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
 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
106. The Bill of Rights has an expiration date? Or just the parts you woke up hating?
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 01:58 PM
Dec 2015

This sounds a bit more like the excuses of a politician, instead of considered opinion.

Since we are being liberal about our definitions, let's take a little time pill and go back to the framer's table, and know that when they said "militia" - and, regardless of some contentions, the US wasn't the first god damn nation ever established - and militia meant "all able-bodied men who are not members of the Army or Navy". So whether there was an army or navy then, the militia was separate from that.

and "its function is to enable the young nation to have people who will fight for it to have weapons that those soldiers will own" < That's precisely what is happening today - judging by the military style weapons that frequent people's mantles. Well, where the mantle would be. But that was back then when we had muskets.

Thank you for playing.

Anyway, the freedom to keep guns was something that distinguished this country from so many other. So much so that keeping guns has become synonymous with freedom through most of the center of the country. As long as that association is there, you might as well figure on a war of attrition, because it will take 2 or 3 lifetimes to rid us of the 300 million+ guns that are in homes.

Seen the headlines? Since Evilhair started his campaign of hatred for president, gun permit requests are higher than ever.

Besides, the soon to be seen water wars, the disruptions in our food supply and cities going underwater are going to overshadow the few killings from this. Assuming we aren't hit by a biological attack that kills a couple million people, which is likely just a matter of time.

Those conflagrations will make us forget all of this.


As do I. Chan790 Dec 2015 #1
SCOTUS did agree with you up until 2008's ridiculous 5-4 Heller decision. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #57
Also to note, Justice Bader-Ginsberg and Justice Breyer are President Bill Clinton appointees. BlueCaliDem Dec 2015 #87
I so agree. nt SunSeeker Dec 2015 #95
Not true. former9thward Dec 2015 #121
You are wrong, former9thward. Stevens cites the cases in his Heller dissent. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #122
That is not what it says. former9thward Dec 2015 #124
Miller was good precedent, as were the other cases Stevens cited. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #128
It is really disappointing to see someone former9thward Dec 2015 #140
Preferring the progressive--and correct--interpretation of the 2A is not "attacking" it. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #141
Actually I am mouthing Madison's argument. former9thward Dec 2015 #147
Bullshit. Madison could not have imagined what gun nuts would do to the 2A. nt SunSeeker Dec 2015 #162
Miller was about sawed-off shotguns, not automatic weapons jmowreader Dec 2015 #143
You are correct. former9thward Dec 2015 #148
Actually, Miller died before his case came before the court GGJohn Dec 2015 #153
Regardless of what she believes, the proper interpretation ot the constitution is... MohRokTah Dec 2015 #2
And that can change if people vote in presidents who want gun control. boston bean Dec 2015 #6
Any presidential candidate who promises to ban guns will lose. eom MohRokTah Dec 2015 #8
Who has suggested such a thing? boston bean Dec 2015 #9
Read DU, it's what many supporters of all the candidates want. MohRokTah Dec 2015 #12
Little ole me is causing you to question something so important? boston bean Dec 2015 #14
You and other DUers who want to ban guns. eom MohRokTah Dec 2015 #16
I want to see a ban on semi auto guns, that allow boston bean Dec 2015 #17
Nope, it does not sit well with me. MohRokTah Dec 2015 #21
It won't be unconstitutional once we get a good ruling. boston bean Dec 2015 #23
You'll never get the ruling you want. eom MohRokTah Dec 2015 #24
So sayeth you. You will be very suprised one day. boston bean Dec 2015 #26
And when, not if, but when you don't get your ruling, GGJohn Dec 2015 #29
No matter how long it takes, I won't ever say I am wrong on this. boston bean Dec 2015 #31
"Gay marriage bans will never be ruled unconstitutional" MillennialDem Dec 2015 #88
You are comparing apples to horse shoes. eom MohRokTah Dec 2015 #90
I know they're not the same thing, but a more favorable supreme court will likely MillennialDem Dec 2015 #91
Kagan wouldn't MohRokTah Dec 2015 #94
I read DU every day and have never seen anyone advocating for take all guns. lark Dec 2015 #45
You must have not read about half the anti-gun threads over the past two days, then. MohRokTah Dec 2015 #47
Where? lark Dec 2015 #49
Here: MohRokTah Dec 2015 #52
Nope, that's not what you said or what I asked for. lark Dec 2015 #62
Here you go- feel free to move the goal posts again. ;) X_Digger Dec 2015 #76
I recommend you improve your reading comprehension skills. eom MohRokTah Dec 2015 #79
Okey doakey, here's another MohRokTah Dec 2015 #116
Why are you here? rockfordfile Dec 2015 #133
Who aare you to question why I am here? MohRokTah Dec 2015 #136
This message was self-deleted by its author GGJohn Dec 2015 #154
OK, you got me. lark Dec 2015 #144
It's more than one MohRokTah Dec 2015 #145
I read here too. lark Dec 2015 #146
Not one of those called for banning guns. Try again. Squinch Dec 2015 #73
All of them did. MohRokTah Dec 2015 #75
None of them did. Squinch Dec 2015 #78
Well I guess I will say it. I would like something like what Australia did about weapons LiberalArkie Dec 2015 #55
ok, if we have lancer78 Dec 2015 #159
So for me to be a patriot, I have to give up my firearms? GGJohn Dec 2015 #161
Revolvers are 400 year old technology? A Simple Game Dec 2015 #56
The oldest revolver still existing was manufactured in 1597. eom MohRokTah Dec 2015 #60
I stand corrected, maybe I should take my own advice. A Simple Game Dec 2015 #81
Please, their have been multiple calls to ban all guns in multiple threads. EX500rider Dec 2015 #54
Boston, I have the answer to this. There is an interesting phenomenon that I have deciphered: Squinch Dec 2015 #67
"gunners" I think do have a mental problem. rockfordfile Dec 2015 #134
Wow!!! GGJohn Dec 2015 #155
But aren't you glad she said it? nt ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2015 #19
No. It decreases my respect for her. eom MohRokTah Dec 2015 #22
It increases my respect for her. But at least you're on record: YOU DO NOT RESPECT JUSTICE GINSBURG. ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2015 #25
I love it when grabbers try to put words in my mouth. eom MohRokTah Dec 2015 #27
I'm not a "grabber". You should pay better attention. nt ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2015 #30
I disagree. eom MohRokTah Dec 2015 #33
So you think you can decide for me what my stance is on an issue? I have never said a single word.. ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2015 #34
You decided what my stance on an issue was, so turnabout is fair play. eom MohRokTah Dec 2015 #36
Mo on Ginsburg: "It decreases my respect for her." Tell us how much you respect her. nt ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2015 #40
Of all the SCOTUS justices, I respected her the most... MohRokTah Dec 2015 #41
anyone who isn't a gun humper is considered a "gun grabber" Skittles Dec 2015 #123
Which is why we need to change the majority. We can end this. morningfog Dec 2015 #59
That will win votes for the Democratic nominee. MohRokTah Dec 2015 #61
You don't support a liberal majority in the SC? Noted. morningfog Dec 2015 #63
I do not support a majority that would ignore the second amendment MohRokTah Dec 2015 #72
So you believe Dredd Scott was the proper interpretation of the Constitution? Squinch Dec 2015 #83
By the constitution, the proper interpretation of the constitution is ALWAYS... MohRokTah Dec 2015 #86
So you believe Dredd Scott was the proper interpretation of the Constitution? Squinch Dec 2015 #89
See my prior post. MohRokTah Dec 2015 #92
So you do. OK. Squinch Dec 2015 #93
Straw man, typical. eom MohRokTah Dec 2015 #96
Not necessarily 'proper,' but certainly 'CURRENT.' elleng Dec 2015 #103
You may not like it, but it is ALWAYS the proper interpretation. MohRokTah Dec 2015 #105
I KNOW the process, elleng Dec 2015 #107
Oh, you mean like Dred Scot or Korematsu or Plessy v Ferguson? The SCOTUS is NOT infallible. Turn CO Blue Dec 2015 #119
If it was a requirement, why would they call it a right pintobean Dec 2015 #3
Indeed. nt appal_jack Dec 2015 #5
Bingo GummyBearz Dec 2015 #39
Historical measures from Europe. lark Dec 2015 #46
Agree. And it wouldn't really matter whether or not it's a "constitutional" question. erronis Dec 2015 #58
BS pintobean Dec 2015 #100
it isn't a right lancer78 Dec 2015 #160
Hopefully we will get a SC again that is not packed with callous, racist right wingers. Hoyt Dec 2015 #4
Guess you also don't understand settled law. GGJohn Dec 2015 #18
Guess your don't understand that the court can and has reversed itself ThoughtCriminal Dec 2015 #37
I'm not clinging to anything, GGJohn Dec 2015 #38
You are clinging to a 5-4 decision ThoughtCriminal Dec 2015 #42
No, I'm clinging to historical fact. GGJohn Dec 2015 #43
No, you are clinging to keeping your 5 gun safes filled with lethal weapons and ammo. Hoyt Dec 2015 #66
Please seek help for your unhealthy fascination of 5 safes. GGJohn Dec 2015 #70
Just pointing out where your loyalty and views lie. Hoyt Dec 2015 #71
As I said................... GGJohn Dec 2015 #77
Come on, they constantly chip away at it. lark Dec 2015 #50
That's the states, not SCOTUS, GGJohn Dec 2015 #113
Precedents are overturned all the time, as Heller and McDonald proved. Hoyt Dec 2015 #65
Wrong again Hoyt, as usual. GGJohn Dec 2015 #74
If the framers of the federal constitution intended a qualified collective right.. X_Digger Dec 2015 #7
If the Second Amendment said what the NRA thinks it said... NNadir Dec 2015 #20
That's a non sequitur. Care to address what I actually wrote? X_Digger Dec 2015 #35
I did address what you wrote, but I think you didn't get it. NNadir Dec 2015 #109
No, you haring off on a different subject is a non sequitur. X_Digger Dec 2015 #111
Um...um...um...yeah...yeah... NNadir Dec 2015 #163
It's the bill of right because these are rights that it protects! It's right there in the preamble. X_Digger Dec 2015 #164
Nice explanation. I guess we will always try to understand what was in the framers' minds, erronis Dec 2015 #64
"in defense of themselves and the State" is a reference to citizen militias. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #85
And? You seem to think that the bill of rights (or state constitutions) limit rights. They don't. X_Digger Dec 2015 #97
The "right" is citizen militias, not private gun ownership for love of gun play. nt SunSeeker Dec 2015 #99
"right of the people to keep and bear arms." -- does not say "the right to form citizen militias". X_Digger Dec 2015 #102
The 2A's words: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." SunSeeker Dec 2015 #114
"I'm out of soda, I'm going to the store." -- do stores sell more than soda? Am I only buying soda? X_Digger Dec 2015 #115
Here, let me finish it for you. GGJohn Dec 2015 #117
Because at the time the Constitution was adopted SickOfTheOnePct Dec 2015 #110
Well, the point being.. these same folks wrote one set of documents protecting an individual right.. X_Digger Dec 2015 #112
And the majority of Constitutional scholars disagree with her, GGJohn Dec 2015 #10
I love Justice Ginsberg, but I wish... NNadir Dec 2015 #11
If she truly believed her interpretation of the 2nd then we would have unregistered machine guns aikoaiko Dec 2015 #13
"Whether a law is outdated is not for judicial review." Orrex Dec 2015 #28
Does the existence of army barracks render the Third Amendment void? appal_jack Dec 2015 #15
The founders and early government regulated firearms gwheezie Dec 2015 #32
me too stupidicus Dec 2015 #44
The US is into selling armaments at home and abroad. jalan48 Dec 2015 #48
This Citizen Suspects That A Ginsburg Smear Campaign Is Now Underway By The NRA cantbeserious Dec 2015 #51
+100 n /t Photographer Dec 2015 #53
Not just the NRA, gun fanciers everywhere. Hoyt Dec 2015 #69
Yes - This Citizen Agrees - Weapon Enthusiasts - Must Have Arch Enemies To Battle cantbeserious Dec 2015 #80
Not me. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2015 #118
Smart woman. Too bad so many in this nation are too fucking dumb to understand CBGLuthier Dec 2015 #68
Right on. ananda Dec 2015 #82
K&R smirkymonkey Dec 2015 #84
Is there a link to this Agnosticsherbet Dec 2015 #98
NO DOUBT! elleng Dec 2015 #101
Bravo - spot on!!! DrDan Dec 2015 #104
The Bill of Rights has an expiration date? Or just the parts you woke up hating? jtuck004 Dec 2015 #106
If the amendment were reinterpreted to mean what Justice Ginsburg thinks, nothing would change much. Captain Stern Dec 2015 #108
Agree. moondust Dec 2015 #120
Open the door? beevul Dec 2015 #130
Link? moondust Dec 2015 #131
its often overlooked. beevul Dec 2015 #132
"They served the national interest..." moondust Dec 2015 #135
You miss the point. beevul Dec 2015 #142
Sorry, but she's wrong davidn3600 Dec 2015 #125
Well, she's smarter than me and I don't know you so I'll go with her on this. Photographer Dec 2015 #126
Well, I'll go with the guy who actually authored the damn amendment davidn3600 Dec 2015 #129
Good post. Major Hogwash Dec 2015 #138
Yep - of course Madison was referring to the state militias overcoming jmg257 Dec 2015 #139
Though consider how many gungeoneers are Scalia/Thomas fanboys (and girls) on this issue... villager Dec 2015 #127
True dat! Photographer Dec 2015 #137
The question I have on this subject is, Snobblevitch Dec 2015 #149
Rail guns, BFG 9000's, fully auto's w/out permits and the dreaded Sawed off shotgun for a few... Photographer Dec 2015 #150
Reading comprehension fail... Snobblevitch Dec 2015 #151
Lighten up. I was just having a bit of fun with your post. The BFG 9000 should have been a hint. Photographer Dec 2015 #152
Oh, I understood your sarcasm. Snobblevitch Dec 2015 #156
We have different views and opinions on this but we should still be able to talk Photographer Dec 2015 #157
If you mean 'on the street' as to mean criminals Snobblevitch Dec 2015 #158
She's kind of wrong, there, actually Spider Jerusalem Dec 2015 #165
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Supreme Court Justice Rut...»Reply #106