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
 

AnotherMcIntosh

(11,064 posts)
34. If you "do not get it," it may be because you are offering a false choice and disregarding the
Sat Apr 27, 2013, 12:20 AM
Apr 2013

legitimate views of others.

The ACLU, for example, opposes a national gun registry. This was pointed out earlier on DU:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172118563

You are hardly in a position to claim that the ACLU, its members, or members of other liberal organizations are "more concerned about guns than the loss of lives." You are hardly in a position to disregard the legitimate Due Process concerns of the ACLU and others and claim that only the Second Amendment, and your interpretation of the Second Amendment, should be determinative of whether people can own firearms for self-defense in their homes.

Because peoples lives are important, many people have owned firearms for centuries for self-defense and to deter a potential need for self-defense in the home.

In the 2008 Heller case, a police officer who was authorized in the District of Columbia to carry a handgun while on duty was irrationally prohibited by the District of Columbia from possessing a handgun while off-duty at his home in the high-crime area of the District of Columbia. Obviously, the District of Columbia did not become more safe when he was off-duty. And his desire to own a firearm in his home for self-defense and to deter a potential need for self-defense in his home had absolutely nothing to do with Newtown.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO

In the 2010 McDonald case, a law-abiding long-term homeowner who lived in a neighborhood which had been taken over by gangs and drug dealers, and who had been a robbery victim by a home invader, wanted to own a handgun for self-defense in his home. However, the city of Chicago refused to allow him to own a firearm in his own home to defend against future home invasions. Likewise, his desire to own a firearm in his home for self-defense and to deter a potential need for self-defense in his home also had absolutely nothing to do with Newtown.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

In the Heller case, the Supreme Court provided a detailed explanation as to why the private ownership of firearms for self-defense and other legitimate purposes is not dependent upon service in the militia. If you really disagree with the Court's reasoning and want to be taken seriously, why don't you point out the Court's reasoning with which you disagree and show your logical basis, if any, for such disagreement.

The Second Amendment never granted any right to own firearms. It is a limitation upon what the government and governmental employees may do. If you do not understand that the right to self-defense is a natural right and it is not dependent upon a "well-regulated militia" clause or any other clause in the Constitution, then you are beyond help.

'Folks' aren't, elleng Apr 2013 #1
LOL .. Cue in the classic DU Gungeonite Bombasters Trajan Apr 2013 #2
You've no idea who at DU owns a gun and who doesn't. cherokeeprogressive Apr 2013 #25
OK ... so you are a bona fide Liberal ? Trajan Apr 2013 #36
Wow. Did you read my entire post? Because I don't think you did. cherokeeprogressive Apr 2013 #40
I resent that BethanyQuartz Apr 2013 #31
Blah blah blah .... Trajan Apr 2013 #35
Does plastering the photos of dead servicemen stop war in the world newmember Apr 2013 #3
Actually yes, see Vietnam war. nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #5
It wasn't the photos that made the difference newmember Apr 2013 #10
Why did the pentagon have a no photos allowed then? nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #12
I agree that it was the first war in everyones living room newmember Apr 2013 #15
Check what happened to Occupy nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #18
I was going to mention the occupy movement newmember Apr 2013 #19
What you need is a national strike nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #21
I agree and would love to see that...boy would I newmember Apr 2013 #23
They don't happen often and thankfully I can sleep it off nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #26
yes. eventually is does. spanone Apr 2013 #46
The problem with background checks isn't a lack of people who want them Recursion Apr 2013 #4
Ummm...who says they are? The Straight Story Apr 2013 #6
My husband & I own guns, we also support background checks peacebird Apr 2013 #7
At the state level, sure The Straight Story Apr 2013 #8
We live in Virgina and our state does not have the best background checks... peacebird Apr 2013 #9
Well, here is an idea The Straight Story Apr 2013 #13
Alas this is the problem nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #11
No need to go to AZ The Straight Story Apr 2013 #16
They still go to AZ and California does pursue straws. nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #17
Great post. I totally agree. (n/t) spin Apr 2013 #37
90% of Americans supported background checks - that includes most gun owners. hack89 Apr 2013 #14
But voting for it and passing it into law means they have to provide infrastructure for it. geckosfeet Apr 2013 #32
Distrust of government davidn3600 Apr 2013 #20
90% support background checks nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #22
90% want background checks but that doesn't mean 90% supported this bill davidn3600 Apr 2013 #24
Once again, the US senate nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #27
Only 4% of Americans think this is the most important issue davidn3600 Apr 2013 #29
Some of us are not nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #30
The US senate was not designed to support the will of the people. ... spin Apr 2013 #38
Yeah, but requiring supermajorities nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #42
I have to agree that that is a valid point. (n/t) spin Apr 2013 #45
Because it's their guns and not their lives. rightsideout Apr 2013 #28
Too many view a threat to their gun as a threat to their life n/t Mopar151 Apr 2013 #39
I agree about the background checks. But Newtown has NOTHING to do with that. Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #33
If you "do not get it," it may be because you are offering a false choice and disregarding the AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #34
Let's take this one piece at a time.... Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #41
The problem isn't the background checks kudzu22 Apr 2013 #43
"Anti second amendment"? rrneck Apr 2013 #44
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why are folks more concer...»Reply #34