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
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: The Case for Gun Control - more facts about the Second Amendment [View all]TPaine7
(4,286 posts)55. Actually, post 12, the one you replied to, says nothing whatsoever about the 1970's
TPaine7 (3,598 posts)
12. No, it is a mishmash of misrepresentation and lies.
This quote, for instance, is an embarassing misrepresentation of Millerto the point of being a lie if said by an informed person:
I cannot believe that even an anti-gun professor would actually say that on the record. I have to believe that the professor was misunderstood.
12. No, it is a mishmash of misrepresentation and lies.
This quote, for instance, is an embarassing misrepresentation of Millerto the point of being a lie if said by an informed person:
Congress passed the first set of federal laws regulating, licensing and taxing guns in 1934. The act was challenged and went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, said the Second Amendment grants people a right that "is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state." The court agreed unanimously.
I cannot believe that even an anti-gun professor would actually say that on the record. I have to believe that the professor was misunderstood.
1934? Check. 1939? Check. 1970s? Nothing there.
Why do you guys try to always try to bring up the NRA (or "gun bloggers" ? If you follow my link, you will find citations to eminent law professors and original sources.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
183 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
something is clearly not working. i think some real openness on this issue is needed.
samsingh
Aug 2012
#104
You were asked a question, one that I would also like to hear the answer to.
oneshooter
Aug 2012
#110
what part of: something is clearly not working. i think some real openness on this issue is needed.
samsingh
Aug 2012
#116
my question is basic: "why does the US have more gun related deaths than any other industrialized
samsingh
Aug 2012
#131
to regulate as in to make regular would still have the same meaning now as it did then --
Tuesday Afternoon
Aug 2012
#179
A dependent clause explains but does not filter the independent clause. Please learn English. N/T
GreenStormCloud
Aug 2012
#81
there can be no insurance payout without the accident. That's the point i'm trying to make.
samsingh
Aug 2012
#153
the sentence refers to a well-regulated militia. this cannot be separated from what follows
samsingh
Aug 2012
#98
Actually, you can spread hate speech, but you can't incite to violence. N/T
GreenStormCloud
Aug 2012
#139
It speaks to the intellectual dishonesty of the professor or of the author of the OP's source. n/t
TPaine7
Aug 2012
#22
First, let's be clear. I did not say that the professor was intellectually dishonest:
TPaine7
Aug 2012
#160
Impressive rebuttal, but the NRA is beside the point of the post you answered. n/t
TPaine7
Aug 2012
#25
the post refers to changes in the 1970s which were definitely supported by the NRA
samsingh
Aug 2012
#30
Actually, post 12, the one you replied to, says nothing whatsoever about the 1970's
TPaine7
Aug 2012
#55
how is it that everything that does not support your position is a lie. Burger lied?
samsingh
Aug 2012
#53
For a true perspective from an intellectual committed to freedom...
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Aug 2012
#75
i know history as well. It seems to me that you're using observations as facts when they
samsingh
Aug 2012
#101
First, I don't doubt that you know history. You may very well know more history than I do.
TPaine7
Aug 2012
#165
its a joke to think that armed civilians can stop any nation powerful enough to defeat the US
samsingh
Aug 2012
#51
very circular logic - you stated the purpose was to protect against foreign aggressors.
samsingh
Aug 2012
#122
Maybe a reasonable solution is to set up a televised national commission, of sorts, to
Bonhomme Richard
Aug 2012
#72
For want of calling them fashionable pretend military style hunting/target rifles. n/t
Bonhomme Richard
Aug 2012
#78
If by discussion you mean legislation that bans some firearms and/or their accessories, then
aikoaiko
Aug 2012
#82
What I would like is for discussion to happen before Shumer tacked on a magazine ban to a bill.
aikoaiko
Aug 2012
#95
There are fledgling gun-right organizations and movements in other countries.
GreenStormCloud
Aug 2012
#52
Yeah, but they don't make any progress, and one major reason for that is the US.
DanTex
Aug 2012
#63
Actually, the city supported by the Brady Campaign and numerous anti-gun groups and luminaries
TPaine7
Aug 2012
#74
as long as you don't infringe on my personal safety by supporting a culture that allows maniacs to
samsingh
Aug 2012
#58
it actually makes me want to cry - yes, we starting bailing water when the boat was
samsingh
Aug 2012
#119
So what is the author Fareed Zakaria's recommendation? Call people un-American and insult them?
AnotherMcIntosh
Aug 2012
#86
Earlier, when you were asked about your age, you said (#125) "actualy 17 is a compliment."
AnotherMcIntosh
Aug 2012
#138
there are many debates going about what the constitution protects and does not protect.
samsingh
Aug 2012
#148
It now turns out that the author is accused of related plagerism and has "apologized profusely for
AnotherMcIntosh
Aug 2012
#169