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

2016 Postmortem

angrychair

(8,695 posts)

22. I won't go down

Reply to ag_dude (Reply #20)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 06:51 PM

Jan 2013

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

33 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The 2nd amendment [View all] angrychair Jan 2013 OP

Just want to point out the irony of this part... ag_dude Jan 2013 #1

Secure from the British king. tblue Jan 2013 #3

That's one take. ag_dude Jan 2013 #4

That the founders didn't like standing armies? Paulie Jan 2013 #9

Find any SCOTUS ruling that believes the second amendment ag_dude Jan 2013 #21

Free STATE, not Nation. maxsolomon Feb 2013 #33

The point you allude to angrychair Jan 2013 #7

My gosh, I wasn't giving a dissertation ag_dude Jan 2013 #8

I have a spot in my backyard angrychair Jan 2013 #10

No, my point was... ag_dude Jan 2013 #20

I won't go down angrychair Jan 2013 #22

What do you think is the proper way to address this issue? Bob Sacamano Jan 2013 #28

Maybe the operative word is 'bear' tblue Jan 2013 #2

And the word "keep"? (nt) Recursion Jan 2013 #13

As I have stated angrychair Jan 2013 #15

How does all this stuff fit with Sharon Angles "2nd A remedies" comments? Sheepshank Jan 2013 #5

Antonin Scalia specifically says that government can regulate firearms hack89 Jan 2013 #6

I have the RIGHT to bare arms! Especially in the summer,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, benld74 Jan 2013 #11

that is because of 1A, not 2A DrDan Jan 2013 #27

Actually the Supreme court has spoken jinx1 Jan 2013 #12

Not at all Recursion Jan 2013 #14

Than you haven't been angrychair Jan 2013 #17

Well, no. They're not arguing people be able to generally buy, for instance, machineguns Recursion Jan 2013 #18

Well, they have angrychair Jan 2013 #23

Joe Schmoe can't Recursion Jan 2013 #24

Blame GWBush & Cheney & Scotus 2000 jimmy the one Jan 2013 #16

Well stated case. thanks kairos12 Feb 2013 #32

keep & regulate & stonewall jimmy the one Jan 2013 #19

scalia on regulating guns re heller jimmy the one Jan 2013 #25

Is there an implicit right ann--- Jan 2013 #26

You have a very fringe opinion, to say the least. Socal31 Jan 2013 #29

Not going down angrychair Jan 2013 #31

It's also been twisted... meow2u3 Jan 2013 #30