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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I found an interesting line in the Constitution [View all]another_liberal
(8,821 posts)46. I guess that's true . . .
I guess that's true. Still, if having an assault weapon is the crime itself, the police surely won't charge someone with the crime and then let them keep the assault weapon? What sense would that make?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
89 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
Forwarded to the White House. Not sure if anyone else is aware of this. Good find.
ToxMarz
Jan 2013
#2
It is sad, if those who want to discuss the 2nd amend would not be aware of the Militia clauses.
jmg257
Jan 2013
#85
The Wolverines are NOT the Constitutional Militia. The Militias were State entities
jmg257
Jan 2013
#39
The S.Ct. has already ruled, I believe, that the Congress can limit the KINDS of guns...
Honeycombe8
Jan 2013
#6
I think the Fifth Amendment limits eminent domain to land or real estate for "public use"
derby378
Jan 2013
#15
Property is seized if used in the act of a crime. It's not specific or limited to weapons.
RB TexLa
Jan 2013
#30
It would be a rare legal act to make something illegal and then remove the items that were
RB TexLa
Jan 2013
#38
They didn't do it with personal possession of alcohol in the 20's. I said it would be rare.
RB TexLa
Jan 2013
#52
Are current Armed Forces Constitutionally different from the "Militia" you reference therein?
yodermon
Jan 2013
#17
It seems to me that "keeping arms" is not the same as "owning arms" and since the
Jumping John
Jan 2013
#18
Yes but it was the states (colonies) that allowed the ownership of arms and
Jumping John
Jan 2013
#44
But the states could choose to exclude some people from the militia. I am sure British
Jumping John
Jan 2013
#67
We are talking about after the Constitution was written; its affects on the Militias.
jmg257
Jan 2013
#82
Not sure how it is intimately related to the militias, other then the Militias were to reduce
jmg257
Jan 2013
#84
Both posts are very informative, but his suggestions are not likely practical. Besides,
jmg257
Jan 2013
#87
It means that Congress can do those things if it called the militia up for Federal service.
NutmegYankee
Jan 2013
#36
The 2nd Amendment was there to prevent the need for a standing army. But we got one anyway.
SunSeeker
Jan 2013
#61
You *DO* realize who "the people" are, right? What part of "the right of the *people*"
Ghost in the Machine
Jan 2013
#69