Skip to main content

View Diary: The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery (294 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  We need to accept that this amendment is unclear (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reflectionsv37, CS in AZ, exlrrp

    its problematic wording allows for multiple interpretations. further, it appears various founders had differing ideas about the topic.

    instead of parsing and re-parsing the ancient riddle, we need to think of what we should do now.

    An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

    by mightymouse on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 05:01:30 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  rec x 1000 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse, kayak58
      instead of parsing and re-parsing the ancient riddle, we need to think of what we should do now.
      Its much more fun to scream at people, apparently. God save us from the (self) righteous.
      Its like trying to read the future in tea leaves in the bottom of a cup, it can be ANYTHING you say it is.
      But its actually what the SCOTUS says it is---which is that Congress shall make no laws infinging the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
      To bad they didn't define that better if they wanted to mandate a militia but , as in any contract, if it ain't there in writing, it ain't there.

      Happy just to be alive

      by exlrrp on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:06:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Seriously misrepresented there. Heller did find a (0+ / 0-)

        private, as opposed to a collective right, but, in dicta, the Heller majority very clearly signaled that the parameters of permissible regulations surrounding the myriad details of RKBA are still very much up in the air. In fact the earlier  federal case law that had skipped over determing the nature of the "right" while going on to uphold regulatory restrictions were explicitly favorably cited by the majority.

        There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

        by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 02:06:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes! Exactly my thoughts on this too (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh, mightymouse
      instead of parsing and re-parsing the ancient riddle, we need to think of what we should do now.
      I completely agree with this and said pretty much the same to a friend just the other night. The only thing that is clear about the original language is that it is very poorly written -- or perhaps intentionally obtuse -- but we need to accept that it's vague, and we need to update and fix it.

      The framers of the constitution includes mechanisms by which it can be changed -- so they recognized that circumstances in the future might require changes, and they also surely knew that they were skirting and compromising on some very important issues, leaving them to future generations to resolve. Gun rights and controls is one of those areas we need to change to fit the current age. That is going to be an ugly fight. But arguments over the meaning of the original language, or what they wanted to achieve with it, while interesting for historians and relevant to a certain degree, are not terribly important in terms of what we need to do now. It's a distraction and there will never be consensus or agreement the way it's currently written.

    •  Your observation is a largely applicable (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      to the Constitution as a whole.

      Nothing human is alien to me.

      by WB Reeves on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:35:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site