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: To my way of thinking, there are VERY few examples of "responsible" gun owners. [View all]Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)102. Parse all you want to, but you just lost your own argument by acknowledging this....
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. On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states.
First off, we didn't have a Standing Army, during Peacetime, until the U.S. Military was created by Congress on Sept. 29th, 1789. The "Colonial Army", which fought in the Revolutionary War, was never an "Official Army of The United States".... http://www.americaslibrary.gov/jb/revolut/jb_revolut_army_1.html
As for the "Capital 'P'", there's this:
There are two principle versions of the Second Amendment: one version was passed by Congress, while the other is found in the copies distributed to each individual state and later ratified by them
As passed by the Congress: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.{emphasis mine}
As ratified by the States: 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.
http://constitution.laws.com/2nd-amendment
Then the debate on the 2nd Amendnent by The Federalists & Anti-Federalists:
The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.
This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.
Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.
The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion {All emphasis mine}
http://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/
This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.
Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.
The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion {All emphasis mine}
http://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/
As for "It goes to the Supremes": IF you read the link right above this, you will be highly disappointed when your read this part:
Until recently, the judiciary treated the Second Amendment almost as a dead letter. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), however, the Supreme Court invalidated a federal law that forbade nearly all civilians from possessing handguns in the nations capital. A 54 majority ruled that the language and history of the Second Amendment showed that it protects a private right of individuals to have arms for their own defense, not a right of the states to maintain a militia.
Quite frankly, speaking as a gun owner, I have been so disgusted with the actions of people lately that I have gotten rid of all of my guns except for 2... a 12 gauge pump shotgun, and a .22 cal Benjamin pump-up PELLET gun that I have had for well over 30 years. I am trying to sell the shotgun now, as I need new tires for my car... and need them WAYYY more than I do the shotgun.
Good luck in your crusade, though, you are going to need a lot of it...
Peace,
Ghost
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
146 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
To my way of thinking, there are VERY few examples of "responsible" gun owners. [View all]
Stinky The Clown
Jul 2016
OP
I have notice that their being armed to the teeth didn't actually prevent Cheney/Bush from stealing
villager
Jul 2016
#1
Should we also start thinking about restricting the first amendment too?
Bernielover357743
Jul 2016
#2
The last thing we need is a bunch of wingnuts running around "participating in law enforcement".
ronnie624
Jul 2016
#42
So, since many black men feel threatened and targeted by government tyranny then they are justified
blm
Jul 2016
#60
No rights are absolute. There are many restrictions/ limitations on the first amendment
etherealtruth
Jul 2016
#121
Criminologists will tell you that it's a small percentage of folks who commit most crime.
X_Digger
Jul 2016
#21
I'm not the one freaking out and blaming 0.05% of gun owners. If there's someone paranoid..
X_Digger
Jul 2016
#54
Actually seems quite doable to identify potential gun violent perpetrators. Chicago,
jmg257
Jul 2016
#126
Not 5%, 0.5%. Half a percent. (I'm not commenting on the other subject, I haven't read that thread.)
X_Digger
Jul 2016
#94
Since about 0.003% of the firearms in this Country are used to murder someone, I'd say the other
Waldorf
Jul 2016
#12
I guess you better raid my liquor cabinet. I'm responsible drinker, until I'm not.
Waldorf
Jul 2016
#23
I agree with you. Notice how panicked the gop is now about open carry in front of their convention
MariaThinks
Jul 2016
#80
Believe me, if gun owners where the "problem" you pretend them to be..
virginia mountainman
Jul 2016
#15
Then, as the OP states, you support the right of crazy guys and would-be mass shooters to own guns.
Doodley
Jul 2016
#41
In my opinion, in that situation, the driver would be starting the violence.
ZombieHorde
Jul 2016
#59
So then we go back to the original thought. Killing cops is okay in your book.
Stinky The Clown
Jul 2016
#89
For the sake of argument, I will stipulate that you're a model gun owner
Stinky The Clown
Jul 2016
#51
Parse all you want to, but you just lost your own argument by acknowledging this....
Ghost in the Machine
Jul 2016
#102
Don't equate some yahoos with a gun fetish to real patriots who would spill their blood if needed.
Stinky The Clown
Jul 2016
#85
And I think *your* views on gun owners are on a par with Pam Geller's views on Muslims
friendly_iconoclast
Jul 2016
#129
We might as well start with the known <1% responsible for 70-80% of gun crimes.
jmg257
Jul 2016
#114
Gunners consider George Zimmerman a responsible gun owner, his Killing T Martin is counted
Hoyt
Jul 2016
#132
Isn't being a "responsible gun owner" like being a "responsible flame thrower owner"?
BlueStater
Jul 2016
#133
If you own bows and arrows just for the sake of owning bows and arrows, it's irresponsible.
BlueStater
Jul 2016
#143
Yup - no purpose, unless of course you want to burn something, or shoot something.
jmg257
Jul 2016
#135