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
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: Message auto-removed [View all]etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)17. The second amendment was not always interpreted the way it is today
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment
Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? The question, which is suddenly pressing, in light of the reaction to the school massacre in Newtown, is rooted in politics as much as law.
For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The courts had found that the first part, the militia clause, trumped the second part, the bear arms clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear armsbut did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.
Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup détat at the groups annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to poweras part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as a fraud.
TopBack to the top of the page
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
ShareGet links to this post
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
67 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
It's not a weapon of war. Those would be fully automatic Ak's. The ones that can be purchased in
Waldorf
Nov 2015
#9
Yes, it can fire a lot of bullets, just like my semi-automatic .22. But it still is not a weapon of
Waldorf
Nov 2015
#15
Tell that to victims of mass shootings. Besides, plenty of gunners have converted them, or howabout
Hoyt
Nov 2015
#30
Not nonsense at all. The foolish are the ones who think the two (AK semi-auto available in the US vs
Waldorf
Nov 2015
#67
I'm fine with a gun or two AT HOME for hunting and home defense (not that I believe it is really
Hoyt
Nov 2015
#10
Whats the difference between owning 1 or 50? I can still only shoot one at a time.
Waldorf
Nov 2015
#16
Simple, those 50 guns will be sold, given to others, stolen -- perhaps more importantly, they fuel
Hoyt
Nov 2015
#19
I don't consider the guns bad, more the people. A gun is just an inanimate object. I strongly
Waldorf
Nov 2015
#24
Gotta have all those "actions" to be happy, notwithstanding gunz effect on society.
Hoyt
Nov 2015
#25
Yes, all those different "actions" do make me happy. I enjoy shooting for a hobby. And when
Waldorf
Nov 2015
#26
Wine is not the same as lethal weapons. Heck, I prefer a wino over a gun loving militia type anyday.
Hoyt
Nov 2015
#29
Alcohol is a problem. Gunz are a bigger problem -- intimidation, crime, mass shootings, empowering
Hoyt
Nov 2015
#43
I get what you are saying, but every decade we do nothing, puts 100 million more gunz on the street
Hoyt
Nov 2015
#12
I don't see this happening for a long long time. They might get enough for Congress but I don't
Waldorf
Nov 2015
#13
The 2A has never been the real issue. It is the lack of broad passionate public support
hack89
Nov 2015
#49
I hold out hope for our society .... we can't just sit back and say "there's nothing we can do" n/t
etherealtruth
Nov 2015
#57
This is why new gun laws at the national level fail. When people see wanting to repeal the
Waldorf
Nov 2015
#63
Repealing the second would not remove the right. The bill of rights grants no rights.
X_Digger
Nov 2015
#31
Solutions grounded in cultural, political and legal reality have a greater chance of becoming law.
hack89
Nov 2015
#51
Yep, which is why the new action will probably be directed a making lists of people
HereSince1628
Nov 2015
#53