Author Topic: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment  (Read 5184 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Perpetual Change

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12264
Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« on: January 28, 2013, 06:29:07 PM »
Quote from: 2nd 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.

My Uncle made this his Facebook status a few hours ago, and I couldn't help but pick up on something I always overlooked in class: "well regulated". As in, "regulated". As in, not a no-holds-barred free-for-all of militia and arm-bearing.

Am I misinterpreting this? Is the NRA making a big deal about losing a freedom that, actually, was always supposed to be "regulated" to a degree*? Both?

*Actually, all freedoms are supposed to be understood that way, so that one's a definite.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40284
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #1 on: January 28, 2013, 06:32:00 PM »
Yes.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Perpetual Change

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12264
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2013, 06:33:06 PM »
All of them?

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40284
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2013, 06:34:31 PM »
The NRA.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Online The King in Crimson

  • Stuck in a glass dome since 1914!
  • Posts: 3956
  • Gender: Male
  • Mr. Sandman, Give Me A Dream
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2013, 07:33:37 PM »
Someone on NPR many, many months ago made the rather convincing argument that the 2nd Amendment is one of the worst and most confusingly written amendments in the entire constitution.  A little more clarity back in the day would have saved us a whole lot of headaches today.

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10555
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #6 on: January 28, 2013, 08:06:34 PM »
I've always viewed it as two entities wrapped into one....

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.

I'm from Missouri and we have a State militia, Missouri's 51st. I'm unfamiliar with any other state's militia but I assume other states have them. Basically I see it as a law that allows the states to have their own seperate militia outside of the Federal Governments military...to care for and protect their own State. This Amendment guarantees the States that they can run their own militia...which is a good thing IMO

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.

And the second part is fairly simple if you ask me....the right for me to bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. We could argue til' we are blue in the face about what 'infringed upon' means, I'd be willing to say that some people don't believe that right is being infringed upon with this new batch of proposed laws that may or may not become law....some people will say if those laws are passed that is clearly 'infringing' upon their rights. Could they have made things a bit more clear with some more verbage, sure....but that goes for a lot of Law period.

Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19233
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #7 on: January 28, 2013, 09:42:33 PM »
Quote from: 2nd 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.
For a third perspective, perhaps they wanted the people to be armed so that they could form a militia should the need arise.

Personally, I've never been a big fan of basing gun rights on the 2nd amendment. As was pointed out, it's a pretty suspect piece of writing which nobody understands, despite the fact that a few think they get it perfectly. Reasonable adults should be able to own guns, regardless of what our forefathers thought about the matter.


A little more clarity back in the day would have saved us a whole lot of headaches today.
Yeah, and this is the result when you try to adapt laws and rules from 200 years ago (or 2000 years ago  ;)) to a society that's no longer remotely similar.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #8 on: January 28, 2013, 10:06:27 PM »
I've always viewed it as two entities wrapped into one....

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.

I'm from Missouri and we have a State militia, Missouri's 51st. I'm unfamiliar with any other state's militia but I assume other states have them. Basically I see it as a law that allows the states to have their own seperate militia outside of the Federal Governments military...to care for and protect their own State. This Amendment guarantees the States that they can run their own militia...which is a good thing IMO

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.

And the second part is fairly simple if you ask me....the right for me to bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. We could argue til' we are blue in the face about what 'infringed upon' means, I'd be willing to say that some people don't believe that right is being infringed upon with this new batch of proposed laws that may or may not become law....some people will say if those laws are passed that is clearly 'infringing' upon their rights. Could they have made things a bit more clear with some more verbage, sure....but that goes for a lot of Law period.

Part of me wants to read it the way you do, but I have to point out that the sentence only has comma's. Grammatically, that means it's all supposed to be one thought.

What's also worth noting, if you ask me, is that the amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a generic term referring to the populations. With that in mind, it's possible to prevent some persons from owning guns without infringing upon the right of the people to own guns.


Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #9 on: January 29, 2013, 03:23:23 AM »
I think the context and intention of the 2nd Amendment is fairly clear given the era in which it was written.  It does not have much relevance to the USA of today.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16072
  • Gender: Male
    • Hopped on Pop
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #10 on: January 29, 2013, 05:27:29 AM »
Remember that the language was kept intentionally vague so it could be left up to interpretation.
I am an SJW (Super Jewish Warrior)
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline Tick

  • It's time to make a change
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9251
  • Gender: Male
  • Just another tricky day for you
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #11 on: January 29, 2013, 06:02:15 AM »
Private citizens should always have the right to bear arms. Family's have a right to protect there homes from criminals.
Should there be a proper channel and evaluation before granting this right? Of coarse.
If a person has no criminal record, and no history of mental illness they should have the opportunity to own a firearm.
If a person does have a criminal record, it should depend on the nature of the offense. For instance if you were arrested for fishing on private property this would have no effect on your right to own a hand gun.
This is all I'm reading about everyday. Does anyone really think private citizens should not have the right to bear arms? I'm thinking no.
Yup. Tick is dead on.  She's not your type.  Move on.   Tick is Obi Wan Kenobi


Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16072
  • Gender: Male
    • Hopped on Pop
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #12 on: January 29, 2013, 06:09:36 AM »
I don't think they should.
I am an SJW (Super Jewish Warrior)
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline Tick

  • It's time to make a change
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9251
  • Gender: Male
  • Just another tricky day for you
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #13 on: January 29, 2013, 06:49:40 AM »
I don't think they should.
So people shouldn't have the right to bear arms and protect there homes from criminals? Why not?
Yup. Tick is dead on.  She's not your type.  Move on.   Tick is Obi Wan Kenobi


Offline Perpetual Change

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12264
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #14 on: January 29, 2013, 06:51:20 AM »
Semantics withstanding, I agree with the general idea that the Constitution is flawed and short-sighted, despite the wisdom and forsight of many of the founders.

But anyway, you can argue that "well regulated" meant something else back then. After some discussion elsewhere online, I've seen that arguement crop up a few times.

Well, "arms" meant something else back then, too.

Online BlobVanDam

  • Future Boy
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 38188
  • Gender: Male
  • Transform and rock out!
    • BlobVanDam's 3D Portfolio
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #15 on: January 29, 2013, 06:58:38 AM »
Only King could mis-spell a LETTER.
Yep. I think the only party in the MP/DT situation that hasn't moved on is DTF.

Offline Tick

  • It's time to make a change
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9251
  • Gender: Male
  • Just another tricky day for you
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #16 on: January 29, 2013, 08:12:49 AM »
I don't think they should.

Ditto.
That's nut as far as I'm concerned, but you can have your opinions.
Yup. Tick is dead on.  She's not your type.  Move on.   Tick is Obi Wan Kenobi


Online antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10279
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #17 on: January 29, 2013, 08:30:09 AM »
Semantics withstanding, I agree with the general idea that the Constitution is flawed and short-sighted, despite the wisdom and forsight of many of the founders.

But anyway, you can argue that "well regulated" meant something else back then. After some discussion elsewhere online, I've seen that arguement crop up a few times.

Well, "arms" meant something else back then, too.

I agree that it is flawed, but I also strongly believe that we should do our best to try and follow it. The good handily outweighs the bad, in my opinion.

Offline Perpetual Change

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12264
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #18 on: January 29, 2013, 09:58:30 AM »
Semantics withstanding, I agree with the general idea that the Constitution is flawed and short-sighted, despite the wisdom and forsight of many of the founders.

But anyway, you can argue that "well regulated" meant something else back then. After some discussion elsewhere online, I've seen that arguement crop up a few times.

Well, "arms" meant something else back then, too.

I agree that it is flawed, but I also strongly believe that we should do our best to try and follow it. The good handily outweighs the bad, in my opinion.
I guess, but I do wish the amendment process was easier. Not that our dysfunctional congress could do anything anyway.

I'm also pretty cool with the legislature ignoring it. I think the sole responsibility of the legislature is to do what the people want them to do; not to protect the Constitution. That is the job of the court. When members of the legislature start acting like members of the Supreme Court, trying to dictate what the court will or will not say on something they want passed, I think it's ultimately bad for democracy. Let the legislature decide what to do to solve the nation's problems, and then later the Supreme Court can decided whether a particular part of legislation contradicts the Constitution or not.

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5453
  • Gender: Male
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #19 on: January 29, 2013, 10:09:31 AM »
I don't think they should.
So people shouldn't have the right to bear arms and protect there homes from criminals? Why not?

Well you aren't allowed to shoot anyone that breaks into your house (save for in TX). And I'm genuinely curious. How often has having a personal gun in one's home saved them in a situation where they are threatened? Does it happen a lot?

Offline Perpetual Change

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12264
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #20 on: January 29, 2013, 10:17:36 AM »
I don't think they should.
So people shouldn't have the right to bear arms and protect there homes from criminals? Why not?

Well you aren't allowed to shoot anyone that breaks into your house (save for in TX). And I'm genuinely curious. How often has having a personal gun in one's home saved them in a situation where they are threatened? Does it happen a lot?

Very good point. Your right to "bear" an arm does not give you unlimited rights in terms of how you may USE your arm. Kinda going in with my initial observation, the amendment seems to imply that you have a right to bear arms, with the purpose of partaking in a well-regulated militia (as any arm-owning american was considered part of the "militia").

The amendment doesn't garauntee you the right to wave your arms around threateningly at political rallies, which I saw some of last election cycle. Honestly, it doesn't cover a lot of the aggressive behavior you see gun extremists touting while celebrating the "right".

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10555
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #21 on: January 29, 2013, 10:20:33 AM »
Well you aren't allowed to shoot anyone that breaks into your house (save for in TX). And I'm genuinely curious. How often has having a personal gun in one's home saved them in a situation where they are threatened? Does it happen a lot?
Ummm...sorry.....46 States have incorporated the 'Castle Doctrine' into law. The Castle Doctrine and “stand-your-ground” laws are affirmative defenses for individuals charged with criminal homicide. The Castle Doctrine is a common law doctrine stating that an individual has no duty to retreat when in his or her home, or “castle,” and may use reasonable force, including deadly force, to defend his or her property, person, or another. Outside of the “castle,” however, an individual has a duty to retreat, if able to do so, before using reasonable force. Stand-your-ground laws, by comparison, remove the common law requirement to retreat outside of one's “castle,” allowing an individual to use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat. Deadly force is reasonable under stand-your-ground laws in certain circumstances, such as imminent great bodily harm or death.
  In Missouri the 'castle' has been extended to outside the home to your property, including automobiles, boats....
And to answer your question people defending themselves in their home with a gun happens all the time...of which...I'm not going to waste mine cutting and pasting hundreds of recent examples.

Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline Tick

  • It's time to make a change
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9251
  • Gender: Male
  • Just another tricky day for you
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #22 on: January 29, 2013, 10:25:05 AM »
I don't think they should.
So people shouldn't have the right to bear arms and protect there homes from criminals? Why not?

Well you aren't allowed to shoot anyone that breaks into your house (save for in TX). And I'm genuinely curious. How often has having a personal gun in one's home saved them in a situation where they are threatened? Does it happen a lot?
First off, I don't own a gun but I'll say this. If I do have a gun and a home invasion is taking place and there is a man heading upstairs towards my daughters room I am not going to worry about legality at the moment. I am going to make protecting my daughter top priority, and if shooting the guy heading up those stairs accomplishes that that would be my choice. It would be an easy one. I might tell him to stop first but if he keeps heading up the stairs he's getting shot.
Yup. Tick is dead on.  She's not your type.  Move on.   Tick is Obi Wan Kenobi


Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5453
  • Gender: Male
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #23 on: January 29, 2013, 10:27:36 AM »
Well obviously you have a right to defend yourself. I agree with you. Regardless of the law, protect your family. But I doubt that most break-ins are armed robberies. That's why I have my second question. It might make you feel safer, and I don't have a problem with it, but I'm fascinated that many people feel the need to protect themselves in their own homes with guns as if they expect someone to break in and try to murder their family every other week. I know you can never be too careful, but still. It's sad that people have to feel that unsafe.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16072
  • Gender: Male
    • Hopped on Pop
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #24 on: January 29, 2013, 10:38:52 AM »
I don't think they should.
So people shouldn't have the right to bear arms and protect there homes from criminals? Why not?

Because we have police for that.
I am an SJW (Super Jewish Warrior)
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline Tick

  • It's time to make a change
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9251
  • Gender: Male
  • Just another tricky day for you
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #25 on: January 29, 2013, 11:14:25 AM »
I don't think they should.
So people shouldn't have the right to bear arms and protect there homes from criminals? Why not?

Because we have police for that.
Bad answer.  Here is reality….Calling the cops while someone is in your house robbing you stops nothing. By the time cops arrive what’s done is done. Cops can’t prevent, they can only deal with the aftermath of the situation. Tell me what the cops can do for you when an intruder enters your bedroom with a gun at 2:00am? Are the cops going to save you when you can’t even make a phone call to call them? Answer…no.
Yup. Tick is dead on.  She's not your type.  Move on.   Tick is Obi Wan Kenobi


Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19380
  • Gender: Male
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #26 on: January 29, 2013, 11:20:37 AM »
Growing up, I was always brought up being told that the 2nd amendment had two reasons for being written.

The first was so that each colony had the ability to defend itself from any other colony, or defend themselves from Britain if they ever invaded and the continental army had not arrived yet. The second reasoning for it was to give the people of this new land the peace of mind that the government couldn't just overthrow them. They had the ability to defend themselves and remain free.

I think it's pretty clear that neither of those is really a concern anymore. If the government is going to overthrow the people, it's not going to be with guns. It will most likely be something financial that is executed over a number of years. If the government ever did try to overthrow the citizens of the US with guns, well, that would be the shortest fight in US history. I don't care who you are or how many guns you have, if a fleet of armored Humvee come to your front door, you aren't making it more than 5 minutes. 

I don't know what it is, but for some reason, people interpret the restriction and regulation of guns to be the ultimate sign the the citizens of the United States are no longer free. Why don't these people ever bitch about the fact that warrants can now be obtained just because a cop sends a text message with no real probable cause, or that your phone lines can be tapped for virtually no reason, or how about the fact that every keystroke you make on the internet is recorded in a database...

I feel like if someone wants a gun in their home, for whatever reason, let them have it. We do live in a world with sick individuals, and you never know what kind of asshole is coming into your house (Cheshire home invasion). I feel that a gun should have to be registered as a home protection item, and if you are ever caught with it off your property, for any reason at all, you get arrested. I love the idea of "good guys" having guns, but just because you are a "good guy" doesn't mean you are a good shot.

I don't think there is anything gene that causes this kind of behavior either, nor can it be traced to just movies, video games, etc... These acts are a project of societies obsessive fear over death. We have used death as a tool for so many things, and have made it the underlying fear behind every decision a lot of American make. Count how many times a day you are reminded you can die at any moment. I've probably heard a dozen things by the time I got to school today.

I don't know where I was trying to go with that, but I needed a break from reading and ended up ranting. Carry on.


Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19233
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #27 on: January 29, 2013, 11:30:09 AM »
I don't think they should.
So people shouldn't have the right to bear arms and protect there homes from criminals? Why not?

Well you aren't allowed to shoot anyone that breaks into your house (save for in TX). And I'm genuinely curious. How often has having a personal gun in one's home saved them in a situation where they are threatened? Does it happen a lot?
No need to expand on what GMD already wrote which is dead on. I'd just like to point out that once is enough. I consider the prospect of somebody breaking in to try and bugger me to be 1/1000000. However, people do get eaten by sharks, struck by lighting and win the lottery.


I don't think they should.
So people shouldn't have the right to bear arms and protect there homes from criminals? Why not?

Because we have police for that.
The police will be the first to tell you to buy a gun. They know their limitations (and more importantly, their response times).
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10279
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #28 on: January 29, 2013, 12:17:01 PM »
Semantics withstanding, I agree with the general idea that the Constitution is flawed and short-sighted, despite the wisdom and forsight of many of the founders.

But anyway, you can argue that "well regulated" meant something else back then. After some discussion elsewhere online, I've seen that arguement crop up a few times.

Well, "arms" meant something else back then, too.

I agree that it is flawed, but I also strongly believe that we should do our best to try and follow it. The good handily outweighs the bad, in my opinion.
I'm also pretty cool with the legislature ignoring it. I think the sole responsibility of the legislature is to do what the people want them to do; not to protect the Constitution. That is the job of the court. When members of the legislature start acting like members of the Supreme Court, trying to dictate what the court will or will not say on something they want passed, I think it's ultimately bad for democracy. Let the legislature decide what to do to solve the nation's problems, and then later the Supreme Court can decided whether a particular part of legislation contradicts the Constitution or not.
I can't agree with that. The only way legal issues get to the Supreme Court is through an extremely long and expensive process that, more times than not, ends in the Court denying cert (assuming your case has made it that far). It's not like the Court just sits there, checking over every piece of legislation Congress passes to make sure it's constitutional. I'm not sure how it could possibly be bad for democracy that our legislators make good faith efforts to abide by our founding document's guidelines and provisions before creating law that is required to conform to those guidelines.

Here's the Congressional oath, by the way.

“I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God” (5 U.S.C. §3331).

Offline Perpetual Change

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12264
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #29 on: January 29, 2013, 01:50:11 PM »
I get where you're coming from, goon. However... people who take the Constitution literally, people who believe in preserving the intent of the founders, and people who believe in preserving the Constitution's democratic spirit, are all people who probably see themselves as "defending" the Constitution, and yet they'd all probably offer varying interpretations of what powers they, as legislators, are given under it.

Which is why I don't think it's helpful for legislators to argue over whether something they're doing will fly should it get to the Supreme Court. It's good to try and make sure that legislators aren't introducing law that is so far-fetched it'll never be passed, obviously. But when you have a problem, like gun violence, and, instead of arguing about how to solve the problem, you have the legislature arguing about whether trying to solve the problem at all is "Constitutional", then nothing gets done, and the whole democratic process becomes another way for politicians to shrug-off their responsibilities toward governance with political rhetoric.

So, that's where I'm coming from.

Offline Tick

  • It's time to make a change
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9251
  • Gender: Male
  • Just another tricky day for you
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #30 on: January 29, 2013, 02:03:33 PM »
Taking away guns from law abiding citizens who own them is not going to stop gun violence perpetrated by thugs and criminals. Why is that so hard to understand?

Taking guns away from law abiding people will stop a psychotic 20 year old from opening fire on innocent children? The answer is no.
Taking guns away from law abiding people will stop gang violence? The answer is no.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

Good guys have a right to bear arms. Period.
Yup. Tick is dead on.  She's not your type.  Move on.   Tick is Obi Wan Kenobi


Offline Perpetual Change

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12264
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #31 on: January 29, 2013, 02:25:23 PM »
Taking away guns from law abiding citizens who own them is not going to stop gun violence perpetrated by thugs and criminals. Why is that so hard to understand?

Honestly, I think it's because of attitudes like the one you're exhibiting. Somehow, attempting to regulate or control guns at all is always immediately discounting as "infringing on the 2nd amendment" the moment it gets brought up.

You can preserve rights while still attempting to solve issues that have cropped up around them. In a way similar to how you don't have the right to slander someone despite the first amendment, you can try and control how people can use and obtain guns without infringing on the second amendment. I don't get why that's such a difficult thing for the right to grasp, when they're always trying to add special regulations to how people exercise the right to vote.

Offline Tick

  • It's time to make a change
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9251
  • Gender: Male
  • Just another tricky day for you
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #32 on: January 29, 2013, 02:34:09 PM »
Taking away guns from law abiding citizens who own them is not going to stop gun violence perpetrated by thugs and criminals. Why is that so hard to understand?

Honestly, I think it's because of attitudes like the one you're exhibiting. Somehow, attempting to regulate or control guns at all is always immediately discounting as "infringing on the 2nd amendment" the moment it gets brought up.

You can preserve rights while still attempting to solve issues that have cropped up around them. In a way similar to how you don't have the right to slander someone despite the first amendment, you can try and control how people can use and obtain guns without infringing on the second amendment. I don't get why that's such a difficult thing for the right to grasp, when they're always trying to add special regulations to how people exercise the right to vote.
My problem is with people like Blob and Super Dude who think the right to own a gun should be taken away completely. That is the kind of scary thinking that concerns me. That is entirely different than regulating how the process of ownership works. A little more clear?
Yup. Tick is dead on.  She's not your type.  Move on.   Tick is Obi Wan Kenobi


Offline Perpetual Change

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12264
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #33 on: January 29, 2013, 05:12:10 PM »
Yup.

Offline PowerSlave

  • Posts: 1610
Re: Noticed something about the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #34 on: January 29, 2013, 06:12:48 PM »
Something that I think a lot of people miss when they're trying to look at the historical reason why it was a good idea to allow guns is because the early americans were scared as hell about the Indians. It's probably not "politically correct" to talk about it these days, but if you read the Declaration of Independence their attitude towards native americans (Indians) was fairly clear. Sorry if this didn't really add anything to the discussion, but I always see people mention the British and they never mention this along with them.
All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again