General Discussion

marble falls

(73,537 posts)

96. Pretty broad condemnation on the face of a lack of evidence.I assure you, the Bill of Rights is ...

Sat Apr 12, 2014, 11:40 AM

Apr 2014

very important to me. I was cognoscent of it especially as I waived them to come under the USCMJ. I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution even as my protections under it were abridged and waived albeit voluntarily.

I believe in gun ownership. But I also believe in rule of law and keeping order under the constraints of the Bill of Rights: equal access, no prior restraints, due process.

The Bill of Rights is an organic document. Parts of it are redefined every single year in Oct. I agree with the poster's point: the framers were not as specific as we like to think, and is not specific on the 2nd either. Justice Stevens five words make sense and would make the 2nd clearer. I don't think our right to own derives from the 2nd. I think it was an effort to keep the military from becoming a tool of any particular political force or a tool for government to go after any particular set of citizens.

We require the Federal government to maintain peace and to protect and administer the the people's will.

I was a believer of unlimited ownership of any sort of firearm. Events in the last 10 years or so have made my position evolve. While murder and murder with firearms have decreased steadily over the last thirty years, mass shootings and shooting of family members by people who have restraining orders and histories of violence have increased markedly. I don't think that the Framers had in mind that my right to own trumps the right of victims to the pursuit of life and happiness.

I also don't think you uninformed snark amounts to beans.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

329 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Justice Stevens Scolds NRA & Suggests: The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment [View all] kpete Apr 2014 OP

Well if that was the intent Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #1

Context WovenGems Apr 2014 #10

and we can differ in opinion Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #14

The second WovenGems Apr 2014 #19

I disagree. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2014 #171

Actually it comes from the nobility only being allowed to bear arms shanemcg Apr 2014 #300

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2014 #326

Whether or not it is an individual right is not the question. DanTex Apr 2014 #32

which 3/4 americans agree with bossy22 Apr 2014 #35

Yes, and more than half of Americans thing creationism should be taught in schools. DanTex Apr 2014 #37

Sometimes they are- that is true bossy22 Apr 2014 #44

And part of that evidence awoke_in_2003 Apr 2014 #98

What exactly do you think we are #1 at? Sure isn't gun deaths by a long shot. n/t EX500rider Apr 2014 #195

I should have put the words "civilized world" in there... awoke_in_2003 Apr 2014 #207

Is South America part of the discussion? hack89 Apr 2014 #212

Actually there are over 100 countries with a higher homicide rate then the US. EX500rider Apr 2014 #225

So by civilized what exactly do you mean? AnalystInParadise Apr 2014 #264

Is that the latest ruling from the Department of Ultimate Truth? Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #68

The Department of Would-Be Political Officers, actually... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2014 #205

70%, mostly mislead jimmy the one Apr 2014 #63

based entirely and only on the testimony of the federal government pipoman Apr 2014 #302

and you would be wrong Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #38

Both the president and the Democratic party platform call it an individual right. hack89 Apr 2014 #69

They also both called for an assault weapons ban. Still stand with them? DanTex Apr 2014 #75

And there I was thinking the president was a man of principals hack89 Apr 2014 #77

I noticed that you didn't answer the question about the AWB. DanTex Apr 2014 #80

" Ineffective feel good security theater" hack89 Apr 2014 #83

So you don't actually agree with the president on guns. DanTex Apr 2014 #86

Only if you consider the most expansive view of civil liberties a RW point of view hack89 Apr 2014 #100

Well "expansive" and "progressive" are not the same thing. DanTex Apr 2014 #103

ok nt hack89 Apr 2014 #105

Just curious here... Moostache Apr 2014 #161

Car registration is for tax purposes, not public safety hack89 Apr 2014 #165

Cars do not have to be Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #166

I'll stipulate up until the point you carry that weapon onto public land. Moostache Apr 2014 #168

Required insurance!!!! That is brilliant and makes perfect sense. Which means the NRA will smother Dark n Stormy Knight Apr 2014 #193

The NRA would love it- they're the biggest seller of gun insurance in the US friendly_iconoclast Apr 2014 #204

Whaddaya got against the NRA? Dark n Stormy Knight Apr 2014 #277

Great idea tolkien90 Apr 2014 #268

I do not feel like pointlessly arguing against NRA talking points beyond this: Moostache Apr 2014 #311

. tolkien90 Apr 2014 #321

This line of arguing always gets me Scootaloo Apr 2014 #135

Does the bill of rights limit rights? X_Digger Apr 2014 #116

There are limits to the rights that the BoR protects, yes. DanTex Apr 2014 #119

That's not what I asked. Does the BoR limit rights? Simple yes or no will suffice. X_Digger Apr 2014 #121

Don't be silly with this "yes or no" game. Your question is nonsensical and irrelevant wordplay. DanTex Apr 2014 #122

That's a lovely straw man. Nobody said the rights protected by the BoR were unlimited. X_Digger Apr 2014 #126

Should I answer for the third time? DanTex Apr 2014 #128

That's the closest you've actually came to answering. X_Digger Apr 2014 #132

The whole issue of rights "pre-dating" the constitution is pretty silly. DanTex Apr 2014 #139

That's the base philosophy of our system of government. X_Digger Apr 2014 #147

Talking about the "existence" of rights in some metaphysical plane is basically nonsensical. DanTex Apr 2014 #153

Lol, and you accuse *me* of playing semantics?!? X_Digger Apr 2014 #154

I see that you're avoiding giving any definition of an "existence" of a right. DanTex Apr 2014 #159

"what it even means for a right to "exist" -- is irrelevant" X_Digger Apr 2014 #164

So you can't even define what you are talking about. DanTex Apr 2014 #167

That I refuse to do your homework for you in no way limits my knowledge. X_Digger Apr 2014 #170

LOL. Dodge. DanTex Apr 2014 #173

*pat* *pat* *pat* You sure told me. X_Digger Apr 2014 #175

Always a good time! DanTex Apr 2014 #177

I doubt he is krispos42 Apr 2014 #286

You think the intent was that anyone could carry a gun anywhere at any time?? nt Logical Apr 2014 #59

No Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #155

Jesus fucking christ. stg81 Apr 2014 #97

OK Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #157

Wouldn't that be masturbation? Lizzie Poppet Apr 2014 #169

That was their intent. TransitJohn Apr 2014 #163

That's what I just said. ErikJ Apr 2014 #216

There was no standing army then. Just militia until 1812. ErikJ Apr 2014 #215

sure it is Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #217

They answer to the NRA ErikJ Apr 2014 #221

or a majority of the people Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #226

To a degree yes ErikJ Apr 2014 #231

Using pretzel logic then MyNameGoesHere Apr 2014 #266

Which is a more practical solution? Loudly Apr 2014 #2

Which of the other Bill of Rights do you think is "pretend"? former9thward Apr 2014 #53

None of the others is being willfully misinterpreted to deny Americans Loudly Apr 2014 #64

Did you post that from inside a properly designated "Free Speech Zone"? Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #70

That sounds distinctly like a complaint from supporters of Bundy the Trespasser. Loudly Apr 2014 #79

Actually, the FSZs were first used against progressives. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #87

Here. This is for you. Happy Saturday. Loudly Apr 2014 #91

So I guess that means you accept full moral responsibility for Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #99

Poor Otis McDonald died last week. Loudly Apr 2014 #111

And you feel compelled to not have guns to protect yourself from criminals with guns. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #117

The gun or guns which Otis had Loudly Apr 2014 #123

And? Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #137

Doesn't Chicago have some pretty strict gun control laws? n/t YarnAddict Apr 2014 #102

It's surrounded by the rest of a lunatic nation however. Loudly Apr 2014 #108

How come the "rest of a lunatic nation" does not have the crime rate Chicago has? former9thward Apr 2014 #118

I can't even find Chicago on this list, actually. Loudly Apr 2014 #130

I don't know who did your list ... former9thward Apr 2014 #133

NYC has a remarkably low murder rate given the population density. DanTex Apr 2014 #145

New York has a homicide rate more than four times that of New Hampshire tolkien90 Apr 2014 #269

Apples and oranges. NH is not a dense super-metropolis. Europe destroys your case. Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2014 #278

Historically, the US has always had a higher murder rate than the UK tolkien90 Apr 2014 #322

Money as free speach quakerboy Apr 2014 #255

It's being "properly interpreted" now. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2014 #174

You and your fellow "originalists" are not serving the nation well. Loudly Apr 2014 #181

I'm sure you genuinely believe that's the case. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2014 #184

Here. This is for you. Did these people have rights? Loudly Apr 2014 #185

Oh, look: an anecdote! Lizzie Poppet Apr 2014 #186

I've got a couple dozen such "anectodes" from last night alone. Loudly Apr 2014 #187

This message was self-deleted by its author tolkien90 Apr 2014 #270

And again, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data." nt Bazinga Apr 2014 #280

I think you're wrong, and absurdly so. Loudly Apr 2014 #291

1791-era guns ... JEFF9K Apr 2014 #3

Are quill pens what the First Amendment refers to? badtoworse Apr 2014 #5

Get back to me when a laser printer kills or wounds someone. Loudly Apr 2014 #120

LOL. Read Heller and McDonald and get back to us. badtoworse Apr 2014 #140

Yeah. And raise you a Citizens United. Loudly Apr 2014 #142

Your response smacks of sour grapes. badtoworse Apr 2014 #144

Except Dred Scott and Plessy are in the dustbin now. Loudly Apr 2014 #149

same with speech Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #6

I'm confused. enlightenment Apr 2014 #12

as a living document interpreted by the courts Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #17

Thank you. enlightenment Apr 2014 #25

nice to have civil discussion Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #94

Maybe Amendments should be re-visited ... JEFF9K Apr 2014 #180

I'll get to your question when the ink dries. Eleanors38 Apr 2014 #31

Well, there ya have it... TreasonousBastard Apr 2014 #4

Best answer. marble falls Apr 2014 #7

Your Constitution apparently has been edited. former9thward Apr 2014 #56

limitation on congress jimmy the one Apr 2014 #67

The BoR "grants" no rights. X_Digger Apr 2014 #125

wm rawle knows more about it than x-digger jimmy the one Apr 2014 #143

"as well as granting people ... the individual right to belong to a militia" X_Digger Apr 2014 #151

Pretty broad condemnation on the face of a lack of evidence.I assure you, the Bill of Rights is ... marble falls Apr 2014 #96

Post removed Post removed Apr 2014 #124

That's downright dispicable. Shame on you. marble falls Apr 2014 #129

Repeating your own quotes? former9thward Apr 2014 #134

The quotes stand. My rights are not to abridge anyone else's. Its the mass murderer crack..... marble falls Apr 2014 #138

When someone tries to take away Constitutional rights I always say it to their faces. former9thward Apr 2014 #141

What Consitutional abridgment do you think I promote? marble falls Apr 2014 #148

Jury results on the hidden post... stevenleser Apr 2014 #146

If the slaves had 2A rights would they have remained slaves? Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #74

That's kinda the point... TreasonousBastard Apr 2014 #88

Wasn't the 2A in response to possible slave uprisings? KansDem Apr 2014 #109

If that were true, then why did northern, non-slave-owning states also pass state versions? X_Digger Apr 2014 #127

Good question KansDem Apr 2014 #158

The northern states versions are often even more explicit.. X_Digger Apr 2014 #162

I don't know about that specifically... TreasonousBastard Apr 2014 #152

Good observation! KansDem Apr 2014 #160

Yip, the state militias were for rounding up runaway slaves wink-wink nt UTUSN Apr 2014 #240

That's a moot point because WE WEREN'T EVEN CONSIDERED TO BE HUMAN BEINGS... Ecumenist Apr 2014 #276

The 3/5 compromise was an abolitionist construct. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #279

He's overlooking what he says. Igel Apr 2014 #8

Excellently stated, friend. nt appal_jack Apr 2014 #60

And here we go again Lurks Often Apr 2014 #9

Correct... Hip_Flask Apr 2014 #11

Actually, only the right-wing justices believed that 2A applies outside of militia service. DanTex Apr 2014 #18

Whether it's an individual right or not is not at issue. Benton D Struckcheon Apr 2014 #21

Nonsense Lurks Often Apr 2014 #72

Even Scalia says in Heller that guns can be regulated hack89 Apr 2014 #76

"EIGHT of the judges agreed that the 2nd Amendment was an Individual right" Major Nikon Apr 2014 #73

Might want to work on your reading comprehension Lurks Often Apr 2014 #82

Pot/Kettle Major Nikon Apr 2014 #89

I find the paragraph from the Heller decision that I cited Lurks Often Apr 2014 #198

And I didn't contradict it, so why you keep repeating this is anyone's guess Major Nikon Apr 2014 #237

That was Stevens dissenting opinion Lurks Often Apr 2014 #238

Which is kinda why it's called a dissent in the first place Major Nikon Apr 2014 #239

You keep thinking that if it makes you feel better Lurks Often Apr 2014 #241

So if you carve out the heart of the Democratic Party, gun control is a "loser" Major Nikon Apr 2014 #242

You're entitled to your opinion Lurks Often Apr 2014 #259

The Civil Rights Act was very costly for Democrats Major Nikon Apr 2014 #260

Again, whether it is individual isn't the key question. DanTex Apr 2014 #95

lurks often misleads jimmy the one Apr 2014 #84

Those 5 words don't "fix" the 2nd Amendment YarnAddict Apr 2014 #13

Yeah, the preamble pretty much sets the tone.. X_Digger Apr 2014 #131

He sounds like he is arguing from a conservative standpoint marshall Apr 2014 #15

exactly bossy22 Apr 2014 #22

Not at all. First of all, there is nothing remotely progressive about revising the second amendment DanTex Apr 2014 #24

kind of like reinterpreting the constitution to end segregation? bossy22 Apr 2014 #29

More like re-interpreting the first amendment to include money as free speech. DanTex Apr 2014 #36

You keep claiming the individual rights view of the 2A was created by the modern right wing bossy22 Apr 2014 #40

That's because it's true. If you read the Stevens article, or further read his dissent in Heller, DanTex Apr 2014 #46

Steven's article isn't the holy bible on this subject bossy22 Apr 2014 #50

Neither is wikipedia. DanTex Apr 2014 #52

wikipedia atleast has citations bossy22 Apr 2014 #58

WaPo editorials don't usually include citations. His dissent in Heller has citations. DanTex Apr 2014 #62

again, what evidence do you have of that? bossy22 Apr 2014 #66

There's plenty of historical evidence that 2A was designed to protecting militias. DanTex Apr 2014 #71

How do you explain all the contemporary state constitutions hack89 Apr 2014 #81

What's there to explain? DanTex Apr 2014 #85

Except the same people who wrote the federal constitution wrote the state constitutions hack89 Apr 2014 #92

That's quite a bizarre claim. DanTex Apr 2014 #101

So do you accept state constitutions that recognize an individual right? hack89 Apr 2014 #104

Before Heller, yes, the federal government could impose laws that impinged on the right to DanTex Apr 2014 #106

Your logic is convoluted hack89 Apr 2014 #112

Not at all. You are essentially arguing that there should be no difference at all between DanTex Apr 2014 #115

Ok. Nt hack89 Apr 2014 #150

early quotes supporting individual rkba, hahahahaha jimmy the one Apr 2014 #114

You can reinterpret all of it Crunchy Frog Apr 2014 #42

I'm talking about Stevens's argument, not Scalia's marshall Apr 2014 #43

I know. And there's nothing conservative or hypocritical about it. DanTex Apr 2014 #51

So the amendment protects my right to have a weapon while in military service? bossy22 Apr 2014 #16

Yes. That's exactly the point of it. DanTex Apr 2014 #20

that's not what he saysng bossy22 Apr 2014 #26

What he is saying is that it protect states from having their militias disarmed by the federal DanTex Apr 2014 #28

explain Nunn V Georgia then bossy22 Apr 2014 #30

Looks like that was a state court decision. DanTex Apr 2014 #54

but wouldn't this mean that the individual rights interpretation pre-dated the modern right wing? bossy22 Apr 2014 #61

For the third time now... DanTex Apr 2014 #65

It is illogical now, but it was not illogical at the time it was written Bjorn Against Apr 2014 #41

Thank you, Justice Stevens, for that dose of historical reality. (nt) Paladin Apr 2014 #23

Well, without the right-wing judicial activism, this wouldn't be necessary. DanTex Apr 2014 #27

Here we go again. IronGate Apr 2014 #33

Ri-i-i-ght here in GD. Eleanors38 Apr 2014 #45

Which I thought was a no-no. IronGate Apr 2014 #48

IMO, there has been a concerted effort within the anti-gun Eleanors38 Apr 2014 #107

Funny, the gungeoneers don't seem to care much about the "no whining about DU" part of the TOS... DanTex Apr 2014 #288

Would you like a list self-defense actions? In GD? Eleanors38 Apr 2014 #293

I am for that Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #295

Well, judging from recs, the DU community at large thinks this is a worthy OP. DanTex Apr 2014 #296

quit whining Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #294

Umm, yes, they are whining. DanTex Apr 2014 #297

can you post a link Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #298

Sure. Here's the "but, but, Chicago!" NRA talking point. DanTex Apr 2014 #301

I see you fail to understand Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #303

I see. So instead of alerting, you prefer to just whine. DanTex Apr 2014 #304

Please post a link so I can check it out Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #306

Don't be modest! You don't need any help getting the NRA talking points right. You're a master! DanTex Apr 2014 #307

so there is no list Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #308

I don't particularly care about finding the "master list". DanTex Apr 2014 #309

I am just curious Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #310

I know them by the frequency that they are repeated. DanTex Apr 2014 #312

so you make up the list not the NRA Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #314

Umm, no, I certainly didn't make up the list. I simply observe. DanTex Apr 2014 #315

OK Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #318

Well, I currently live in NYC. DanTex Apr 2014 #319

I agree with you on NYC Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #320

Here you go, talking points Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #305

Some animals are more equal than others. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2014 #172

If only those five words could fix our fucked up corporate and MIC owned government. L0oniX Apr 2014 #34

How is this "BigNews" and not just typical Gungeon discussion? NightWatcher Apr 2014 #39

Evidently, special dispensation is accorded to anti-gun views. Eleanors38 Apr 2014 #49

Oh, heaven forfend! Lizzie Poppet Apr 2014 #176

Apparently, five words have been added to the GD SOP. appal_jack Apr 2014 #57

Uhhh, no. geckosfeet Apr 2014 #47

What about the whole bothersome part about COLGATE4 Apr 2014 #55

You're bringing that nonsense out again? Lurks Often Apr 2014 #78

The whole prefatory phrase was intended COLGATE4 Apr 2014 #178

Most adult males are already in the militia Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #179

Really? COLGATE4 Apr 2014 #182

Really, as per U. S. Code 311 Jgarrick Apr 2014 #190

Not the old 'unorganized militia' chestnut again. COLGATE4 Apr 2014 #202

It's black-letter law, and fairly straightforward friendly_iconoclast Apr 2014 #206

I agree it is sexist Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #208

Too bad the President disagrees with you Lurks Often Apr 2014 #197

The President also said that he doesn't believe COLGATE4 Apr 2014 #200

Why bothersome? States are required to provide for defense. Required in geckosfeet Apr 2014 #209

It's an individual right JJChambers Apr 2014 #90

No fix. Fight would shift to meaning of militia and private militias would fester all over. nt Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2014 #93

I was thinking the worst of the gun nuts intheflow Apr 2014 #274

So our founding fathers would think its OK to go into people's homes and take their firearms? davidn3600 Apr 2014 #110

Not without due process. Not without the protection of law. marble falls Apr 2014 #136

Excellent Post!!! SevenSixtyTwo Apr 2014 #156

So Hamilton said that those who are not peaceable citizens have no right to bear arms n/t eridani Apr 2014 #275

People who use guns in a crime shouldn't own a gun...even the NRA agrees with that davidn3600 Apr 2014 #283

Right or no right. It doesn't matter. We have the right now and it isn't helping. gtar100 Apr 2014 #113

This is off-topic for GD. If the goal is a discussion of this subject, post it in the Gungeon. Jgarrick Apr 2014 #183

Why is it that gungeoneers get so upset about threads like these in GD? DanTex Apr 2014 #191

Why is it that advocates of civilian disarmament get so upset when asked to follow the rules in GD? Jgarrick Apr 2014 #194

So you won't answer my question. Why might that be? DanTex Apr 2014 #196

I can't speak for "gungeoneers" but I'll be happy to answer the question. Jgarrick Apr 2014 #199

Well, this is a progressive/Democratic forum after all. DanTex Apr 2014 #201

My thoughts exactly Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #211

has any firearms owner alerted on the OP Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #219

one did on one of the posts. went down in flames. I was one juror who sent it down... CTyankee Apr 2014 #224

And how would I know that? DanTex Apr 2014 #227

I just see them pointing out the obvious Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #229

Man ya' gotta love all the Contitiutional and legal scholars here. nt flamin lib Apr 2014 #188

This message was self-deleted by its author rrneck Apr 2014 #189

The fifteen words that can fix the Second Amendment jmowreader Apr 2014 #192

Have at it. You'll need 34 states and 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress to agree... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2014 #203

I know all about the private navies jmowreader Apr 2014 #267

"unfetterable right to guns" Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #273

How do you plan to deal with state Constitutions? hack89 Apr 2014 #213

pesky little facts nt Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #214

I am sometimes amazed how little people know about our system of laws hack89 Apr 2014 #218

it is called Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #223

And ya think Congress really "represents" what the people think? CTyankee Apr 2014 #233

You need to fix congress, not the 2A hack89 Apr 2014 #234

And what do you think the people in Congress are supporting, hmmm? CTyankee Apr 2014 #243

Their reelection hack89 Apr 2014 #246

so what is the "legal principle" they are supporting? CTyankee Apr 2014 #247

That my point - they are not supporting any legal principle hack89 Apr 2014 #249

it depends on where you live, doesn't it? CTyankee Apr 2014 #250

Look at what happened post Sandy Hook hack89 Apr 2014 #251

I'm not talking about gerrymandered congressional districts...I'm talking about CTyankee Apr 2014 #252

You can't gerrymander Senate districts hack89 Apr 2014 #253

But popular vote is spread in Senate races into state wide (read urban) areas so you CTyankee Apr 2014 #254

"Just you wait" has been the slogan of the gun control movement for 20 years now hack89 Apr 2014 #256

well, since your prime example is a state with two REPUBLICAN senators, I am sure you will be CTyankee Apr 2014 #257

I live in a state with two Dem senators hack89 Apr 2014 #258

Please try not to be so thin skinned. You were making your point using a state with two CTyankee Apr 2014 #281

I was explaining American legislative reality to you hack89 Apr 2014 #282

But who doesn't understand that point? It points to another issue that we can leave to debate CTyankee Apr 2014 #284

Oh well hack89 Apr 2014 #285

also pesky is the tough demographics your supporters have facing you... CTyankee Apr 2014 #222

yes we will Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #228

It's CT not CA yankee...but... CTyankee Apr 2014 #230

There are already laws preventing criminals from owning guns. Nt hack89 Apr 2014 #220

Like this sporting rifle? Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #232

Careful! Only anti-RKBA posters are allowed to post "gun porn" in GD! Jgarrick Apr 2014 #235

LOL. You sure seem to know a lot about DU customs for someone who joined a few weeks ago. DanTex Apr 2014 #245

That'll put a crimp in Right Wing Woodstocks at cattle ranches. Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2014 #210

Whatever our politics... Rafale Apr 2014 #236

LOL. Enjoy your stay. DanTex Apr 2014 #244

Depends on your persective. He needs some seasoning in the Gungeon. badtoworse Apr 2014 #263

You guys.... Rafale Apr 2014 #329

Don't take away my Goon! nikto Apr 2014 #248

Its really too bad for the restrictionistas that it doesn't say that. aikoaiko Apr 2014 #261

And they are 5 stupid words, too. krispos42 Apr 2014 #262

"it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes" Reter Apr 2014 #265

The point was to protect state militias from being disarmed by the federal government. DanTex Apr 2014 #287

But aren't they not protected anymore? Reter Apr 2014 #316

I have no idea what the laws are in that area. DanTex Apr 2014 #317

Drinking game!!! U4ikLefty Apr 2014 #271

Where are the points? Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #272

Didn't you know? Dr Hobbitstein Apr 2014 #292

There is a problem here. sofa king Apr 2014 #289

I agree, but even adding those words probably wont stop the NRA and the RW.. DCBob Apr 2014 #290

Complete wishful thinking and revisionism pipoman Apr 2014 #299

If you haven't seen this before, it's worth a read.. X_Digger Apr 2014 #313

Fortunately, it takes 38 states to amend the Constitution. NaturalHigh Apr 2014 #323

The hosts have agreed to lock this under the 'no guns in GD' rule LeftishBrit Apr 2014 #324

Further discussion with hosts has revealed that some do not agree with locking; so have unlocked it LeftishBrit Apr 2014 #325

what a surprise Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #327

Kick for a good thread kristopher Apr 2014 #328