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
In reply to the discussion: I found an interesting line in the Constitution [View all]NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)71. I was referring to the revolution.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
89 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Forwarded to the White House. Not sure if anyone else is aware of this. Good find.
ToxMarz
Jan 2013
#2
It is sad, if those who want to discuss the 2nd amend would not be aware of the Militia clauses.
jmg257
Jan 2013
#85
The Wolverines are NOT the Constitutional Militia. The Militias were State entities
jmg257
Jan 2013
#39
The S.Ct. has already ruled, I believe, that the Congress can limit the KINDS of guns...
Honeycombe8
Jan 2013
#6
I think the Fifth Amendment limits eminent domain to land or real estate for "public use"
derby378
Jan 2013
#15
Property is seized if used in the act of a crime. It's not specific or limited to weapons.
RB TexLa
Jan 2013
#30
It would be a rare legal act to make something illegal and then remove the items that were
RB TexLa
Jan 2013
#38
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
Are current Armed Forces Constitutionally different from the "Militia" you reference therein?
yodermon
Jan 2013
#17
It seems to me that "keeping arms" is not the same as "owning arms" and since the
Jumping John
Jan 2013
#18
Yes but it was the states (colonies) that allowed the ownership of arms and
Jumping John
Jan 2013
#44
But the states could choose to exclude some people from the militia. I am sure British
Jumping John
Jan 2013
#67
We are talking about after the Constitution was written; its affects on the Militias.
jmg257
Jan 2013
#82
Not sure how it is intimately related to the militias, other then the Militias were to reduce
jmg257
Jan 2013
#84
Both posts are very informative, but his suggestions are not likely practical. Besides,
jmg257
Jan 2013
#87
It means that Congress can do those things if it called the militia up for Federal service.
NutmegYankee
Jan 2013
#36
The 2nd Amendment was there to prevent the need for a standing army. But we got one anyway.
SunSeeker
Jan 2013
#61
You *DO* realize who "the people" are, right? What part of "the right of the *people*"
Ghost in the Machine
Jan 2013
#69