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: Would publishing the personal information... [View all]Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)145. "Per your post, if the militia no longer exists, then the 2nd Amendment has NO meaning anymore. "
Per your post, if the militia no longer exists, then the 2nd Amendment has NO meaning anymore. IOW, the 2nd Amendment can't be used as a defense for laissez-faire gun ownership.
I disagree vehemently. The militias, made up of the people, were to serve as a way to prevent forceful tyranny by the central federal government.
The militias have been usurped by that same central federal government. This does not invalidate the rest of the sentiment or rationale behind the second amendment.
It simply means there is no longer an organized mechanism (the militias) by which to enforce it. But the people still retain the military power to protect their interests.
This is exactly what the founders intended. There is a reason why every single iteration of the second amendment specifically enumerates firearm ownership as a right of the people, and not a right of the states or the militias or any other branch of government.
And in fact, a proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated in Congress. Which indicates that not only is this a right of the people, it is not restrained only for exercising as a collective!. It is an individual right.
Most of the gun-adorers in this thread have let my clearly- and repeatedly-posted point fly right over their heads in their rush to judgement: The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with laissez-faire gun ownership.
There, I said it again, maybe for the 10th time. Hopefully some of you will read it this time.
That's because need to define what you mean by "laissez-faire gun ownership".
Also it's because you have not stated what you think the second amendment is actually supposed to do.
If somebody can show me a post of mine that says that guns should be outlawed, feel free. You won't be able to find one, except in your fervid imaginations.
The problem is that we have heard these code words like "laissez-faire gun ownership" before. Which basically means "hands-off gun ownership". Usually this is code for "you can't have unregulated gun ownership", which, when pressed, usually means the speaker supports onerously-regulated gun ownership.
We don't have laissez-faire gun ownership in this country. There are a host of laws and regulations that govern firearm possession. If we had liassez-fair gun ownership I'd be able to buy them through the mail out of the Sears catalog like my father did, and I wouldn't have to get government permission before buying one.
So you'll have to provide some details as to what constitutes "laissez-faire gun ownership and how you would change it.
I disagree vehemently. The militias, made up of the people, were to serve as a way to prevent forceful tyranny by the central federal government.
The militias have been usurped by that same central federal government. This does not invalidate the rest of the sentiment or rationale behind the second amendment.
It simply means there is no longer an organized mechanism (the militias) by which to enforce it. But the people still retain the military power to protect their interests.
This is exactly what the founders intended. There is a reason why every single iteration of the second amendment specifically enumerates firearm ownership as a right of the people, and not a right of the states or the militias or any other branch of government.
And in fact, a proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated in Congress. Which indicates that not only is this a right of the people, it is not restrained only for exercising as a collective!. It is an individual right.
Most of the gun-adorers in this thread have let my clearly- and repeatedly-posted point fly right over their heads in their rush to judgement: The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with laissez-faire gun ownership.
There, I said it again, maybe for the 10th time. Hopefully some of you will read it this time.
That's because need to define what you mean by "laissez-faire gun ownership".
Also it's because you have not stated what you think the second amendment is actually supposed to do.
If somebody can show me a post of mine that says that guns should be outlawed, feel free. You won't be able to find one, except in your fervid imaginations.
The problem is that we have heard these code words like "laissez-faire gun ownership" before. Which basically means "hands-off gun ownership". Usually this is code for "you can't have unregulated gun ownership", which, when pressed, usually means the speaker supports onerously-regulated gun ownership.
We don't have laissez-faire gun ownership in this country. There are a host of laws and regulations that govern firearm possession. If we had liassez-fair gun ownership I'd be able to buy them through the mail out of the Sears catalog like my father did, and I wouldn't have to get government permission before buying one.
So you'll have to provide some details as to what constitutes "laissez-faire gun ownership and how you would change it.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
178 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
You wanna talk about something O'Reilly said, why don't you say it instead of O'Liely
rl6214
Apr 2012
#55
That's a good point. If the public has a right to know who is carrying guns, why not carry openly?
Atypical Liberal
Apr 2012
#4
an Individual is a Member of the Militia. In order to be well regulated the Individual must have a
Tuesday Afternoon
Apr 2012
#11
OK but, does this mean that one is not well regulated if one can not produce papers from a
Tuesday Afternoon
Apr 2012
#44
that needs to be further discussed and refined, imo.... still, did you forget to produce your
Tuesday Afternoon
Apr 2012
#47
No, it's commonly accepted that the foot soldier carries the modern weapon of THE FOOT SOLDIER
rl6214
Apr 2012
#107
Even if the second amendment specifically said you had to be in a militia to keep and bear arms...
Atypical Liberal
Apr 2012
#78
love it, sitting on my porch, sipping on a mint julep and listening to:
Tuesday Afternoon
Apr 2012
#165
There are no militias that serve the role that they did in the founders' day.
Atypical Liberal
Apr 2012
#87
It's a problem for anyone who wants to restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
Atypical Liberal
Apr 2012
#129
"Per your post, if the militia no longer exists, then the 2nd Amendment has NO meaning anymore. "
Atypical Liberal
Apr 2012
#145
"Communicating badly and acting smug when you're misunderstood is NOT CLEVERNESS."- XKCD
friendly_iconoclast
Apr 2012
#169
I wasn't aware you were advocating *anything*, (that 'communicating badly' thing)...
friendly_iconoclast
Apr 2012
#171
OK, then. Kindly point out for us what the NRA got wrong. Here's a link to their site:
friendly_iconoclast
Apr 2012
#174
Well then, what you have asserted without evidence can be likewise dismissed without evidence.
friendly_iconoclast
Apr 2012
#177
All 9 judges agreed the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
Atypical Liberal
Apr 2012
#77
"Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be"
friendly_iconoclast
Apr 2012
#166
And what do *you* believe "...The NRA Imagines Constitution To Be"?
friendly_iconoclast
Apr 2012
#168