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
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Ghost Guns Are Everywhere in California [View all]discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,599 posts)82. Have a link:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172207514#post44
In balance, laws and decisions and opinions on legal matters must devolve from a hierarchy of foundational principles, precedents and other laws. Title 10 § 246 of the US Code was obviously formulated such that the unorganized militia exists and, by name, is the militia or a part thereof. Holding the opinion that members of the unorganized militia are not part of the militia when they are so named by law in 1903. Surely the Justice's decision in Miller could not have missed the relevance of this law written in their lifetimes.
I would further suggest that the text of the Second Amendment and the 1903 law both agree that the RKBA is an individual right. As Chief Justice Marshall said, "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect...". The effect of "the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is rather clear. Trying to suggest that this protection of the RKBA is somehow undone by the prior clause mentioning the militia is to suggest that what the Founders wrote and that what the states ratified was not clear. And that further, in 1903, Congress again recognized the people in general as the unorganized militia with no purpose or effect in mind.
In balance, laws and decisions and opinions on legal matters must devolve from a hierarchy of foundational principles, precedents and other laws. Title 10 § 246 of the US Code was obviously formulated such that the unorganized militia exists and, by name, is the militia or a part thereof. Holding the opinion that members of the unorganized militia are not part of the militia when they are so named by law in 1903. Surely the Justice's decision in Miller could not have missed the relevance of this law written in their lifetimes.
I would further suggest that the text of the Second Amendment and the 1903 law both agree that the RKBA is an individual right. As Chief Justice Marshall said, "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect...". The effect of "the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is rather clear. Trying to suggest that this protection of the RKBA is somehow undone by the prior clause mentioning the militia is to suggest that what the Founders wrote and that what the states ratified was not clear. And that further, in 1903, Congress again recognized the people in general as the unorganized militia with no purpose or effect in mind.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
101 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
Pious fraud is part and parcel of gun control advocacy. That was merely the latest example.
friendly_iconoclast
May 2019
#5
None of which substantiate your original claim. We've seen this sort of thing before:
friendly_iconoclast
May 2019
#8
Some truly believe that mere repetition of a claim is a sign of veracity...
friendly_iconoclast
May 2019
#17
Not that I disagree- but mere repetition of a claim is no indicator of truth
friendly_iconoclast
May 2019
#16
"You didn't address my point" Said 'point' is merely a repeated claim, made with much handwaving...
friendly_iconoclast
May 2019
#20
"Disband the NRA" by mindlessly parroting your claims to everyone we know?
friendly_iconoclast
May 2019
#32
You have to admit without the NRA, the only guns left would be muskets & Colt SAAs
discntnt_irny_srcsm
May 2019
#33
Gay marriage was achieved by action, not mindless repetition of slogans...
friendly_iconoclast
May 2019
#62
God the bull shit never ends does it. Bad parenting? Combined with a fucking GUN!
wasupaloopa
May 2019
#30
What does the NRA do to prevent school shootings? Actually they work toward more
wasupaloopa
May 2019
#29
No no no no the tool is made for killing and is used to kill children in school. That you
wasupaloopa
May 2019
#52
implicitly to murder me or anyone else, is more important than my right to life
gejohnston
May 2019
#41
The 2nd Amendment only applies to MILITIAS. And Scalia got bought by gun companies
sharedvalues
May 2019
#77
An obvious (and clumsy) propagandist lecturing others about 'bad faith'?
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2019
#89
I might accept that sniper rifles are designed to kill but guns in general? Not so much other guns.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
May 2019
#35
If guns in general aren't designed to kill, then what are they designed for?
PoindexterOglethorpe
May 2019
#39
Once again, with rare exceptions guns are designed to kill living things.
PoindexterOglethorpe
May 2019
#67
Authoritarians and moral panic-mongers love the "Won't somebody think of the children?" schtick
friendly_iconoclast
May 2019
#79
You're not the first demagogue to sanctimoniously proclaim that you're trying to 'save' children...
friendly_iconoclast
May 2019
#80