General Discussion

gcomeau

(5,764 posts)

2. Until we replace some of them with rational people... -nt

Reply to srican69 (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 05:57 PM

Jan 2013

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

96 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What The Constitution Explicitly Says About Militias [View all] stopbush Jan 2013 OP

well - 5 justices in the scotus disagree with you - that is all that matters.nt srican69 Jan 2013 #1

Until we replace some of them with rational people... -nt gcomeau Jan 2013 #2

there is a 47% actuarial odds that one conservative judge will die within next 4 years srican69 Jan 2013 #4

THere's a chance of replacing a justice, that's not the same as a a chance of a rational justice HereSince1628 Jan 2013 #8

no this is the probability of replacing one of the 5 conservative srican69 Jan 2013 #42

It's the chance there will be a vacancy HereSince1628 Jan 2013 #44

no..just replacing a conservative judge srican69 Jan 2013 #45

Almost Anyone Is Better Than Scalia... KharmaTrain Jan 2013 #54

scalia will not retire in the next 4 ... he hates liberals with a passion and will not let srican69 Jan 2013 #57

Every Election Is Critical... KharmaTrain Jan 2013 #58

I expect her and justice stevens to retire this term ... and hopefully one srican69 Jan 2013 #59

Judge Stevens Retired in 2010... KharmaTrain Jan 2013 #60

I meant Stephen breyer ... i am getting old srican69 Jan 2013 #61

Please send lots of pork rinds and cookies to the SCOTUS BlueStreak Jan 2013 #87

creepy Bucky Jan 2013 #52

So once you replace them they can just change the meaning? xoom Jan 2013 #34

What? gcomeau Jan 2013 #41

Is it really that easy? xoom Jan 2013 #56

Oh yay, we're being intentionally obtuse today. gcomeau Jan 2013 #64

I did from the start... I was seeing if you did. I understand completely. xoom Jan 2013 #96

You are mistaken...SCOTUS has said very little about militias... JoeBlowToo Jan 2013 #5

You are correct. For some of those judges to say they are 'strict' about interpreting the Ikonoklast Jan 2013 #14

You mean. like the Framers intended corporations to be people? merrily Jan 2013 #70

Yes, you are wrong. former9thward Jan 2013 #3

But are not all of we "unorganized militia" still subject to oversight stopbush Jan 2013 #6

No, that is why they call it "unorganized". former9thward Jan 2013 #7

Silly, quit thinking that the "Well-Regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment really means anything Hugabear Jan 2013 #9

The preamble actually affirms that view. N/T beevul Jan 2013 #12

You don't know what the word "regulated" meant in the 1700s, do you? former9thward Jan 2013 #20

Sure we do...and UNorganized ain't part of it. jmg257 Jan 2013 #31

I don't don't who "we" is. former9thward Jan 2013 #32

That is grammatically impossible. Benton D Struckcheon Jan 2013 #33

Sure OK, I agree - "we" obviously doesn't mean you. jmg257 Jan 2013 #36

From Federalist 29 -- A Hamilton. immoderate Jan 2013 #47

'Trained under the authority of the State'...not quite on their own time. jmg257 Jan 2013 #51

So what does "provide himself with a good musket..." mean? immoderate Jan 2013 #66

Just that...It means they must provide themselves with a musket (pistol, sword) for militia duty. jmg257 Jan 2013 #68

It didn't exist in the 1700s, yet it's in the Constitution. NoGOPZone Jan 2013 #39

The links between Organization and Regulations and Well Regulated continue... jmg257 Jan 2013 #55

A 1903 law doesn't define terms of the 2d Amendment. DirkGently Jan 2013 #17

The "1903 law" remains federal law. former9thward Jan 2013 #19

Right. Your post has zero to do with the 2d Amendment. DirkGently Jan 2013 #30

Once again, entirely incorrect. Benton D Struckcheon Jan 2013 #35

Who is overturning a law or advocating that? former9thward Jan 2013 #77

So what if it remains federal law? It still says zip about the Constitution. merrily Jan 2013 #72

What does a statute enacted in 1903 have to do with what the Constitution means? merrily Jan 2013 #71

The poster I was replying to seemed to think the 2nd A only applies to the National Guard. former9thward Jan 2013 #79

Whatever your opinion is, a 1903 statute has nothing to do with the meaning of a 1789 Constitution. merrily Jan 2013 #82

The statute is a 2013 law. former9thward Jan 2013 #83

A 2013 law has nothing to do with what a 1789 Constitution meant either. merrily Jan 2013 #85

Really don't know your point. former9thward Jan 2013 #94

Your citing a 1903 law to prove your point about a 1789 Constitutional provision is not meaningful. merrily Jan 2013 #95

What made up the militia - lynne Jan 2013 #10

Composition and classes of the federal militia per the United States Code slackmaster Jan 2013 #11

I was speaking of the militia at the time the 2nd amendment was written - lynne Jan 2013 #13

Militia Acts of 1792... gcomeau Jan 2013 #65

You cannot look to a statute adopted after the Constitution to determine what the Constitution means merrily Jan 2013 #74

I would not agree completely. What better way to see the intent of the Constitution jmg257 Jan 2013 #80

My prior post already addressed that. merrily Jan 2013 #81

We will disagree, then. From research it appears the intents are wonderfully in tune jmg257 Jan 2013 #84

If you were correct, there would be no controvery about the meaning of the second amendment, yet merrily Jan 2013 #86

Of course there would be controversy, caused by anyone who wants it mis-read their way. jmg257 Jan 2013 #89

Again, SCOTUS Justices dissented, as did lower court justices. merrily Jan 2013 #90

Exactly...as I said we will disagree, especially since you are now calling me a liar. jmg257 Jan 2013 #93

The question... gcomeau Jan 2013 #92

Thanks for that info. stopbush Jan 2013 #18

State governors slackmaster Jan 2013 #21

Thanks again. stopbush Jan 2013 #22

Yes, I believe your interpretation of the law is correct. Insurrection against a legitimately... slackmaster Jan 2013 #25

Would another purpose of the unorganized militia be stopbush Jan 2013 #26

Yes - the President has the power to call up the militia. jmg257 Jan 2013 #28

Everyone is potentially subject to conscription when the shit hits the fan slackmaster Jan 2013 #37

I was subject to the draft when I was in HS during the Nam years. stopbush Jan 2013 #38

I happen to have been born in the three-month period in 1958, that caused me to miss... slackmaster Jan 2013 #40

The kid who lived behind us got drafted, was sent to Nam stopbush Jan 2013 #43

That statute does not govern what the Constitution means. merrily Jan 2013 #73

"well regulated"... jmg257 Jan 2013 #27

Hamilton goes on to say... immoderate Jan 2013 #49

Unfortunately for Hamilton, they didn't do it his way... jmg257 Jan 2013 #53

Yes. They had to get 'well-regulated' using their own guns. immoderate Jan 2013 #67

Yep - under arms when being trained by the State, and of course armed when called forth jmg257 Jan 2013 #69

I would have changed one thing on your post to:. onethatcares Jan 2013 #15

I also should have written stopbush Jan 2013 #24

Liberal tolerance... wjbarricklow Jan 2013 #48

Troll stopbush Jan 2013 #62

Of course the right applies to individuals...you want to join the Militia, have at it! jmg257 Jan 2013 #63

This is a left board. Why are you here, if you don't like the left? merrily Jan 2013 #75

That is exactly the same way I would interupt it. Auntie Bush Jan 2013 #16

I am sure you are much too polite to interrupt. merrily Jan 2013 #88

For the most part you are right, as I have posted numerous times in numerous threads here. jmg257 Jan 2013 #23

It does say that Progressive dog Jan 2013 #29

what's the difference between a GOVERNMENT-founded, GOVERNMENT-trained, GOVERNMENT-armed, GOVERNMENT bubbayugga Jan 2013 #46

Because amendment 2 isn't tied to militias the way you think it is. beevul Jan 2013 #50

IOW, you did not understand the OP. merrily Jan 2013 #76

It really does not matter, if the second amendment means no limits then it is broken CBGLuthier Jan 2013 #78

"Well regulated" means, well, well regulated. And "well regulated" does not mean no limits. merrily Jan 2013 #91