Skip to main content

View Diary: The picture posted on FB by an NRA friend that set me off (316 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If "limiting the sale" doesn't infringe on the 2nd (0+ / 0-)

    Then "limiting warrants needed for search" doesn't infringe on the 4th.

    I reject that notion in both cases.

    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

    by FrankRose on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:03:10 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  It says "well regulated" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      athenap

      and limiting the type of guns sold is a regulation.

      So is training, so is registration, so is insurance.

      I find your selective reading of the amendment to be only slightly amusing.

      "I watch Fox News for my comedy, and Comedy Central for my news." - Facebook Group

      by Sychotic1 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:14:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It says "well regulated militia" (0+ / 0-)

        It also says "the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed"
        You will notice it says nothing about needing to be a member of a militia, nor "regulating" arms.

        That said, arms ARE currently regulated (no full-auto, background check if buying from an FFL dealer, etc.).

        I simply reject any infringments of Constitutional Rights beyond what we currently have. And I feel this way about ALL of our Constitutional Rights

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:25:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is all in the same sentence (0+ / 0-)

          and there is a logical argument for removing guns from anyone who isn't in a well regulated militia.

          You and I will never see face to face on this because you believe your right to have a variety of fast acting guns in unlimited amounts trumps societies' right to ensure minimal safety.

          "I watch Fox News for my comedy, and Comedy Central for my news." - Facebook Group

          by Sychotic1 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 01:37:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It is the same sentance. (0+ / 0-)

            I don't understand why you think that is relevant.
            "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."
            ie Because a militia is necessary, therefor the Right of the people to keep arms, shall not be infringed.
            You will notice that 'well-regulated' isn't mentioned with the Right of the People.
            You will also notice that 'shall not be infringed' is mentioned with the Right to keep & bear arms.
            You should also notice that being a member of a militia is not a prerequisite of the Right to Keep & bear arms.

            "you believe your Right"
            I believe in all of the American People's Rights. Including the 2nd.
            I believe in not infringing on our Rights enough that I will NOT vote for anyone who does.

            "societies' right"
            You want to infringe on "societies' right" for the perception of safety. The word "Right" has a meaning, you cannot hijack it because you are uncomfortable with it in this context.
            All free societies have to decide where/when to sacrifice Liberty for Safety.
            The right-wing was willing to sacrifice the 4th, you are willing to sacrifice the 2nd.
            I disagree with both you and the right-wing. I am not willing to sacrifice any of the Liberties we as Americans enjoy today for the perception of safety.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 03:47:19 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site