HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » A WELL REGULATED militia
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:59 PM

 

A WELL REGULATED militia

A lot of gun nuts seem to forget these words are in the 2nd amendment. It's quite simple, if you're not law enforcement or military you do not need an assault rifle that fires .223 rounds.

If people really want to practice their 2nd amendment then we need to create a secondary army reserve and call it The National Militia, to join it you must pass all of the tests and background checks of the U.S Army, you must also go through all of the same training. We cannot have lazy fat bubbas in the National Militia.

If you make it in and get accepted you can have access to assault rifles and high capacity magazines.

If you're not a member then you cannot have access to any type of assault rifle or high capacity magazine, you can only have a 9mm handgun for personal safety and you will be restricted on how many rounds you can buy per year.

What do you all think about my idea? This way no one will infringe on anyone's right to bear arms but will simply regulate it

12 replies, 895 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 12 replies Author Time Post
Reply A WELL REGULATED militia (Original post)
muse03 Dec 2012 OP
patrice Dec 2012 #1
Igel Dec 2012 #7
TheCowsCameHome Dec 2012 #2
atreides1 Dec 2012 #3
muse03 Dec 2012 #4
Igel Dec 2012 #8
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #10
villager Dec 2012 #5
SajayHobbs Dec 2012 #6
rl6214 Dec 2012 #9
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #11
ElbarDee Dec 2012 #12

Response to muse03 (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 05:03 PM

1. Gun nuts either ignore or delete the 3rd comma in the original text of the 2nd Amendment.

That changes the entire meaning of the sentence.

Some of us were talking about this last night and also a few months ago here at DU. link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021986720#post16

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:38 PM

7. I read that.

But it makes the writings of what you et al. describe as "highly educated men" ungrammatical by the standards of the day (and by today's standards).

You can have a gerundive absolute clause. You, my fellow DUer, can have an appositive. But "the right to bear arms" is neither. It is neither equivalent to "a well regulated militia" nor a gerundive.

It's all well and good to say that, to listen to Brahm's chorale works, the founders were masters of grammar. It's another, the Connecticut mass murder to investigate, thing to insert random clauses and try to find some connection to justify a preconceived idea to connect them.

One thing that's missing in your analysis is how punctuation worked in the 1700s. It's changed since I was in middle school. The standard was something closer to close punctuation in the '70s. Now the standard is open and to use close punctuation is seen as somehow ungrammatical. Two centuries ago punctuation norms--as capitalization norms and spelling conventions--were different still. Anachronistically reading current norms and interpretations into things written under different norms and conventions, you lapse into error as you justify an idee fixe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muse03 (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 05:04 PM

2. You can't tell them anything.

They'd never comprehend what was said anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muse03 (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 05:15 PM

3. Does it really matter

From what I've seen of various threads, nothing short of the complete disarmament of the civilian population of the United States is acceptable.

Yes there are "gun nuts" and there are "anti-gun nuts", but right now most if not all of the emphasis seems to be on one side. A fanatic is a fanatic...whether it's someone who loves their gun(s) or someone who hates the idea of any non-military or law enforcement person having the right to have a gun.

But here on DU, only "gun nuts" are called fanatics...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atreides1 (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 05:20 PM

4. Civilians with assault rifles is not accetable

 

There's no reason for civilians to own assault rifles, and it's mostly the pro-gun NRA crowd that instantly gets defensive anytime one of these massacres occurs.

We can't keep brushing these massacres under the rug and simply say "If someone else had been there with a gun this would have never happened". We need to do something about it, we don't need each state to have their own rules and regulations when it comes to guns, we need a nation wide set of regulations that bans the sale of assault rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muse03 (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:38 PM

8. Few have assault rifles.

The guy in CT didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #8)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:47 PM

10. He did, the coroner recovered many .223 from victims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muse03 (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:15 PM

5. The robot-snarkers aren't allowed to discuss this part, per NRA edict

But they will cite their hero, Antonin Scalia, on the issue!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muse03 (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:17 PM

6. No, you are wrong

 

As interpreted you are wrong about the 2nd Amendment. Trying to do anything less than repealing the entire 2nd Amendment is pathetically misguided and actually counter-productive!!

Please get out of the way, you are hindering real progress!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muse03 (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:45 PM

9. I think you don't understand what a .223 round is

 

Don't understand what type of guns fire .223 or have any understanding of the settled law that is the 2nd A

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muse03 (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:48 PM

11. I do not mind it one bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muse03 (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:56 PM

12. I think the problem is that

When you go back and look at what the Constitution said and what it meant then every adult male was to be part of the militia and have a gun. That hearkens back to the old common law in England dating back all the way to 'Robin Hood' and before where men practiced with the long bows every Sunday.

If we push it to have the same effect today every adult (obviously not just men) would be required to have a 'suitable' gun and practice every Sunday. (similar to people having suitable swords or spears and sheilds or armor when they were called up to defend against Viking attacks in England)

That is not what we are talking about, but too many of the rw-ers are talking about it in this way.

Private ownership of guns doesn't belong in a progressive world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread