HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I'm serious...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:21 PM

I'm serious...

I really don't understand something. Since The Constitution specifically states "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State..."(you all know the rest), why the hell can't we regulate guns?

I mean, I understand what a militia is, I know the NRA leadership is composed of assholes who are really in the business of selling guns...I got all that. But if the 1st Amendment states that the militia needs to be well-regulated, why do we keep hearing we can't??

8 replies, 757 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 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply I'm serious... (Original post)
WinstonSmith4740 Jan 2013 OP
stultusporcos Jan 2013 #1
elleng Jan 2013 #2
slackmaster Jan 2013 #3
DJ13 Jan 2013 #4
Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #6
slackmaster Jan 2013 #8
Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #5
Shankapotomus Jan 2013 #7

Response to WinstonSmith4740 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:23 PM

1. Old White Guys in robes are told by their corporate masters to just ignore that part

 

understand now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinstonSmith4740 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:27 PM

2. We can, and we do,

and the First Amendment is not absolute, either, as the 2d isn't.

The Second Amendment right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner and for any purpose. The Court has upheld gun control legislation including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons supports the holding in United States v. Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time.

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinstonSmith4740 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:27 PM

3. They are regulated

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinstonSmith4740 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:29 PM

4. Technically, I think our standing army negates the militia clause

The Founding Fathers were against a standing army, they saw that as a weapon of tyranny used against the people, so they considered local militias to be our part time army.

When we created a full time standing army militias became past history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:34 PM

6. The National Guard replaced the "militias"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:44 PM

8. The state militias and federal militias still exist

 

Here's the definition of the federal militia:

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


The unorganized militia is most of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinstonSmith4740 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:33 PM

5. It began with Reagan when he sought the nomination in 1976...

He got this very effective burr up his butt and shared it with all the other airheads out there. The coup that threw out the moderates in the NRA leadership took place in 1977...Prior to the Reagan BS, the courts had always held that the Second amendment pertained to militias and not individual rights. Reagan put together the coalition of gun lovers, anti-abortion misogynists Bible Thumpers and Affirmative Action folks. It's been all downhill since.

Here's the fallacy of Scalia et al...they recognize the right for individuals to own arms, but deny the right for those individuals to own military weapons. So they ignore the well regulated militia part completely...No one calls them on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinstonSmith4740 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:42 PM

7. I would bolderize the rest of that too

"A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State..."...implying an unregulated militia is a danger to the security of a free State...as, indeed it is.

Odd that the 2nd Amendment advocates are nearly (and literally) up in arms over the possibility that the government is a threat to the citizenry when the vast majority (if not all) of these mass slayings were and are perpetrated by private citizens. Why are they not up in arms about that? Why are they more upset about a slim-to-none, potential threat instead of an actual, existing one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread