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

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
66. And how was it intended the 2nd accomplish that?
Sun Jan 6, 2013, 04:04 AM
Jan 2013

Of course it was meant to help keep us free. By guaranting an effective Militia to secure the states, the Union, and it's people, not to perpetuate armed rebellion.

Hmmmmm, rrneck Jan 2013 #1
no, not the people to have themselves a militia. *the state* to have a militia. unblock Jan 2013 #2
Close...the federal government declared who must serve. jmg257 Jan 2013 #5
Yes, that is the meaning of "state" in this context unblock Jan 2013 #8
I think state meant 1 of the 13 states. They shared the jmg257 Jan 2013 #14
State != government fingusernames Jan 2013 #47
I used to think that, just not so much any more. jmg257 Jan 2013 #49
If you want to be a constittional originalist rrneck Jan 2013 #15
I'm not an originalist unblock Jan 2013 #23
Well rrneck Jan 2013 #25
I see you disagree with the SCOUS JohnRebel Jan 2013 #69
i didn't say anything about that. unblock Jan 2013 #71
Nope. Militia were ALWAYS governmental entities. jmg257 Jan 2013 #3
The right of the people... rrneck Jan 2013 #13
That's the way I see it derby378 Jan 2013 #16
Ain't it the truth. rrneck Jan 2013 #19
You're trying to broaden a term that was well understood & defined as a govt entity. jmg257 Jan 2013 #17
The government can create a militia rrneck Jan 2013 #18
Well see, now you are making different point. And one I have not argued against. jmg257 Jan 2013 #20
It just doesn't seem all that complicated to me. rrneck Jan 2013 #22
To me either. But I find it interesting as hell!... jmg257 Jan 2013 #24
I heard that! nt rrneck Jan 2013 #26
Don't selectively highlight. Loudly Jan 2013 #29
Psst...the states had already ratified the Constitution. nt jmg257 Jan 2013 #30
Right. The Bill of Rights was not an inducement to ratify. Loudly Jan 2013 #32
"Free state" wasn't part of the bill of rights at that point, it didn't exist yet. jmg257 Jan 2013 #35
I don't agree, it means exactly that. Loudly Jan 2013 #37
I see..you are just making an observation. Thought you were referring to jmg257 Jan 2013 #39
Explain how rrneck Jan 2013 #34
Seriously? That is a balance eternally sought by jurisprudence. Loudly Jan 2013 #36
So explain it. rrneck Jan 2013 #38
You don't get to choose which words you want to ignore..... IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #40
Okay rrneck Jan 2013 #41
Here's my opinion... IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #43
So rrneck Jan 2013 #44
It doesn't IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #45
The national guard was federalized in 1903. rrneck Jan 2013 #48
And your collection of pea shooters is gonna stop the 82nd Airborne? IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #60
So predictable. rrneck Jan 2013 #62
Good luck to you in your battle.... IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #63
I don't anticipate a battle nor would I welcome one should it occur. rrneck Jan 2013 #65
Yup JohnRebel Jan 2013 #70
You are making a claim about what the original purpose of the second amendment was. Vattel Jan 2013 #4
Yes it was. The entire Bill of Rights protects citizens from our government. banned from Kos Jan 2013 #6
The preamble clears that up.. X_Digger Jan 2013 #10
That is not clear at all. Would you elaborate? banned from Kos Jan 2013 #21
The Bill of Rights is a 'the government shall not' document.. X_Digger Jan 2013 #28
Well then we agree in full. banned from Kos Jan 2013 #31
*nod* Card-carrying member here too. n/t X_Digger Jan 2013 #33
The method for overthrowing the gov't is called ELECTIONS. IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #42
Are you saying that the founders regjoe Jan 2013 #50
Careful - the founders did not give the people anything. jmg257 Jan 2013 #51
Oh, I understand regjoe Jan 2013 #52
Good luck with that! :) nt jmg257 Jan 2013 #54
The right to bear arms was predicated IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #53
Oh, I have regjoe Jan 2013 #72
The Militias already existed. The Congress already had the duty jmg257 Jan 2013 #7
does it really matter? bossy22 Jan 2013 #9
Great point. The whole notion of Militias of the several States was obsoleted by the jmg257 Jan 2013 #11
Does it really matter what the "original intent" was? Shouldn't we focus on ... GodlessBiker Jan 2013 #12
Yup it's the preamble which deals with that. TheMadMonk Jan 2013 #27
Interesting, but can we address how the Lanza and 27 dead kiddies and educators situation libdem4life Jan 2013 #46
Agree IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #56
Standard boilerplate gun nut bargle. Warren DeMontague Jan 2013 #55
Militia's were for external threats - elections for internal threats. nt Old and In the Way Jan 2013 #57
"The state" includes towns, neighborhoods, households, families, and individuals slackmaster Jan 2013 #58
with your definition of what constitutes the "security of a free state" IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #59
Yes, the system we have now is far from adequate slackmaster Jan 2013 #61
Actually yes it was logicnreason Jan 2013 #64
And how was it intended the 2nd accomplish that? jmg257 Jan 2013 #66
I don't understand why people think that their guns would protect them from a tyrannical government. catpuke9000 Jan 2013 #67
I see you have not done your homework JohnRebel Jan 2013 #68
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The 2nd Amendment was not...»Reply #66