Gun Control & RKBA

GenXer47

(1,204 posts) Mon Sep 12, 2022, 12:47 PM Sep 2022

This message was self-deleted by its author

This message was self-deleted by its author (GenXer47) on Fri Feb 7, 2025, 09:22 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This message was self-deleted by its author (Original Post) GenXer47 Sep 2022 OP

Hear hear! AndyS Sep 2022 #1

Ironic, isn't it! An originalist textualist leaves out an entire clause in the text of the 2nd Martin68 Sep 2022 #2

The introductory clause is not a limiting clause. ManiacJoe Sep 2022 #3

Not to mention if it meant firearms for just militia members it wouldn't be in the Bill of Rights EX500rider Jan 2023 #4

It's absolutely awful that we have the violence that we have. discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2023 #5

AndyS

(14,559 posts)

1. Hear hear!

Reply to GenXer47 (Original post)

Mon Sep 12, 2022, 02:37 PM

Sep 2022

Welcome to DU!

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Martin68

(28,080 posts)

2. Ironic, isn't it! An originalist textualist leaves out an entire clause in the text of the 2nd

Reply to GenXer47 (Original post)

Mon Sep 12, 2022, 04:17 PM

Sep 2022

Last edited Mon Sep 19, 2022, 01:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Amendment! Is that intellectual dishonesty, or just plain dishonesty?

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

ManiacJoe

(10,138 posts)

3. The introductory clause is not a limiting clause.

Reply to Martin68 (Reply #2)

Mon Sep 19, 2022, 12:20 AM

Sep 2022

Why? Because it is not phrased that way.
Modern laws are often written the same way, just leading with the word "whereas", with the same useless effect.
Had the authors intended the introductory clause to be a limiting clause, they would have phrased it that way.

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

EX500rider

(12,777 posts)

4. Not to mention if it meant firearms for just militia members it wouldn't be in the Bill of Rights

Reply to ManiacJoe (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 5, 2023, 05:20 PM

Jan 2023

Also since the writers of the 2nd knew what they meant all you have to ask is did they require militia membership after the amendment was passed?
No, they did not because it quite plainly says "the people", not "the militia".

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,783 posts)

5. It's absolutely awful that we have the violence that we have.

Reply to GenXer47 (Original post)

Sat Jan 7, 2023, 07:18 PM

Jan 2023

I include gun violence in that opinion. But I don't see how laws are going to be the key to solving the problem. Do you have any ideas on how to make progress?

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Kick in to the DU tip jar?

This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.

As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.