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
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: A question for this group-- [View all]discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)43. And in that regard:
The provision of the Constitution declaring the right to keep and bear arms was probably intended to apply to the right to bear arms for such {militia related} purposes only, and not to prevent Congress or legislatures from enacting laws to prevent citizens from going armed. A different construction however has been given to it.
The 2A explicitly articulates a right. The 2A explicitly ascribes it to the people.
You mention that Scalia noted that "...the prevailing view was to the contrary." Was this assertion incorrect?
I'm unconvinced that the Founders intended to protect a collective right but perhaps there is some remote possibility. However, I don't think so. Also, if the 2A was intended as protection for the collective aspect of the RKBA, that still says nothing to the effect of denying any individual component of that right. What I am looking for is writing from some authority, such as Oliver or Story, which argues to deny an individual RKBA for lawful personal purposes.
Explaining that the right of self-defense, a natural right, must exclude the use of firearms really stretches belief. The Heller opinion acknowledges that, like most other rights, the RKBA is not unlimited nor absolute.
So you have Scalia who explains reasonable restrictions are not a problem for the RKBA as in reasonable restrictions do not negate the right. You have Oliver saying that the intent of 2A was to protect the militia abilities of the people. I'm not reading anywhere yet that someone contemporary with the Founders has ever completely denied that any individual RKBA. This would mean that denying that right would class firearm ownership as a type of privilege.
Mea culpa I didn't ask for evidence from a Founder or a contemporary explaining that the individual and personal RKBA was a privilege.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
98 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
By "control"-I was referring to a person's feeling of being personally in control--
digonswine
Apr 2018
#29
It's silly to take the founding fathers' ideas as perfect for today's problems-
digonswine
Jun 2018
#93
re: I have had enough of it and am probably done discussing it(maybe).
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Jun 2018
#97
Why are there no warnings on guns that say you are more likely to be killed with a gun when you poss
gejohnston
May 2018
#64
Carrying for self-defense generally means being able to draw and shoot quickly.
krispos42
Apr 2018
#15
"...the right to "have arms" embodied in the English Declaration of Rights...
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Apr 2018
#40
re you saying there should be limits regarding who carries what? Sure seems that way.
digonswine
May 2018
#84