Daily Kos wants to reframe the Second Amendment. Still does not get it.


In other words, in the 21st century, the real debate should be about the civic duty of owning firearms, starting with the simple question, “For gun owners, is there a civic duty for weapons ownership?”

If you truly believe in the founders intent, then the answer is yes, the intent of the Second Amendment was to codify a civic duty. Those duties aren’t found in local gun clubs or so-called militia organizations, in their 20th century flavor. One place that civic duty can be found is in the National Guard.

via Daily Kos: It’s time to reframe the debate about gun ownership in the United States.

Dear Lord: Keep them stupid. If you are in your 20s & 30s, you may want to read the article. It is basically the same excuses and re-interpretations of the Second Amendment that were done during the Clinton Years so we Old Heads are already familiar with them.

For all the long-winded explanations, they still fail to address one simple question: If the expression “The Right of The People” is considered as an individual right in the rest of the Amendments in which is mentioned, how come and by what Constitutional transmutation it becomes a collective right when applied to the Second Amendment?

And by the way, saying stuff like this does not promote an atmosphere of communication between parts:

We need to have a real discussion about the civic duty of gun ownership sooner, rather than later. It’s time for the grownups to start talking, and more importantly, to take action.

You are just pissed because we are better prepared. It is a feeling, you’ll get over it.

11 Replies to “Daily Kos wants to reframe the Second Amendment. Still does not get it.”

    1. I read enough to know that the piece is completely unconstitutional, and as a result, I reject it out of hand. Or are you telling me that it’s satire?

    2. OK, I read it. It stunk.

      It seems to claim that firearms ownership is neither an individual right nor a collective right; merely a civic duty. Sorry, the above, “…Right of the People…” challenge, is crystal clear and trumps this argument.

      It fails on the basic assertion that since militias have been supplanted by the modern military we no longer have a civic duty to carry arms. Please tell me how well the National Guard does in disasters (marginal) or that we should use the Army inside the U.S. for these duties (prohibited).

      “Background checks. Licensing. Being of sound mind. These concepts as a cornerstone to firearms ownership are not controversial to most Americans, including gun owners. They only become controversial if you allow yourself to be swayed by a lunatic fringe.”

      Multiple times it resorts to name calliing like “lunatic”, so no points there.

      I am of sound mind and know what often results from licensing. It’s called confiscation. It’s happened before, so we are wary for a reason.

      The final demands are for universal background checks which are silly, and tightening mental health and anti-trafficking laws. Universal background checks are intended to make firearms ownership more difficult and set a registration system. Stop witht that. One Nazi Germany atrocity was enough. Anti-trafficking laws are robust enough, but rarely enforced, so this is another silly demand. Improvements in mental health screening would be nice, but the devil is in the details. I know that the goal will be for anyone who was ever on an anti-depressant or sought counseling to be considered a prohibited person. We have already seen nonsense with veterans and privacy invasion issues with Obamacare. So, this is a Trojan Horse.

      I have a bold an original (joke) idea that why don’t we enforce the laws on the books now? Just stop plea bargaining away weapons charges. Meanwhile, leave the millions upon millions of legal gun owners alone.

      1. It never once said that gun ownership wasn’t a right. It said that it was a right that was coexistent and tightly entwined with a civic duty. But it repeated several times that gun ownership was a right.

        1. The intent was clear that this supposed civic duty was superior to the right. Saying that gun ownership is a right while claiming it does not apply anymore is the same as just denying it.

          The decision on this was made a long time ago and in plain language, so if that is unsatisfactory please call a Constitutional convention. We did it before over slavery and prohibition. If there is a need to delete the Second Amendment, please bring it on.

  1. Reasonable control of arms. By who exactly. If you had the votes, you can pass a law. If you had the law you can enforce it.
    Your critical problem is too many really think they have rights to own guns. And even more of a problem is the radical thinking that gun ownership brings. Life, liberty and property. Freedom of and from religion, a government of and by the people.
    These radical thoughts bring the follow up problems of dealing with the armed who resist conforming. You still do not get it. The real reason the gun owners have not done much beyond law is they feel strong. The strong brush off the weak, loud and stupid as below action required.
    When you move up to worthy of direct action, the blood will start to flow. You just can not get it, we think differently. You really think people who will kill to keep stuff will draw a line and say its a law so I will give up my stuff. Did it work for the King? No and he is not our sovereign anymore.
    You may be able to kick off a civil war. But you will not like it. No one seems to after the war.
    You are confused on so many levels. Citizens have duties and rights. Merely being a gun owner grants no special Rights. Citizens have civic duties, Rights and privileges. Citizens have gun rights.
    Those who foolishly think a 1st world military can fight its own people without major destruction in the nation, have learned no lessons from history. You are at best misguided fools. I hope for the ballot to save us. But we as a nation have a back up plan, bullets.
    God grant you fade away without blood shed like so many other stupid ideas backers.
    My sovereign is the Constitution, I pledged my service as a child, I hope not to be forced to chose sovereign over my country.

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.