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
 

Atypical Liberal

(5,412 posts)
24. No, that is not what I wrote. You SELECTIVELY QUOTED what I wrote.
Fri Apr 13, 2012, 03:20 PM
Apr 2012

What I actually wrote was:

"For all practical and legal purposes, you need to face the reality that the preambulatory phrase of the second amendment does not exist."

And that is a true statement.

For all practical and legal purposes, the preambulatory phrase of the second amendment does not exist.

The militia spoken of in that phrase no longer exists, and all nine Supreme Court justices and the President have said it doesn't matter anyway.

This is a much more complex historical question than you care to hazard and I do not have the time to engage in it at length. Toodles.

I understand completely why you are afraid to answer the question.

And it doesn't take long to address at all.

The founders continued the decentralized militia system because the purpose of the militias was to be able to eliminate or counter federal military power, because standing armies were considered "dangerous to liberty", because they would give the central government the ability to use force to oppress the people.

A centralized militia system would be counter to this idea.

Once you recognize this central truth about the function the militias were to serve, then you can understand why once those militias ceased to exist, the only reasonable default condition for the second amendment is for that ability to fall to the people.

Which, of course, is precisely why the second amendment is worded the way it is, reserving the right to the people, and not to the states or the militias spoken of in the preamble.

Interesting, and I was with you until the first 'left turn' sarisataka Apr 2012 #1
... ellisonz Apr 2012 #7
That's all you've got? rl6214 Apr 2012 #19
It's a flawed article... ellisonz Apr 2012 #21
I don't see anything in thaty excerpt that he was incorrect about. PavePusher Apr 2012 #26
The entire premise that an external terror attack reflects on internal gun control laws! ellisonz Apr 2012 #29
How so? Why would a terrorist not focus on poorly defended targets? PavePusher Apr 2012 #34
So you're saying that if the hotel guests were better armed? ellisonz Apr 2012 #35
It wouldn't have hurt to have more guns... sarisataka Apr 2012 #41
Do you think the Mumbai attack would have had better, equal or worse results (from the perspective PavePusher Apr 2012 #49
A massive imbecile but... sarisataka Apr 2012 #42
Better? sarisataka Apr 2012 #27
Lawmakers are working - on guns rights. GreenStormCloud Apr 2012 #2
Interesting... mvccd1000 Apr 2012 #3
You're presuming all of those people agree with the "gun rights" agenda... ellisonz Apr 2012 #6
Such people may not agree on all the items in the "gun rights" agenda ... spin Apr 2012 #11
All the editing in the world... ellisonz Apr 2012 #18
Are members of a militia people? nt rrneck Apr 2012 #4
Yes. But you cannot deny that the construct is made... ellisonz Apr 2012 #5
The "construct" is the problem. rrneck Apr 2012 #8
You do realize that... ellisonz Apr 2012 #10
What do the terms rrneck Apr 2012 #14
Partially seperate Constitutional issues... ellisonz Apr 2012 #17
Oh now. rrneck Apr 2012 #20
Oy Vey. ellisonz Apr 2012 #30
My my rrneck Apr 2012 #32
It doesn't and you're changing the claim to fit your argument... ellisonz Apr 2012 #33
You never addressed any other rrneck Apr 2012 #36
One minor nit to pick. beevul Apr 2012 #43
True that. Important indeed. nt rrneck Apr 2012 #46
"All that matters is how we interpret the constitution in the context of today's reality." ellisonz Apr 2012 #44
You could at least draw your own cartoons. rrneck Apr 2012 #47
Why did the founders continue the decentralized militia system? Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #15
They are doing what their constituents elected them to do - protect gun rights. GreenStormCloud Apr 2012 #9
And that is it in a nutshell. Being anti-gun is a death sentence in congress. Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #13
Reasons why. Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #12
"the preambulatory phrase of the second amendment does not exist." ellisonz Apr 2012 #16
Nope. Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #22
You wrote that... ellisonz Apr 2012 #23
No, that is not what I wrote. You SELECTIVELY QUOTED what I wrote. Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #24
Kids. Waddyagonnado? nt rrneck Apr 2012 #25
Didn't change the meaning one bit. ellisonz Apr 2012 #31
If it didn't change the meaning why did you omit it? Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #37
I appreciate your lengthy attempt at an argument... ellisonz Apr 2012 #38
No matter how many times you try and put words in my mouth, it won't work. Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #39
Why do you hate freedom? ellisonz Apr 2012 #40
I never said he did. Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #48
We haven't done better because people keep trying to limit the 2A... ileus Apr 2012 #28
It might be because most further restrictions are either expensive, intrusive, or unworkable. krispos42 Apr 2012 #45
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Virginia Tech anniversary...»Reply #24