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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Gun Control Now - Fact Driven Rant [View all]X_Digger
(18,585 posts)15. Not a fan of 17th and 18th century literature, I take it?
If the Founding fathers had no problem saying what they mean, and they meant for people to universally have the right to own and carry weapons for whatever purpose, they would have said just that, rather than couching it in a phrase prefaced with a discussion of the militia.
You mean, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" ?? Like that?
If they'd truly meant it to apply only to militias, why did these same guys in their respective states write things like:
[div class='excerpt']The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution. It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."
Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791. Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."
Delaware: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."
Alabama: The Alabama Constitution, adopted in 1819, guarantees "that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state"
There's no logical way to reconcile that.
eta: Additionally, there are enough historical writings from the founders at the time to support my position, if you'd care to see them, but nobody I've asked has had anything from that time asserting otherwise.
Many folks mention FP29, but then fail to connect it to the second amendment in a way that is logically consistent. As I mention above, FP29 is one side of an argument about how best to manage the militia, and doesn't touch on the scope of the right that the second amendment protects.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
52 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
You seriously thing they wouldn't have protected the very method they'd just used?
Lizzie Poppet
Dec 2012
#40
I believe you have to take it within the context of the language of the amendment
Toronto
Dec 2012
#7
All are valid exercises of the right, yes. (protection of self, family, home, state)
X_Digger
Dec 2012
#19