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: Today's Daily News cover for 3rd anniversary of Newtown CT shooting [View all]Straw Man
(6,943 posts)47. Once more, with feeling.
And the writer did use a statement about guns. It's right there, literally the word "guns" appears.
"Here's a good time to remind everyone that the Second Amendment was written by slaveholders before we had electricity, much less the kind of weaponry that would-be murderers can buy today. But sure, if you think it's that precious, we can compromise: If you love the Second Amendment that much, feel free to live in a powdered wig and shit in a chamberpot while trying to survive off what you can kill with an 18th century musket. In exchange, let those of us living in this century pass some laws so we can feel safe going to class, or the movies, or anywhere without worrying that some maladjusted man will try to get his revenge by raining death on random strangers."
Perhaps we have different definitions of "literally," you and I, but I don't see the word "guns" in there. But yes, there are references to "weaponry" and "musket."
However, nobody, least of all me, is saying that the writer doesn't have lots of bad things to say about guns and the Second Amendment. But "written by slaveholders" isn't a valid criticism of that particular amendment unless she is trying to convince us that only the Second Amendment, and not the rest of the Constitution was "written by slaveholders." You wouldn't be trying to make that particular claim, would you?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
125 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 can't even imagine...prayers to him. I think for me to survive something like that
adigal
Dec 2015
#86
But it doesn't apply equally to the rest of it, because the whole thing isn't about guns.
kcr
Dec 2015
#42
So, because I think their slaveholder status was relevant to guns, that means I think it's good?
kcr
Dec 2015
#54
Oh, so the 13th isn't Constitutional enough. Disregard the amendment that corrected THAT mistake.
kcr
Dec 2015
#60
This is the point where I click the "Back" button and go look for something else to read.
NBachers
Dec 2015
#105
Waters = muddied. Good job with your pointless nitpicking. Yay for you. n/t
leeroysphitz
Dec 2015
#97
Ah, yes, but the point is The Constitution has been amended to give full rights
mnhtnbb
Dec 2015
#87
No. Any person wanting to serve with a State Militia (National Guard these days)
mnhtnbb
Dec 2015
#98
The Constitution can be amended. I'll stand my ground on that one. It only takes
mnhtnbb
Dec 2015
#101
Indeed. We have no need for more guns than people in this country. It's definitely a health hazard.
mnhtnbb
Dec 2015
#113
Common mistake. Estimates of the number of people who own guns is quite different...
mnhtnbb
Dec 2015
#118
People tend to only follow laws they agree with and make sense to them.
virginia mountainman
Dec 2015
#33