HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » PTWB » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Sat Feb 2, 2019, 12:19 PM
Number of posts: 4,131

Journal Archives


Madville explained that the 2nd amendment, like all other amendments, covers technological advances that were not in existence at the time the amendments were written. For example, the government cannot infringe upon your freedom of speech on the internet even though the internet was not in existence when the 1st amendment was enacted. Nor can the police search your cell phone without a warrant even though cell phones were not in existence when the 4th amendment was enacted.

Similarly, the 2nd amendment does not apply to flintlock muskets and other 'arms' that were in existence when the 2nd amendment was enacted.

In reply to Madville, you wrote:

So you're really saying the 2A should be upgraded to fit present-day American and 21st century weapons technology, and where there is no possible reason for an ordinary, non-leo or military person to be able to buy a military-style assault weapon that can easily be converted to full automatic fire like the Vegas killer did who took 58 lives and injured 500?

In your original reply that you wrote that Madville wanted to "upgrade" (your word) the 2nd amendment so that it covers 21st century technology such as the AR-15. But the 2nd amendment already protects the right to own semi-automatic weapons. It doesn't need to be "upgraded" (again, your word) to protect those weapons.

Then when it was further explained to you how amendments work, you changed how you were using the word "upgraded" and have now written the following:

Who's advocating that? Upgrading it means to bring it into the 21st century and its weapons technology. It's good to know you're not a strict constructionist and believe the Constitution should be a living document, not carved in stone and unchanging from how it was written in the 18th century.

Now, common sense upgrading of the 2A should certainly include clauses for red flagging/waiting period/age restrictions and banning of dangerous military weapons save for law enforcement and the military, don't you think?

This juxtaposition of how you originally used the word "upgraded" to dig at Madville, to how you're using it now, is stark.

I fully support common sense gun control measures such as universal background checks, mandatory safe storage laws, and enacting national minimum standards for concealed carry licenses and I've even created a thread right here to discuss how we can enact those measures within this current political climate). But don't attack posters for educating others about how amendments work.

Be careful what you read.

AR-15s are good for both home defense and hunting.

What they’re good for isn’t the question folks should be asking. The question is whether or not we, as a modern and enlightened society, want semi-automatic rifles to be as common as apple pie.

If we decide the answer to that question is no, we will need enact some massive cultural shifts that allow us to ban sales of new semi-automatic rifles and the possession of those already in circulation.

See EarlG’s thread about attacking the 2A like we did with smokers.


We can only hope.

The cynic in me says that the narrative here is going to shift to police misconduct and reform, and away from common sense gun control, and we will probably get neither.

Go to Page: 1