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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,567 posts)
17. Thanks
Thu Dec 30, 2021, 05:49 PM
Dec 2021
when empowering the federal government did surrender some specific limited powers over some arms, specifically the weapons of open, indiscriminate warfare.

As you say, powers were assigned to the government which include raising a militia to counter attacks on the country and its people. An appropriate division of arms between an active militia or army and individuals has been a topic for the courts and legislatures ever since. Such was the origin of the Miller case. In Miller neither Miller (who was dead) nor his lawyer appeared to make any case nor to present any evidence.

The last time I ask a pro-restriction person here about conflating the 2A with its topic the RKBA I got no answer:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172211121#post32

IMO one way pro-RKBA folks 'shoot themselves in the foot' is by referring to "second amendment rights." I am equally offended by the term "gun-control". The RKBA is not derived from the 2A nor does "gun-control" actual control the criminals.

Jefferson: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crime... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
I've never really understood the logic of banning standard capacity magazines. PTWB Dec 2021 #1
The problem with your reasoning is that it comes down to AndyS Dec 2021 #4
"Arms" bucolic_frolic Dec 2021 #2
Are you saying that the 2nd amendment shouldn't cover modern arms? PTWB Dec 2021 #3
See? You're interpreting every bit as much as the courts must /nt bucolic_frolic Dec 2021 #5
I was asking what you were trying to say. PTWB Dec 2021 #6
The authors listed freedom of speech, but didn't foresee computers, yagotme Dec 2021 #7
The Internet isn't mentioned in the Constitution, either. PTWB Dec 2021 #8
Shoulder fired rocket launchers and suicide bombers with backpacks are also bearing arms bucolic_frolic Dec 2021 #9
And you can't falsely shout fire in a crowded movie theater. PTWB Dec 2021 #10
Thank you for phrasing that correctly. Dial H For Hero Dec 2021 #11
You're welcome. PTWB Dec 2021 #12
It's sad, though, that this verbiage came out of a terrible decision The Mouth Dec 2021 #16
A shoulder launched rocket would be fun to have/shoot, yagotme Jan 2022 #18
Responding here to the Founders intent. discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2021 #13
Compliment and comment . . . Surf Fishing Guru Dec 2021 #15
Thanks discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2021 #17
I consider this stay a concession . . . Surf Fishing Guru Dec 2021 #14
Vacated and sent back to the courts The Mouth Jul 2022 #19
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»(California) Large-capaci...»Reply #17