HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » The 2nd amendment
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:43 PM

The 2nd amendment

Has been twisted into a Constitutional mandate to the right to own any firearm and to use it any way a person would want. Not sure how we got here but that argument is absurd. I believe we need to either repeal or re-define the second amendment to help us move past this to a more honest debate on how to fix the problem. Repealing or re-writing it WOULD NOT, in itself, prevent people from owning a gun but it would remove this fixation on a "right" to own a gun. The Constitution should no more give a right to own a gun than a car or house or boat. Our Constitution is a set of principles that denote who we are and how our government should work and the relationship between the citizen and government. There should never be a "right" to own something, be it a person or an object. It has no place in a document like the Constitution. We have LAWS that denote the terms by which we can own an object or not own one. We may want to own an elephant but there are laws that control the terms and conditions by which we can own an elephant. Why should guns be any different than anything else?

33 replies, 2524 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 33 replies Author Time Post
Reply The 2nd amendment (Original post)
angrychair Jan 2013 OP
ag_dude Jan 2013 #1
tblue Jan 2013 #3
ag_dude Jan 2013 #4
Paulie Jan 2013 #9
ag_dude Jan 2013 #21
maxsolomon Feb 2013 #33
angrychair Jan 2013 #7
ag_dude Jan 2013 #8
angrychair Jan 2013 #10
ag_dude Jan 2013 #20
angrychair Jan 2013 #22
Bob Sacamano Jan 2013 #28
tblue Jan 2013 #2
Recursion Jan 2013 #13
angrychair Jan 2013 #15
Sheepshank Jan 2013 #5
hack89 Jan 2013 #6
benld74 Jan 2013 #11
DrDan Jan 2013 #27
jinx1 Jan 2013 #12
Recursion Jan 2013 #14
angrychair Jan 2013 #17
Recursion Jan 2013 #18
angrychair Jan 2013 #23
Recursion Jan 2013 #24
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #16
kairos12 Feb 2013 #32
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #19
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #25
ann--- Jan 2013 #26
Socal31 Jan 2013 #29
angrychair Jan 2013 #31
meow2u3 Jan 2013 #30

Response to angrychair (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:04 PM

1. Just want to point out the irony of this part...

Our Constitution is a set of principles that denote who we are and how our government should work and the relationship between the citizen and government. There should never be a "right" to own something, be it a person or an object

...in complaining about the only amendment that explicitly talks about the reason it is necessary and that reason being to secure a free state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ag_dude (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:09 PM

3. Secure from the British king.

I think we crossed that threshold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:12 PM

4. That's one take.

What's the basis for the opinion that the 2nd amendment was meant to be a temporary measure that would no longer be necessary once the British were no longer a threat?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ag_dude (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:34 PM

9. That the founders didn't like standing armies?

But mention a navy but we didn't have one for years?

So given that the militia is now a standing army/reserve/guard, we need the 2A why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paulie (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 05:03 PM

21. Find any SCOTUS ruling that believes the second amendment

was strictly a communal right and not a personal right.

Don't rush, I'll wait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 05:25 PM

33. Free STATE, not Nation.

and specifically altered to mean State.

For the Southern States, a paramount concern was protection from Slave Insurrections, and they did not want Militias under Federal Control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ag_dude (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:23 PM

7. The point you allude to

Is the very reason the second amendment must be repealed or re-defined. Your attempt to deflect is an act of intellectual dishonesty and at the very heart of why we have yet to address this issue properly. You omit the term "well regulated militia" and what that means. It also ignores the core principle of our republic: we are a government of the people, by the people and for the people. We, the people, are the government and we have the right and, more importantly, the responsibility to vote and choose our representatives in our government. If our only recourse to a better government is an act of violence against ourselves than our republic is already lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:26 PM

8. My gosh, I wasn't giving a dissertation

Stick that "intellectual dishonesty" foolishness where the sun doesn't shine.

I was pointing out that you claiming the constitution should be something that describes our interaction with the government is ironic when you are complaining about the only amendment that actually does that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ag_dude (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:36 PM

10. I have a spot in my backyard

Where the Sun doesn't shine...can't get the grass to grow no matter what I do.

You allude to the concept that in order to have a good government, it must fear armed revolt of its citizens. That is the only possible point you could mean. My counter-point is unchanged: if that is true than we have failed at the concept of a representative government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 05:02 PM

20. No, my point was...

...that you were claiming that the constitution should be something that explains the relationship between the government and the people when you were bitching about the one amendment that actually does so.

It was a pretty specific context.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ag_dude (Reply #20)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 05:51 PM

22. I won't go down

The rabbit hole after you. I will say this: what I stated about the Constitution is not a "claim of what it should be", the Constitution does do what I stated. I don't begrudge you your opinion but would politely counter that the second admendment does not mean what you think it does and leave it at that. I will restate my main point again: if the threat of violence, the potential for violence, is the only way to ensure good government, than the republic is already lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 10:11 PM

28. What do you think is the proper way to address this issue?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:08 PM

2. Maybe the operative word is 'bear'

That's not the same as 'own.' There should be a lending library of sorts for approved firearms. People who are trained and qualified can check them out ('bear' them) for a limited time and then return them, or renew.

But I agree, the 2A has been twisted and perverted to suit the whims of the angry and fearful, to financially benefit gun manufacturers. Not at all the Founders' 'original intent.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:05 PM

13. And the word "keep"? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:50 PM

15. As I have stated

Comments and inferences like this send the topic down a rabbit hole that can quickly devolve into hyperbolic exchanges that prevent us from addressing this issue properly. Comments like this side-step the "well regulated militia" line in the amendment. A gun will not save you but your free speech will. Your free press will. Your ability to assemble will.
I'll say it again, if violence is the only means to save the republic than it is already lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:18 PM

5. How does all this stuff fit with Sharon Angles "2nd A remedies" comments?

I still can't really firgure out how those two fit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:20 PM

6. Antonin Scalia specifically says that government can regulate firearms

read the Heller decision.

All the SC said is that owning a gun is an individual right and that there is a right for self defense. But they specifically stated that their ruling was limited and does not mean that government cannot regulate firearms.

Everyone agrees that guns can be regulated - American society is now haggling via the political process on the details of those regulations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 02:25 PM

11. I have the RIGHT to bare arms! Especially in the summer,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benld74 (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:53 PM

27. that is because of 1A, not 2A

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:02 PM

12. Actually the Supreme court has spoken

and they say that Americans DO NOT have the right to any kind of gun they so desire. Also the second amendment indicates a "well regulated militia" and that is the step we are now working on: REGULATED. So the crazies out there do not have the high ground based on the 2nd amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:07 PM

14. Not at all

a Constitutional mandate to the right to own any firearm

Nobody to my knowledge has ever suggested that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 04:06 PM

17. Than you haven't been

Paying close enough attention. Because that is the heart of the NRA position on what they say the 2nd amendment states. No background checks. No limits on amounts or types of guns or ammo. No government over site into the nature of gun violence (the CDC has been prevented by Congress from doing even basic research on the subject).
Don't get me wrong, they have flip-flopped around a little (see Leahy exchange today) but the position of the NRA is to resist any limits to gun ownership of any kind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 04:07 PM

18. Well, no. They're not arguing people be able to generally buy, for instance, machineguns

Or rocket launchers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 05:56 PM

23. Well, they have

Argued for the ability to own and use fully automatic weapons. You can buy full auto machine guns in more than one state. One guess who supports that effort....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 06:07 PM

24. Joe Schmoe can't

A Federal licensee can, in stated that allow it. It's a ton of red tape for a tiny market.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:54 PM

16. Blame GWBush & Cheney & Scotus 2000

angry chair: Has been twisted into a Constitutional mandate to the right to own any firearm and to use it any way a person would want. Not sure how we got here but that argument is absurd.

I'll tell you how we got here, GWBUSH, backing into the presidency in 2000. Then came cheney one of the biggest gunnutted political gun nuts of that era, that's how we got here, into this 'individual RKBA' (right keep bear arms') subversion, revisionist history, reversing the intent of the original 2ndA which was incumbent upon a well regulated militia.
Let's give an honorable mention to another rightwing cretin, gwbush appointee john ashcroft who soon after he got appointed to the cabinet/justice, he altered the 2ndA to an individual interpretation.
GWBush then appointed alito & roberts to scotus who gave the gun lobby the win they needed (ironically the nra did not want the 2008 case to go to supreme court, they feared they would lose, presuming kennedy would side with the liberals).

I believe we need to either repeal or re-define the second amendment to help us move past this to a more honest debate on how to fix the problem. Repealing or re-writing it WOULD NOT, in itself, prevent people from owning a gun but it would remove this fixation on a "right" to own a gun.

Be realistic, that could never happen, it would take 2/3 majority to filibuster proof it & it's literally impossible in todays congressional makeup. There is no way the 2ndA could be repealed, with the current rightwing composition of america getting 47% of the popular vote.
But we shouldn't need it repealed anyway - tho it is obsolete & a malfunctioning amendment. It only needs be restored to it's original meaning, the militia based RKBA, for what it's worth even there.

The only possibility in our lifetimes, is that a liberal supreme court would reverse their 2008 decision & revert it back to the militia interpretation. (this is wayno's worst nightmare, wakes him up shaking in the middle of the nights).

Consider also, the 2008 ruling in the heller 'DC' case, was 5-4 for an individual RKBA. Obama & Biden have said they support the i-RKBA, thus explain pls, Joe & Barrack, whether or how you DISAGREE with the 4 liberal justices who ruled for the militia based RKBA? Ditto with the chicago mcdonald case in 2010, also a 5-4 scalia ruling (where was roberts when we needed him back then?)
Do you both think scalia, roberts, alito, clarence the mute & kennedy were correct in their 2008 & 2010 rulings? and ginsburg, sotomayor, stevens & breyer (was it) were wrong in their dissents? You yourself appointed sotomayor, barry.

There should never be a "right" to own something, be it a person or an object. It has no place in a document like the Constitution. We have LAWS that denote the terms by which we can own an object or not own one.

Thank GWBush & Dick Cheney & an honorable mention to the 2000 supreme court as they selected them - they all three caused so much irreparable damage to this country its no wonder the nra is winning, and so many others have lost.
Thank GWBush, cheney, ashcroft, scalia, roberts, thomas, kennedy & alito, with a big long flush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #16)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:07 AM

32. Well stated case. thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 04:23 PM

19. keep & regulate & stonewall

Recursion 13. And the word "keep"?

The right of the people to keep & bear arms in a militia is the proper interpreation. there was no constitutional right to keep arms in the home, tho it was legalized the year after 2ndA was written in 1791, by the militia act of 1792 (all men should bring a firearm to militia drill).

The word 'keep' only adds another ambiguity to the ambiguity of the 2ndA; there are several definitions from websters 1828, which would lend it to the militia interp.

1. To hold; to retain in one's power or possession; not to lose or part with; as, to keep a house or a farm; to keep any thing in the memory, mind or heart.
2. To have in custody for security or preservation.
3. To preserve; to retain.
6. To tend; to have the care of.
8. To preserve in any tenor or state. Keep a stiff rein. Keep the constitution sound.
9. To regard; to attend to.
10. To hold in any state; as, to keep in order.
12. To practice; to do or perform; to obey; to observe in practice; not to neglect or violate; as, to keep the laws, statutes or commandments of God.
13. To fulfill; to perform; as, to keep one's word,promise or covenant.
14. To practice; to use habitually; as, to keep bad hours.
18. To have in the house; to entertain; as, to keep lodgers.
19. To maintain; not to intermit; as, to keep watch or guard.

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/keep

hack89 Antonin Scalia specifically says that government can regulate firearms read the Heller decision.

Can you cite that pls? scalia defined 'well regulated' as simply meaning disciplined & trained. Perhaps he's talking out the other side of his mouth (or using modern def, dunno).

Everyone agrees that guns can be regulated - American society is now haggling via the political process on the details of those regulations.

What you are seeing is more the rightwing republican party hiding behind the skirts of the nra which is STONEWALLING, their version of 'haggling'.

jinx1 Actually the Supreme court has spoken and they say that Americans DO NOT have the right to any kind of gun they so desire.

It's largely de facto, due the rulings of 2008 & 2010, that anything positive related to firearms can be argued, & & anything negative stonewalled in court on the basis of 'individual rkba shall not be infringed', long enough that meaningful guncontrol generally gets abandoned out of frustration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:48 PM

25. scalia on regulating guns re heller

hack89 Antonin Scalia specifically says that government can regulate firearms read the Heller decision.

I asked: Can you cite that pls?

OK, I found it (I think), rather it was so watered down weak it didn't really register as a restriction, but more an allowance for guns galore:

The Court concluded that the Second Amendment does establish an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and hunting.
At the same time, the Court recognized that the government can regulate gun rights. The Court said its decision should not be interpreted to question the right of government to:
A) prohibit felons and the mentally ill from owning weapons,
B) prohibit guns in schools or public buildings,
C) ban certain categories of guns not commonly used for self-defense, and to establish certain other conditions on gun ownership.


The only phrase with any teeth is the last 'establish certain other conditions on gun ownership' which is vague & nondescript & easily skirted, but leaves scalia his nice little escape hatch so he can feel all warm & fuzzy inside that when some awful gun is developed he 'said' it could be disallowed.
So when he said the govt can regulate firearms, he really just meant disallowing it to felons & mentally ill & 'uncommon' firearms - which would pose no problem to circumvent for wayno, as ditto with 'other conditions'.
Just scalia's double double talk talk to cover his butt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:49 PM

26. Is there an implicit right

in the 2nd amendment to overthrow the government? I don't think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 10:27 PM

29. You have a very fringe opinion, to say the least.

I would call it the balancing extreme to the NRA nutjobs that are even against universal background checks, closing dangerous loopholes.

The position of my President, as well as the Party platform is clear. The 2nd amendment guarantees the right for an individual to own a firearm. Obama has started the ball rolling, but I haven't heard anyone suggest what you are, I would say Kucinch's would be the closest bill I have read.

You have the right to express your opinion, however it does show lack of understanding of what it takes to modify the constitution.

If we cannot even get the much needed AWB to a vote in the Senate, let alone pass, how do you expect either way the constitution can be modified to actually happen?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Socal31 (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 08:06 AM

31. Not going down

That rabbit hole after you. I'll only state I never said we should revoke gun ownership or that gun ownership is bad. I only stated that owning a gun should not be sacurcant. The either outright aggressive or passive-aggressive manner in which most defend any challenge to limits on gun ownership is what is odd.
Secondly, I don't know if we will get there but you won't get anywhere unless you take the first step. I choose to do something and that first step is a conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 10:39 PM

30. It's also been twisted...

...into a license for wannabe dictators to overthrow a democratically elected government and replace it with a right-wing authoritarian king.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread