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: Why are folks more concerned about guns than the loss of lives! [View all]Alva Goldbook
(149 posts)41. Let's take this one piece at a time....
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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
46 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
But voting for it and passing it into law means they have to provide infrastructure for it.
geckosfeet
Apr 2013
#32
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