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

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)

26. It was so long ago...

Reply to jmg257 (Reply #25)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 03:37 PM

Jan 2013

King George wanted to seize all weapons from his subjects. Hence the right was to be not infringed so as to keep anyone from taking away people's arms.

All arms will not be seized, but some through regulation will be, well, well regulated. The theory with this OP is to use the militia idea as a way to placate the arms bearers to give up SOME arms for the better of the country. I think we can all agree it would be best for the country to make some real progress.

In the meantime, we can shame the bearers.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

31 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Got the local gun entusiasts riled up today. [View all] bakpakr Jan 2013 OP

It is that simple: Well Regulated RobertEarl Jan 2013 #1

So to open a can of worms sarisataka Jan 2013 #5

What does well regulated mean to you? RobertEarl Jan 2013 #7

My take is sarisataka Jan 2013 #10

Hardly RobertEarl Jan 2013 #12

The RIGHT sarisataka Jan 2013 #15

Ho, boy RobertEarl Jan 2013 #18

Could you tell me sarisataka Jan 2013 #20

Really? RobertEarl Jan 2013 #22

It seems there were laws governing arms sarisataka Jan 2013 #30

ALL of them; from the .38 lady smith revolver JanMichael Jan 2013 #14

Consider case law sarisataka Jan 2013 #16

By constantly omitting the first part of the second amendment in posts and brewens Jan 2013 #2

Like some folks like to stick on the militia rationale and ignore that the right of the people TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #31

I like how you stated that, "Do those two words say that the government may stop qualified patrice Jan 2013 #3

And the public gets the final say on those regulations hack89 Jan 2013 #4

Only because gun culture is trying to confuse the issue to protect their access Hoyt Jan 2013 #6

DU Gungeoneers advocate for every weakening of gun laws that the NRA advocates Kolesar Jan 2013 #11

I support the President's EOs hack89 Jan 2013 #17

If you had public support it would not matter what the NRA says. hack89 Jan 2013 #24

"Tactical modern sporting rifles" Paladin Jan 2013 #8

At least two fairly recent SCOTUS decisions disagree with you. SayWut Jan 2013 #9

Most people seem to be 'arguing' over the wrong phrases... jmg257 Jan 2013 #13

Well, then rights have been infringed RobertEarl Jan 2013 #19

AFIK, No one has ever infringed on anyone's right to serve in the Militia. jmg257 Jan 2013 #21

Women, Blacks, couldn't serve. RobertEarl Jan 2013 #23

My point is that the phrase "to keep and bear arms" is a right related to the jmg257 Jan 2013 #25

It was so long ago... RobertEarl Jan 2013 #26

Agreed...and agreed! I think the SCOTUS squashed my take...for the most part anyway; so jmg257 Jan 2013 #27

You'd be a gas on a forum I frequent onethatcares Jan 2013 #28

Bolt action rifles, pump action shotguns and single action revolvers Paulie Jan 2013 #29