafter. Ever since a federal law went into effect that regulates pseudoephedrine, tracking systems have begun to pop up in local pharmacies, reports the Associated Press Since the law went into effect in 2006, pseudoephedrine, a key ingredient in the manufacture of methamphetamine, has migrated behind the counter at pharmacies. Customers must show photo ID to buy the decongestant, and the legal limit for purchases is 9 grams per month - roughly the equivalent of two 15-dose boxes of 24-hour Claritin D, or three 10-dose boxes of Aleve Cold & Sinus, or six 24-dose boxes of Sudafed.


Restrictions for Sudafed.... guns, not so much. Is it just me or is this crazy!

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/government/buy-too-much-sudafed-and-you-may-get-a-visit-from-a-cop/3316

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:13 AM

17. I had to sign my life away to get Aleve-D

It's the only thing that takes away the sinus headaches I get

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockaFowler (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:24 AM

21. Amazing isn't it!

I hope your sinus headaches are better, RockaFowler.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:12 PM

32. Don't even get me started on pseudoephedrine!!

I'm really tired of the pharmacist thinking I'm a meth cook. I live in the Ohio River valley, and if you live there, you HAVE sinus problems! Period. Our state legislators all think the solution to the meth problem is to outlaw Advil Cold & Sinus.

Good grief! Maybe, just maybe, they should try something ELSE to deal with the meth problem.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:38 AM

4. Because it is signed by none other than Jesus H. Christ:


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftinOH (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:54 AM

23. The "H" stands for "Hollowpoint." (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:53 AM

8. Don't you know the history of the Constitution


Here is a picture of the Constitution being delivered to the US:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:52 AM

22. That's funny!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:13 PM

33. That is an amazing photograph!



Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:05 AM

14. I don't know of anybody of any consequence who believes it describes an absolute right

There's a very broad agreement, even from the NRA, on restricting machineguns. There's a very broad agreement, even from the NRA, on background checks for sales through licensed dealers.

A lot of us would like more restrictions.

I guess my question would be, what is it about gun laws currently that makes you think the 2nd Amendment isn't subject to any regulation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:09 AM

15. I've kind of been making this point lately...our "rights" have been picked apart so much it's become

 

A joke.

I think we are deluding ourselves that we have rights, that we wave them around for some feel good supposed pride in our country. But look at the right to choose. Republicans have whittled down availability so much that they've pretty much stamped it out in some areas.

Look at our privacy rights...the government has allowed some amazingly intrusive acts to go on.

We've let our rights be whittled down to almost nothing. I think that is why they always fight so hard to be able to keep their guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:11 PM

24. That's an absurd generalization


Before Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963, the Constitutional guarantee of assistance of counsel was essentially meaningless. Prior to Miranda and its progeny, the 5th amendment was essentially meaningless. Arrests which violate the 4th amendment are thrown out in courts every day.

How many cases got thrown out on 4th amendment grounds in, say, 1900, 1920, 1950? About none. It happens every day. It happens so often that you don't hear about it.

The first phase of just about any criminal case going to trial consists of a whittling down of what evidence is going to be admissible. That is routine. It was most certainly not routine in the past.

Pick a year - any year you like - in US history when we existed in this idyllic wonderland of not having "whittled down" rights. Just pick one and stick with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:27 PM

25. Not necessarily based on changes in time, but whittled down in practice.

 

We've made rights so specific. I doubt the founding fathers thought it would be so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:31 PM

27. They didn't even apply to the states until the 14th Amendment

The founding fathers would be surprised that we extended them to the state level, more than anything else. You think criminal procedure was more protective of rights in 1800 than now?

Go ahead and cite me one 4th Amendment challenge to a criminal conviction at any prior to the Civil War. Cite one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:18 AM

18. THE 2ND AMENDMENT ALLOWED THE SOUTHERN SLAVEMASTERS TO KEEP SLAVES IN LINE.

 

one of the ways to do that was to use "slave patrols" (look up slave patrols and see what they were) and keeping these slaves in line with guns is the "gun heritage" that these people are speaking about.

It was designed to keep tabs on black people, but you can't say this historically, in action and deed even though it is, in very large part, the same reason for the "love" of guns today.

That's why the 2nd amendment is worded is such a strange way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:30 PM

26. 1977 after a coup gave control of the NRA to the crazies....n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:35 PM

28. Firearms are made to protect life.

Any other use besides hunting and sporting applications is misuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:38 PM

29. Or not. In fact, most are made to take life.

"A deadly weapon is usually defined as a firearm or any object designed, made, or adapted for the purposes of inflicting death or serious physical injury."

"Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm; "

""Deadly Weapon." Any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or serious bodily injury,"

edit quotes added

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 01:27 PM

31. Firearms do not protect life. They take it. A threat to use a firearm may protect,

but that's a form of speech. The gun itself is a weapon designed solely to kill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:20 PM

34. When they found an interpretation of it that spelled out for unregulated for-profit money making

off gun sales. Take out the massive amount of money in the weapon sales and suddenly these organizations would see the regulated part of the 2nd amendment as reasonable as polls show the average American.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:26 PM

35. December 1791

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread