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: Flintlock muskets... [View all]

intaglio

(8,170 posts)
8. Do you actually know the point you are trying to make?
Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:37 AM
Dec 2012

The rights to life and liberty are in the Constitution; but there is still capital punishment, imprisonment and restrictions on travel.

Slavery is covered by the Constitution but the inequity that caused slavery was amended.

The right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights as is the right to free speech; both are open to amendment and also to reasonable legislation regarding them. Free speech is abridged; you cannot issue slander without sanction and you cannot incite treason or racial hatred; the right to bear arms is also abridged - try walking into a courtroom with a concealed weapon if you are not part of the security of the Court.

In the cases of both free speech and the right to keep and bear arms the technology has changed and legislation has changed with them. It is now regarded as illegal to incite treason against the USA from without the USA - even if you are a US citizen. Equally it is seen as unreasonable to permit child pornography over the internet.

Only in the case of gun rights do advocates for the gun industry scream for both "original intent" and "unchanging interpretation" and ignore the right (not enshrined in the Constitution) to live without fear, either that imposed upon them by those who bear arms or the fears incited by the manufacturers to sell their weapons.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Flintlock muskets... [View all] tex-wyo-dem Dec 2012 OP
The founding fathers wanted people to have weapons available to soldiers at the time Hugabear Dec 2012 #1
And the same with information technology, the internet on lead type ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #2
Exactly! nt tex-wyo-dem Dec 2012 #3
Do you actually know the point you are trying to make? intaglio Dec 2012 #8
"The rights to life and liberty are in the Constitution" needledriver Dec 2012 #17
Sorry, Declaration my error n/t intaglio Dec 2012 #21
The Girandoni Air Rifle predated the second amendment Brother Buzz Dec 2012 #4
So what was the general availability of the... tex-wyo-dem Dec 2012 #5
I guess my attempt at jocularity failed miserably Brother Buzz Dec 2012 #9
oh jeez... tex-wyo-dem Dec 2012 #20
This message was self-deleted by its author Brother Buzz Dec 2012 #7
... and required 1,500 pumps to fill the reservoir intaglio Dec 2012 #10
Read DC v Heller and all the submitted briefs and you will begin to understand. nt jody Dec 2012 #6
Once again, we only had a militia because we didn't have a standing army and as a new nation, world wide wally Dec 2012 #11
You have it backwards missionkam Dec 2012 #12
In that case, here is what we got. safeinOhio Dec 2012 #15
One common battle tactic was to have... TreasonousBastard Dec 2012 #13
A Ferguson breech-loading musket was one of the more advanced assault weapons of the period Historic NY Dec 2012 #14
Cannons. You could own them then and you can own them now. OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #16
Actually, British front line troops could load and fire a musket 3 to 4 times in a minute LibertyLover Dec 2012 #18
Besides understanding the wisdom in reucing the need for a large standing army, the FF also knew jmg257 Dec 2012 #19
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Flintlock muskets...»Reply #8