General Discussion

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)

55. Well, what do you think the gubmint comes after you with? Armored cars!

Reply to immoderate (Reply #4)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 11:29 PM

Jul 2012

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

69 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Did the Founding Fathers mean to keep arms IN a regulated milita [View all] Panasonic Jul 2012 OP

And then... nebenaube Jul 2012 #1

The militia is the body of people who are subject to conscription. It's basically everyone. slackmaster Jul 2012 #2

That's scary. ananda Jul 2012 #3

There's nothing to be scared of. It's who we are. slackmaster Jul 2012 #6

That was Washington's idea of a militia pscot Jul 2012 #53

George Washington favored an individual mandate for guns alcibiades_mystery Jul 2012 #54

That struck me too pscot Jul 2012 #57

I saw this posted Friday SoutherDem Jul 2012 #18

In 18th Century colonial America, participating in defense of the community was regarded as a civic slackmaster Jul 2012 #24

It was also up till sometime after the Vietnam War we drafted people also. SoutherDem Jul 2012 #45

The muzzle loader was what was considered state of the art in weaponry at that time rl6214 Jul 2012 #58

My point is keep the 18th century standard or dismiss it don't pick and choose SoutherDem Jul 2012 #60

Message auto-removed Dave47331 Feb 2013 #68

The unorganized militia is sarisataka Jul 2012 #25

To answer your first part. Angleae Jul 2012 #63

"Well regulated" at the time of the founding... immoderate Jul 2012 #4

Or help fight off Russian invaders demwing Jul 2012 #30

Well, what do you think the gubmint comes after you with? Armored cars! alcibiades_mystery Jul 2012 #55

I'm not familiar with this "gubmint" you are speaking of rl6214 Jul 2012 #59

At the time, there was no intention of keeping a standing army. lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #5

I do but SoutherDem Jul 2012 #7

There isn't anyone on the pro-gun side who won't discuss reasonable restrictions. shadowrider Jul 2012 #16

That reasonable question... sarisataka Jul 2012 #28

agreed shadowrider Jul 2012 #33

that is not true - there were some on the old DU-gun forum DrDan Jul 2012 #31

I seem to remember that but at my age I have a hard time remembering what I had for breakfast shadowrider Jul 2012 #35

There isn't anyone on the pro-gun side who won't discuss reasonable restrictions? SoutherDem Jul 2012 #32

I appreciate the civil response without snark shadowrider Jul 2012 #40

I try to act civil on this subject, sadly I don't alway succeed. SoutherDem Jul 2012 #44

NO FreakinDJ Jul 2012 #8

That has nothing to do with our Constitution. Motown_Johnny Jul 2012 #11

It makes Great Sense unless you want to interpret the Constitution to suit yourself FreakinDJ Jul 2012 #23

Nnnnnnnope. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2012 #9

I really hate the whole thing of parsing sentences, especially legal text HereSince1628 Jul 2012 #10

That is crazy Motown_Johnny Jul 2012 #13

You may have the basis of a case to repeal the Second Amendment there slackmaster Jul 2012 #20

You didn't convince me it is more than a rationale. HereSince1628 Jul 2012 #39

Message auto-removed Dave47331 Feb 2013 #65

What you call a "subordinate clause".... kentuck Jul 2012 #27

Call me old school...I wouldn't argue that it's not an attempt to clarify. HereSince1628 Jul 2012 #36

That interpretation isn't supported by the law, tradition, or even common sense 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #12

The slave states wanted the ability to protect their ability to keep slaves. Motown_Johnny Jul 2012 #15

No, I don't agree. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #14

You can still legally own a gun, it is just not a constitutionally protected right. Motown_Johnny Jul 2012 #17

The rationales aren't particularly relevant because of how the right is ascribed. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #22

Message auto-removed Dave47331 Feb 2013 #66

That is completely insane. Motown_Johnny Feb 2013 #69

In the simplest terms... kentuck Jul 2012 #19

They meant something like they do in Switzerland. Odin2005 Jul 2012 #21

You should take this all the way to the Supreme Court! Tejas Jul 2012 #26

Yes, probably but the whole clause is obsolete now. DCBob Jul 2012 #29

Message auto-removed Dave47331 Feb 2013 #67

To understand what they meant you need to go back to how things were in their time Marrah_G Jul 2012 #34

There was no standing army at the time. Now we have one. A huge one. Tierra_y_Libertad Jul 2012 #37

My dad was a history teacher, and here's what he taught me: proud2BlibKansan Jul 2012 #38

YES. the guns' purpose was to defend Americans from domination by another country, England. robinlynne Jul 2012 #41

After a certain point how much do the original authors' intentions matter? Posteritatis Jul 2012 #42

Lets look at a similar sentence... EX500rider Jul 2012 #43

Maybe but it doesn't matter a tinker's damn. cali Jul 2012 #46

I'm glad I started a lively discussion Panasonic Jul 2012 #47

Wonder why this hasn't been discovered before? ileus Jul 2012 #48

If they had let me write it this discussion would not be necessary. A Simple Game Jul 2012 #49

Analyze the sentence. moondust Jul 2012 #50

Yes. elleng Jul 2012 #51

they certainly did not evision the craziness we have now Skittles Jul 2012 #52

The meant to provide for the country's defense because we're not supposed to have a standing army. e TransitJohn Jul 2012 #56

I just don't understand... Llewlladdwr Jul 2012 #61

Yeah, Jefferson wanted to take away the settlers gun on the frontier so they would starve Zorra Jul 2012 #62

Message auto-removed Dave47331 Feb 2013 #64