Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

echochamberlain

(56 posts)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 07:42 AM Aug 2014

I re-read the second amendment, and I'm sorry to say the Conservatives have been right all along.

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by etherealtruth (a host of the General Discussion forum).

Text of the Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, including weaponry a century hence, of such staggering magnitude and rapid rate of discharge that it will be beyond the mental faculties of we who are drafting this amendment to conceive, and therefore in utter defiance of its spirit, and that the right of bearing such arms shall extend to the interiors of grocery stores and family restaurants, and the acquisition of such arms shall be extended to gun advocate gatherings, where individuals whose hermit-like seclusion and derangement is so egregious that many in our present age would ascribe it to possession by the Devil, shall not be challenged or asked to identify themselves, irrespective of whether they wish to massacre children or wreak havoc upon society, and proponents of this amendment a century hence shall impose their attitude upon their fellows with insufferable sanctimonious staunchness, and twist the phrase 'well regulated militia' which has a specific context given we have just written it when the Revolution is still fresh in the minds of most citizens, and interpret it in a preposterously broad way and resist any appeals to moderate this amendment, arguing a neurotic and stubborn 'slippery slope' fallacy that goes against all common sense as well as the general will of the population - shall not be infringed.

20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I re-read the second amendment, and I'm sorry to say the Conservatives have been right all along. (Original Post) echochamberlain Aug 2014 OP
... Agschmid Aug 2014 #1
You misquoted the amendment because you left out its one qualification: Vattel Aug 2014 #2
hear, hear! Stellar Aug 2014 #9
ha, yeah...maybe it was in an earlier draft. echochamberlain Aug 2014 #12
I guess you missed this one.. X_Digger Aug 2014 #13
The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment imthevicar Aug 2014 #18
Your definition does not forbid using controls to make or keep the object in question working jwirr Aug 2014 #19
Hahahaha FarPoint Aug 2014 #3
Well thank god you've come along to set us all straight. Sheldon Cooper Aug 2014 #4
Boring. IBTL pintobean Aug 2014 #5
Why exactly do you find it boring? tridim Aug 2014 #11
Ssdd. Most people pintobean Aug 2014 #14
I think it's very creative and is hitting a few nerves. tridim Aug 2014 #16
yes, why exactly..? echochamberlain Aug 2014 #17
What about the right to shoot yourself in the foot? That's the Amerikun way! nt Walk away Aug 2014 #6
should the first admendment not cover the internet? Travis_0004 Aug 2014 #7
HERP to the mutha fucking derp n?t bobduca Aug 2014 #8
KnR. This is worthy of a DUzy! nt tblue37 Aug 2014 #10
I always thought they meant that Americans had the right to short sleeved shirts n2doc Aug 2014 #15
Locking etherealtruth Aug 2014 #20

Agschmid

(28,749 posts)
1. ...
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 07:43 AM
Aug 2014
 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
2. You misquoted the amendment because you left out its one qualification:
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 07:48 AM
Aug 2014

"all of which is not to deny that any black person bearing arms or things that look like arms or things that don't look like arms or no arms at all have no right not to be shot by agents of the state"

Stellar

(5,644 posts)
9. hear, hear!
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 08:30 AM
Aug 2014

echochamberlain

(56 posts)
12. ha, yeah...maybe it was in an earlier draft.
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 08:50 AM
Aug 2014

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
13. I guess you missed this one..
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 08:53 AM
Aug 2014
 

imthevicar

(811 posts)
18. The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 09:00 AM
Aug 2014


From: Brian T. Halonen <halonen@csd.uwm.edu>

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
19. Your definition does not forbid using controls to make or keep the object in question working
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 09:27 AM
Aug 2014

correctly.

FarPoint

(14,866 posts)
3. Hahahaha
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 07:51 AM
Aug 2014

Sheldon Cooper

(3,724 posts)
4. Well thank god you've come along to set us all straight.
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 07:53 AM
Aug 2014

Godspeed, man. Godspeed.

 

pintobean

(18,101 posts)
5. Boring. IBTL
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 07:53 AM
Aug 2014

tridim

(45,358 posts)
11. Why exactly do you find it boring?
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 08:48 AM
Aug 2014
 

pintobean

(18,101 posts)
14. Ssdd. Most people
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 08:54 AM
Aug 2014

don't want to see the same arguments over and over again. That's the reason for the SOP for this forum.

tridim

(45,358 posts)
16. I think it's very creative and is hitting a few nerves.
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 08:59 AM
Aug 2014

To each his own I guess.

echochamberlain

(56 posts)
17. yes, why exactly..?
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 08:59 AM
Aug 2014

[i

Walk away

(9,494 posts)
6. What about the right to shoot yourself in the foot? That's the Amerikun way! nt
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 08:00 AM
Aug 2014
 

Travis_0004

(5,417 posts)
7. should the first admendment not cover the internet?
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 08:11 AM
Aug 2014

Since the founding fathers could not have predicted that.

Also a repeating air rifle with a 20 round magazine was invented in 1779, or 12 years before the bill of rights was ratified.

It could fire a round every 2-3 seconds. It had flaws, but I dont think anybody said "we will never be able to improve on this design"

bobduca

(1,763 posts)
8. HERP to the mutha fucking derp n?t
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 08:21 AM
Aug 2014

tblue37

(68,444 posts)
10. KnR. This is worthy of a DUzy! nt
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 08:32 AM
Aug 2014

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
15. I always thought they meant that Americans had the right to short sleeved shirts
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 08:55 AM
Aug 2014

Plus tank tops, muscle shirts and the like. This right however does not extend to going topless.

etherealtruth

(22,165 posts)
20. Locking
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 09:27 AM
Aug 2014

According to the GD SOP Posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports are restricted in this forum.

I suggest re-posting in one of the "gun" forums (RKBA, Gun Control reform Activism)

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I re-read the second amen...