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 Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
49. The entire Amendment follows the word "militia." Of which we have none.
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 10:35 PM
Jul 2012

The pro-gun take on the Second Amendment is self-contradictory. It claims to rest on strict construction and "plain meaning," and then promptly ignores the fact that the entire Amendment deals with militias. Which were important when America didn't have a standing Army, and now are irrelevant.

So much for strict construction and plain meaning. We'll take out the first half, and focus on "bear." We'll ignore the fact that self-defense weapons were something our forebears kept in their homes and barns. We'll pretend the intention was for people to bring guns to courthouses and parks and schoolyards. We'll pretend that nothing is different about modern weaponry and modern living that the Founding Fathers could not have conceived, that "armed society is polite society."

And it's all delivered with a pseudo-rationalist tone and airy declarations that people simply don't understand how gun violence has nothing at all to do with guns. People would simply commit drive-by knifings and schoolyard chainsawings and mass baseball battings, you see.

There's no reasonable question about the fact the Second Amendment was intended to protect American's ability to be prepared to fight wars and keep the peace, at a time when local militias were the only means to do that. We don't live in that world anymore. Our militias have become police departments and the military. That's where our citizens "bear arms."

There was never any intention in the Second Amendment for Americans to walk around ready to shoot each other in the supermarket should they feel threatened. There was no intention that rightwingers be prepared to fight it out with the United States government if it got out of line.

The American gun lobby has carefully constructed a dense mythology around the Constitution and the role of firearms and firearm violence. It was never anyone's intention that everyday citizens walk around on the lookout for crime, or dispatch criminals to protect property. To go on armed "neighborhood watch." It has a silly catchphrase or garbled statistic or a disingenuous bit of illogic for every situation. Now we're told that the fact the ATF can't keep American guns out of Mexico because 99% of the process is protected by our own laws is actually a secret plot by President Obama to make people THINK we need better gun laws.

The legal reality is that our shiny new ultra-conservative Supreme Court has since found an individual right to bear arms, so there we are. The word "militia" has been erased. Thank you, NRA. But it's not where we started.

And the argument that we "can't" change gun laws because it's politically problematic is another gun lobby red herring. We can't until we do. We all understand why gun proponents want to wait until the latest in the endless line of American mass shootings fades away to talk about it. But the intervals are getting shorter, and the blood is getting deeper, and it's getting harder to pretend that keeping our country brimming with easily bought and sold firearms of every description has nothing to do with it.


So the parts you like have stayed the same, and the parts you don't like have changed... villager Jul 2012 #1
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. appal_jack Jul 2012 #4
well, I certainly appreciate the invitation to discuss! villager Jul 2012 #5
Well, I do own some weapons that you would like to ban... appal_jack Jul 2012 #8
Hey, app! Here's to where we overlap... villager Jul 2012 #19
cheers! (n/t) appal_jack Jul 2012 #22
Arms are not even a little bit regulated. not anywhere near as regulated as they need to become. robinlynne Jul 2012 #29
You are correct. TheWraith Jul 2012 #2
Supreme Court decision summary: elleng Jul 2012 #3
Well, if Scalia is saying it, it must be true! villager Jul 2012 #6
'Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion. elleng Jul 2012 #33
Exactly. villager Jul 2012 #39
So Tony can conduct an extensive review... orwell Jul 2012 #10
I disagree with Scalia on healthcare appal_jack Jul 2012 #16
AND 'Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion. elleng Jul 2012 #34
Scalia? seriously? undoubtedly? Scalia puts words into Thomas Jefferson's mouth? robinlynne Jul 2012 #30
'Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion. elleng Jul 2012 #32
what do you say to people like me who think the whole 2nd amendment should be abandoned? CTyankee Jul 2012 #7
We say, "See Article 5 and go buck-wild." PavePusher Jul 2012 #9
Oh, I don't need your advice, Pave. Just pointing out how out of touch WE really are here. CTyankee Jul 2012 #12
do you think it is the second ammendment that is allowing the rest of the world to pass us by Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2012 #15
No, I don't and it isn't. I was just using this as a point. It is more than that as Justice Ginsburg CTyankee Jul 2012 #20
if you don't and it isn't why did you see the need to go on? as for your questions Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2012 #28
What happened in Aurora is itself an insult to civility for god's sake! CTyankee Jul 2012 #53
great point. robinlynne Jul 2012 #42
Geez CTYankee, why'd you ask for it then? Llewlladdwr Jul 2012 #18
I told him why we have an unworkable constitution today. It was what we had in the past and CTyankee Jul 2012 #23
I disagree with your premise that our constitution is unworkable. Llewlladdwr Jul 2012 #27
Are you a progressive? a liberal? robinlynne Jul 2012 #43
Why is that? kctim Jul 2012 #55
Yeah, women's rights are "whims of a few" (over 50% of the population!) CTyankee Jul 2012 #63
God ole mob rule Dokkie Jul 2012 #65
what the hell are you talking about? CTyankee Jul 2012 #66
You suggesting because Dokkie Jul 2012 #67
you said "whims of the few." I was pointing out that women make up a slight majority. You have CTyankee Jul 2012 #69
I say start a repeal movement. Llewlladdwr Jul 2012 #11
Justice Ginsburgh said that if she were to advise a new democracy she would recommend the CTyankee Jul 2012 #17
I agree with you on women's rights appal_jack Jul 2012 #25
You have so rightly described the problem, appal jack! The lack of specificity in our CTyankee Jul 2012 #26
Gender specific rights? Dokkie Jul 2012 #64
silly. I have one grandson and will have another in mid January. Why wouldn't I want for them CTyankee Jul 2012 #68
I say write your Senators and Representatives and ask them to initiate an amendment to repeal it slackmaster Jul 2012 #21
Of course. See my other posts in this threads about the deficiencies in our Constitution and CTyankee Jul 2012 #24
I think the US Consititution is rather imperfect, but very perfectable appal_jack Jul 2012 #52
Let's at least agree it's a terribly worded amendment. :) reformist2 Jul 2012 #13
I just don't see that. :-) nt Llewlladdwr Jul 2012 #14
great, if you are NOT in the militia you can't have a gun. thanks! nt msongs Jul 2012 #31
um, nope, try again appal_jack Jul 2012 #35
Incorrect. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #37
Excellent. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #36
Thanks! appal_jack Jul 2012 #46
It is worth emphasizing what you said about "Democratic leaders such as Bill Clinton" AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #38
Agreed, my friend (n/t) appal_jack Jul 2012 #40
the right to self defense with a firearm is not mentioned at all in the constitution. robinlynne Jul 2012 #45
Glad to see that as your position. Do you who John Locke was? Do you understand the philosophy AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #48
Here's the thing.... Jeff In Milwaukee Jul 2012 #41
This message was self-deleted by its author robinlynne Jul 2012 #44
But there is the Ninth Amendment too... appal_jack Jul 2012 #47
The Ninth Amendment... Jeff In Milwaukee Jul 2012 #54
Excellent historical addition to the discussion. n/t appal_jack Jul 2012 #58
The entire Amendment follows the word "militia." Of which we have none. DirkGently Jul 2012 #49
Nonsense, largely appal_jack Jul 2012 #50
Specifics? No. 2 says the National Guard is the militia. DirkGently Jul 2012 #51
the word "being" seems to connect the latter clause to the first treestar Jul 2012 #56
Cherry-picking nt LiberalEsto Jul 2012 #57
Great post.. X_Digger Jul 2012 #59
Thanks. Excellent points. n/t appal_jack Jul 2012 #62
Nope, I'll pass. Hell Hath No Fury Jul 2012 #60
Hell Hath No Attention Span (n/t) appal_jack Jul 2012 #61
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The "Well Regulated ...»Reply #49