General Discussion

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)

43. Read this, you are wrong

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:08 PM

Dec 2012

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021986720

And also go find federalist 29, just for starters.

But their meaning was very clear from practice at the time and letters and other documents.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

55 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If the meaning of "regulated" must be based on the definitions when the Constitution was written, [View all] elehhhhna Dec 2012 OP

Exactly. Muskets only, gun nuts. Zoeisright Dec 2012 #1

scalia of all people probably agrees with you. If I remember right. roguevalley Dec 2012 #11

I' m UK dipsydoodle Dec 2012 #2

Elsewhere I posted that one of the reasons that the new emerging democracies in the CTyankee Dec 2012 #3

Technically, the Constitution does not contain any gun language. An amendment to it does. nt stevenleser Dec 2012 #16

Technically, when an amendment ashling Dec 2012 #33

No, it doesnt become part of that document, but it is treated as Constitutional law. Its an stevenleser Dec 2012 #39

Yes, I know, but it is in the context of our founders which to me makes it a part of CTyankee Dec 2012 #36

OK and all writing with quill pens, all speech without electronic aids, etc. nt jody Dec 2012 #4

There are no Constitutional issues with writing implements, unlike weaponry. kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #6

And if we want, laws could be passed or repealed easily regarding all those things. Not so with stevenleser Dec 2012 #17

Go operate a radio transmitter without an FCC license. jberryhill Dec 2012 #54

"Regulate" that shit. Make people jump through hoops, register.... NightWatcher Dec 2012 #5

Yes, it is idiotic to pretend the founders were writing about modern technology in the 18th century Bjorn Against Dec 2012 #7

Just wait until you've all got your own armed drones. dipsydoodle Dec 2012 #8

funny how they used the word 'arms' and not muskets... Mel Content Dec 2012 #52

That's a very valid argument. moobu2 Dec 2012 #9

thanks! stating the obvious is always a good argument, yanno? elehhhhna Dec 2012 #14

Read Federalist Paper #29 bongbong Dec 2012 #10

Make that an OP and throw up a link. PLEASE?!! elehhhhna Dec 2012 #12

You know nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #27

That would be Antonin Scalia's position? Strict textualism. FarCenter Dec 2012 #13

Well Scalia likes to claim that position. white_wolf Dec 2012 #47

Tax the SHIT out of gunpowder RomneyLies Dec 2012 #15

I have seen you post this many times. Do you think a nut shooter would care about the money? Logical Dec 2012 #18

Yes, I do. RomneyLies Dec 2012 #19

truefact. stops 'em from getting mental heath care. elehhhhna Dec 2012 #21

then freedom of press only applies to hand printing presses? NT backwoodsbob Dec 2012 #20

really, bob? really? elehhhhna Dec 2012 #22

I understand...se my point backwoodsbob Dec 2012 #23

bob, we own guns. plural. elehhhhna Dec 2012 #24

Bob I am a gun owner nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #26

Here nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #25

And here is Madison writing to Jefferson about the nature of the Bill of Rights JCMach1 Dec 2012 #30

In my mind it is high time to recapture nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #44

I just posted Federalist 29 nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #28

you rock nadin, thankyou elehhhhna Dec 2012 #34

The right to keep and bear arms is not conditioned on what is regulated TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #29

i suspected that elehhhhna Dec 2012 #31

Not really, unless you follow the Constitution and due process. Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #35

See #25... nor was it intended to absolute JCMach1 Dec 2012 #32

Read this, you are wrong nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #43

"federalist 29" is NOT the constitution or the bill of rights. Mel Content Dec 2012 #50

It's just Hamilton's justification for it nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #53

Fuck That... Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #37

The problem is that the NRA tells you that the founders wanted nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #40

the amendment doesn't REQUIRE a 'well regulated militia'... Mel Content Dec 2012 #38

Heller notwithstanding yes it does nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #41

the wording they chose for the amendment does not REQUIRE a well-regulated militia. Mel Content Dec 2012 #45

Do you understand Dependent Clauses nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #46

Break it down for us then nadinbrzezinski. Llewlladdwr Dec 2012 #48

what he said. Mel Content Dec 2012 #49

Here you go,,, have fun nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #51

Ummm..that's not a sentence diagram. Llewlladdwr Dec 2012 #55

Similarly, our right to free speech and press should not apply to anything Codeine Dec 2012 #42