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: We need to have a serious national debate about the 2nd Amendment [View all]stone space
(6,498 posts)52. The arguement was made. I heard it many times. I tried not to let it discourage me.
Same as with those who argued back in the 1970s that gays would never be allowed to marry.
Those folks seed so sure of themselves back then, and a lot of folks bought the argument, but today marriage equality is the law of the land here in Iowa.
Generally, I don't see attempting to discourage people from struggling for change to be a particularly positive or productive use on one's time.
If successful, you've only encouraged people to drop out and become apathetic. If unsuccessful, you've wasted valuable time of your own that could be better put to use in more positive and productive pursuits.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
156 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
We don't even need to amend it. We just need a SCOTUS that will interpret it
stranger81
May 2014
#114
That is already happening in upstate NY. Upstate LEO's have refused to enforce NY's SAFE Act.
badtoworse
May 2014
#152
It's not illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater if the theater has a fire.
Nuclear Unicorn
May 2014
#45
Correct me if I'm wrong but the issue is people dying before reaching a natural death.
Nuclear Unicorn
May 2014
#104
Why? Where does this need to accept it come from? Why is it either desirable or necessary? (nt)
stone space
May 2014
#12
The arguement was made. I heard it many times. I tried not to let it discourage me.
stone space
May 2014
#52
All the more reason to address the glorification of violence in our culture...
badtoworse
May 2014
#57
SCOTUS can do this. And here's how: we get another Dem in the WH in 2016 for 8 years.
CTyankee
May 2014
#87
Well, there you are. This is what you have gotten. A Dem presidential candidate who
CTyankee
May 2014
#109
you underestimate the Americanpublic. I think they have seen what the gun lobby wants and what
CTyankee
May 2014
#145
Communities have a right to self-defense against guns, but the gundamentalist...
stone space
May 2014
#25
So what? The Bill of Rights protects the people by denying certain powers to the government.
badtoworse
May 2014
#40
Slavery wasn't a civil right, it was a legal license. Slavery was a violation of civil rights.
Nuclear Unicorn
May 2014
#54
You want to have a national debate yet call people 'gun-humpers'? You may wish
kelly1mm
May 2014
#128
So you think the only reason people arm themselves is to protect themselves from the Government?
dilby
May 2014
#14
I disagree. The "debate" has happened. The second might be the only amendment...
Demo_Chris
May 2014
#65
Good luck with that, gun nuts would rather us all die than give up their first love. nt.
Rex
May 2014
#88
Oh, I dunno...pick a place in the civilized world where they have fewer gun deaths than we do...
CTyankee
May 2014
#129
Why n ot look at countries in the world where the populace likes having their guns and
CTyankee
May 2014
#153
I don't think we need a constitutional amendment. Just intelligent gun regulations.
Vattel
May 2014
#135
Wherein? The media? Hahahaha! Congress? Guffaw! Taking it to the streets? Better be armed!
WinkyDink
May 2014
#156