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: Second Amendment Scoreboard [View all]Uncle Joe
(65,237 posts)89. That's a good answer establishing the basis of the Founders' reasoning but it seems to me
today this Amendment has only served to put the American People in an arms race with "We the People."
Increasing numbers of the police force have been militarized, we have a growing for profit prison industry and an unending war against an ambigous code word of "terrorism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
The Bill of Rights[1] is an Act of the Parliament of England passed on 16 December 1689.[2] It was a restatement in statutory form of the Declaration of Right presented by the Convention Parliament to William and Mary in March 1689 (or 1688 by Old Style dating), inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England. It lays down limits on the powers of the crown and sets out the rights of Parliament and rules for freedom of speech in Parliament, the requirement for regular elections to Parliament and the right to petition the monarch without fear of retribution. It reestablished the liberty of Protestants to have arms for their defence within the rule of law, and condemned James II of England for "causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law".
James II's primary transgression wasn't the taking of arms but an infringment against freedom of religion. He was selective in the arms he confiscated only taking those of the Protestants in an attempt to give the Catholics an advantage.
The United States has an elected government not a monarchy and our most powerful Amendment is the First as it has been used twice in American History to overturn looming tyranny; the Alien and Seditions Act and McCarthyism.
It seems to me that if the people should ever rise up and use arms against an overwhelmingly superior United States government it will only open the door to major civil war, martial law and most probably some form of dictatorship.
The present day result of the 2nd Amendment has only served to make the killing of the American People by the people easier, more convenient and effective.
I don't have all the answers but I believe the 2nd Amendment should be revisited and updated to modern times and today's reality.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
114 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
I don't think Uncle Joe, or the cartoonist, sees the US Presidency as a seat of tyranny.
Aristus
May 2014
#3
Gun ownership rates have been dropping since the 70s with more guns concentrated in to fewer hands.
Uncle Joe
May 2014
#61
If 80,000,000 gun supporters object to this behavior, then all of you write to your
Aristus
May 2014
#112
Must not have gotten the memo that the 2nd amendment was only needed for protection from Tyrants.
dilby
May 2014
#4
Yes the South would've had personal weapons regardless because it was largely rural, agrarian
Uncle Joe
May 2014
#47
Glad to hear the right person in the right place, at the right time with a gun saved your life.
Fla Dem
May 2014
#12
Guns can save lives, just like not wearing a seat-belt can save lives...
devils chaplain
May 2014
#54
You would supplant a secular constitution with a document that appeals to a deistic god
AtheistCrusader
May 2014
#8
Preamble references " Laws of Nature and of Nature's God " and 'Creator' is capitalized for a reason
AtheistCrusader
May 2014
#14
You are attempting to interpret the historical writing of a deist in deistic language to mean
AtheistCrusader
May 2014
#20
I had been in the US for not more than an hour before some paranoid idiot
dickthegrouch
May 2014
#43
Of course I have the right, morally and legally, to take a life, in defense of my own or another's.
X_Digger
May 2014
#55
Using the NRA's logic more guns = more self-defense capability = a safer nation but that doesn't
Uncle Joe
May 2014
#44
Not just demographics but the actual rate of gun ownership has been dropping as well.
Uncle Joe
May 2014
#59
No doubt some people will and are lying or witholding the truth, but that's nothing new
Uncle Joe
May 2014
#67
From your own post, apparently the Pew Research Center confirms the General Social Survey.
Uncle Joe
May 2014
#71
Very true, however the Gallup poll shows gun ownership at the same level it was ...
spin
May 2014
#84
About 50% use a method other then firearms but we don't blame the bridges or razors.
EX500rider
May 2014
#87
I understand the right to keep and bear arms and the government not being allowed to infringe but
Uncle Joe
May 2014
#83
That's a good answer establishing the basis of the Founders' reasoning but it seems to me
Uncle Joe
May 2014
#89