Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What should be the Democratic position on the 2nd Amendment?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:24 AM
Original message
What should be the Democratic position on the 2nd Amendment?
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 11:45 AM by kentuck
After what has happened, and is happening as we speak, with Bush and his dictatorial grasp for power and unabashedly shameful use of fear to gain control of the electorate, what should be our realistic position on the 2nd Amendment? Personally, I own guns. I have no intention of using them against anyone unless they attempt to enter my home uninvited or attempt to harm my family. If I had children at home, I probably would not possess any guns. But with recent events, should this be addressed in the Democratic platform in a more realistic manner than just "gun control"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
1. IMO: That there are two, equally important parts to the Second Amendment
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The first part is just as important as the second part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. Does that mean we should not have a "standing Army"?
The Founding Fathers never imagined that we would be spending $500 billion a year on defense. It seems to me that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was meant for we, the people, to defend ourselves with militias that are regulated by each free state and that people with their own firearms would defend our country. However, we cannot deny the reality of threats beyond which firearms could defend us. But, politically speaking, I think it would help our Party to take a stand on this...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #7
22. The paired notions of 'liberal democracy' and 'national service' ...
... are what have led me to the position I've expressed on Universal National Service. Within that context, neither a 'standing Army' (no more than a nucleus) nor a ban on weapons is accommodated. I believe that a UNS policy would ensure that every citizen received basic firearms training ... a kind of "basic training." One of the service options I'd foresee under a UNS policy would be a true 'Ready Reserve' or militia. This option would include an abbreviated period of active service (compared to, say, four years in the Public Health Service or VISTA) coupled with a prolonged period (say, 20 years?) of annual 'refreshers' along with being ready to perform active service when required to supplement the already active military.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
31. Yeah, we need a huge military to defend us like they did
on 9/11.

Granted The World's Only Superpower was overwhelmed by the 19 foreign civilians wielding box-cutters, so we need to spend much more; but it's threats like that which justify shredding the constitution, the Magna Carta.

We won't have to worry about their billeting troops in our homes, though. Too much money is made ripping-off the taxpayers for constructing and maintaining barracks for that to ever be done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
2. That it is part of the Bill of rights and should not be tampered with!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
3. Our position is:
"The second amendment is right after the first amendment, and just before the third."

If you respect the consitution, and the courts' responsibility to interpret/apply it, you have to take the whole deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sammy Pepys Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
29. Yup.
The Bill of Rights is not a buffet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
casus belli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #3
46. Exactly. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
4. In this society I feel like I have to own a gun
I own a .45 and a 12 gauge shot gun. With all the batshit crazy freepers on the roads I do carry a gun. I would never pull it out unless it was for self defense from a stupid freeper that doesn't like my bumper stickers.

I do not have any kids, if you do I think it is your responsibility to lock those guns up.

As democrats I don't think banning guns should be on our agenda, however, I am all for tighter control and regulation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieGak Donating Member (341 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
5. that the 2ed protects a citizen militia
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 11:29 AM by ZombieGak
That the 2ed protects a citizen militia... which is now the National Guard.

That any right to own a personal firearm comes from the ninth amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
28. When the CIC sends those guards oversees just to avoid needing a draft
and the home states are left hurting for first responders and guard units in case of emergency, the system doesn't work.

It's the domestic part of 'enemies foreign and domestic' that many worry about. The Guard, under the control of a criminal junta makes me glad so many citizens are knowledgeable about firearms.

The Swiss have a system worth looking into. EVERYBODY is in their guard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
6. I happen to think any gun control should be relegated to the
individual States. I believe I heard Howard Dean say this too, several months ago.

There is a HUGH difference betweenowning guns in MT v/s NYC! It is grossly unfair and unrealistic to apply the same laws to each State, City, or Suburb. I suggest this would be a great issue for a ballot referundum. That way, the local people really can decide what is best for them!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Counciltucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
8. Keep it as is.
But I'm a strict Constitutionalist.

Personally, I see no reason that Uzis and other assault rifles should be on the market, but I guess when it comes to the "well-armed militia" part (which looks like it may become necessary once we slip into full fascism), I guess they may be necessary in terms of defending our freedom from those in the government who are looking to steal them.

That said, in a more rational sense, I have no problem with handguns (for protection) or hunting rifles (for sport). So keep it as is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #8
45. They aren't (at least not real ones).
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 03:13 PM by benEzra
Personally, I see no reason that Uzis and other assault rifles should be on the market

They aren't (at least not real ones). Real Uzi's (which are 9mm submachineguns) and actual assault rifles are VERY strictly controlled in this country by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Mere possession of one, or any other automatic weapon, without Federal permission (BATFE Form 4) will get you 10 years in Federal prison, unless you are military or law enforcement. Getting a Form 4 as a civilian is a long and involved process that few people undertake (primarily rich collectors who can afford to drop $15,000 to $75,000 on a rifle).

Many years ago, IMI and Vector Arms used to import a civilian Uzi lookalike, which was a conventional non-automatic 9mm pistol in the skin of an Uzi. Looked like the real thing, but worked like an ordinary Smith & Wesson 9mm, albeit much more difficult to conceal. Importation ceased around 1991, as I recall.

The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch had nothing to do with actual Uzi's and assault rifles. Rather, it referred to non-automatic civilian guns holding more than 6 or 10 rounds, civilian shotguns holding more than 5 shells, or civilian rifles and shotguns with handgrips that stick out. It didn't affect actual automatic weapons, as those have been tightly controlled for decades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
9. oddly though
a "citizens militia" is such an outdated notion it beggars the imagination.

I'd like to see a "militia" in Dallas protecting us from the gummint, bivouacing in our houses and using our resources to protect us from the tanks and choppers and bombers.

No, the real reason I support the 2nd amendment is to protect myself from some fucktarded militia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
10. The position that people be educated enough to discuss it
Really, if our focus was making sure the public was aware enough of the federalist discussion
and the original historical context of the amendment and its drafting, then the distortions
pedalled by the nutball political extreme, would be laughed at, as well they should.

The issue is that people are so grossly ignorant, that they don't know what the second
amendment meant when it was written. That people could, were they educated, realize the
irony that a toy maker can be sued for a making a toy that kills, but the gun maker cannot
when his toy kills wrongly. If the civil courts were given the power to take criminial
weapons supply chains to court, the industry would make sure guns were not out of control,
or they would be sued to bankrutpcy.

An educated populace has many ways to approach the second, and we can all agree,
that an educated discussion is in all of our interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. yeah, you can be arrested for carrying a concealed
dildo in Texas, but handguns are okay.

Too bad the founding fathers didn't write an amendment concerning dildos; I wonder what the war between the dildo lobby and the dildo grabbers would look like.

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #13
38. good to know when Im in texas. Where did I put that dildo hollster
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HarukaTheTrophyWife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #13
47. Damn I wish I could nominate a post.
Personally, I believe in the right to conceal dildos and handguns.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #13
48. If you don't have a carry license, you can be arrested...
only people licensed by the state are allowed to carry. Only two states (Vermont and Alaska) allow concealed carry without a permit, 46 allow licensed individuals to carry, and two states prohibit carry altogether.

Maybe you need to push for dildo licenses, and then you can carry them as you see fit. :)

(BTW, I think the Texas attempt to resurrect the Comstock law is stupid, but that's a topic for another thread.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Homer Wells Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
11. I, personally consider myself
to be a Right To Keep and Bear Arms sort of Democrat.

One of the first steps of any Tyranny-in-the-making is to disarm the populace.

Makes it much easier to keep the citizens in line if they have no means to resist such Tyranny.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
itsmesgd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
12. forget about the dems, this is personal
In my opinion the decision to possess firearms is a personal decision. I think that the Dems should keep quiet on the matter. As it stands now, the only people who would advocate gun control are those that prefer an unarmed citizenry. Currently, the repubs are the only ones who should fear free people with guns. Wait until the repubs call for gun control. That will show that they are about to make a power grab and enslave us all. When the repubs call for gun control, I hope that all the rural Bubbas and Jimbos will wake up and slap them down. The heartland is full of good ole boys with guns and the knowledge to use them. Many of them luv their guns and their truck more than anything else.

Like I said, the dems should keep quiet on the matter and wait for the repubs to make the gun grab, thus signalling their intention to make a further totalitarian power grab. Leave the repubs enough rope to hang themselves with on this matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
14. I think we should allow informal militias
as long as they are regulated for saftey reasons. But personal weapons should be much more regulated, also for safety reasons.

There should not be a ban on gun ownership, but there should be some restrictions. And we should be able to know who has guns.

I think it is obvious that the founding fathers intended that everyone be ready and available to join a militia when necessary. I think that is still necessary today, but to a much, much lesser extent. And I think to those militias should be much like the national guard, built on the idea of being there when there is an emergency of any kind. It shouldn't just be about owning guns. It should be about being prepared to stand up and help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. yeah, until those same militias decide who can drive down your
street, or shop in your neighborhood.

What on earth would a classic citizen's militia be able to do, realistically, against the REAL army and its equipment?

How would such a militia enforce silence and secrecy among dissenters? Would that militia execute civilians who turned them in?

These are important questions. I don't trust the judgement of the nutcases in Texas who think a "militia" is a viable response to government abuse; essentially that civil war is the answer.

On your point about "helping" organizations I would have to say call it something besides "militia", which has martial connotations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. That's just it.
We've already seen that the National Guard can be co-opted and Become the regular military when the Federal Government demands it. Bush has just given himself the right to call up the National Guard even over the objections of the State Governors. So it would be nice to have an equivilent that is purely local.

I agree that they would not be able to stand up to the military, but would they need to? Even as a symbolic gesture, the military going up against an authorized local militia would be political suicide for the Federal Government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #19
43. Citizen militias are what the Founders originally intended, in my mind.
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 01:17 PM by Selatius
A well regulated militia, in my mind, is not the Prussian model we have today, a centralized structure that lends itself easily to offensive/aggressive aspirations, even imperial aspirations. I believe what they envisioned was something like the Swiss citizen militia system of today. The militias exist primarily to protect the neutrality of that country. They are poorly suited for offensive/imperial aspirations.

You can own handguns, but they are strictly regulated, much more than in the US, I would imagine, and if you are an active member of a community militia, you keep your assault rifle and ammunition in your home, but you are required by law to store it in a regulation safe. You are allowed to take it out only when you are engaged in official training or if the community declares an emergency, such as a threat of impending invasion by Nazi Germany.

Their gun control laws are effective. Gun crime rates are something like a fifth of what is seen in the US, yet they have, I think, the highest per capita gun ownership rate in all of Western Europe. We could learn a thing or two from the Swiss about gun control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
itsmesgd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. not a fan of gun registration
Sorry, but I'm not a fan of gun registration. I do believe in background checks for purchases and issuance of concealed carry permits. I do not support a registration listing every person and how many and which guns that person owns. When those in power want to come after the guns they would then have a name, address, and checklist. Just as the Jews and various Native American tribes were forced to register their members, it made it a lot easier for their extermination when the time came. Let's also remember that in May of 2008 the "real ID's will be rolling out, complete with rfid technology. I don't want this information following me around everywhere I go. If I should get pulled over for speeding and the cops know how many firearms I own (not carry in the car, but own), they are not going to kindly walk up to my car. They are going to order me out of the car in the manner shown on tv after a long distance car chase.

I'm just not ready for Total Information Awareness.

peace
sgd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #18
23. The probelm with concealed carry
is that even if anyone could have a gun and carry it, The first person to get their gun out wins.

You hear a lot about how women could not be raped if they were armed, but you would have to be psychic to get your gun out of your purse first. That guy who doesn't seem like a threat suddenly has his gun to your head and what use is your gun then? So the more guns are availble the more vulnerable people are going to be, instead of being more secure.

I think people should be allowed to own guns, but I cannot see any valid reason for concealed carry outside of certain job-related purposes.

And I think, just like people have a right to own guns, we also have a right to know if people we're visiting, dating, or dealing with socially owns guns, and whether or not they have a history of using those guns unsafely or threateningly.

Gun rights cannot be limited to you having a gun. Gun rights must include our rights as the people around you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
itsmesgd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. concealed carry is a big responsibility
Deciding whether or not to carry is one of if the biggest decisions a person can make. Part of that decision is the mental and moral preparation to use the gun. Do not carry if you will not be prepared to use it to kill in defense. If you hesitate, you will likely have the gun taken from you, used on you, used on those around you, and you will have armed another criminal. You also have to know how to use any gun that you own or carry with precision. I'm not a "gun nut" but a well educated professional (OK I have been shot at in my line of work) and I appreciate the right to keep and bare arms and have acted proactively to take advantage of my right, as I have with my 1st Ammend. rights. Rights are worthless unless they are protected and used responsibly.

peace
sgd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. That is easy to say
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 12:23 PM by ThomCat
but what defense do the rest of us have if someone is morally and ethically lacking?

The truth is that there is no moral or ethical requirement. It's only a theoretical ideal that only people who are morally and ethically upstanding will get a concealed carry permit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
itsmesgd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. your defense is
to get a gun and carry it responsibly in the event that you should cross paths with one of these socipathic misenthrobes. You have the right to do so.

good conversation. gun control and ownership is a very polarizing issue, but open conversation is the key to understanding each other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. As I mentioned earlier
The person who draws their gun first wins. So having a gun after someone is already pointing one at your head is no defense.

The defense is to know who has a gun, so you can either avoid them or be prepared for the possibility that they might draw their gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
itsmesgd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. again
As a part of self defense, even without a firearm, is to be aware of your surroundings. If you let someone get up behind you with a gun to your head, yes, probably too late for you. The trick is to stay of of those situations and be aware of someone acting "funny". When you see someone who is acting "funny", this is when you take note of your surroundings, locate exits, cover positions, and begin to make your plan. I've come across many a "funny" acting person. I then assess the situation. There have been times where I have even had my hand on my piece while still in the holster. The situation remained cool and passed, and everyone went on about their business and no one knew that I was prepared.
A list of gun owners will not protect you on the street.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. You're requiring people to be psychic.
When is someone acting "funny?" And how would you know that this somehow means he has a gun and is about to draw it? And what guarantee do you have that it's not already too late by the time you notice that someone is acting "funny?"

And if you don't notice that someone is acting "funny" are you to blame for being raped, robbed or murdered because you weren't observant enough?

What if someone is able to go from nice to threatening without acting "funny" first? In a lot of assaults, especially rapes, people report that the attacker seemed very nice right up until the moment of the attack.

I don't think psychic powers should be a required defense against people with guns. Information is much more practical and should be much more readily available.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
itsmesgd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. not being critical here
I guess I have an advantage, I'm a former special investigator and currently a private investigator specializing in protection cases arrising from domestic violence. I guess that I am just always looking around and checking the room.
I am not trying to convince anyone to buy or carry a firearm, quite the contrary. Many people have come to me to help them buy their first gun and tell them how to use it. I have only done this one time because I knew the person was willing to act and act responsibly. A vast majority of the time, I tell people not to get a gun. Many people have asked me to "talk them into a gun". That's not what I do. In fact, I recommend that most people should not carry or own guns. There are many reasons to suggest this: kids in the house, uncertainty when it comes to gun use, and some people just don't need them. They have the right, but they also should act in their best interest.
You are much more likely to be killed by your own gun even if you are a cop than by any other gun (check the numbers: more cops are killed annualy by their own duty piece). This happens when the gun is taken away from you by the assailant(s). If you don't have a gun you pose a lesser threat to the assailant and they are more likely to leave you with a smack upside the back of your head instead of a bulletwound. I've been smacked before. The best self defense tools are usually your common sense, pepper spray, or lately I've come to see security whistles used effectively. They draw attention to yourself and scare the crap out of most gunmen.
I dont advocate guns, just responsibility if you must own or carry one.
Practice common sense and you can usually avoid finding a gun pushed against your head.

sgd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
15. No official Democratic position. Let individual
candidates decide what they think it means..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
17. That there is one and then leave it to individual candidates...
...to decide what it means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totallybushed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
20. Our position should be
that it's in the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
21. Declare that personal ownership of firearms is guaranteed in the Constitution
and disavow the Brady Bunch


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
24. owning firearms is a personal call, it will make no sense for only...
republicans to own guns
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sutz12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Our position should be.....
That we will work to enforce existing legislation, but will propose no additional restrictions at this time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. reasonable...
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
27. Why should they have a position?
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 12:08 PM by bowens43
The second amendment is part of the Constitution. Any position one may have on the 2nd.is irrelevant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sutz12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. The problem with that is....
That if the Dems don't state a firm position, the RW nuts get to claim that the Dems are "out to get their guns." There are too many dumbfucks over there that would believe that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
distantearlywarning Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
33. I support the 2nd amendment...
...because governments prefer unarmed peasantry.

And as someone said up thread, the constitution is not a buffet. You don't get to pick and choose. If we pick and choose, then they will pick and choose, and I guarantee I won't like whatever they pick out to throw away. It's better if we all just agree to abide by the laws that have given us a reasonably good society to live in for 230 years.

And I think the Democratic party in general would swing quite a few votes to their side if they came out in support of responsible gun ownership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
40. Gun ownership should entail automatic membership in your state's militia.
Training should be required, as if one were a member of the National Guard.

We also need to decide where the commas in the text of the Second actually lie. It changes the entire meaning of the wording.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
41. Just enforce the damn laws on the books now.
No need to pass more laws if you won't even bother enforcing existing laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
T Town Jake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
44. Same as with the 1st or the 3rd: as the constitutional right that it is.
(n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
49. That current restrictions on what the law-abiding can own are enough,
and leave the issue to the states.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Dec 20th 2014, 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC