Skip to main content

View Diary: Try saying it out loud: "We should repeal or amend the 2nd Amendment." (w/ RASA poll [70%: yes!]) (129 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think I agree with you overall (3+ / 0-)

    but I think as to public perception and practicality.

    I don't think Liberty has anything to do with gun ownership. The second Amendment has nothing to do with Individual gun ownership rights.

    And your quotes when mentioning guns were made at a time for a purpose.

    Those people certainly did not intend muskets you don't need to reload and can gun down an army be in the hands of individuals as Liberty.

    Further, they were fighting for freedom. Today? Are the gun nuts going to liberate themselves against tanks and drones with their AR's? I doubt it.

    Gun Ownership was never a fundamental right until McDonald and Heller. It shouldn't be. It was because Militias were needed.

    But I agree the taking of an Amendment looks like that. But in reality we all know the odds of a group of nuts with even assault weapons v. a 2 billion dollar plane.

    •  For Example (2+ / 0-)

      "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

      I don't think we'd be splitting hairs saying that that was contemplating the America project not working and turning into England (as the Second Amendment went away allowing for Militias). (England gun ownership was basically based on $, ie having wealth to hunt for game).

      Overall though I completely get what you are saying. And agree. People don't know what it says (2nd Amend) and think it that fundamental. So not practical, and volatile to state as a purpose to repeal.

      And as I posted above: Early on there were times when the police, etc. were not armed, could not protect so acts like this were tried.

      On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:

          [E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.[91]

    •  A very good point (0+ / 0-)

      Thankyou for the though provoking feedback =)

      To be honest, I was afraid you would say that.  I am a bit of a black sheep amongst my friends as I believe there should be some regulations on weapons.  My friends however often bring up the point you just brought up but they bring it up in the opposite direction.  During the revolution the enemy had muskets and cannon and so did the militia.  The British had ships and the colonies had privateers... ships.  So if the intention of the second amendment was to allow the people to have the means to resist a tyranny and they were to have access to the same equipment, for example, cannons then shouldnt the people today have access to the same equipment.  My friends would argue that since the government has access to rocket launchers the people should have access to them as well and that the founding fathers would agree with them.  To that I would say perhaps that is the case, however, war is not won by weapons alone and while it is important to maintain the right to have weapons rocket launchers are probably not required to insure freedom.  At this point I often point to afghanistan where they are able to resist an invasion without high tech weapons.  Anyway, it just begs further debate.  Thankyou for sharing your thoughts with me, I am happy to participate in this type of heathy disscussion and I believe that through such disscussion both sides can come to see the world through the others eyes and reach an agreement both sides would be happy with.  For the record, I worked in an armed field for several years.  I am certified through the state to carry a carbine (AR-15), semi-automatic pistol, revolver, and shotgun in the course of duties.  I am no longer in that field but I have thousands of dollars invested in my equipment.  I may be what you would consider one of those nuts but I have personally met many of those folks with what you consider an assault weapon and I can honestly say that 99.999% of them are law abiding citizens with jobs and families who would give the shirt off their back to help their neighbor and they are just as heartbroken about the event last weekend as everyone else.  I think the first step in unity as a nation will require folks on both sides to sit down like we are here and realize that at the end of the day we want the same thing, security and safety for our people and that neither side is the monster that the other side makes them out to be.  Only when we are willing to lossen our grips on what we believe is truth and fact and see things from a neutral angle with a willingness to change and aknowledge that our own way may not be absolutley right, can we work together to achieve something meaningful.  Again, thankyou for your insights.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site