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


(24,810 posts)
62. Return to intent, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Sat Jul 28, 2012, 05:33 PM
Jul 2012

I also think that people should re-commit to the militia (though participation is not required to keep and bear) by neighborhood, then, community, and then a national organization. Knowing your neighbors and having common cause would potentially bring people together and foster more integration and less characterizing each other while building organization in case of "unimaginable" events and natural disaster.

I'm betting that a Katrina situation (on the ground) would be a lot less likely to happen in such circumstances. People leave strangers behind not members of their unit.

Liberals need to internalize that our job isn't to reduce the rights of the people and even in such an necessity, never to transfer that power to the few but rather to in great and pressing need remove it entirely.
I don't favor civilians with nuclear arms but then I'm against the military having them either and the prospect of individuals with such stuff would straighten out some thinking and keep people from hiding behind authority to justify backing insanity.

If the people cannot be trusted with power then no one can. The people are the source of all power in a democracy (whatever brand it is be it direct or representative). Any power and authority the government has is held in stewardship on behalf of the people. The notion that the government grants our rights is anti-liberal, deeply right wing, and wrongheaded and sure as hell isn't in the neighborhood of liberal.
Of course the modern "progressive" movement has authoritarian elements. In fact just as authoritarian as many in the far right but with a predilection to use the power of government to compel their agenda rather than going at it from the perspective of the anti-government agenda though the two can team up to degrade our civil liberties for "safety" or to foment the drug war or to censor/monitor communication by tapping our phones and having internet kill switches.

The authoritarian "left" is an anchor around the wider movement and in fact controls the agenda. We'll make little real progress and probably go backward on the net as long as we allow this folks to be a driving force.

I would re open the NFA registry Trunk Monkey Jul 2012 #1
NFA is a real difference. CCW reciprocity is outside the scope of the poll; TPaine7 Jul 2012 #2
+1 HALO141 Jul 2012 #58
This message was self-deleted by its author HALO141 Dec 2012 #102
I say ban them all, just because I like seeing the nutters twist. Arctic Dave Jul 2012 #3
I think I'll pass, as long as you guys stay as powerful as you are now, LOL. TPaine7 Jul 2012 #5
I can play that game too... -..__... Jul 2012 #13
Wow you just rendered both your vote AND your opinion totally meaningless and irrelevent. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2012 #31
LOL. Because a internet poll is meaningful how? Arctic Dave Jul 2012 #64
This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Jul 2012 #4
How does that differ from the third choice? Isn't the National Guard the military, and aren't they TPaine7 Jul 2012 #6
This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Jul 2012 #9
How did the NRA mislead the Supreme Court in the 1800s and the Framers of the 14th Amendment? TPaine7 Jul 2012 #12
This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Jul 2012 #14
the worst part of your point gejohnston Jul 2012 #15
Post removed Post removed Jul 2012 #17
Everything you said was false, except for opinion. TPaine7 Jul 2012 #20
Methinks thou doth not comprehend the meaning of "well-regulated" tortoise1956 Jul 2012 #39
you are mis-defining the word regulated. xxenderwigginxx Jul 2012 #87
Isn't it obvious? Travis_0004 Jul 2012 #23
DU Member Francis Marion had this to say about the meaning of a weel regulated militia Trunk Monkey Jul 2012 #7
Yeah, too bad for you the POTUS and the SCOTUS don't agree with you. rl6214 Jul 2012 #27
Unfortunately for you and others you often use the argument ... spin Jul 2012 #43
No ban on gun ownership. Total ban on concealed carry. Starboard Tack Jul 2012 #8
Good idea. Allowing honest citizens to legally carry concealed makes for a dangerous ... spin Jul 2012 #66
Now, now! Not like you to spin things like that Spin. Starboard Tack Jul 2012 #67
you missed the point gejohnston Jul 2012 #68
I disagree Starboard Tack Jul 2012 #84
someone interpreting an OC as such a sign sounds fearful and paranoid to me. gejohnston Jul 2012 #88
Concealed carry has been around for ages - the consequences are known hack89 Dec 2012 #99
Wrong. Find a link where I mentioned blood in the streets. Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #114
So provide some hard facts hack89 Dec 2012 #116
Zimmerman et al! Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #118
I take that as you have nothing. hack89 Dec 2012 #119
I'm too tired to dig up every case of an asshole with a permit. Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #121
I am talking about government crime statistics hack89 Dec 2012 #123
still awaiting trial gejohnston Dec 2012 #120
you prefer oc to cc? YllwFvr Dec 2012 #124
I prefer neither, but if one feels the need, then OC is more honest. Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #128
the more I think about it YllwFvr Dec 2012 #130
First you used the word "ban" ... spin Jul 2012 #81
You should be able to open carry. Talk to Tallahassee. Starboard Tack Jul 2012 #86
or get someone to challenge it based on gejohnston Jul 2012 #91
Well that was 1893. Time to move on. Starboard Tack Jul 2012 #92
There are gun owners who are attempting to get open carry allowed in Florida ... spin Jul 2012 #94
Open carry cool? Llewlladdwr Jul 2012 #74
Sure. Starboard Tack Jul 2012 #75
explosion is not the word I would use gejohnston Jul 2012 #77
Absolutely, as are our rights to comment on it. Starboard Tack Jul 2012 #85
Of course I disgree ... spin Jul 2012 #83
Please explain what you mean by this Starboard Tack Jul 2012 #95
the fear of any inanimate object gejohnston Jul 2012 #96
Why? AlexSatan Dec 2012 #101
Keep things the same, Marinedem Jul 2012 #10
Reopen the NFA registry, and remove SBRs, SBSs, and silencers from the Act. No AWB. petronius Jul 2012 #11
What this person said. alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #44
I don't know if I like any of those choices SoutherDem Jul 2012 #16
Would it surprise you to know that the militia HAS been called out as late as 1942? Trunk Monkey Jul 2012 #25
First, no. SoutherDem Jul 2012 #35
Continuing the discussion Trunk Monkey Jul 2012 #48
You make some good points, maybe we are not comparing apples to apples. SoutherDem Jul 2012 #50
I am talking about actual state sponsored militias such as the Texas State Guard Trunk Monkey Jul 2012 #56
We are in agreement on the types of militia SoutherDem Jul 2012 #60
The only thing we don't agree on is the training requirement Trunk Monkey Jul 2012 #63
+1000 on the training oneshooter Dec 2012 #129
Other Kaleva Jul 2012 #18
Voted "other" explaination: Oneka Jul 2012 #19
Just wondering SoutherDem Jul 2012 #21
Its an individual right Oneka Jul 2012 #22
I would agree it is settled law. SoutherDem Jul 2012 #24
I'm about to chalenge one right now Oneka Jul 2012 #30
Yes far to many divergent opinions. SoutherDem Jul 2012 #36
No, it's not mere semantics. PavePusher Jul 2012 #54
"...discarding the first part of the amendment..." TPaine7 Jul 2012 #32
So why include the stuff about the militia? SoutherDem Jul 2012 #37
It was quite common at the time to have purpose clauses or preambles. TPaine7 Jul 2012 #38
Not mud but at least dirty water. SoutherDem Jul 2012 #52
I had mentioned Oneka Jul 2012 #65
It has always been my understanding alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #46
You make some good points SoutherDem Jul 2012 #53
Yes. alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #57
I may need to clarify and seek info. SoutherDem Jul 2012 #61
Class 2 alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #69
You make an interesting point about the implementation of the 2nd, I think it would be very odd pop topcan Dec 2012 #106
Applying modern grammar, it could also read: NewMoonTherian Jul 2012 #71
This site is completely infiltrated! gregoire Jul 2012 #26
Is it really that hard to believe Reasonable_Argument Jul 2012 #29
That isn't reasonable at all tortoise1956 Jul 2012 #40
I wouldn't call limiting ownership of semi-auto assault style rifles to the police and the military spin Jul 2012 #42
Gun control as called for by the Brady bunch and VPC alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #45
Ooooooo, a purity test! PavePusher Jul 2012 #55
Infiltrated with what, exactly? n/t NewMoonTherian Jul 2012 #59
You better go get some help. rrneck Jul 2012 #82
Where do I vote Glassunion Jul 2012 #28
Down the hall, third door on the left... %!@#ing Corn-bread Trekkies! n/t TPaine7 Jul 2012 #34
Ban semi-automatic military-style assualt rifles Jessy169 Jul 2012 #33
Why? Becaue they look evil? ... spin Jul 2012 #41
Your guess is wrong. Trunk Monkey Jul 2012 #49
see reply 89 xxenderwigginxx Jul 2012 #90
all class III approval needs to be sped up. ileus Jul 2012 #47
Almost impossible to carry in public. Severe restrictions on guns manufactured as "assault/tactical" Hoyt Jul 2012 #51
Return to intent, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #62
Repeal the Hughes amendment and allow new manufacture... NewMoonTherian Jul 2012 #70
I won't stand for banning guns. aikoaiko Jul 2012 #72
In the back. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2012 #73
Other. But frankly I don't know what other. Speck Tater Jul 2012 #76
Federal government has no constitutional authority to ban arms. SCOTUS said "the Second Amendment, jody Jul 2012 #78
As speed is controlled so should certain weapons Thinkingabout Jul 2012 #79
Automatic weapons AKA machine guns gejohnston Jul 2012 #80
You can always tell the people who xxenderwigginxx Jul 2012 #89
shhhh! you'll have the gun grabbers wanting to ban shotguns now too! alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #93
Bookmarking. NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #97
The second amendment supports our right to bear arms RoccoR5955 Dec 2012 #98
If you can find and afford one, I fully support your right to own it. pop topcan Dec 2012 #107
Any option... actslikeacarrot Dec 2012 #100
Give Law Enforcement the tools it needs for background checks riqster Dec 2012 #103
the FBI does it gejohnston Dec 2012 #105
With significant differences in local riqster Dec 2012 #110
perhaps money should go to IT upgrades gejohnston Dec 2012 #112
Tes-tify! (Nt) riqster Dec 2012 #125
At the very minimum I would put all semi-auto pistols, shotguns, rifles and doc03 Dec 2012 #104
One quick question, do you consider double action revolvers to be semi-automatic? pop topcan Dec 2012 #108
No I wouldn't, I'll let you have those. n/t doc03 Dec 2012 #111
The capacity of a semi-auto is dependent on the size of the magazine in the weapon. ... spin Dec 2012 #109
That's what I said in a perfect world I would eliminate all semi-autos. But doc03 Dec 2012 #113
So then the shooter will just use a pump shotgun and revolvers. ... spin Dec 2012 #115
The usual stupid argument from the gun lobby, somebody could use a pump shotgun or a doc03 Dec 2012 #117
A 12 ga pump shotgun can hold up the 8 rounds ... spin Dec 2012 #127
I personally don't have a problem bobclark86 Dec 2012 #122
any semi auto with more than 10 rounds=JAIL kooljerk666 Dec 2012 #126
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Where do you stand on ban...»Reply #62