Skip to main content

View Diary: Basic gun control is actually simple - and constitutional (18 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  um, a specific link (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ImpactAv, Spud1

    to where it says ONLY members of the militia were allowed to own guns?

    "The Taibbi article is a defense of status quo" -- citizen k

    by happymisanthropy on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:59:51 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  That I can't do (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Spud1, Sandino

      I found the Georgetown Law Journal article while researching historical laws pertaining to Native American gun trading.  The racial aspect of militias and gun possession was interesting, and it seemed to bear somewhat on this question.  The New York statute seemed to imply that militia membership and gun rights were the same.  Maybe not.  I can't prove it, and your question is a valid criticism of my point.

    •  It doesn't but (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      for what purpose are the leading words, a well regulated militia? Is their inclusion to be ignored to achieve some other goal?  If we are using original meaning, as per Scalia, what was the original meaning of the words, not the intent, (though intent is a concept used by others and is often one and the same) as understood in the late 18th century?  

      You must imply intent to a purpose beyond the words of the 2nd amendment to suggest the words mean anything beyond the words as stated--in order to protect a country that does not have a standing army, we must have a militia ready--a militia of rules.  For a militia to be effective at protecting the country, its members must have arms.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site