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
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to THE SECURITY of a free state..." Some facts for you [View all]apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)156. Do you now? I guess we'll see, won't we? Enjoy your, ummm, stay, too.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
217 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to THE SECURITY of a free state..." Some facts for you [View all]
TrollBuster9090
Mar 2013
OP
The same Alexander Hamilton, who boasted of being in 10 duels, before being killed in the 11th one..
Ghost in the Machine
Mar 2013
#205
"Take the guns away" is an extreme characterization. I know lots of people interested in more
patrice
Mar 2013
#7
Seriously? You believe everyone on the internet is honest? ... is what they portray themselves as?
patrice
Mar 2013
#10
None of which justifies the dysfunctions that we are seeing. Some FEW idiots propose to take the gun
patrice
Mar 2013
#21
ALL? You fail to notice that I asked you earlier WHAT PERCENTAGE. Why did you fail to notice that?
patrice
Mar 2013
#138
And, btw, you're saying NONE of them are, so you negate your own (mistaken) critique of my position.
patrice
Mar 2013
#139
And you think all of that stuff is authentic? If not, what percentage would you guess might not be
patrice
Mar 2013
#23
That's either, intentionally or otherwise, naive, or dishonest. In either case, you just proved #21
patrice
Mar 2013
#29
Astro-turfing from both directions. Corporate gun-persons are not sitting on the sidelines here. nt
patrice
Mar 2013
#132
Most of the pro gun organizations show a much wider contributor base than the anti gun ones
ProgressiveProfessor
Mar 2013
#145
Thanks for that info. Just thinking gun manufacturers, such as those on the board of NRA, and
patrice
Mar 2013
#149
You have not been around long enough to give your statement much weight
ProgressiveProfessor
Mar 2013
#24
A suitable retort to someone making such broad statements as you did
ProgressiveProfessor
Mar 2013
#143
Zombies usually betray themselves over time. Some even own up to it
ProgressiveProfessor
Mar 2013
#182
Just skimmed the TOS and can't find where answering the question is a violation
Progressive dog
Mar 2013
#184
You did see the poster in the thread who said they support total confiscation?
ProgressiveProfessor
Mar 2013
#185
Anyone that would use a firearm against an LEO for *any* reason , even a legitimate one, will
Ikonoklast
Mar 2013
#163
Thank you for this. So sad isn't it, even when one may in fact be VERY right, violence makes you
patrice
Mar 2013
#4
The theme of Federalist Paper 46 is no different from Federalist Paper 49
TrollBuster9090
Mar 2013
#44
"And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes."
ieoeja
Mar 2013
#123
But Madison also couldn't conceive that the people and states would need/want to endlessly
jmg257
Mar 2013
#135
He's claiming here that *facts* bore him, as they almost uniformly do our "pro gun progressives"*
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#80
So you joined DU just to say the lie that technology has advanced too much to enforce laws?
SunSeeker
Mar 2013
#16
And that would work on exactly the people you dont need to worry about...
TampaAnimusVortex
Mar 2013
#33
Right now. My point was in 5 years, they will be on practically every desktop around.
TampaAnimusVortex
Mar 2013
#41
You really dont expect such a transparent attempt at dodging to work do you?
TampaAnimusVortex
Mar 2013
#115
What's the problem? Why not start with existing problems that we know about NOW...i.e.
jmg257
Mar 2013
#116
I disagree. There are no laws that will ever solve this, even remotely.
TampaAnimusVortex
Mar 2013
#120
As mentioned in another post...may be appropriate cause for regulating ammo and reloading
jmg257
Mar 2013
#122
Why do I get the feeling they've been re-running WEIRD SCIENCE on late night TV?
TrollBuster9090
Mar 2013
#194
That is a fairly Luddite approach and will be no better than its namesake
ProgressiveProfessor
Mar 2013
#38
Actually you can do both, but I understand where you are coming from
ProgressiveProfessor
Mar 2013
#45
This is actually an insightful argument as to why ammunition will have to be regulated.
jmg257
Mar 2013
#118
If you think regulating assult weapons is a difficult proposition...
TampaAnimusVortex
Mar 2013
#124
So what is your solution to the problem? Or are you saying there should be no regs at all
uppityperson
Mar 2013
#32
Maybe we could actually address societies problems/inequalities and mental health issues
pediatricmedic
Mar 2013
#54
If your argument is that it's pointless to ban arms manufacturers from selling certain types of
TrollBuster9090
Mar 2013
#51
How long do you think it will take for the field of files to remain irreparably polluted by fakes?
Occulus
Mar 2013
#180
Your not very savy about reputation and community feedback systems are you?
TampaAnimusVortex
Mar 2013
#186
I'm not too worried about plastic guns with plastic bullets and home-made gunpowder.
arcane1
Mar 2013
#127
What are you talking about? The gun industry itself will be obsolete when this technology takes off.
TampaAnimusVortex
Mar 2013
#187
“I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms" - Barack Obama
hack89
Mar 2013
#22
You're not really fooling anyone, hack. I know you think you are, and it's a nice try.
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#84
You're not really fooling anyone, hack. I know you think you are, and it's a nice try.
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#92
You're not really fooling anyone, hack. I know you think you are, and it's a nice try.
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#101
Heh, I don't deny that A) people have a (natural) right to defend themselves and their property, and
TrollBuster9090
Mar 2013
#195
Or confirming it, rather than restoring it. For anyone to claim (as Madison inferred) that the
TrollBuster9090
Mar 2013
#208
And, of course, "well regulated" actually means regulations are acceptable.
Curmudgeoness
Mar 2013
#30
The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to put restrictions on the government....not the people.
davidn3600
Mar 2013
#46
Hmm, who to believe. The Supreme Court or some anonymous user of a political chatboard?
MadHound
Mar 2013
#50
I believe Stevens and 200 years of precedent, not the ridiculous Scalia decision you cite.
SunSeeker
Mar 2013
#57
I didn't say they couldn't govern themselves, just that they aren't always right.
SunSeeker
Mar 2013
#75
As Stevens' dissent pointed out, the Heller ruling contradicted SUPREME COURT precedent.
SunSeeker
Mar 2013
#64
Yep - the Heller ruling was the "Dred Scott" and "Plessey v. Ferugson" of our generation:
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#99
No. Unfortunately, that is the law now thanks to the ridiculous 2008 Heller decision. nt
SunSeeker
Mar 2013
#66
President Obama disagrees with you and says the 2nd amendment is an individual right
davidn3600
Mar 2013
#72
Hmmm..."MadHound" praising a 5-4 Rightwing court with Scalia in the lead...who to believe?
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#83
So, I suppose you completely and totally support President Obama's recent gun control proposals?
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#96
Actually, you don't - as shown over and over and over again, particularly with your opposition to
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#105
"Care to continue calling me a liar" - Why should I get in your way? You're doing a bang-up (no pun
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#147
"though I think that it will be fairly toothless, since the definition of "assault weapon" is so.."
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#107
The fact of the matter is the definition of assault weapon is pretty amorphous,
MadHound
Mar 2013
#110
There's another one up there saying everyone on the internet is authentic, so every time we see
patrice
Mar 2013
#131
The funny thing is, posters like that who have spent YEARS peddling the pro-NRA line are suddenly
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#148
You sure are anxious to get on the side of that right-wing Scalia court when it comes to their
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#98
Scalia supporters don't really impress me all that much - nor does his legal career impress the
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#106
You go right on supporting a right-wing supreme court justice's (Ronnie Raygun appointment) premier
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#150
There's also the actual powers granted to Congress in the text of the Constitution.
Bolo Boffin
Mar 2013
#82
You didn't make it a sentence without insulting the people you are trying to reach
Demo_Chris
Mar 2013
#85
Baloney. You just don't like the *FACTS* presented, to wit: the founding fathers did not care
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#87
Ahhhh, yet *another* "pro gun progressive"* who couldn't be bothered to read the content
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#91
Yes. We shouldn't believe that thigns are possible just because they happened before. n/t
Orsino
Mar 2013
#172
Of course the militia refers to "ordinary" citizens. That has always been the case, and it's...
slackmaster
Mar 2013
#119
Gotta love the impotent appeals to "should" that aren't supported by any kind of reasoning
slackmaster
Mar 2013
#199
And your brand of originalism, in turn, offers a dubious interpretation of the 2nd.
dairydog91
Mar 2013
#151
That gun troll actually linked to something called "whiteswillwinparty."
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#171
I just thought if you clicked it might take you to the Republican National Committee's home page.
apocalypsehow
Mar 2013
#178
I never claimed it wasn't an individual right. I claimed (and provided proof) that the Founders
TrollBuster9090
Mar 2013
#213
Yep, that was exactly my point. And while I'm not denying anybody's right to bear arms, my argument
TrollBuster9090
Mar 2013
#210