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: What The Constitution Explicitly Says About Militias [View all]beevul
(12,194 posts)12. The preamble actually affirms that view. N/T
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
96 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
well - 5 justices in the scotus disagree with you - that is all that matters.nt
srican69
Jan 2013
#1
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
scalia will not retire in the next 4 ... he hates liberals with a passion and will not let
srican69
Jan 2013
#57
You are correct. For some of those judges to say they are 'strict' about interpreting the
Ikonoklast
Jan 2013
#14
Silly, quit thinking that the "Well-Regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment really means anything
Hugabear
Jan 2013
#9
Just that...It means they must provide themselves with a musket (pistol, sword) for militia duty.
jmg257
Jan 2013
#68
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
Your citing a 1903 law to prove your point about a 1789 Constitutional provision is not meaningful.
merrily
Jan 2013
#95
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
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
Exactly...as I said we will disagree, especially since you are now calling me a liar.
jmg257
Jan 2013
#93
Yes, I believe your interpretation of the law is correct. Insurrection against a legitimately...
slackmaster
Jan 2013
#25
I happen to have been born in the three-month period in 1958, that caused me to miss...
slackmaster
Jan 2013
#40
Yep - under arms when being trained by the State, and of course armed when called forth
jmg257
Jan 2013
#69
Of course the right applies to individuals...you want to join the Militia, have at it!
jmg257
Jan 2013
#63
For the most part you are right, as I have posted numerous times in numerous threads here.
jmg257
Jan 2013
#23
what's the difference between a GOVERNMENT-founded, GOVERNMENT-trained, GOVERNMENT-armed, GOVERNMENT
bubbayugga
Jan 2013
#46
It really does not matter, if the second amendment means no limits then it is broken
CBGLuthier
Jan 2013
#78