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
In reply to the discussion: For all those "interpreters" of the Second Amendment, here's a question for you: [View all]apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)31. Changing the subject is not gonna work: once we get five liberals on USSC, *Heller* is overturned.
Period. And you well know it.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
137 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
For all those "interpreters" of the Second Amendment, here's a question for you: [View all]
Playinghardball
Apr 2013
OP
heller only gives you the right to a handgun INSIDE the home. in the heller decision scalia said
leftyohiolib
Apr 2013
#3
Never said it did. It did not, however, link gun ownership to membership in a militia.
hack89
Apr 2013
#4
the 1st part of it does, the 2a doesnt start with '...' it's provisional based on a well-regulated
leftyohiolib
Apr 2013
#7
"Go take it up with five right-wing, GOP-appointed members of the Supreme Court." <--There;
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#15
Now the desperate attempt to change the subject. Typical & Textbook. n/t.
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#25
Changing the subject is not gonna work: once we get five liberals on USSC, *Heller* is overturned.
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#31
Wait, not "see": being on the right side of history means my fellow progressives and I will have to
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#43
It's going to be great day when we have five progressives on the high court, and *Heller* is
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#47
Weren't there also people who predicted ROE V. WADE was going to get overturned?
derby378
Apr 2013
#88
Oh, it's going to be overturned alright - soon as we get a fifth progressive justice. n/t.
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#96
^^^Check this out folks^^^ "you guys" = Liberals and Progressives, Democrats in general.
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#113
No, "you guys" is exactly as I stated it above - I've seen your posts on the matter endless times
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#129
And you, please, point to where I referred to "you guys" as all liberals/Democrats.
Bake
Apr 2013
#130
And now juvenile name-calling and personal attacks, as the truth proves embarrassing.
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#132
But you still can't point to any post of mine where I defended the NRA or assault rifles
Bake
Apr 2013
#133
Whatever you say. Facts say otherwise, however, and you're really not fooling about *anyone*. n/t.
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#134
Well, so what? So were Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. One more progressive justice and Heller
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#99
If you don't consider Justice's Sotomayor and Kagan progressives, then I can't help you.
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#112
linquistically? wow that's some clutching at straws- it's as if all those words before the
leftyohiolib
Apr 2013
#45
That's about all the "RKBA enthusiast" side has got: twisting of consitutional history and language,
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#50
what do they think all those letters in front of 'the right of the people ........" mean?
leftyohiolib
Apr 2013
#57
They try desperately to explain "well regulated militia" away, because it puts paid to the bogus
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#104
Wow. I didn't know the National Guard existed when they wrote the 2nd Amendment ...
Bake
Apr 2013
#109
It didn't. But it does now, and is, by law enacted by the people, the new well-regulated militia.
jmg257
Apr 2013
#125
If that were my actual opinion and not your strawman, you might have a point.
Lizzie Poppet
Apr 2013
#74
if they wanted everyone to have guns the 1st part of the amendment wouldnt be there.
leftyohiolib
Apr 2013
#117
Exactly right - it states PRE-CONDITIONS for exercise of the "right," i.e., belonging to a National
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#35
Thanks. As I said, only one of those is organized per federal regulations: AKA Well-regulated.
jmg257
Apr 2013
#79
Nope, got it exactly correct, all that meaningless verbiage in your reply notwithstanding. n/t.
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#101
No, it was meaningless because it was meaningless. And continues to be. But nice try. n/t.
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#116
again - heller only allows you to have a handgun in the home - and again scalia said this doesnt
leftyohiolib
Apr 2013
#39
maybe i misunderstood youwhen you said "It did not, however, link gun ownership to membership in a
leftyohiolib
Apr 2013
#51
What they hang their hat on is five right-wing, GOP-appointed USSC justices. Once we get five
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#5
Yes, they all agreed that it protects an individual and not a collective right
petronius
Apr 2013
#67
With the caveat that I am neither an attorney nor a Constitutional scholar, I don't
petronius
Apr 2013
#90
Nope. It was made expressly clear by the progressive justices that they would overturn Heller if
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#97
Five progressive/liberal justices = buh-bye, *Heller* mis-ruling. Better get used to it. n/t.
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#12
Yep - and as the country is turning "Blue" quite steadily, time is on the side of genuine
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#19
Since the President and the party platform say the 2A supports an individual right
hack89
Apr 2013
#21
Five progressive/liberal justices = buh-bye, *Heller* mis-ruling. Better get used to it. n/t.
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#26
It's not a matter of "belief," it's a matter of FACTS. So, yeah: that day is coming. Heller will be
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#30
You go right ahead and "bookmark" it. Five progressive justices = *Heller* overturned.
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#37
Ah, semantics games. Typical. National Guard 2013 = "Militia" 1792. But nice try. n/t.
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#13
Yes, but we, the people have decided they prefer a select militia, AKA the National Guard.
jmg257
Apr 2013
#80
I don't claim to speak for the people, I wasn't even alive when those laws were written.
jmg257
Apr 2013
#124
Nope. The 2nd amendment was a collective right given to the states AFTER the Constitution was
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#102
Nope, wrong on all counts. But now that you have been schooled on when the Federalist papers were
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#111
Speaking of "making stuff up," here's the *ACTUAL* dissent in Heller by the progressive justices:
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#114
Have to disagree here. The states already had the power, the duty to maintain militias.
jmg257
Apr 2013
#127
Whatever they and you have done does not trump the natural right to self-defense.
AnotherMcIntosh
Apr 2013
#9
It's been twisted by five right-wing, GOP-appointed justices to mean something it doesn't;
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#34
Majority of Americans believe its an invidual right...so does the president and the Democratic party
davidn3600
Apr 2013
#42
Five progressive/liberal justices = buh-bye, *Heller* mis-ruling. Better get used to it. n/t.
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#46
As no one has said anything about "confiscating guns" save you, your reply is irrelevant. n/t.
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#52
As no one has said anything about "confiscating guns" save you, your reply is *again* irrelevant. nt
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#94
Oh, it's going to be overturned alrighty - soon as we get a fifth progressive justice. n/t.
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#95
Constitutionally, the states have no more power to disarm the people then the feds do.
jmg257
Apr 2013
#65
OP should consider that constant posting of psycho pictures may encourage others. nt
Eleanors38
Apr 2013
#71
Yep - our "pro gun progressives"* can't come out and OPENLY state their true beliefs on DU
apocalypsehow
Apr 2013
#93