On DU there are two Gun Forums. One is called "Gun Control and RKBA", the pro-gun forum where about every other thread is about how horrible guns are and how they need to be banned. The other is called "Gun Control Reform Activism" and is the anti-gun forum. Now, like I said, the anti-gun people post on the pro-gun forum all the time. The pro-gun people cannot post to the anti-gun forum, they get deleted and/or banned for doing so.
Typical Libs approach to free speach IMO.
For example:
Nuclear Unicorn (7,462 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172129165
I find it hard to believe the the 2nd Amendment is exclusively for national defense
Last edited Wed Jul 24, 2013, 09:52 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
I read in another thread that the 2nd A was enacted to create a militia in lieu of a standing army but with the advent of modern militaries we no longer require militias for national defense ergo the 2A is obsolete. The author of the opinion went on to say that the 2A was in no way meant to be a guard against the government.
I find this incredible because looking at the rest of the Bill of Rights every amendment is one declaration of "we don't trust government" after another.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
TRANSLATION -- We don't trust the government so people can form their opinions wherever they please and then get together and tell the government that it's acting like a bunch of knuckleheads.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
TRANSLATION -- We don't trust the government to not use the military to occupy people's homes.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
TRANSLATION -- We don't trust the government to not go around barging into people's homes and rifling through their private affairs in a fishing expedition to convict them of trumped-up crimes.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
TRANSLATION -- We don't trust the government to refrain from trumping up charges that carry a death sentence or re-prosecuting crimes until they get the verdict they want or beating confessions out of people or just summarily punishing people or taking their stuff.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
TRANSLATION -- We don't trust the government to be the sole arbiter of guilt or innocence let alone actually conduct a fair trial under its own auspices.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
TRANSLATION -- Did we mention we don't trust the government to determine verdicts?
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
TRANSLATION -- We don't trust the government not abuse the system to try and keep you locked-up for indefinite periods of time or charge you outrageous sums of money for your freedom.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
TRANSLATION -- We don't trust the government to retain all power at a single level.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
TRANSLATION -- No, really. Totally true story.
How can it be suggested that the 2A would be the only amendment to invest exclusive power into the hands of the government -- and deadly force at that! Every legitimate function of government, i.e. the deciding of national policy, pursuing criminals etc. has ironclad restrictions on the expressions of that power. Not one of the amendments addresses foreign threats. Every one of them assumes a domestic abuse of power.
How then can the 2nd Amendment NOT be designed to give THE PEOPLE the ultimate means to secure their freedoms?
BTW -- if you disagree with my premise but you're sporting a Che Guevara or V for Vendetta avatar .... yeah.
Not too bad, really. It won't do for DU...
jimmy the one (932 posts)
22. 2ndA is obsolete & antiquated
N-Unicorn: I read in another thread that the 2nd A was enacted to.. The author of the opinion went on to say that the 2A was in no way meant to be a guard against the government.
I find this incredible because looking at the rest of the Bill of Rights every amendment is one declaration of "we don't trust government" after another.
I think you might be conflating two separate concepts. Firstly, the author you mention probably meant to say the 2nd amendment's purpose was not to guard against a tyrannical domestic, or perhaps foreign govt, dunno his intent.. You might be conflating this concept with the bor amendments being restrictions on the govt (congress) - what you called guarding against govt; do you think this the case?
uni: I read in another thread that the 2nd A was enacted to create a militia in lieu of a standing army but with the advent of modern militaries we no longer require militias for national defense ergo the 2A is obsolete.
Not only that, but since the 1903 militia act, there has been no 'well regulated' citizens militia as spelled out in the 2nd Amendment. Since the rationale for RKBA has collapsed into oblivion, so should the 2ndA, since it has become obsolete & worthless. You no more need the 2ndA to purchase a firearm today than you need first amendment rights to talk to yourself.
.. Today, the 2ndA emboldens americans to be able to own & practice with military style assault rifles, while not ever being obligated to serve one, single, day, in a well regulated militia or army or navy or national guard unit. To suggest this was the intent of 2ndA is absurd.
Well, then- everyone need a gun and need to be in the militia... how's that!?
