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
 

TheKentuckian

(26,314 posts)
31. Like some folks like to stick on the militia rationale and ignore that the right of the people
Sat Jan 26, 2013, 04:10 PM
Jan 2013

to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The people have the right to keep and bear arms whether they participate in a militia or not.

No question that militia should be well equipped and trained. I even think that everyone of military age should participate but the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed either way.

Shall not be infringed is pretty precise language, I'd say the machine gun "ban" is even unconstitutional, taxes and red tape sure sounds like infringement to me but that was a semantical side step by defining the class as destructive devices rather than "arms". I call nonsense but due to lack of common use and and high profile crime use spawned by prohibition it flew. The argument doesn't work for a modern semiautomatic, we are way past the common use threshold by decades. Nobody is taking out a bridge or knocking down a building. There is no pushing a button and wiping out hundreds, thousands, or millions.

Recommendations

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

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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Got the local gun entusia...»Reply #31