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
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Amendment 2 Blues [View all]jody
(26,624 posts)1. You cite PA & VT but those states declared RKBA was "natural, inherent, and
inalienable/unalienable rights" of self defense.
SCOTUS recognized the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments as preexisting our Constitution and not depending upon it.
All the other history is interesting but often confuses.
Forty four states recognize the individual RKBA for self-defense.
Anti RKBA types try to derail debate by asserting "So you believe God grants rights?"
They do so because they realize they've lost the argument, rights are natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable because the PEOPLE SAY SO!
That's the only thing that protects any size minority against the tyranny of a simple majority.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
71 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
You used "Bill of Rights" and that opens questions as to their source. Your failure to discuss that
jody
Dec 2012
#6
Since you imply you are serious and meaningful, please define the source of rights you cite in OP.
jody
Dec 2012
#22
Obviously you can't answer a simple question. You really don't know much about "rights" do you! nt
jody
Dec 2012
#26
I didn't state any facts . . . . oh wait I did -- the fact that you are way too angry
coeur_de_lion
Dec 2012
#41
LOL you and OP author know bare minimum or less about RKBA much less about rights in general.
jody
Dec 2012
#43
I see you are just another disruptor full of vacuous remarks devoid of substance. Goodbye nt
jody
Dec 2012
#49
22. "please define the source of rights you cite in OP." I'm betting you can't but you'll reply with
jody
Dec 2012
#34
Enough, you've proven you can't answer that simple question so nothing else you post has credibility
jody
Dec 2012
#36
I'll take a shot...Is it your contention that the 2nd amendment, and others, secure
jmg257
Dec 2012
#40
Seems like I am with you. The right to self defense certainly is a basic right. But
jmg257
Dec 2012
#47
Also realizing, like Madison said..."the restrictions, however strongly marked on paper,
jmg257
Dec 2012
#50
I do steer into the religious territory from time to time...I'll have to pay more attention. nt
jmg257
Dec 2012
#59
bongbong why don't you consolidate all your insults and other vilifications into one post because
jody
Dec 2012
#14
bongbong you frequently refer to NRA Talking Points. Do you have a link to them or is that just
jody
Dec 2012
#20
"Well regulated" quite cleary refers to "militia", and has little to do with the right to arms,
jmg257
Dec 2012
#18
Yes Congress has all the authority it needs for the militia in Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16
jody
Dec 2012
#27
You mean Madison's religious exemption, or the Senate's 'for the common defence'?
jmg257
Dec 2012
#66
"the need to address the brutal realties of violence in America demands action, now."
coeur_de_lion
Dec 2012
#29
Read this stuff? Not if our friends Jack and Daniel have anything to say about it.
coeur_de_lion
Dec 2012
#56