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

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
98. They did.
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 11:28 AM
Mar 2012

"That the people have the right to keep and bear arms"

they did it right there. They did it, because without that, you cannot in times of need form this:

"that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms"

Which is necessary to this:

", is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."



No matter what gymnastics you try, at the end of the day, in plain english, every single one of these clauses rests upon the people (individuals) being armed.

once again our courts get it wrong...truley pathetic. bowens43 Mar 2012 #1
I think the rulling is in keeping with the Heller and McDonald cases. kelly1mm Mar 2012 #2
Violate their rights 'for the children'...got it.. pipoman Mar 2012 #3
so drug gangs apply for CCWs? gejohnston Mar 2012 #5
"Our courts get it wrong" ?? Excuse me? MerkMan Mar 2012 #10
It's a militia amendment. Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #14
Please read your own post carefully... virginia mountainman Mar 2012 #15
"Every member of society..." Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #19
grasping at straws. virginia mountainman Mar 2012 #25
Cite your evidence, please. n/t PavePusher Mar 2012 #28
It IS evidence. Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #31
Cite the historical records, writtings of the authors of the Constitution and Amendments... PavePusher Mar 2012 #38
LOOK AT IT Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #52
Picking up a gun? Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #57
They did. AtheistCrusader Mar 2012 #98
If they did, then... Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #99
Not to me. AtheistCrusader Mar 2012 #105
Side quibble, but when quoting something AtheistCrusader Mar 2012 #97
Easier to distort? Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #101
But one 'draft' has legal force in law. AtheistCrusader Mar 2012 #106
My personal characterization... discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2012 #32
Mason in context Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #34
The exemption of public officers... discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2012 #36
Unrelated??? Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #50
re: "...when "the people" are bearing arms, they're maintaining a militia." discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2012 #58
The importance of a "well regulated militia." Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #63
the militia discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2012 #71
See "importance of a well regulated militia" Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #75
re: "...I'm not the one who will not see." discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2012 #78
More quotes addressed Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #79
As I said... discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2012 #80
Regardless of your blatant misinterpretation, MY state has no such clause to misinterpret. AtheistCrusader Mar 2012 #94
Explain my misinterpretation. Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #95
The second half was aimed, quite obviously, at individuals and corporations building AtheistCrusader Mar 2012 #96
"Aimed.. at individuals?" Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #102
I'm not sure if we're speaking the same language, or if you are being intentionally obtuse. AtheistCrusader Mar 2012 #107
Ummmm....did youread what you quoted? Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #16
Did you only read the word "themselves?" Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #17
So "themselves" excludes individuals? Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #18
You're still focusing on "themselves." Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #20
That's because all it takes is one example to demonstrate the hole in your arguement. Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #21
Right to assemble Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #22
Like I said, even the President disagrees with your interpretation. Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #23
Rights differ in their application. Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #26
remember when gejohnston Mar 2012 #27
What's your point? Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #29
my point gejohnston Mar 2012 #30
I'm changing the definition? Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #33
so riddle me this gejohnston Mar 2012 #35
"The people" in the U.S. BoR Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #72
Because I don't understand what you are trying to say. Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #39
Being a Harvard graduate is no particular guarantee of infallibility. n/t PavePusher Mar 2012 #40
But it probably puts you ahead of some internet expert. n/t Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #42
For gejohnston Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #47
I'm not going to slog through this. I reject the entire premise of "collective rights". Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #49
You reject what's plain to see. Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #51
Why I'm doing this Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #53
Name one way that that is true. Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #55
There is nothing that the people as a whole can do that a single person cannot do. Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #54
Vice President Jones? Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #60
They have the same rights to do those things as anyone else. Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #61
One thing? Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #66
Name one action that individuals cannot do that people can do. Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #74
Chirp chirp chirp - still waiting. Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #67
Your one thing Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #68
You are confusing ACTIONS with SUCCESS. Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #73
Wrong questions = wrong conclusions Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #76
You're almost there. What ACTIONS do individuals have the RIGHT to do. Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #81
Your answer Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #84
Nope, still no actions listed that the public can undertake that individuals cannot. Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #88
"Alone" Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #90
Still doesn't answer the question. Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #92
Do you agree? Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #93
You still can't answer the question. Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #100
An individual acting "alone." Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #103
You gonna answer my question? Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #104
Chirp chirp chirp... Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #108
A belated... ellisonz Mar 2012 #41
Thank you... Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #44
BTW... discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2012 #82
Thank you too, but... Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #85
fine discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2012 #86
Collective right, personal exemption Glenn Vardy Mar 2012 #89
Oh, the hyperbole! cleanhippie Mar 2012 #24
I bet the court... discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2012 #37
Lovejoy'd on the first post. Callisto32 Mar 2012 #48
"truly pathetic?? orangeagent27 Apr 2012 #109
Helen Lovejoy agrees with you: friendly_iconoclast Apr 2012 #110
Bit late on this one OP... Clames Mar 2012 #4
Was this already posted? EDIT - it was! Sorry! This thread can be closed mods! kelly1mm Mar 2012 #6
Just a few entries down. Clames Mar 2012 #8
I made the mistake of checking in latest threads instead of the forum - lesson learned. Sorry again kelly1mm Mar 2012 #9
Don't fret, sometimes a little redundancy is not a bad thing. 8>) n/t PavePusher Mar 2012 #11
Well, it's not as if this *ever* happens in GD. Say, with Rush threads... Johnny Rico Mar 2012 #12
Don't think 'rationing' is the correct term. elleng Mar 2012 #7
"Rationing" can also be used to describe meting something out by perceived need. TheWraith Mar 2012 #13
not exactly authoritative, is it? iverglas Mar 2012 #43
What "very important implications of the ruling for public safety" pipoman Mar 2012 #45
was "the discrimination of bias" argued in this case? iverglas Mar 2012 #46
The United States of America found the right. Twice. TPaine7 Mar 2012 #56
somebody sure has Judge Legg's number iverglas Mar 2012 #59
Post removed Post removed Mar 2012 #64
Did you miss this? pipoman Mar 2012 #83
oh my iverglas Mar 2012 #91
Here's a link to the opinion: petronius Mar 2012 #62
strikes me that the solution is precisely tailored to the problem it is intended to solve iverglas Mar 2012 #65
But he also found that there is not a "general prohibition on petronius Mar 2012 #69
my reference was to the Maryland legislation: iverglas Mar 2012 #70
The Maryland legislation which he just said was unconstitutional petronius Mar 2012 #77
Is this the part where blood starts running in the streets? Kennah Mar 2012 #87
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Md Gun law found unconsti...»Reply #98