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: Ferfucksake... [View all]jmg257
(11,996 posts)84. PLEASE mention it - that is a reason things like assault weapon bans and mag capacity laws should be
unconstitutional.
If the people are supposed to be part of the militia, then they need effective weapons. The whole idea of the militias, the clauses in the constitution, and the Militia Acts that followed was to provide for an effective alternative to standing armies. They have/had very vital roles to fill in keeping the guarantees made in the constitution.
In order for those goals, the people were required to provide themselves with some standard of uniform military arms, and various accoutrements.
Sure the well-regulated militias have been redefined since, but generally the people are still the militia (though codified as "unorganized" and the 2nd amendment securing their right is still the law of the land.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
96 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
Apparently thinking like you are in the 1700s is fashionable and really intelligent
pbmus
Jun 2017
#57
The issue is we have laws for all types of stuff that came about after the original articles.
Blue_true
Jun 2017
#58
They do view a certain cohort of our citizenry as only 3/5 of a person, however. So
KingCharlemagne
Jun 2017
#68
PLEASE mention it - that is a reason things like assault weapon bans and mag capacity laws should be
jmg257
Jun 2017
#84
You are also likely a responsible gun owner and are willing to register your guns.
Blue_true
Jun 2017
#37
We can start with better mental health care along with holding gun owners responsible for securing
Blue_true
Jun 2017
#48
Ha ha - and by "well regulated militia", they didn't mean the citizens under arms,
jmg257
Jun 2017
#5
Really? Then why a goofy meme depicting George Washington? I agree - very silly.
jmg257
Jun 2017
#13
Of course - the 2nd was one of the 1st, which means it "changes" the body of the document.
jmg257
Jun 2017
#16
Yes. Clearly things have changed, including the people redefining what was meant by
jmg257
Jun 2017
#25
Who said 'toy'? Oh that's you. Feel free to address what I actually said, not what you wish I did.
X_Digger
Jun 2017
#17
No right is absolute, no. Tell me who said they are. It wasn't me, so you're arguing with whom? n/t
X_Digger
Jun 2017
#27
No, that's not an exception, because nukes have never been part of 'bearable arms'.
X_Digger
Jun 2017
#61
And again, who said all rights are absolute? You sure do like arguing with things I didn't say.
X_Digger
Jun 2017
#28
Is it you who has this definition of rights being absolute? What a silly concept.
X_Digger
Jun 2017
#38