General Discussion

GirlinContempt

(16,987 posts)

120. but it's only a recent thing

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 12:00 PM

Jan 2013

Recent when you look at the history of the second amendment, that it's been interpreted the way it's viewed now. Up until maybe 40 years ago? the second amendment was treated very differently, especially when you go even further back.

The constitution was created to be altered to change with the changing times. And interpretations will change, that's a given. But to try and use it as a shield against even discussing dealing with modern problems like this, as some do, is crazy to me. The Towns of the wild west had stronger gun control! People who actually literally needed their guns! And yet today, discussion of the issue brings out not only this immediate shut down of "rights, no, constitution, no way, no never no changes" but the very idea of the amendment itself isn't even being discussed, or looked at as it already is and was brief for most of its existence.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

155 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

We have a "right" to own guns, but not a right to health care, food, shelter, clothing, employment [View all] Hugabear Jan 2013 OP

That's what you need the guns for! jberryhill Jan 2013 #1

Yep, be self employed, go and get whatever you need like the cave men did... freshwest Jan 2013 #45

This means that RKBA is actually a privilege to extort others politically through threats to kill patrice Jan 2013 #2

Ding ding ding!!! 2naSalit Jan 2013 #27

When the Second Amendment was written JohnnyBoots Jan 2013 #3

Excuse me while I go cleanse my brain after having read that. Whovian Jan 2013 #7

There isn't enough detergent to clean that away! etherealtruth Jan 2013 #73

Where does his post err? Have not government services (and taxes) steadily grown since Flatulo Jan 2013 #99

People have never been entirely on their own in this country. JDPriestly Jan 2013 #132

The OP specifically speaks to the apparent inhumanity of food and shelter not being Flatulo Jan 2013 #137

Jefferson wanted to see idle land and the estates of the wealthy aristrocrats broken up and JDPriestly Jan 2013 #142

Jefferson was quite the radical for the time. Flatulo Jan 2013 #145

Work gives meaning, purpose and dignity to life, JDPriestly Jan 2013 #146

People often ask me how I keep busy in retirement, and the truth is I often run out of time Flatulo Jan 2013 #147

People lived short, poverty-stricken lives obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #8

+1! n/t markpkessinger Jan 2013 #56

+10000000!!!!! And because of that even rich people died.... Walk away Jan 2013 #136

excuse me, barbtries Jan 2013 #9

The Constitution simply does not provide for all kinds of government action that amandabeech Jan 2013 #39

Outstanding post! N/T GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #95

How does that explain banks being too big to prosecute? Dragonfli Jan 2013 #97

but it's only a recent thing GirlinContempt Jan 2013 #120

Well it's too bad then when the Dems had the Executive Branch and the Congress Cherchez la Femme Jan 2013 #133

Is this what's currently being taught in GED courses? LanternWaste Jan 2013 #12

That's a nice right-wing talking point you got yourself there. Hugabear Jan 2013 #14

bwahahahahahaaaa spanone Jan 2013 #21

You make the mistake of thinking that everyone wants to take your stuff. Most people just want patrice Jan 2013 #22

Well said, patrice! Dont call me Shirley Jan 2013 #24

Thanks! and I won't call you Shirley . . . patrice Jan 2013 #26

Huh, what? Take what away? The easy ability to Kill others because they are pissed about something? RC Jan 2013 #36

We now have our military and National Guard to protect us from outside kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #78

To Poster #3...Sociologically, this is factual. The rural, extended families of the 19th Century libdem4life Jan 2013 #85

I am guessing you've never had a history lesson. But they why should you? nm rhett o rick Jan 2013 #98

bosh GirlinContempt Jan 2013 #121

There has been a transition from "Don't look to government to solve things" to,... Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2013 #129

yea, right....that was when Delmette Jan 2013 #138

Oh right, I keep forgetting... primavera Jan 2013 #139

There were no mulltinationals back then War Horse Jan 2013 #141

Right, because guns are the only way to defend against anything rbixby Jan 2013 #153

well, just saying here, d_r Jan 2013 #4

"General welfare" is in the Constitution; "gun" is not. SunSeeker Jan 2013 #28

i get you d_r Jan 2013 #32

You're quoting the Dec. of Independence; but same principle. nt SunSeeker Jan 2013 #44

with liberty and justice for all nt d_r Jan 2013 #64

How do you interpret the General Welfare clause? Please be specific. nt Flatulo Jan 2013 #102

The clause covers such a broad array of interests even the Supreme Court cannot be "specific." SunSeeker Jan 2013 #114

Thanks for the detailed response. I'm shamefully uneducated on the Constitution. nt Flatulo Jan 2013 #115

I agree Demo_Chris Jan 2013 #5

This is why I put quotation marks around the word "right" Hugabear Jan 2013 #11

What issues ought we be getting worked up about that we aren't? lapislzi Jan 2013 #16

To have the courts rule as many here on DU would like would take a constitutional amendment. amandabeech Jan 2013 #46

yep. barbtries Jan 2013 #6

You mistate the right, it's "That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain jody Jan 2013 #10

Actually, you do have a right to health care, food, shelter, etc. montanto Jan 2013 #13

So then the government providing those things is unconstitutional? Wednesdays Jan 2013 #84

Nobody said that. OnionPatch Jan 2013 #86

No, just stupid. Flatulo Jan 2013 #88

Not being prohibited from purchasing something sibelian Jan 2013 #135

That's a good observation, and I would add that our constitution guarantees the former Flatulo Jan 2013 #148

Didn't FDR attempt to pass a second bill of rights with a lot of those other items in it? nt Mojorabbit Jan 2013 #15

You're exactly right. The "2nd Bill of Rights" Hugabear Jan 2013 #18

Whose main proponent, FDR'S VP Henry Wallace, got passed over in the rush into the Cold War & patrice Jan 2013 #25

Yeah, that was the FIRST... ReRe Jan 2013 #37

Democrats need to ADMIT this nearly fatal mistake; it really did HELP bring us here. patrice Jan 2013 #42

Absolutely.. ReRe Jan 2013 #57

I like!!! this, because it's not piece-meal, which has disempowered so much in the past, by making patrice Jan 2013 #60

Globalization and Chinese slave labor seem to have put the kibosh on articles 1 and 2. nt Flatulo Jan 2013 #149

I think you are confusing things davidn3600 Jan 2013 #17

Funny how guns are enshrined, but responsibility to take care of its own citizens is not Hugabear Jan 2013 #20

Our society and the world is far more complicated than it was back then. So you can't blame them. davidn3600 Jan 2013 #31

Plus, people had the good sense to die in their forties, LOL. The framers could not have Flatulo Jan 2013 #150

Kind of tough for me to rationalize the nobility of the constitution LanternWaste Jan 2013 #33

Where in the Constitution are blacks considered 3/5 of whites? nt Flatulo Jan 2013 #69

Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution former9thward Jan 2013 #81

I'm ashamed that I didn't know that. Flatulo Jan 2013 #82

Guns aren't enshrined; unfortunately, the RW Supremes think they are. SunSeeker Jan 2013 #34

Well......yes and no... davidn3600 Jan 2013 #63

It is SCOTUS' fault. SunSeeker Jan 2013 #89

We could change it that those other items are included Mojorabbit Jan 2013 #43

Our constitution guarantees you the right and the opportunity to pursue those things, but Flatulo Jan 2013 #90

But then, at least according to some lights, they stacked Congress against us, by jimmying represent patrice Jan 2013 #35

I support an expansion of rights. hack89 Jan 2013 #19

Great post! nt raccoon Jan 2013 #23

Mao said power comes from the barrel of a gun blazeKing Jan 2013 #29

WOLVERINES! Hugabear Jan 2013 #49

And yet a bunch of ragtag Afghans are giving us hell using only small arms. Flatulo Jan 2013 #100

Using only small arms? Hugabear Jan 2013 #103

I don't know what the formal definition is, but I meant arms that can be carried by a Flatulo Jan 2013 #106

Most of those weapons are illegal to own in this country - or at least tightly regulated Hugabear Jan 2013 #107

No weak guerilla force could EVER harrass the entire U.S. military FrodosPet Jan 2013 #154

OFFS progressoid Jan 2013 #118

If it really comes to that JackInGreen Jan 2013 #126

The more that one looks at the faulty logic of gun-ownership, the more convinced one becomes that patrice Jan 2013 #30

I think for many it's an act of defiance, a statement that one is an American and cannot Flatulo Jan 2013 #101

For some of us that act of defiance is in demonstrating in the streets abouthe issues & candidates. patrice Jan 2013 #104

Clearly you're not the average person. Most Americans are apathetic to the point of complete Flatulo Jan 2013 #110

Being a young adult in the late '60s & then having kids in the '70s made me sensitive to nuclear patrice Jan 2013 #111

Good on you, then. Most of the females in my life are also troublemakers and they keep me Flatulo Jan 2013 #113

It seems like you are confused...... librabear Jan 2013 #38

Gun ownership has effects upon people who CHOOSE not to own guns. One of those effects is patrice Jan 2013 #50

No librabear Jan 2013 #54

You have a "right" to the gun established by a faulty Constitution. If it weren't in there, you patrice Jan 2013 #62

Faulty? librabear Jan 2013 #66

so your saying the poorest Americans have cable tv air conditioning azurnoir Jan 2013 #68

In spite of the government. librabear Jan 2013 #76

Written by white propertied males FOR white propertied males. Certainly you know the history of patrice Jan 2013 #70

Tell us, where is the Federal Reserve in all of that Constitutional perfection? patrice Jan 2013 #71

You know the answer as well as I do. librabear Jan 2013 #79

I'm not as attached to labels as some. People should remember that words, including those in patrice Jan 2013 #80

I agree librabear Jan 2013 #125

I still use labels as social orienting points, but all is in process & always has been, so what we patrice Jan 2013 #127

I bet you do Hugabear Jan 2013 #109

What's that supposed to mean? librabear Jan 2013 #122

Nice right-wing talking point. Thanks for playing. Hugabear Jan 2013 #108

say what you want librabear Jan 2013 #124

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service Glaug-Eldare Jan 2013 #116

Americans make lots of bad choices that adversely affect their fellow citizens. Flatulo Jan 2013 #117

something is seriously wrong samsingh Jan 2013 #40

... 2naSalit Jan 2013 #41

Yes, there IS something wrong with this picture... ReRe Jan 2013 #47

I believe in universal health care, but your comparison is apples and oranges. crazyjoe Jan 2013 #48

SHOW us this proposal where anyone is saying, "for free". patrice Jan 2013 #52

Excuse me, you got a little right-wing in your salad there. Hugabear Jan 2013 #53

Maybe YOU can't imagine such a thing, but what people want is JOBS, good jobs that respect workers & patrice Jan 2013 #55

That goes back to the Founding Fathers and the Revolution NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #51

Poor comparison. I have the "right" to buy a gun, food, shelter, health care, clothing. uppityperson Jan 2013 #58

Terrible argument. You have a right to own guns you BUY cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #59

Agreed. So we should change the definition of "BUY" because money is a cruel PRIVATE joke anyway. nt patrice Jan 2013 #65

bunch of fucking dumbasses, the lot of 'em. Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2013 #61

I believe in the 2nd Bill of Rights outlined by FDR and the right to keep and bear arms TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #67

We have a cynical view of "individualism." DirkGently Jan 2013 #72

I believe we do have the right to those things Politicub Jan 2013 #74

I fully support the Second Amendment Creideiki Jan 2013 #75

Perfectly stated. nt SunSeeker Jan 2013 #91

"A well-regulated militia" Cherchez la Femme Jan 2013 #143

Unfortunately, NightOwwl Jan 2013 #77

Americans' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are subordinated to others' rights indepat Jan 2013 #83

LOL. May you be reincarnated as a house cat. Flatulo Jan 2013 #87

I haven't read any great, not good housecat poetry LATELY, Cherchez la Femme Jan 2013 #144

We have a right to all that, we've just been screwed out of most of it. nt rrneck Jan 2013 #92

Or that the people who own guns also claim to be pro life. Initech Jan 2013 #93

Totally messed up analogy Yo_Mama Jan 2013 #94

The Second Bill of Rights would have taken care of some of that. Fire Walk With Me Jan 2013 #96

They want guns to fight the US government, but they don't want military cuts ecstatic Jan 2013 #105

Must admit...this was the best post tonight...! TheProgressive Jan 2013 #112

The answer to your question is really pretty simple, maybe not what you want, but simple enough. 1-Old-Man Jan 2013 #119

As much as I like this line of argument Rex Jan 2013 #123

hell, you might not have the right to own a chicken. mopinko Jan 2013 #128

I think the right analogy would be there are now more bullets than eggs 1-Old-Man Jan 2013 #131

Just seems like Flatpicker Jan 2013 #130

A lot of other things should be on the list as indispensible 'rights'. randome Jan 2013 #134

I'm about to post this exact same question on Yahoo Answers Jamaal510 Jan 2013 #140

Topsy -Turvy for sure . orpupilofnature57 Jan 2013 #151

Confirms How Deranged Half The Country Truly Is Today cantbeserious Jan 2013 #152

Everyone has a "right" to all those things already madville Jan 2013 #155