General Discussion

kentuck

(115,407 posts)

19. In the simplest terms...

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:34 PM

Jul 2012

they were saying that we should have an army to protect our new nation and that every citizen had the right to bear arms for the purpose and necessity of preserving the security of a free state.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

69 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Did the Founding Fathers mean to keep arms IN a regulated milita [View all] Panasonic Jul 2012 OP

And then... nebenaube Jul 2012 #1

The militia is the body of people who are subject to conscription. It's basically everyone. slackmaster Jul 2012 #2

That's scary. ananda Jul 2012 #3

There's nothing to be scared of. It's who we are. slackmaster Jul 2012 #6

That was Washington's idea of a militia pscot Jul 2012 #53

George Washington favored an individual mandate for guns alcibiades_mystery Jul 2012 #54

That struck me too pscot Jul 2012 #57

I saw this posted Friday SoutherDem Jul 2012 #18

In 18th Century colonial America, participating in defense of the community was regarded as a civic slackmaster Jul 2012 #24

It was also up till sometime after the Vietnam War we drafted people also. SoutherDem Jul 2012 #45

The muzzle loader was what was considered state of the art in weaponry at that time rl6214 Jul 2012 #58

My point is keep the 18th century standard or dismiss it don't pick and choose SoutherDem Jul 2012 #60

Message auto-removed Dave47331 Feb 2013 #68

The unorganized militia is sarisataka Jul 2012 #25

To answer your first part. Angleae Jul 2012 #63

"Well regulated" at the time of the founding... immoderate Jul 2012 #4

Or help fight off Russian invaders demwing Jul 2012 #30

Well, what do you think the gubmint comes after you with? Armored cars! alcibiades_mystery Jul 2012 #55

I'm not familiar with this "gubmint" you are speaking of rl6214 Jul 2012 #59

At the time, there was no intention of keeping a standing army. lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #5

I do but SoutherDem Jul 2012 #7

There isn't anyone on the pro-gun side who won't discuss reasonable restrictions. shadowrider Jul 2012 #16

That reasonable question... sarisataka Jul 2012 #28

agreed shadowrider Jul 2012 #33

that is not true - there were some on the old DU-gun forum DrDan Jul 2012 #31

I seem to remember that but at my age I have a hard time remembering what I had for breakfast shadowrider Jul 2012 #35

There isn't anyone on the pro-gun side who won't discuss reasonable restrictions? SoutherDem Jul 2012 #32

I appreciate the civil response without snark shadowrider Jul 2012 #40

I try to act civil on this subject, sadly I don't alway succeed. SoutherDem Jul 2012 #44

NO FreakinDJ Jul 2012 #8

That has nothing to do with our Constitution. Motown_Johnny Jul 2012 #11

It makes Great Sense unless you want to interpret the Constitution to suit yourself FreakinDJ Jul 2012 #23

Nnnnnnnope. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2012 #9

I really hate the whole thing of parsing sentences, especially legal text HereSince1628 Jul 2012 #10

That is crazy Motown_Johnny Jul 2012 #13

You may have the basis of a case to repeal the Second Amendment there slackmaster Jul 2012 #20

You didn't convince me it is more than a rationale. HereSince1628 Jul 2012 #39

Message auto-removed Dave47331 Feb 2013 #65

What you call a "subordinate clause".... kentuck Jul 2012 #27

Call me old school...I wouldn't argue that it's not an attempt to clarify. HereSince1628 Jul 2012 #36

That interpretation isn't supported by the law, tradition, or even common sense 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #12

The slave states wanted the ability to protect their ability to keep slaves. Motown_Johnny Jul 2012 #15

No, I don't agree. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #14

You can still legally own a gun, it is just not a constitutionally protected right. Motown_Johnny Jul 2012 #17

The rationales aren't particularly relevant because of how the right is ascribed. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #22

Message auto-removed Dave47331 Feb 2013 #66

That is completely insane. Motown_Johnny Feb 2013 #69

In the simplest terms... kentuck Jul 2012 #19

They meant something like they do in Switzerland. Odin2005 Jul 2012 #21

You should take this all the way to the Supreme Court! Tejas Jul 2012 #26

Yes, probably but the whole clause is obsolete now. DCBob Jul 2012 #29

Message auto-removed Dave47331 Feb 2013 #67

To understand what they meant you need to go back to how things were in their time Marrah_G Jul 2012 #34

There was no standing army at the time. Now we have one. A huge one. Tierra_y_Libertad Jul 2012 #37

My dad was a history teacher, and here's what he taught me: proud2BlibKansan Jul 2012 #38

YES. the guns' purpose was to defend Americans from domination by another country, England. robinlynne Jul 2012 #41

After a certain point how much do the original authors' intentions matter? Posteritatis Jul 2012 #42

Lets look at a similar sentence... EX500rider Jul 2012 #43

Maybe but it doesn't matter a tinker's damn. cali Jul 2012 #46

I'm glad I started a lively discussion Panasonic Jul 2012 #47

Wonder why this hasn't been discovered before? ileus Jul 2012 #48

If they had let me write it this discussion would not be necessary. A Simple Game Jul 2012 #49

Analyze the sentence. moondust Jul 2012 #50

Yes. elleng Jul 2012 #51

they certainly did not evision the craziness we have now Skittles Jul 2012 #52

The meant to provide for the country's defense because we're not supposed to have a standing army. e TransitJohn Jul 2012 #56

I just don't understand... Llewlladdwr Jul 2012 #61

Yeah, Jefferson wanted to take away the settlers gun on the frontier so they would starve Zorra Jul 2012 #62

Message auto-removed Dave47331 Feb 2013 #64