General Discussion

Blanks

(4,835 posts)

88. The primary concept is not whether the bill of rights 'grants' or 'protects' our rights...

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 01:07 AM

Jan 2014

It's a minuscule distinction at best. The primary concept is whether the bill of rights 'protects' an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

If it indeed 'protects' that right as you insist. Then places that have restrictive gun laws would have been challenged at the Supreme Court and those laws would be unenforceable. Those laws would not be allowed to stand because the people who live in those areas have an individual right to keep and bear arms that is 'protected' by the bill of rights. Which we know is not the case because the laws exist.

We do not have an individual right to keep and bear arms. If you're trying to convince me that the existence of these laws restricting gun ownership and possession are unconstitutional and you believe that you are going to convince me (or anyone for that matter) with silly analogies about going to the store to buy pop - I wouldn't hold out much hope for that.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

107 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Seven in Fourteen [View all] WilliamPitt Jan 2014 OP

Posted on FB page. ananda Jan 2014 #1

Sad, isn't it? R&K nt longship Jan 2014 #2

EZ solution: Arm all teachers ErikJ Jan 2014 #83

Wow! that certainly puts it in perspective. Arkansas Granny Jan 2014 #3

K&R redqueen Jan 2014 #4

Now this is a WP post worth reccing. n/t Dawgs Jan 2014 #5

Almost daily, so sick of it. Grocery stores and other 'safe' locations too. joanbarnes Jan 2014 #6

I'm not sure I'd use "At risk" JoeyT Jan 2014 #7

"Now? It barely makes a ripple." DU will now lock shooting threads in LBN as local news. Thor_MN Jan 2014 #89

What I'm afraid of is that it *will* become the accepted norm. Kablooie Jan 2014 #8

It would seem to some that these incidents *are* an acceptable price lapislzi Jan 2014 #11

After the Newtown, CT slaughter I am convinced that the NRA and its supporters believe that AlinPA Jan 2014 #17

So damn asinine. tavalon Jan 2014 #9

It already is the new normal abelenkpe Jan 2014 #10

Shouldn't it be 8? Wasn't there a shooting at U of Oklahoma yesterday? AAO Jan 2014 #12

False alarm WilliamPitt Jan 2014 #13

LOL! AAO Jan 2014 #16

All those gun free zones. ileus Jan 2014 #14

It's almost as if word magic doesn't actually work... friendly_iconoclast Jan 2014 #19

Rescind the second amendment, now!! n/t PowerToThePeople Jan 2014 #15

Get 3/4 of Congress and 38 states to agree with you and you're good to go. friendly_iconoclast Jan 2014 #18

Certainly not an insurmountable task. PowerToThePeople Jan 2014 #20

I'll break this to you as gently as possible: friendly_iconoclast Jan 2014 #25

simple, uncorrupted representation would also work tiny elvis Jan 2014 #76

"...a proxy for sadistic death mongers" More Billy Sunday-style culture war from you lot friendly_iconoclast Jan 2014 #86

Well then get off your ass, put down the donuts and DO IT. n/t oneshooter Jan 2014 #87

Isn't it 2/3 of Congress? (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2014 #32

You are correct- and then 3/4 of the states friendly_iconoclast Jan 2014 #35

Trying that again, so soon? X_Digger Jan 2014 #21

I left out of boredom. PowerToThePeople Jan 2014 #22

Funny.. you replied, but that's not actually an answer. Imagine that. n/t X_Digger Jan 2014 #23

I answered. PowerToThePeople Jan 2014 #27

Not really, no.. you dodged. If the right wasn't an individual right.. X_Digger Jan 2014 #30

No one is perfect PowerToThePeople Jan 2014 #34

Umm, think on what you just said, in the context of the discussion we're having. X_Digger Jan 2014 #40

I will have to get back to you. PowerToThePeople Jan 2014 #41

Even the right of the citizens to defend themselves... Blanks Jan 2014 #56

*sigh* The second amendment (the whole bill of rights, acutally) grants *NOTHING*. X_Digger Jan 2014 #59

I'd just as soon not... Blanks Jan 2014 #62

You're missing the primary concept. No rights are granted. Rights are protected by the BoR. X_Digger Jan 2014 #65

The primary concept is not whether the bill of rights 'grants' or 'protects' our rights... Blanks Jan 2014 #88

Does the fact that the first protects an individual right keep restrictions on speech.. X_Digger Jan 2014 #92

True, it is illegal to yell "fire" in a movie theater... Blanks Jan 2014 #95

Point was that the first (or second) being an individual right has no bearing.. X_Digger Jan 2014 #96

So there isn't any problem with restricting the right to keep and bear arms... Blanks Jan 2014 #97

Yes, your silly claim was thoroughly trounced. X_Digger Jan 2014 #98

You have a nice day now. Blanks Jan 2014 #99

At least you gave me a chuckle. Thanks! n/t X_Digger Jan 2014 #100

You seem to have missed a few court cases. clffrdjk Jan 2014 #94

I can't believe you complained that you had to repeat everything CreekDog Jan 2014 #103

In the same thread, no less? That's just silly. X_Digger Jan 2014 #105

More likely, you realized the futility of your dream... friendly_iconoclast Jan 2014 #26

As did abolitionists in the early 19th century. LanternWaste Jan 2014 #33

Sorry, I'm uncomfortable with the state having a monopoly on force friendly_iconoclast Jan 2014 #36

The "my Mac 10 will protect me from government tyranny" canard is now laughed at Doctor_J Jan 2014 #101

Things aren't as bad as they could be and can still be changed peacefully friendly_iconoclast Jan 2014 #102

MLK probably thought that there would not be a black president in his lifetime. Nye Bevan Jan 2014 #39

The poster you are replying too simply seems to be saying that we should repeal the 2nd Amendment. Nye Bevan Jan 2014 #24

No, the bill of rights "grants" no rights. *sigh* X_Digger Jan 2014 #28

So (and I am not trying to be snarky here) if the Second Amendment was repealed, Nye Bevan Jan 2014 #31

Depending on severity, there'd be a ninth amendment federal suit brought. X_Digger Jan 2014 #37

So maybe what is needed (from my point of view, not yours), Nye Bevan Jan 2014 #38

It's not the federal government's right to grant. X_Digger Jan 2014 #42

Many western democracies have strict gun control laws Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #43

That's a lovely straw man. Did you stuff it yourself? X_Digger Jan 2014 #44

In post 28 you called it a "pre-existing right" Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #45

The right to keep and bear arms, yes. You filled in the rest of that straw on your own. X_Digger Jan 2014 #46

I have taken civics Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #47

As long as you don't argue all rights flow from the government, we won't have a problem. X_Digger Jan 2014 #50

I don't think human rights come from the government Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #51

The second amendment is a protection of a pre-existing right. X_Digger Jan 2014 #54

Most of Europe does not consider the right to bear arms a pre-existing right Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #57

Did we petition to join the EU and I missed the memo? X_Digger Jan 2014 #58

We don't need to join the EU to learn from them Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #61

Feel free to support whatever you like. X_Digger Jan 2014 #63

And screw the fact that we have the highest prison population in the world, that is not freedom Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #66

Might as well wish the moon were made of cheese. X_Digger Jan 2014 #67

So if our culture is homicidally violent as you claim then how do you explain the drop in crime? Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #68

Our culture is homicidally violent, but less so now than 20 years ago. See how simple that was? X_Digger Jan 2014 #69

So how is your comparision to the 1880's relevant? Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #70

Demonstrates that even with no gun control in either city, there was quite a difference in homicide. X_Digger Jan 2014 #71

There is a correlation between the murder and the murder weapon Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #72

Correlation (smoking and inmates) does not imply causation (smoking causes crime). X_Digger Jan 2014 #73

But no one said smoking causes crime, that is a huge strawman Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #74

That's what we call, an "analogy". *sigh* X_Digger Jan 2014 #77

No need, I already explained why it is a bad analogy. Good night. Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #78

It went right over your head, apparently. X_Digger Jan 2014 #79

I can only repeat what I said to them: friendly_iconoclast Jan 2014 #29

Yep. Should have happened long ago. tblue Jan 2014 #53

No support for that at all! Be realistic! n-t Logical Jan 2014 #60

So if we had 1 day of school and had a shooting we'd have 100% school shootings. Auntie Bush Jan 2014 #48

and every mass shooting is really several isolated incidents tiny elvis Jan 2014 #80

Well, blkmusclmachine Jan 2014 #49

.... spanone Jan 2014 #52

Never! nxylas Jan 2014 #91

8 in 16 n2doc Jan 2014 #55

If so many kids are willing to murder their own classmates... Shandris Jan 2014 #64

if you knew the cause and no remedy was feasible, what would you do? tiny elvis Jan 2014 #81

That's a bridge to cross when you get to it. Shandris Jan 2014 #85

Not to nitpick, but... Tafiti Jan 2014 #75

Well, hell, why not exclude the shootings that don't occur IN a classroom? Thor_MN Jan 2014 #90

Hilarity often ensues when the gun culture joins a post-massacre discussion Doctor_J Jan 2014 #93

I know this is old, but... Tafiti Jan 2014 #107

k&r Liberal_in_LA Jan 2014 #82

The US has sunk to 3rd world status on so many fronts at this point Doctor_J Jan 2014 #84

It's not going to change til the 2nd goes, and that's not going to happen. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2014 #104

9 in 17 n2doc Jan 2014 #106