Skip to main content

View Diary: How Australia Eliminated Gun Massacres. A New Position for the Democratic Party (45 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  and i acknowledged that in my original comment (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bontemps2012, erush1345
    i get that studying existing gun control laws is useful; some systems are more efficient than others, etc.
    But in that line of argument, isn't it is just as silly to justify a year 1800 interpretation of the 2nd amendment when we had a population of 5 million, give or take?  After all, that would require an extrapolation to a country 60 times as large.
    no.  the 2nd amendment has been a part of THIS country since inception.  it has grown with us; nothing was extrapolated.
    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.
    the right was enumerated, regardless of how dated the supporting statement might be.

    Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

    by Cedwyn on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:30:20 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Then mortars, tanks and machine guns (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      were invented. Tasers were invented. And regulated.

      We also regulated the bejesus out of swords.

      "We have done nothing to be ashamed of. We have nothing to apologize for." NRA 12/14/2012

      by bontemps2012 on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:56:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Practicality (0+ / 0-)

      So.. will the 'well regulated militia' be up to the task of standing up to Marines, drones, tanks, and aircraft carriers?

      I didn't think so.

      I see that the founders did not see any point of separation when they created the 2nd Amendment. Back then, militia == army. We didn't have a standing army. We needed every citizen to stand up and take part. Now we have a volunteer military force bigger than the next 7 nations combined.

      I'm sorry.. what did you want that AR-15 for again?

      Military/civilian weapons didn't need separate categories in the 1700's. Technology demands separate categories now. Overthrowing a 'tyrannical government' is a noble idea in our Constitution, but seriously...

      Is that realistic? To hell with the current debate... lets say you, as a private citizen, can have any weapon system you want. Guns, artillery, tanks, fighters, bombers...nukes..

      Are you really expecting to stand up against the U.S. Government if it really wants to take you down?

      What are you fighting for anyway? The right to pretend you are an action hero?

      I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that his justice cannot sleep forever. - Thomas Jefferson

      by MightyMoose on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 07:24:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (128)
  • Community (55)
  • 2016 (43)
  • Environment (38)
  • Republicans (34)
  • Elections (34)
  • Bernie Sanders (33)
  • Culture (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (26)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (24)
  • Labor (24)
  • Climate Change (22)
  • Education (22)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Media (21)
  • GOP (20)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Economy (19)
  • Affordable Care Act (18)
  • Texas (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site