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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

hack89

(39,181 posts)

3. Nothing happened to it

Reply to Sanity Claws (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 25, 2021, 07:29 AM

Mar 2021

You, the OP and many others are simply misinterpreting what it actually means.

Here is something to consider - if the founding fathers meant what you think the militia clause means, why, in the entire history of the US, has there never been a law linking gun ownership to militia service? Can you show me a single instance where an American was forced to give up their guns because they were not members of a militia?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"a well regulated militia ..." [View all] rampartc Mar 2021 OP

The right to bear arm is independent of militia service hack89 Mar 2021 #1

I actually agree with the OP Sanity Claws Mar 2021 #2

Nothing happened to it hack89 Mar 2021 #3

armed citizens were always on call , led by local officials, rampartc Mar 2021 #4

In the context of the 2A regulated means "well equipped and trained" hack89 Mar 2021 #7

Because in much of the history of the USA, we didn't have gun-humpers like this -- Hoyt Mar 2021 #5

Which has nothing to do with my post. hack89 Mar 2021 #8

the originalist interpretation make the argument that well regulated had a different meaning in 1776 Amishman Mar 2021 #6

They should have left out the comma. marie999 Mar 2021 #9