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
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: The second amendment is irrelevant- [View all]Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)87. It does not matter if the second amendment is obsolete or not. It is LAW.
It applies only to a standing militia-to keep the nation secure. Our standing army makes this stuff obsolete.
I think referring to the 2nd is not valid at all. It has nothing to do with now
First of all, I reject the idea that the very same principles that called for the creation of the second amendment are not equally valid today.
But that is irrelevant.
It does not matter whether state militias still exist or not. It does not matter if the people are willing or able to server as infantry forces or not.
It is the law of the land as defined by our Constitution.
The people of the United States have a Constitutional right to keep and bear military-grade small arms appropriate for infantry use so that they might function as military forces if necessary.
That is the law.
It does not matter if the people might fail at serving as military forces.
It does not matter how many people commit crimes with firearms.
It does not matter how many people commit suicide with firearms.
It does not matter if owning firearms makes you less safe.
Yes, firearms are useful for hunting, for self-defense, and for defense of family and home. All of these are pleasant side-effects of the second amendment.
But the second amendment is about the right of the people to keep and bear military-grade small arms appropriate for infantry use so that they might function as military forces if necessary.
I think referring to the 2nd is not valid at all. It has nothing to do with now
First of all, I reject the idea that the very same principles that called for the creation of the second amendment are not equally valid today.
But that is irrelevant.
It does not matter whether state militias still exist or not. It does not matter if the people are willing or able to server as infantry forces or not.
It is the law of the land as defined by our Constitution.
The people of the United States have a Constitutional right to keep and bear military-grade small arms appropriate for infantry use so that they might function as military forces if necessary.
That is the law.
It does not matter if the people might fail at serving as military forces.
It does not matter how many people commit crimes with firearms.
It does not matter how many people commit suicide with firearms.
It does not matter if owning firearms makes you less safe.
Yes, firearms are useful for hunting, for self-defense, and for defense of family and home. All of these are pleasant side-effects of the second amendment.
But the second amendment is about the right of the people to keep and bear military-grade small arms appropriate for infantry use so that they might function as military forces if necessary.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
145 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
There is no way to construe that through grammar, history or legal precedent.
PavePusher
Sep 2012
#129
How did we get to the point were we are at today? How did we get to the place where gunners
upaloopa
Sep 2012
#10
What is an opinion? Is it just some thought like a wisp that floats around in the air and has no
upaloopa
Sep 2012
#27
I think I understand were you are coming from. I respect your right to your opinion and your
upaloopa
Sep 2012
#43
I feel that the gun lobby is not rational. Instead of gun nut I could say irrational gun people.
upaloopa
Sep 2012
#52
That is complete bullshit. You don't hear from the majority because they don't make
upaloopa
Sep 2012
#85
Wrong 2A is there to protect us against a standing army. Reread your history books.
Peepsite
Sep 2012
#12
that's easy: for you, any change to current regulations are not reasonable unless
Warren Stupidity
Sep 2012
#101
can you show me one statement of you supporting any proposed new regulation?
Warren Stupidity
Sep 2012
#108
We are in a very different position today and have every defensive implement that
digonswine
Sep 2012
#72
That takes care of the 6 million NRA members - what about the 50 million non-NRA gun owners?
hack89
Sep 2012
#46
How do you propose to convince 1/4 of the population that they are perverts?
friendly_iconoclast
Sep 2012
#143
I think he Shares our almost United opinion that Loudly once went by another name here...
friendly_iconoclast
Sep 2012
#136
The right to own, say, and do anything is assumed. All rights exist until they are restricted...
slackmaster
Sep 2012
#90
Well no, if you read the history it was originally all about local militias
Warren Stupidity
Sep 2012
#79
It does not matter if the second amendment is obsolete or not. It is LAW.
Atypical Liberal
Sep 2012
#87
Cool straw man, bro. The presence of firearms is clearly what makes Somalia so dangerous. nt
rDigital
Sep 2012
#119
"It applies only to a standing militia..." Well, no, actually; it applies to the people.
PavePusher
Sep 2012
#128