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: The 2nd Amendment was NOT written "to protect us from our gov't," FFS... [View all]Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)30. No, he is not. Nor are you.
Myth 1: The 2nd Amendment means we all have a right to keep weapons and use them against the federal government, even if the federal government has tanks, aerial bombs and drones. Those little guns, even automatics that are so handy at killing mass civilians you don't like, are never going to protect you against the weapons of destruction the federal government keeps in their arsenal.
It is worth noting that despite our massive technological superiority, the United States has not won many military engagements in the last 70 years.
Also note that in the case of a civil war such massive attacks would destroy our own infrastructure and tax base causing far more damage than the guns in civilian hands by themselves.
Myth 2: The constitution is for the federal government NOT the States.
Sorry, but this is not a myth. As was pointed out above, prior to the 14th amendment, adopted in 1968, not one word of the Bill of rights applied to the States.
But in the 2nd they give a less specific explanation and explain that their purpose is to keep a well regulated Militia. Yet the gun fetish freaks ignore those words as if they have no import. But they are most certainly very important because no other amendment explains itself without reference to a dollar amount.
So my question is, do you suppose the writers of the Constitution thought that some citizens would seize on the idea of owning weapons to the exclusion of everything else, so that they explain the purpose of the amendment up front to allow for control of weapons? The ignorant fools who claim to be justices don't interpret it that way but using simple logic it seems to me to be the purpose. Why else explain the amendment up front when the other amendments don't explain themselves that way.
The second amendment provides a reason for the people to keep and bear arms. Perhaps even the main reason. But it does not stipulate that this is the only reason to keep and bear arms.
It is like saying, "I am out of bread, so I am going to the store." This does not mean that stores only sell bread, or that the only reason I go to stores is to buy bread. It just means in the context of this sentence, I need bread and I can buy it at a store.
It is worth noting that despite our massive technological superiority, the United States has not won many military engagements in the last 70 years.
Also note that in the case of a civil war such massive attacks would destroy our own infrastructure and tax base causing far more damage than the guns in civilian hands by themselves.
Myth 2: The constitution is for the federal government NOT the States.
Sorry, but this is not a myth. As was pointed out above, prior to the 14th amendment, adopted in 1968, not one word of the Bill of rights applied to the States.
But in the 2nd they give a less specific explanation and explain that their purpose is to keep a well regulated Militia. Yet the gun fetish freaks ignore those words as if they have no import. But they are most certainly very important because no other amendment explains itself without reference to a dollar amount.
So my question is, do you suppose the writers of the Constitution thought that some citizens would seize on the idea of owning weapons to the exclusion of everything else, so that they explain the purpose of the amendment up front to allow for control of weapons? The ignorant fools who claim to be justices don't interpret it that way but using simple logic it seems to me to be the purpose. Why else explain the amendment up front when the other amendments don't explain themselves that way.
The second amendment provides a reason for the people to keep and bear arms. Perhaps even the main reason. But it does not stipulate that this is the only reason to keep and bear arms.
It is like saying, "I am out of bread, so I am going to the store." This does not mean that stores only sell bread, or that the only reason I go to stores is to buy bread. It just means in the context of this sentence, I need bread and I can buy it at a store.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
172 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
The 2nd Amendment was NOT written "to protect us from our gov't," FFS... [View all]
TygrBright
Dec 2012
OP
Damn right. We must reframe the gun issue and deal with it harsly as a terror instrument
graham4anything
Dec 2012
#1
Well, a good many years of historical and Constitutional scholarship don't necessarily...
TygrBright
Dec 2012
#6
type: incorporation bill rights into the Google search box top-right of this page
cthulu2016
Dec 2012
#102
actually, that the bill of rights applied only to the federal gov't originally is a matter of fact,
HiPointDem
Dec 2012
#121
Why do you find it necessary to insult everyone and call them stupid and liars?
pangaia
Dec 2012
#148
IMO, there is only one thing worse than ignorance, and that is WILLFUL ignorance.
cleanhippie
Dec 2012
#72
You just said what I've been thinking as I am reading this exchange. nt
DeschutesRiver
Dec 2012
#172
They want military firepower without the military discipline & civilian control that goes with it.
baldguy
Dec 2012
#69
But the tenth amendment is not a restriction on government power in the first place
jberryhill
Dec 2012
#131
That's right. And we have the National Guard and state, county and city/town police
brush
Dec 2012
#115
Of course the tenth amendment was passed and ratified well after the rest of it
nadinbrzezinski
Dec 2012
#50
A mentally ill person shooting little kids is not part of a well regulated militia
Botany
Dec 2012
#20
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the 1st amendment does not mention "Life, Liberty....
A HERETIC I AM
Dec 2012
#44
That is one hell of an opinion you have there, but it is utterly indefensible.
1-Old-Man
Dec 2012
#23
Fed 29 was in large part, a treatise on the proper organization of the militia
X_Digger
Dec 2012
#142
Agree, we have a political system that allows "revolutions" every 4 years.
Old and In the Way
Dec 2012
#34
IMO it's the "right of self-defense" not the "right to keep and bear arms" that is the key issue.
jody
Dec 2012
#36
Taken together and in context, the 2nd and 3rd Amendments exist because we're not supposed to have
TransitJohn
Dec 2012
#41
You are correct. Not many people even know that the 2nd Amendment was to keep citizens armed in
Lint Head
Dec 2012
#84
I'm guessing this is sincere. The same is true for your kids...up to some level you can do to or
libdem4life
Dec 2012
#163
Actually, the only thing that could change the current SCOTUS interpretation
amandabeech
Dec 2012
#109
This OP does not offer a holistic analysis of the Colonial / Constitution era context...
reeds2012
Dec 2012
#138