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
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)246. Bobbing and weaving
I most assuredly do not know what you meant by "themselves."
I meant that the purpose of those provisions was to ensure that the state security force was "composed of the body of the people (of those states) capable of bearing arms" because standing armies were considered dangerous. Are you going to pretend that you don't understand this, too?
I'm not "taking this" anywhere
Then make a start. I've said who those rights belonged to and what the purpose of those provisions was. Have you? No, you won't.
I never suggested that the amendment empowers individuals to form their own militias.
Why haven't you suggested what those provisions do or what the purpose of them is?
"rights of the people in their collective capacity" -- that suggests a totalitarian nightmare.
But that's just your paranoia. Your paranoia about collective rights does NOT mean that those provisions aren't securing collective rights.
Of course, you could dip your toe in and say who those rights belong to. But you can't because you know there will be follow-up questions on what you say. If I ask a question which requires a "yes" or "no" answer, you won't answer with "No, because" or "Yes, but," you'll come straight back with "Because..." and add an assertion unconnected the question.
...the amendment, in the spirit of its time, recognized the individual right to arms...
THERE IT IS. That's an example of what I say above. We're discussing those state provisions, but you side step to "the amendment" and make an assertion about what the Second Amendment recognized.
I meant that the purpose of those provisions was to ensure that the state security force was "composed of the body of the people (of those states) capable of bearing arms" because standing armies were considered dangerous. Are you going to pretend that you don't understand this, too?
I'm not "taking this" anywhere
Then make a start. I've said who those rights belonged to and what the purpose of those provisions was. Have you? No, you won't.
I never suggested that the amendment empowers individuals to form their own militias.
Why haven't you suggested what those provisions do or what the purpose of them is?
"rights of the people in their collective capacity" -- that suggests a totalitarian nightmare.
But that's just your paranoia. Your paranoia about collective rights does NOT mean that those provisions aren't securing collective rights.
Of course, you could dip your toe in and say who those rights belong to. But you can't because you know there will be follow-up questions on what you say. If I ask a question which requires a "yes" or "no" answer, you won't answer with "No, because" or "Yes, but," you'll come straight back with "Because..." and add an assertion unconnected the question.
...the amendment, in the spirit of its time, recognized the individual right to arms...
THERE IT IS. That's an example of what I say above. We're discussing those state provisions, but you side step to "the amendment" and make an assertion about what the Second Amendment recognized.
TopBack to the top of the page
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
ShareGet links to this post
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
324 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
The cumulative count will always increase unless people start rising from the dead.
hack89
Aug 2014
#6
An unsupported claim *and* a strawman in just one sentence. Well done!
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2014
#24
Let me know when it drops below the rate of death from e-bola in the US.
notrightatall
Oct 2014
#202
And this is why I feel good about resisting the people that want me to ban you, SM
krispos42
Aug 2014
#8
You're "helping the cause" in the same way Ian Paisley used to "help" Unionism...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2014
#17
So you think I'm being harassed for being the host of a group that bans gun nuts?
SecularMotion
Aug 2014
#26
Well the only place where opposing views to the ones presented in your echo chamber
shedevil69taz
Aug 2014
#31
A flat declaration of fact is now an "opinion", and a strawman is repeated
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2014
#39
Rates declining is not the same as the proportion of guns used to commit homicide.
acalix
Aug 2014
#50
Great Post! The 2a is racist, unnecessary, and evil. It should be repealed.
ncjustice80
Sep 2014
#58
Bogus! That mofo just keeps popping up. Such clearly debunked bullshit, and it still comes up.
NYC_SKP
Oct 2014
#81
The Dred Scott decision was passed, in part, to prevent slaves from owning guns.
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2014
#67
Hit and run cowards with hands on their keyboards are giving aid and comfort to the GOP. NT
pablo_marmol
Sep 2014
#70
I think you're right but I wouldn't blame movies and books and TV shows on the NRA.
NYC_SKP
Sep 2014
#72
Even if we accept your erroneous interpretation that would still make the 2A addressed to the people
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2014
#124
It's kind looking, from the passge you have cited, that individual liberty is the issue at hand.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2014
#129
The passage -- which was selected by you and is not the totality of the debate -- deals with
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2014
#140
Your entire line of argument is moot, thanks to the unorganized militia...
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2014
#191
The ageist and sexist language wouldn't stand up to legal challenge
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2014
#208
Your claim conflicts directly with the wording of the Second Amendment itself
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2014
#216
The 'collective' reading of the Second Amendment is what's moot...
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2014
#238