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

jmg257

(11,996 posts)

24. I noted that..reading it now and so far agrees wonderfully..

Reply to 99Forever (Reply #22)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:24 PM

Jan 2013

Other then his downplay of the fear of standing armies and some misplaced & selective emphasis, its right on the money with regards to securing the Militias.

Up to section J.

Very revealing that he states:
Madison's version does not grant a right, but is a limit on govt, (no shit)
And of course, that the 2nd
was to ensure congress could not use the power to provide for arming the militias, to disarm them.
And that the power of providing for arming is concurrent, (so the States cant disarm the people either).

Edit ipad suk fortyping.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

34 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So you think you WHY the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution? [View all] 99Forever Jan 2013 OP

I disagree with the idea that the 2A is to protect you against the government. CJCRANE Jan 2013 #1

Not specifically, rather a deterrence against tyranny of all sorts. TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #2

Free from what? Free from foreign invaders. CJCRANE Jan 2013 #3

The Founders pipoman Jan 2013 #9

It's a tricky one though... CJCRANE Jan 2013 #13

The hard part of any good insurection pipoman Jan 2013 #15

the means to fight off tyranny ThomThom Jan 2013 #18

We agree.. pipoman Jan 2013 #19

You make sense there, your logic wins. freshwest Jan 2013 #5

It does, but not in the way the NRA-lovers think jeff47 Jan 2013 #14

Ah, I see. That makes sense. CJCRANE Jan 2013 #16

The answer to that is: Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #4

Have you read the disertation I linked to? 99Forever Jan 2013 #6

I've read extensively on colonial and early US history and also English and British history. Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #10

I'm sorry... 99Forever Jan 2013 #20

Enough to tell that he ignores or isn't aware of a substantial amount of the historical context Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #31

Not to mention VT's constitution (which predates our own) 1777 X_Digger Jan 2013 #33

The Senate, too Recursion Jan 2013 #7

If I had a name like that, I'd change it. Fast. Warpy Jan 2013 #8

"Professor Bogus"? Is that his real name? nt bananas Jan 2013 #11

LOL! That's what I was thinking, too. Turborama Jan 2013 #17

Yes, that... 99Forever Jan 2013 #21

Yep - and it isn't all that tough. In 1 page or less... jmg257 Jan 2013 #12

"Glanced at link.." 99Forever Jan 2013 #22

I noted that..reading it now and so far agrees wonderfully.. jmg257 Jan 2013 #24

BTW..interesting paper..thanks for posting it! nt jmg257 Jan 2013 #26

yep H2O Man Jan 2013 #23

Bogus's theories have been soundly debunked- by liberal scholars like Laurence Tribe.. X_Digger Jan 2013 #25

He definitely blows it on the whole 'definition of the Militia' stuff jmg257 Jan 2013 #29

The professor makes a pretty good case Still Sensible Jan 2013 #27

i listened to Thom Hartmann JanT Jan 2013 #28

Interesting argument, but it ignores the Indian Wars that were going in 1780s and '90s FarCenter Jan 2013 #30

His argument about the weakness of the English right to arms is flawed. Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #32

Earlier there was a requirement to bear arms, depending on one's social station. FarCenter Jan 2013 #34