General Discussion

another_liberal

(8,821 posts)

43. LSD was legal for decades . . .

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 12:27 AM

Jan 2013

LSD was legal for decades before it became a crime to have it in the mid-1960s. I don't remember any formerly held stockpiles of Acid being grandfathered in by the cops. If a law is passed making the ownership of assault weapons a crime, the ownership of assault weapons will be a crime. I don't see how else you can cut that.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

89 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I found an interesting line in the Constitution [View all] jmowreader Jan 2013 OP

A very logical argument to me. n/t JimDandy Jan 2013 #1

Yeah, but we already have well regulated militia brush Jan 2013 #42

Forwarded to the White House. Not sure if anyone else is aware of this. Good find. ToxMarz Jan 2013 #2

Yes. No one at the White House has a copy of the constitution. harmonicon Jan 2013 #12

Dammit..... A HERETIC I AM Jan 2013 #19

Well.... there was National Treasure and Nicholas Cage did LiberalFighter Jan 2013 #75

Maybe they could try lemon juice on a pdf? Wednesdays Jan 2013 #80

You just cracked the entire case wide open. JaneyVee Jan 2013 #3

"You just cracked the entire case wide open." AAO Jan 2013 #8

Unfortunately it is NOT common knowledge. obxhead Jan 2013 #47

True, I meant to those of us who are sane. Meaning, not the rightwing. JaneyVee Jan 2013 #58

I suspect there are people Jenoch Jan 2013 #64

It is sad, if those who want to discuss the 2nd amend would not be aware of the Militia clauses. jmg257 Jan 2013 #85

And what if they do? Spryguy Jan 2013 #59

Not really. The National Guard has to be effective in their jmg257 Jan 2013 #4

One could argue that . . . MrModerate Jan 2013 #23

True...The constitution identifies the existing Militias as they were...State jmg257 Jan 2013 #35

The National Guard is not "the Militia" jmowreader Jan 2013 #28

The Wolverines are NOT the Constitutional Militia. The Militias were State entities jmg257 Jan 2013 #39

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary pandr32 Jan 2013 #51

Does wikipedia now have the same status as federal law? DeltaLitProf Jan 2013 #81

As has been noted before . . . another_liberal Jan 2013 #5

The S.Ct. has already ruled, I believe, that the Congress can limit the KINDS of guns... Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #6

Interesting. nt ZombieHorde Jan 2013 #7

You do know an AK-47 is Bay Boy Jan 2013 #9

Facepalm.. Nt Heimer Jan 2013 #50

+1 SunSeeker Jan 2013 #55

I assume you are trying to tell me something... Bay Boy Jan 2013 #89

In the DC V. HELLER ruling... derby378 Jan 2013 #10

I wonder if they could constitutionally seize weapons Nevernose Jan 2013 #13

I think the Fifth Amendment limits eminent domain to land or real estate for "public use" derby378 Jan 2013 #15

Weapons are seized from criminals . . . another_liberal Jan 2013 #26

Property is seized if used in the act of a crime. It's not specific or limited to weapons. RB TexLa Jan 2013 #30

Granted that. another_liberal Jan 2013 #34

It would be a rare legal act to make something illegal and then remove the items that were RB TexLa Jan 2013 #38

LSD was legal for decades . . . another_liberal Jan 2013 #43

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

During Prohibition . . . another_liberal Jan 2013 #60

Like I said rare but not impossible. RB TexLa Jan 2013 #63

Because... ReRe Jan 2013 #41

I guess that's true . . . another_liberal Jan 2013 #46

Duh.... ReRe Jan 2013 #66

From what I recall in some law classes from way back... 2naSalit Jan 2013 #72

Thank you! ReRe Jan 2013 #73

Thanks, glad you liked that. 2naSalit Jan 2013 #74

I have to correct myself on something... ReRe Jan 2013 #76

Good question though 2naSalit Jan 2013 #77

Night-Night... ReRe Jan 2013 #78

+1 uponit7771 Jan 2013 #16

Depends on how many opinions from courts are out there Cleita Jan 2013 #11

Dingdingding! We have a winner! shenmue Jan 2013 #14

Are current Armed Forces Constitutionally different from the "Militia" you reference therein? yodermon Jan 2013 #17

Very much different jmowreader Jan 2013 #29

It seems to me that "keeping arms" is not the same as "owning arms" and since the Jumping John Jan 2013 #18

Tht's part of the problem/evolution of the amendment. jmg257 Jan 2013 #27

Yes but it was the states (colonies) that allowed the ownership of arms and Jumping John Jan 2013 #44

Neither the States or the feds could deny the people arms for Militia service. jmg257 Jan 2013 #53

But the states could choose to exclude some people from the militia. I am sure British Jumping John Jan 2013 #67

Colonial militia service was voluntary. NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #68

No it wasn't voluntary. Jumping John Jan 2013 #70

I was referring to the revolution. NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #71

We are talking about after the Constitution was written; its affects on the Militias. jmg257 Jan 2013 #82

Militias were also abandoned as military tactics changed. NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #45

Agreed. Even Washington knew the militia sucked. But that was the whole jmg257 Jan 2013 #56

Bookmarking.... Great post! nt Firebrand Gary Jan 2013 #20

As an related aside, Shankapotomus Jan 2013 #21

No, it can't. NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #40

k/r limpyhobbler Jan 2013 #22

Keep reading. bluerum Jan 2013 #24

The truly interesting sentence is this... Benton D Struckcheon Jan 2013 #25

This message was self-deleted by its author PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #31

Not sure how it is intimately related to the militias, other then the Militias were to reduce jmg257 Jan 2013 #84

It's the sunset clause that's so interesting Benton D Struckcheon Jan 2013 #86

Both posts are very informative, but his suggestions are not likely practical. Besides, jmg257 Jan 2013 #87

Before part you quote, says: elleng Jan 2013 #32

You might be interested in the following... PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #33

It means that Congress can do those things if it called the militia up for Federal service. NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #36

What is it that shall not be infringed? The Blue Flower Jan 2013 #37

Here try it this way... You'll feel better... jmg257 Jan 2013 #62

They all want to be disiplined... Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2013 #48

Although the OP H2O Man Jan 2013 #49

yes, and even Scalia has said as much BainsBane Jan 2013 #54

Nothing to add at this point. Heimer Jan 2013 #57

Thoughtful, yes, but also intheflow Jan 2013 #88

The 2nd Amendment was there to prevent the need for a standing army. But we got one anyway. SunSeeker Jan 2013 #61

Recommended and Kicking. Ruby the Liberal Jan 2013 #65

You *DO* realize who "the people" are, right? What part of "the right of the *people*" Ghost in the Machine Jan 2013 #69

A few things...foremost the 2nd amendment did not give us anything... jmg257 Jan 2013 #83

This is the result of the Experience of the American Revolution happyslug Jan 2013 #79