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

liberal N proud

(60,298 posts)
Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:34 PM Jan 2013

Two words: "well regulated" are the answer to the whole thing.

The 2nd Amendment says well regulated. If these creeps are so about Constitutionality, then they should be all for regulating the weapons.

Problem solved, now all we have to is get the gun crazies to shut the f#$% up long enough to see the error of their ways.

96 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Two words: "well regulated" are the answer to the whole thing. (Original Post) liberal N proud Jan 2013 OP
exactly. veganlush Jan 2013 #1
Yes, words have meaning. Kalidurga Jan 2013 #2
WRONG! Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #3
Your key words are wrong. Glassunion Jan 2013 #5
Hey! You commie pinko freak! Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #8
What about her? Glassunion Jan 2013 #10
Damn, man. Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #14
Cheers! Glassunion Jan 2013 #19
I debated putting in a :sarcasm:, but I thought I was being obvious Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #23
Damn! I was about to go to DEFCON 2. Glassunion Jan 2013 #28
Yikes! Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #40
Yes. Glassunion Jan 2013 #41
But while wearing a blue dress will it give a BJ madokie Jan 2013 #66
Psst! derby378 Jan 2013 #16
I've been hanging our these guys too long. My imitation must be dead on. Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #26
the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT. Ptah Jan 2013 #53
Whew... WillyT Jan 2013 #78
Why is there a comma between "right of the people..." and "shall not be denied"? lastlib Jan 2013 #7
Rules of grammar. Setting off the clause. Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #9
Your grammar is confused. immoderate Jan 2013 #35
No. lastlib Jan 2013 #42
It does not say "be." Being is the verbal, in this case a gerund. immoderate Jan 2013 #47
In modern usage, those extra commas, make it, pretty much, gibberish petronius Jan 2013 #38
Two versions: Ptah Jan 2013 #54
18th century grammar rules were weak at best. X_Digger Jan 2013 #79
Well regulated does not tread on shall not be denied. liberal N proud Jan 2013 #15
We're on the same page. Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #27
FULLY AUTOMATIC FOR EVERYONE, NO BACKGROUND CHECK REQUIRED Hugabear Jan 2013 #81
When God wrote the Constitution... Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #82
A well regulated militia SHALL NOT BE DENIED. rustydog Jan 2013 #83
What? Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #94
Creeps? You really know how to talk to people. bluerum Jan 2013 #4
You win the prize for the catch phrase of the day! "Why are you so afraid?" Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #13
Concealed carry liberal N proud Jan 2013 #17
"militia" is rather significant as well. DirkGently Jan 2013 #6
That there were two versions doesn't help matters either. For being such skilled writers, they Ed Suspicious Jan 2013 #22
Actually Madison drafted 20 amendments, reconstituted to 17 and then Historic NY Jan 2013 #55
Interesting draft. Seems to solidify the "military" nature of militias. DirkGently Jan 2013 #80
Can't have a militia without people rrneck Jan 2013 #11
Regulated does not deny. liberal N proud Jan 2013 #20
True. nt rrneck Jan 2013 #25
But, it is "well regulated" militia. mucifer Jan 2013 #21
Sure it is. rrneck Jan 2013 #24
That mountain of case law is because the 2nd Amendment is so poorly written. RC Jan 2013 #34
Maybe. rrneck Jan 2013 #37
A militia was comprised of anyone with a gun. immoderate Jan 2013 #43
Brahahahahahahahahahahah... :::catches breath::: RC Jan 2013 #46
...and here I was feeling sorry for you... immoderate Jan 2013 #49
Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 311 davepc Jan 2013 #86
White men with guns. mucifer Jan 2013 #58
LOL immoderate Jan 2013 #73
YESSSSSSS Berserker Jan 2013 #85
In Federalist #29, Hamilton discusses the problems of a standing army. immoderate Jan 2013 #39
This message was self-deleted by its author Ed Suspicious Jan 2013 #12
What is a 21st century militia ... is every domicile a militia? Every truck with a gun rack? libdem4life Jan 2013 #18
Who decides what "well regulated" means? xoom Jan 2013 #29
That should be what the debate is about liberal N proud Jan 2013 #30
I agree completely. xoom Jan 2013 #31
The point IMHO Proud Liberal Dem Jan 2013 #32
It pretty clear if you read the constitutional debates.... Historic NY Jan 2013 #56
No, the Constitution is very clear that it's Congress Recursion Jan 2013 #87
they emphasized WELL regulated riverwalker Jan 2013 #33
There are conflicting interpretations of those two words onenote Jan 2013 #36
then "well regulated" demands even closer scrutiny of owners! grasswire Jan 2013 #44
Gun owners today are neither well trained or regulated liberal N proud Jan 2013 #61
Isn't the National Guard our militia? cheyanne Jan 2013 #45
Nope sarisataka Jan 2013 #50
No, the militia is defined in the 1947 National Security Act Recursion Jan 2013 #88
"Well regulated" isn't what matters, it's "infringed" petronius Jan 2013 #48
You can regulate without infringing liberal N proud Jan 2013 #62
Which explains why regjoe Jan 2013 #64
IF YOU can't hit the target in 7 shots, you need to consider a new hobby liberal N proud Jan 2013 #67
Not what you claimed regjoe Jan 2013 #68
Semi-automatic weapons are used extensively for hunting pipoman Jan 2013 #70
That's what I'm saying. I disagree that "well-regulated" is the key, because that petronius Jan 2013 #74
I'm regulated just fine, and I don't need you to tell me what the Second Amendment means slackmaster Jan 2013 #51
Yeah, But Antonin Scalia Could Use Some Help. (nt) Paladin Jan 2013 #71
Scalia specifically says that government can regulate guns hack89 Jan 2013 #72
Yeah. Heller doesn't say what its proponents or opponents seem to think it says Recursion Jan 2013 #89
This is why we need a new constitution. Great Caesars Ghost Jan 2013 #52
Seriously...we would end up in civil war trying to draft a new constitution davidn3600 Jan 2013 #60
What's the difference? Great Caesars Ghost Jan 2013 #77
What's the difference between a civil war and a civil cold war? Recursion Jan 2013 #90
With the way things are going, it is becoming inevitable. Great Caesars Ghost Jan 2013 #91
My firearms are in good Riftaxe Jan 2013 #57
you're wrong. the constititution is not interpreted by me or thee cali Jan 2013 #59
Those Mofos have seen only what they want to see in the Second Amendment for decades. bluestate10 Jan 2013 #63
Damn I wish I could rec this a hundred times madokie Jan 2013 #65
lol you apperently have yet to learn the Republican Mantra, young Padawan... Volaris Jan 2013 #69
The bill of rights itself clarifies the significance of "well regulated". N/T beevul Jan 2013 #75
Exactly libodem Jan 2013 #76
Well regulated refers to the people. Not the weapon. Heimer Jan 2013 #84
So we can regulate how much amo one person can own. liberal N proud Jan 2013 #95
How did you draw that conclusion? Nt Heimer Jan 2013 #96
I think you have a very good point. Whovian Jan 2013 #92
Ah... so only men should be allowed to own guns. krispos42 Jan 2013 #93

Kalidurga

(14,177 posts)
2. Yes, words have meaning.
Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:43 PM
Jan 2013

And ignoring them has consequences in this case thousands of people dying every year due to violence and accidents. I consider suicide a form of violence, but I do separate the two kinds of violence outward and inward so to speak.

If you want a gun you should be part of the militia. If you want one for self defense you should be limited to the amount of guns you have for that purpose and the size of the magazine clip.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
3. WRONG!
Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:43 PM
Jan 2013

Keys words are "shall not be denied." The Founding Fathers (direct descendants of Jeebus) didn't give a shit what kind of weapon that might be developed. SHALL. NOT. BE. DENIED.

Glassunion

(10,201 posts)
10. What about her?
Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:54 PM
Jan 2013

All I'm saying is that your key words do not exist in the 2nd Amendment. You are mistaken in your quote.

Do youself a favor and read the 2nd Amendment. The word "denied" is not in it anywhere.

Glassunion

(10,201 posts)
19. Cheers!
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:01 AM
Jan 2013

Trolls, zombies and sock puppets are abound, my armor is thick as of late. Perhaps too thick...

My bad...

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
23. I debated putting in a :sarcasm:, but I thought I was being obvious
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:04 AM
Jan 2013

Nevertheless, I understand completely.

Glassunion

(10,201 posts)
41. Yes.
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:41 AM
Jan 2013

And an Easy Bake Oven.

It will also get your whites white and lift tough stains out of your carpet.

Ptah

(32,983 posts)
53. the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:18 AM
Jan 2013

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
At Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:11 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Hey! You commie pinko freak!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2211439

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Name calling is not allowed

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:17 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Comedy is allowed, leave it.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: being sarcastic
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Alerter failed to read the rest of the subthread.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: it was SARCASM!

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

lastlib

(22,978 posts)
7. Why is there a comma between "right of the people..." and "shall not be denied"?
Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:52 PM
Jan 2013
"A well regulated Militia (comma) being necessary to the security of a free State (comma) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (comma) shall not be infringed."


It makes a difference in the logic. The phrase "a well-regulated militia" becomes a superior clause and thus the subject of the phrase "shall not be infringed." The other two clauses become subordinate, thus are modifiers of the superior clause. In other words, the sentence could be written without the two subordinate clauses.


http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
 

immoderate

(20,885 posts)
35. Your grammar is confused.
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:29 AM
Jan 2013

The militia "clause" can't be a main clause because it has no verb. It sports a gerund.

The subject of the main (independent) clause is "the rights" and the verb is "shall (not) be infringed."

The commas are irrelevant.

--imm

lastlib

(22,978 posts)
42. No.
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:42 AM
Jan 2013

the verb is "be".

You are confused. "A well-regulated militia" is a nominative clause--it does not require a verb to do its job. The verb is in the predicate clause "shall not be infringed" following.

 

immoderate

(20,885 posts)
47. It does not say "be." Being is the verbal, in this case a gerund.
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:01 AM
Jan 2013

"A well regulated militia shall not be infringed" does not make sense.

It's "rights" that are not infringed.

--imm

petronius

(26,580 posts)
38. In modern usage, those extra commas, make it, pretty much, gibberish
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:35 AM
Jan 2013

In historical usage it just means the printers felt like tossing in a couple of extra commas (and not all of them did)...

Ptah

(32,983 posts)
54. Two versions:
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:19 AM
Jan 2013

As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
79. 18th century grammar rules were weak at best.
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 08:30 PM
Jan 2013

They used commas like we use salt shakers. Check different drafts, even versions between the different houses of congress.

No, arguing about the placement of commas in an 18th century document is like arguing about the placement of bolts holding up a stop sign.

liberal N proud

(60,298 posts)
15. Well regulated does not tread on shall not be denied.
Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:58 PM
Jan 2013

You can have you fucking gun, but it must be regulated.

Hugabear

(10,340 posts)
81. FULLY AUTOMATIC FOR EVERYONE, NO BACKGROUND CHECK REQUIRED
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 08:49 PM
Jan 2013

You really think there should be no limits whatsoever?

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
82. When God wrote the Constitution...
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:31 PM
Jan 2013

... He made it perfectly clear that we can own any weapons of any kind. And not just firearms. If I can afford it, I could buy a tactical nuke.

rustydog

(9,186 posts)
83. A well regulated militia SHALL NOT BE DENIED.
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:14 PM
Jan 2013

Keep your fucking AR15's, HK's, 100-round drum shotgun....but we'll regulate the hell out of it. it says so in the 2nd Amendment!

You can own any fuckin firearm made on planet earth...BUTyou must store it at a state/federally-licensed gun range. You cannot remove anything from the range. All discharging of such weaponry must and will be done at said gun range.

When you purchase a new assault weapon,it will be shipped to your chosen gun range.
Your ammunition must be purchased through the gun range you store your firearms at. You cannot remove any ammunition from the gun range.

bluerum

(6,109 posts)
4. Creeps? You really know how to talk to people.
Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:48 PM
Jan 2013

No. Not really.

How many guns did you see today?

Why are you so afraid?

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
13. You win the prize for the catch phrase of the day! "Why are you so afraid?"
Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:56 PM
Jan 2013

Personally, I am not afraid. I own firearms but do not carry them because I am not afraid of my own shadow.

By the way, "creeps" pretty well describes people who flatly refuse to help find a solution while enabling thousands of deaths every year.

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
6. "militia" is rather significant as well.
Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:51 PM
Jan 2013

It's a poorly drafted Amendment, frankly. Reeks of being worked over by too many committees. But it is kind of funny to hear "strict constructionist" arguments that neatly excise the entire "militia" clause.

Ed Suspicious

(8,879 posts)
22. That there were two versions doesn't help matters either. For being such skilled writers, they
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:04 AM
Jan 2013

really muffed that one up.

Historic NY

(37,449 posts)
55. Actually Madison drafted 20 amendments, reconstituted to 17 and then
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:26 AM
Jan 2013

They condensed them into eleven, and removing the language which Madison had used so they would be integrated into the body of the constitution. I think some things were lost in the translations of the meaning by more contemporay generations.

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
80. Interesting draft. Seems to solidify the "military" nature of militias.
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 08:46 PM
Jan 2013

I like Madison. He was crystal clear in his later years that a true "separation of church and state" WAS intended in the First Amendment.

rrneck

(17,671 posts)
24. Sure it is.
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:05 AM
Jan 2013

That's why we have a mountain of case law sitting on top of it. A selection of "the people" who have the right to keep and bear arms would members of the "well regulated" militia.

 

RC

(25,592 posts)
34. That mountain of case law is because the 2nd Amendment is so poorly written.
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:25 AM
Jan 2013

It wound have been much clearer if it were written as: To keep and bear arms, you must be a member of a well regulated militia.

Just because one has "arms", it does not follow they are a member of any militia, regulated or not.

rrneck

(17,671 posts)
37. Maybe.
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:29 AM
Jan 2013

There is one fundamental truth about all weapons, including guns. They can be used for offense and defense. That was the case before the eighteenth century, it's the case now, and it will always be so. The militia part was probably a necessary recognition of the times, while the fundamental truth of human aggression and hate are eternal.

 

immoderate

(20,885 posts)
43. A militia was comprised of anyone with a gun.
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:43 AM
Jan 2013

"Well regulated" meant you knew how to shoot it. (See federalist #29.)

--imm

 

immoderate

(20,885 posts)
49. ...and here I was feeling sorry for you...
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:10 AM
Jan 2013

I can explain it, but I can't understand it for you.

In Federalist 29, Hamilton discusses the problems of supporting standing armies. He uses the terms well regulated several times. And you'll get an idea of what that phrase meant in the 18th century.

--imm

davepc

(3,936 posts)
86. Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 311
Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:29 AM
Jan 2013

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311


 

immoderate

(20,885 posts)
39. In Federalist #29, Hamilton discusses the problems of a standing army.
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:38 AM
Jan 2013

He uses the term "well regulated militia" several times in such a way as its meaning can be inferred. It is similar in meaning to "well qualified" or "adequate." The founders wanted to allow citizens to keep their guns, so they would know how to shoot them if they were called up.

The militia itself was more like a posse than a national guard.

--imm

Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

 

libdem4life

(13,877 posts)
18. What is a 21st century militia ... is every domicile a militia? Every truck with a gun rack?
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:01 AM
Jan 2013

Well regulated seems to speak for itself in modern terms, albeit debatable.

liberal N proud

(60,298 posts)
30. That should be what the debate is about
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:11 AM
Jan 2013

Not all this rhetoric about having their precious killing machines taken away.

We can't have a civil discussion about gun control in this country because of the crazies in the gun nut realm.

Proud Liberal Dem

(24,354 posts)
32. The point IMHO
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:18 AM
Jan 2013

is that the Amendment implies/suggests that gun ownership can be regulated (just not banned/prohibited completely) and, presumably, the manner and type of regulation can be decided by the legislature. It's an badly written Amendment that would practically require the resurrection of its authors to figure out just what the hell they meant!

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
87. No, the Constitution is very clear that it's Congress
Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:25 AM
Jan 2013

Regulating the militia is one of its enumerated powers in Article I.

onenote

(42,374 posts)
36. There are conflicting interpretations of those two words
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:29 AM
Jan 2013

One more justice on our side and a different interpretation probably would have ruled the day. But the interpretation that was adopted by a majority of the court looked at those two words and concluded that (1) its the militia that the Constitution refers to as being "well regulated" not the right to bear arms and (2) the phrase "well regulated" as used in the 18th century meant "well trained". I'm not saying I agree with those interpretations, just that those are the interpretations that a majority of the court adopted.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
44. then "well regulated" demands even closer scrutiny of owners!
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:44 AM
Jan 2013

If they are required to be "well trained" prior to owning the guns ---- what provision is there for training at this time?

liberal N proud

(60,298 posts)
61. Gun owners today are neither well trained or regulated
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:41 AM
Jan 2013

Too many gun owners have little or no official training on the use of such a machine.

sarisataka

(18,204 posts)
50. Nope
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:11 AM
Jan 2013

The ruling of Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990) gives the Federal Government power over the NG superior to that of the State. The power to order the NG to duty in non-emergency situations is not limited by the militia clause Art. 1 Sec. 8. Essentially declaring the NG is a part of the US Army and not a State militia.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
88. No, the militia is defined in the 1947 National Security Act
Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:26 AM
Jan 2013

It's currently all able-bodied males between 17 and 45.

petronius

(26,580 posts)
48. "Well regulated" isn't what matters, it's "infringed"
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:03 AM
Jan 2013

The meaning of the second is pretty clear: the Framers believed that the ability to call forth a properly functioning militia is essential, and that ability relies on an armed (and competent) citizenry. So, the right of individuals to own small arms was protected.

However, what is "infringed"? It could be a completely hands-off, no restriction, anything goes sort of rule - but it's been pretty well accepted that that isn't the case for any right. They're all subject to some sort of restriction and limitation. So what sort of limitations are allowable on 2A before it becomes 'infringement'?

The second really is only about militias - it doesn't refer to hunting, self-defense, target shooting, collecting, investment, or anything else that gun owners mosty care about. The Framers probably took those things for granted - enumerating the right to keep a gun for hunting perhaps sounded as silly to them as enumerating the right to wear shoes - but it's not in the BoR.

So, that militia clause is really a double-edged sword - if all that really matters is protecting the ability to summon a militia, the arms that are really protected are those that a modern infantryman would carry - today, that's a true (select-fire) assault rifle. Gun controllers certainly don't want to argue that. But, if 2A doesn't really protect anything other than the ability to summon a militia, there's no reason to think that laws against public carry, or target shooting, or even hunting are impermissible. Pro-RKBA folk don't want to go down that road...

liberal N proud

(60,298 posts)
62. You can regulate without infringing
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:44 AM
Jan 2013

You can allow people to own weapons, just regulate the number of rounds they are allowed to fire without reloading.

You still have your gun and there is less chance of someone killing 26 people at one pull of the trigger.

liberal N proud

(60,298 posts)
67. IF YOU can't hit the target in 7 shots, you need to consider a new hobby
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:12 AM
Jan 2013

And who hunts with an assault weapon?

Semi Automatic Weapons have one purpose, to kill people, why do you need one.

 

regjoe

(206 posts)
68. Not what you claimed
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:23 AM
Jan 2013

YOU falsely stated "...less chance of someone killing 26 people at one pull of the trigger." More than likely intentionally in order to incite fear so as to garner support.

Fact is, one would have to have a fully automatic weapon in order to do what you say and those weapons are heavily regulated.

 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
70. Semi-automatic weapons are used extensively for hunting
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:42 AM
Jan 2013

and other lawful uses and have been for at least 8 decades..

Others may also say the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with "needs"..if we are going to only protect "needs", most of the Bill of Rights is unnecessary..

petronius

(26,580 posts)
74. That's what I'm saying. I disagree that "well-regulated" is the key, because that
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:57 PM
Jan 2013

"regulated" really doesn't refer to legal, statutory, political regulation. "Infringed" is the word that matters - rights are subject to some limitation and restriction, the question is always where that restriction becomes infringement...

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
89. Yeah. Heller doesn't say what its proponents or opponents seem to think it says
Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:45 AM
Jan 2013

IANAL, but as I read it even Scalia said that pretty much anything but an actual literal ban on firearm ownership in the home a la DC or Chicago is permissible.

 

davidn3600

(6,342 posts)
60. Seriously...we would end up in civil war trying to draft a new constitution
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:09 AM
Jan 2013

No one would agree on anything. We would literally be at each other's throats.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
90. What's the difference between a civil war and a civil cold war?
Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:46 AM
Jan 2013

Something on the order of 20 million deaths.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
59. you're wrong. the constititution is not interpreted by me or thee
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:03 AM
Jan 2013

and that is not what the damned SCOTUS has ruled. They are the arbiters of the Constitution.

bluestate10

(10,942 posts)
63. Those Mofos have seen only what they want to see in the Second Amendment for decades.
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 08:25 AM
Jan 2013

Why do you expect them to now read and think about what the Amendment really says? The Founders never intended for people to run around with guns willy nilly, with no role for governments.

Volaris

(10,260 posts)
69. lol you apperently have yet to learn the Republican Mantra, young Padawan...
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:33 AM
Jan 2013

"Constructionism is only allowed to work in OUR favor. Fool."

I'm NOT being a troll. This is what they REALLY believe over there...

Heimer

(63 posts)
84. Well regulated refers to the people. Not the weapon.
Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:03 AM
Jan 2013

Which I would agree we have none of. There is no regulation at all. Hence the problem. -Replace regulated with trained and it will read the way it was intended by the founders.


It will never boil down to the weapon. Just the people. There are adults out there that cannot safely handle a screw gun, let alone the real thing.

However, I know 14 yo children I would trust with my life, a bazooka and a minigun - and some of them can even outshoot me.

It's the people, people.

krispos42

(49,445 posts)
93. Ah... so only men should be allowed to own guns.
Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:12 AM
Jan 2013

Gotcha.


Because, you see, as a male between the ages of 17 and 45, I'm in the militia as defined by 10USC311.


The unorganized militia, of which I'm a part, is as well-regulated as Congress mandates it be... which seems to consist entirely of me being able to breathe.






There are 3 entities in the amendment: the State, the People, and the Militia. One of them is required to be well-regulated, and another of them is required to have the right to keep and bear arms.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Two words: "well reg...