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: Would publishing the personal information... [View all]Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)128. You'll have to do the research yourself, I'm afraid.
> The second amendment is about enumerating the right of the people to keep and bear military-grade small arms suitable for infantry use, to be used to kill people who threaten the security of free states, and, by extension, themselves.
Wow! Which Founding Father wrote that?
I've typed on this topic so many times I'm just not up for it this morning. There are lots of supporting period citations also.
I'll just leave it at this. Here is the text of the second amendment:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Questions for you to consider:
Q: How do the militias function to be necessary to the security of a free state?
A: By using military force against those who threaten it.
Q: Who would be threatening that security?
A: Other people.
I especially like the "military-grade" phrase. Sounds like the "Founding Father" Nathanial Robert Allen (NRA to his friends) wrote that one.
It's really disappointing to read this sort of thing and realize that people have such a poor grasp of the US Constitution and the second amendment in particular.
The "arms" that are spoken of for the People to keep and bear is clearly related to use in a Militia, which were the military forces of the country of the day.
So the arms being spoken of most definitely were flintlock muskets, musketoons, pistols, and similar arms of the day - all state-of-the-art military-grade hardware suitable for use in the infantry militia.
Wow! Which Founding Father wrote that?
I've typed on this topic so many times I'm just not up for it this morning. There are lots of supporting period citations also.
I'll just leave it at this. Here is the text of the second amendment:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Questions for you to consider:
Q: How do the militias function to be necessary to the security of a free state?
A: By using military force against those who threaten it.
Q: Who would be threatening that security?
A: Other people.
I especially like the "military-grade" phrase. Sounds like the "Founding Father" Nathanial Robert Allen (NRA to his friends) wrote that one.
It's really disappointing to read this sort of thing and realize that people have such a poor grasp of the US Constitution and the second amendment in particular.
The "arms" that are spoken of for the People to keep and bear is clearly related to use in a Militia, which were the military forces of the country of the day.
So the arms being spoken of most definitely were flintlock muskets, musketoons, pistols, and similar arms of the day - all state-of-the-art military-grade hardware suitable for use in the infantry militia.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
178 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
You wanna talk about something O'Reilly said, why don't you say it instead of O'Liely
rl6214
Apr 2012
#55
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
an Individual is a Member of the Militia. In order to be well regulated the Individual must have a
Tuesday Afternoon
Apr 2012
#11
OK but, does this mean that one is not well regulated if one can not produce papers from a
Tuesday Afternoon
Apr 2012
#44
that needs to be further discussed and refined, imo.... still, did you forget to produce your
Tuesday Afternoon
Apr 2012
#47
No, it's commonly accepted that the foot soldier carries the modern weapon of THE FOOT SOLDIER
rl6214
Apr 2012
#107
Even if the second amendment specifically said you had to be in a militia to keep and bear arms...
Atypical Liberal
Apr 2012
#78
love it, sitting on my porch, sipping on a mint julep and listening to:
Tuesday Afternoon
Apr 2012
#165
There are no militias that serve the role that they did in the founders' day.
Atypical Liberal
Apr 2012
#87
It's a problem for anyone who wants to restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
Atypical Liberal
Apr 2012
#129
"Per your post, if the militia no longer exists, then the 2nd Amendment has NO meaning anymore. "
Atypical Liberal
Apr 2012
#145
"Communicating badly and acting smug when you're misunderstood is NOT CLEVERNESS."- XKCD
friendly_iconoclast
Apr 2012
#169
I wasn't aware you were advocating *anything*, (that 'communicating badly' thing)...
friendly_iconoclast
Apr 2012
#171
OK, then. Kindly point out for us what the NRA got wrong. Here's a link to their site:
friendly_iconoclast
Apr 2012
#174
Well then, what you have asserted without evidence can be likewise dismissed without evidence.
friendly_iconoclast
Apr 2012
#177
All 9 judges agreed the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
Atypical Liberal
Apr 2012
#77
"Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be"
friendly_iconoclast
Apr 2012
#166
And what do *you* believe "...The NRA Imagines Constitution To Be"?
friendly_iconoclast
Apr 2012
#168