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
 

Alva Goldbook

(149 posts)
41. Let's take this one piece at a time....
Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:06 AM
Apr 2013
Why are folks more concerned about guns than the loss of lives!

They aren't. There's just a difference of opinion on how best to save lives.

I do not get it. The second amendment speaks of a" well regulated militia".

The words "well regulated" here do not mean as in "government regulations". Language and common phrases have changed quite a bit in the last 240 some odd years. For instance, if you said you were in favor of privacy rights back then, it would mean the right to use the outhouse. The phrase "well regulated" means in today's wording "well regimented", or "well equipped".

If you read all the 10 amendments, none of them talk about government regulations. The only regulations talked about is limiting gov't power (i.e. "Congress shall make no law" in the 1st amendment).

How are BACKGROUND CHECKS somehow anti second amendment?

Do we put such caveats on other rights? Would you, for instance, need to get a background check to go to church, or to be free from unwarranted searches and seizures or have to get a background check before you're allowed to speak to a lawyer?

The 4th amendment gives you the right to be secure in your property. I believe that background checks violate the 4th amendment. I'm also of the opinion that it violates the 5th amendment right not to be a witness against yourself. We also have a common law right to be presumed innocent. Background checks assume that everyone is guilty, and you must prove your innocence. Imagine if you had to prove that you weren't a terrorist before you could attend a mosque or if you had to prove you never plotted to blow up women's clinics before you could attend a church? Would you not say that would be a wholesale attack against the 1st amendment right of the freedom of religion?

What we often don't see is all the people who's lives are saved by guns. Guns aren't just used to take lives. They're used all the time to protect life. If you believe what the Justice Dept. has to say on the subject, for every gun homicide, guns are used 125 times to save lives. Depending on what gun control laws are enacted, some of those lives could be lost.
'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 #41