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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
Would publishing the personal information... [View all] discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 OP
Not really. Oneka Apr 2012 #1
Huh? bongbong Apr 2012 #2
"Nothing happened to O'Liely" Oneka Apr 2012 #6
WTF? rl6214 Apr 2012 #7
If a news organization Oneka Apr 2012 #8
WTF? bongbong Apr 2012 #9
Your turn rl6214 Apr 2012 #25
Thanks bongbong Apr 2012 #30
You wanna talk about something O'Reilly said, why don't you say it instead of O'Liely rl6214 Apr 2012 #55
SORRY! bongbong Apr 2012 #61
I would suggest... discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #3
"Social benefit" my rear. More guns in public are a detriment to society. Hoyt Apr 2012 #15
Get a grip. discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #19
so is more bloviateing on the internet yet here you are rl6214 Apr 2012 #26
It would seem to me that issuing safeinOhio Apr 2012 #17
I lean toward all public actions being open to the public. discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #20
Sure, I would think so. safeinOhio Apr 2012 #22
we just don't agree there. n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #24
Agreed. mvccd1000 Apr 2012 #28
You don't vote? safeinOhio Apr 2012 #29
Sure. mvccd1000 Apr 2012 #46
In my state and most others, of course there is a list safeinOhio Apr 2012 #115
And what good would you suggest that does? mvccd1000 Apr 2012 #124
That is not the point. safeinOhio Apr 2012 #125
Gotcha. mvccd1000 Apr 2012 #127
I'm not worried about burglars. BiggJawn Apr 2012 #21
Really? bongbong Apr 2012 #68
Funny. Clames Apr 2012 #126
ROFL bongbong Apr 2012 #132
No... Clames Apr 2012 #140
OK bongbong Apr 2012 #144
That's a good point. If the public has a right to know who is carrying guns, why not carry openly? Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #4
If the public has a right to know who is carrying guns discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #5
2nd Amendment bongbong Apr 2012 #10
an Individual is a Member of the Militia. In order to be well regulated the Individual must have a Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2012 #11
In order to be well regulated bongbong Apr 2012 #32
excuse me -- are you saying that I am not well trained? Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2012 #35
Simple bongbong Apr 2012 #39
I got one of those gejohnston Apr 2012 #41
OK but, does this mean that one is not well regulated if one can not produce papers from a Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2012 #44
such simple questions.! bongbong Apr 2012 #52
then I am very well regulated. Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2012 #63
Nope! bongbong Apr 2012 #69
trust me dude - Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2012 #75
Really? bongbong Apr 2012 #79
in the immortal words of jpak...you are wrong. yup Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2012 #93
HA HA! bongbong Apr 2012 #95
I am a well regulated militia of One. Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2012 #97
Yawn part 543,638 bongbong Apr 2012 #112
night night Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2012 #117
Okey dokey bongbong Apr 2012 #119
you are very condescending - Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2012 #66
Does my DD-214 count? GreenStormCloud Apr 2012 #122
What a laugh! bongbong Apr 2012 #130
that needs to be further discussed and refined, imo.... still, did you forget to produce your Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2012 #47
Wow! bongbong Apr 2012 #53
go do another bong hit, dude. Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2012 #76
Go do another hit of meth, dude. bongbong Apr 2012 #80
Thanks for establishing how completely you missed the point. eqfan592 Apr 2012 #90
Thanks bongbong Apr 2012 #91
that is some stretch you have there Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2012 #94
Yawn-o bongbong Apr 2012 #96
I bow to the MasterBater. Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2012 #98
Hmmm bongbong Apr 2012 #102
! Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2012 #106
That's too bad... discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #12
At least the other 4 members understand the phrase "well regulated militia." Hoyt Apr 2012 #16
there are no objective justices gejohnston Apr 2012 #18
None? bongbong Apr 2012 #33
so they are objective if they agree gejohnston Apr 2012 #51
Mind-reading bongbong Apr 2012 #54
not mind reading gejohnston Apr 2012 #60
Yawn bongbong Apr 2012 #62
bored yet? Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2012 #64
get a double refund where you learned gejohnston Apr 2012 #67
More fail! bongbong Apr 2012 #70
"the pro-guns-in-every-corner-of-society-culture" rl6214 Apr 2012 #27
I love it! bongbong Apr 2012 #31
Are members of a militia "people"? nt rrneck Apr 2012 #34
Are bongbong Apr 2012 #37
There is no militia. rrneck Apr 2012 #43
As a well regulated Individaul, is it wrong to consider oneself a Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2012 #45
Um, I would consider it rrneck Apr 2012 #49
Learn what "well-regulated" actually meant at that time then get back with it rl6214 Apr 2012 #57
Std talkin point bongbong Apr 2012 #71
Wrong, guess again rl6214 Apr 2012 #89
Nah Nah! bongbong Apr 2012 #92
Yeah, you've got a funny definition and I've got the correct one rl6214 Apr 2012 #105
Yes bongbong Apr 2012 #113
You didn't answer my question bongbong Apr 2012 #56
You can run but you can't hide. rrneck Apr 2012 #73
???? bongbong Apr 2012 #81
Still running. rrneck Apr 2012 #84
Hmm.... bongbong Apr 2012 #99
Nope, thats it. rrneck Apr 2012 #108
Yep bongbong Apr 2012 #114
Actually it's rather simple: discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #116
Your point? bongbong Apr 2012 #120
And what point was that? rrneck Apr 2012 #118
Read, baby, read! bongbong Apr 2012 #121
Oh, that. rrneck Apr 2012 #123
Well.... bongbong Apr 2012 #131
Awwww.... rrneck Apr 2012 #133
Yawn againT bongbong Apr 2012 #136
I dunno rrneck Apr 2012 #161
Learn what bearing arms really means... rl6214 Apr 2012 #58
Really? bongbong Apr 2012 #65
typical BS from the anti-gun zealots rl6214 Apr 2012 #88
OK bongbong Apr 2012 #101
No, it's commonly accepted that the foot soldier carries the modern weapon of THE FOOT SOLDIER rl6214 Apr 2012 #107
If he did, he wouldn't do it so much. X_Digger Apr 2012 #109
+1 n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #110
You're still losing bongbong Apr 2012 #111
thank god for that "pesky little phrase" Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2012 #48
Even if the second amendment specifically said you had to be in a militia to keep and bear arms... Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #78
Are members of the militia "people"? nt rrneck Apr 2012 #23
*** and crickets *** Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2012 #36
Kinda nice to hear sometimes. rrneck Apr 2012 #42
and a day later... discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #164
love it, sitting on my porch, sipping on a mint julep and listening to: Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2012 #165
Are bongbong Apr 2012 #38
There is no militia. rrneck Apr 2012 #40
Try again bongbong Apr 2012 #50
At last count rrneck Apr 2012 #74
Still dodging bongbong Apr 2012 #82
Fine. rrneck Apr 2012 #85
There are no militias that serve the role that they did in the founders' day. Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #87
That's not my problem bongbong Apr 2012 #103
It's a problem for anyone who wants to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #129
reply bongbong Apr 2012 #135
what precedent? gejohnston Apr 2012 #137
You call it potato bongbong Apr 2012 #143
we have more laws gejohnston Apr 2012 #152
Hmm bongbong Apr 2012 #156
the rest of the world discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #163
A simple question discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #139
asdf bongbong Apr 2012 #142
Okay discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #147
But there is no answer in post #141. Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #148
asdf bongbong Apr 2012 #154
I did, and have not seen anything that looks like an answer. Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #158
asdf bongbong Apr 2012 #159
He refuses to answer that question. Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #149
I can wait. discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #155
"Per your post, if the militia no longer exists, then the 2nd Amendment has NO meaning anymore. " Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #145
Don't expect a cogent response.. X_Digger Apr 2012 #150
What a trainwreck of a trouncing. Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #151
hmmm bongbong Apr 2012 #153
There are no answers in post #141. Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #157
asdf bongbong Apr 2012 #160
Try answering a little faster. Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #162
"Communicating badly and acting smug when you're misunderstood is NOT CLEVERNESS."- XKCD friendly_iconoclast Apr 2012 #169
asdf bongbong Apr 2012 #170
I wasn't aware you were advocating *anything*, (that 'communicating badly' thing)... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2012 #171
Really? bongbong Apr 2012 #172
OK, then. Kindly point out for us what the NRA got wrong. Here's a link to their site: friendly_iconoclast Apr 2012 #174
No way! bongbong Apr 2012 #176
Well then, what you have asserted without evidence can be likewise dismissed without evidence. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2012 #177
asdf bongbong Apr 2012 #178
You don't know what "well-regulated" at that time means rl6214 Apr 2012 #59
FAIL! bongbong Apr 2012 #72
All 9 judges agreed the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #77
And... bongbong Apr 2012 #83
I dont' know what you mean by "laissez-faire gun ownership" Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #86
Interesting bongbong Apr 2012 #104
You'll have to do the research yourself, I'm afraid. Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #128
I've done the research bongbong Apr 2012 #134
OK, so based on your research... Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #138
Thats four questions bongbong Apr 2012 #141
Feel free to ask away. Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #146
"Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be" friendly_iconoclast Apr 2012 #166
That's a good one bongbong Apr 2012 #167
And what do *you* believe "...The NRA Imagines Constitution To Be"? friendly_iconoclast Apr 2012 #168
The NRA Imagines Constitution To Be Glassunion Apr 2012 #173
Bwahaha! friendly_iconoclast Apr 2012 #175
Whoa, dude..... Callisto32 Apr 2012 #13
Cool discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #14
huge hands, large arms Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2012 #100
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Would publishing the pers...»Reply #98