2nd amendment rights are not supreme. You cannot have freedom if society is fearful.

[boston bean]

The proliferation of these killing implements have caused a breakdown of freedoms. We can't go to public spaces without the freedom from being searched.

You can't move freely without the fear of a lunatic with access to a gun.

You cannot live free of fear from losing your life if everyone has a gun. It is not an equalizer. It makes it more likely you will lose your life to gun violence.

In my mind other freedoms are supreme to owning a gun.

[Trust Buster]

1. Yes, the minute that creep opened fire from 32 floors above, the rights of the citizens on the

Ground were reduced to just one - run.

[Botany]

2. How about the 1st Amendment? "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

Like going:
to school
to church
to a concert
to work
to a movie
or out your front door

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Grins]

39. The 2nd Amendment nullifies the 1st.

I always felt the 2nd Amendment was a constant violation of my 1st Amendment rights. Good post. Feel the same way.

[Botany]

40. I have hunted and owned guns for years and I am sickened by the bloodshed and ....

..... how the whole country is now the victim of our insane gun laws. But if 20 babies
being shot in the face @ Xmas doesn't change things then what will?

[NightWatcher]

4. No pro gun people ever mention the first clause of the 2nd Amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary....

First, we now have a standing army, which is the sole reason that the 2nd was written. The founders didn’t want a standing army, so they made provision to make sure that we’ll regulated militias had the right for the members of the community to have firearms. We have an army now and do not have well regulated militias anymore.

[hack89]

7. Not sure I agree

when in our history has private ownership of guns outside of the militia not been the norm? Can you show me states that actively disarmed citizens if they were not part of the militia?

If what you say is true then there should be case law you can point to.

As it stands now, your point is moot. Heller is the law of the land. And it says the 2A supports an individual right. Interesting enough, so did the Democratic platform for years, President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Your position is not mainstream within the Democratic party.

[world wide wally]

30. Wyatt Earp in Dodge City?

[hack89]

31. Didn't he give them back their guns when they left? nt

[world wide wally]

32. Yeah. When they left.

[hack89]

34. So put limits on open carry of guns like he did.

perfectly legal.

[world wide wally]

38. Now, you're talking

[hack89]

41. There are few gun control measures I vehemently oppose

besides AWBs and registration I am willing to consider most ideas if they are reasonably implemented.

[fescuerescue]

43. Isn't that where the OK corral shootout happened?

[world wide wally]

44. OK Coral was in Tombstone Az.

[jmg257]

11. Sure they do. The militia clause helps justify the keeping and bearing of military grade weapons.

That, and the USSC latest take on 'common use' of course.

[Hoyt]

16. Always good to get NRA and gun-fancier perspective.

[jmg257]

18. Yep - helps keep things grounded in reality.

Gives insight into what would need to be changed.

[Paladin]

20. The militia clause pretty much went bye-bye, courtesy of Antonin Scalia.

His Heller "decision" (more like a dictation of NRA wishful thinking) put a stake through the heart of that pesky "well regulated militia" thing. Keep that in mind, next time somebody tries to describe Scalia as an "originalist."

[maxsolomon]

47. Further, the Militia has been defined down

to basically remove any limits or responsibilities for membership. What limits remain (age, sex) are ignored.

"The Unorganized Militia" is quite apropos. There is no regulation, let alone "Well" regulations.

And now, a Gunner will respond to tell me that "Well-Regulated" means having functioning firearms, and nothing else:

[Takket]

5. I agree

Assault rifles are to the second amendment as yelling fire in a crowded theater is to the first amendment.

[NutmegYankee]

45. Falsely yelling fire isn't illegal anymore.

It was overturned by a 1960 SCOTUS ruling. Also, that quote about fire in a theatre came from a court decision establishing the "clear and present danger" standard to justify arresting anti-war protestors in WWI. I really wish people would stop using it - it was a horrible decision that was thankfully overturned.

[Spider Jerusalem]

6. The only reason to go armed in public in the first place is fear.

And a society where you're so fearful that you feel a need to go armed is not a civilised society.

[smirkymonkey]

14. +1000

[luvtheGWN]

25. Exactly!

I think New York state has fairly sensible gun laws, but even though it's only a 20-minute drive from where I live (and I can see Fort Niagara across the river from my back deck) I'm always, ALWAYS fearful when my niece drags me over to do some shopping. I cannot imagine living in an open-carry environment. We used to only be afraid of drunk drivers and schizophrenics off their medication......there is no such thing as freedom in the US anymore. JMHO, of course.

[bdamomma]

35. +

[pangaia]

36. I agree. How does one reply to those good 'people' who say,

"I am carrying a gun because I can."

That one always gets me.

[Baconator]

85. That's just the answer for nosy Nellies...

[Afromania]

8. They keep on forgetting the most important part of the 2nd Amendment "A well regulated Militia"

These weapons are not being put in the hands of any sort of legitimate militia nor is the circulation of these guns being "well regulated".

My opinion is that if you want to be a gun owner you have to be part of some sort of state, or federal, civil defense force. You have to pass a complete background check, participate and complete military grade training and serve in some capacity as part of the civil defense force during the year. Then and only then do you get to own a gun for personal use.

[VOX]

10. Precisely. And all the camouflage cosplay does NOT make a militia.

Agree with your points 100 percent.

[Volaris]

22. Agreed. Those Citizens should be required to submit to the same Basic Training as regular Army

Hence the name Basic...it's the shit everybody who wants to do this, needs to know. Additionally, since they're not going to be under the eyes of Chain of Command on the same regular basis as Regular Army enlisted, the controls should be slightly more strict...like regular psych checks.

Running around the Nation's backwoods with automatic weapons does not mark your dumbass a useful Patriot, it marks you an idiot.

I have a different outlook on seasonal hunting, even if you're using a firearm. It's not much better believe me, but it's damn hard to engage a Mass Shooting with a bolt-action deer rifle or birdshot.
Just sayin.

[luvtheGWN]

26. How about having to purchase insurance?

After all, if you need it to purchase a car, why not a gun?

[X_Digger]

53. Why do you want to give the NRA more money?

You do realize who would be the biggest seller of such insurance?

And what do you think this insurance would cover?

It certainly wouldn't cover criminal acts.

[maxsolomon]

48. You're going to get a Gunner refutation of your contention

something like: "Well-Regulated" means the firearms themselves, and nothing beyond that.

I agree - yearly training and re-certification, long waiting periods for purchases, deep background checks, etc. With great power comes great responsibility.

[Docreed2003]

55. And what were those militias used for in the South??

Slave patrols...gotta return that runaway property to its rightful owner!

I have no issue with responsible gun ownership, I’d be a hypocrite if I said otherwise, because I’m a gun owner myself, but we would do well to understand and appreciate some of the nuances of our history.

The Heller decision was wrong, not every person should have a right to own any firearm they please. There must be regulations. Regulations alone may not have prevented this tragedy, but they would go a long way towards preventing a repeat of this tragedy.

[Midwestern Democrat]

66. The English Constitution granted the right to bear arms to all Protestants in 1689.

You really believe the Founding Fathers were intending to rescind a right that they had enjoyed as British Subjects?

[VOX]

9. That damned 2nd Amendment, written when weapons were smoothbore muzzle-loading flintlocks.

Can you imagine time-tripping back to those founders with a sampling of the armaments available for purchase today? They'd weep inconsolably that so much design, engineering and manufacturing energy was spent on making one person equivalent to several militias.

[hack89]

12. You kidding?

Last edited Mon Oct 2, 2017, 09:32 AM - Edit history (1)

They would have jumped at the opportunity to have such firepower. It would have permanently solved their "Indian problem" and would have ensured their security in a dangerous world constantly at war.

Good guns in those days were basically handcrafted. They represented a much large investment in time, money and labor per weapon then modern arms do.

[rockfordfile]

15. the founders would have been horrified

[NutmegYankee]

46. Actually, most American had rifles (rifled barrels).

Smooth bore muskets were only used for armies as they could be loaded faster. The regular citizen had a rifle that took longer to load but was more accurate for hunting.

[X_Digger]

54. They had a rudimentary machine gun, the puckle gun

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

And semi-automatic, magazine fed rifles.

You might want to do some research about gun history.

[jimlup]

13. The 2nd Amendment is incompatible with the rest of the Bill of Rights

That's just an obvious fact of the 21st Century. The regressives think they can turn back the calendar but they can not.

[hack89]

21. Time for a Constitutional Convention?

that could be interesting.

[SharonAnn]

27. That would open things to all kinds of harmful changes. No need for it.

[Johnny2X2X]

17. Gun nuts make us all less free

This is not about hunting, this is not about defending your home, this is about a small minority of Americans who want to play military and possess arsenals that have no use other than what we saw last night. Their weekend hobby of shooting military grade weapons is the cause of thousands of senseless deaths now.

[boston bean]

19. We need to rise against this. They have held the microphone for way too long.

[Man_Bear_Pig]

23. This is exhausting.

I've been spending all week taking a knee against violent, trigger happy, abusive police.

Let me switch mindsets now to assault weapons are only good for mass murder and terrible for self defense, which is why only the police can be trusted with them.

[dlk]

24. The 2nd Amendment is Conveniently Misconstrued to Mean All Guns in All Circumstances

This is not how the Amendmentment reads nor is how it was intended. The meaning has been perverted for various nefarious purposes.

[Towlie]

29. If and when we find that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state...

then I'll be solidly in support of that militia's constitutional right to bear arms. (And why not? It's a no-brainer that a well-regulated and necessary militia is going to need weapons.)

But other cases are not addressed by our constitution and need to be handled with compassion and common sense, both attributes of which are incompatible with conservatism.

[Cryptoad]

33. 9th amend insures that no single amend is absolute!

GOP Gun Policy: A Gun for every Idiot, an Idiot for every Gun!

[hack89]

42. Heller says the the 2A allows strict regulation

AWBs, registration, licensing, magazine size limits are all perfectly constitutional. The law has never been an impediment to gun control - it is the lack of broad and deep public support that is the real issue.

[Crunchy Frog]

61. So basically, America is just asking for it.

Don't worry. I agree with you.

[hack89]

62. I have no clue what they are asking for. We are so deeply divided. nt

[Fluke a Snooker]

37. Ban all guns. Now. Every. Stinking. ONE OF THEM! n/t

[maxsolomon]

49. welcome to DU

1. you're angry and reacting emotionally
2. you're throwing out bait that can be pointed out as evidence that liberals are gun-grabbers.

I hope its the former, because it's not going to happen in our lifetimes.

[Fluke a Snooker]

56. And yet the majority of Democrats agree with my point. Vastly I might add.

I have yet to meet any Republican who can articulate why any use of guns cannot be reasonably accommodated by other progressive means. It comes down to protecting their vastly unpopular views of capitalism, anti-environmentalism, and the continuity of racist oppression.

[maxsolomon]

57. They do?

unless you have some stats to back that up (ban ALL guns, not just some types), I'm going with my 2nd suspicion.

[Fluke a Snooker]

59. Other than you, most people here believe that all guns should not be available to the general public

This is based upon their arguments with regard to the true interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, which was one of the original amendments that had to do with white land owners protecting their crony/collectivist property from the "tyranny" of populist revolt. But I digress.

[maxsolomon]

60. you're moving the goalposts

"most democrats"
v
"most people here"

"all guns should be banned"
v
"all guns should not be available to the general public"

I'm hardly the most strident 2nd amendment supporter on DU (many lay low after a massacre). in fact, I'm not one. I'm a realist, and I think their precious hunting rifles are what gets rural folk worked up about librul gun-grabbers. I don't want their hunting rifles. I want Militias well-regulated.

you're not making a distinction when you call for a blanket "ban".

[Baconator]

78. All guns are not available to the public now...

So... congrats...?

[ellie]

87. Here are some polls.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

[raven mad]

50. What part of a Militia doesn't the NRA understand?

Hunting guns, sure, no problem. NO ONE needs an automatic to shoot a moose, and they're fairly large, and provide food for three families for a year.

"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."

[hack89]

51. Go read Heller. It is an individual right seperate from the militia

if you don't like the SC, ask Obama, HRC or Bernie. They will tell you the same.

[raven mad]

52. True. But the right to arm bears (lol)......... Alaskan reporting in.

I do NOT disagree with hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. Heck, I hit a duck once, IN FLIGHT, with a handgun. Retrieved (no dog), and took home and plucked and fed 6 folks for a day. Oh, and black bear? Only after berry season, before fish season, good food. NOT for sport, for FOOD.

I blame the NRA.

[Baconator]

58. It is literally impossible to legislate the "right" to be free from fear of guns or anything else...

It's a logical non-starter and fallacious appeal to emotion.

[boston bean]

63. Is that what you think is being asked. Freedom from being scared??

[Baconator]

71. That's what it sounds like...

2nd amendment rights are not supreme. You cannot have freedom if society is fearful.

The proliferation of these killing implements have caused a breakdown of freedoms. We can't go to public spaces without the freedom from being searched.

You can't move freely without the fear of a lunatic with access to a gun.

You cannot live free of fear from losing your life if everyone has a gun. It is not an equalizer. It makes it more likely you will lose your life to gun violence.

In my mind other freedoms are supreme to owning a gun.

[boston bean]

75. It sounds like that??

[Baconator]

77. You wrote it...

Why are you so confused?

[boston bean]

79. You read it.

Why are u confused.

[Baconator]

80. I think it's crystal clear...

I even bolded it up for you. What more do you want?

If you aren't talking about what made up the majority of your post then what's your point?

[boston bean]

81. You the only confused soul.

[Baconator]

82. Fine... Super simple...

What are you asking for, legislatively, to address what you discussed in your OP?

How will whatever that ends up being relate to "2nd amendment rights are not supreme. You cannot have freedom if society is fearful"?

[boston bean]

83. You seem to be very bothered or confused.

You could just move on. But nope. You demand answers in a way that miss the point over and over. I owe you nothing.

[Baconator]

84. Intellectually you owe a coherent response...

[boston bean]

86. I owe?? Hahaha.

[HeartachesNhangovers]

64. Actually, they are supreme.

The Constitution itself says:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land ...

[boston bean]

65. They are not suoreme iver every othe right.

Please do not be obtuse.

[HeartachesNhangovers]

67. You are correct. All of the rights enumerated

in the Constitution are equally supreme. None take precedence over any of the rest.

Edit: Except that you are wrong about "other rights" taking precedence over 2nd amendment rights. That is incorrect.

[boston bean]

68. In my mind i do value all more than the 2nd. The point flew by you.

The second amendment infringes upon others. Not vice versa.

[HeartachesNhangovers]

69. My mistake. I thought we were discussing

legal principles, rather than your personal rating system for rights. Of course, you may rate rights any way you like, and I have no comment on your personal rankings.

[boston bean]

70. We are discussing a pretty simple concept where at gun point other rights do not exist.

That is where we are at right now as a country.

[Jamaal510]

72. K&R

[HughBeaumont]

73. The next McMassacre's going to be biblical . . .

. . . because there apparently isn't anything anyone can do to stop it except hope they don't lose the "When the Shooting Starts" lottery.

[tblue37]

74. A lot of people are now afraid to attend concerts or other large gatherings. IOW, their freedom of

movement in the public space and their choice of activity has been curtailed.

[procon]

76. Freedom from Guns! nt