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

Latest Breaking News

maxsolomon

(39,466 posts)

14. If you had participated in DU's long-ago Gungeon debates, you'd know

Reply to pansypoo53219 (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 30, 2026, 06:33 PM

Yesterday

"Well-Regulated" is an anachronistic term that means "well-equipped" or "well-functioning", not actual regulations on who can bear arms. Any yahoo qualifies (except Hunter Biden).

More importantly, the preamble is just explaining why the gubmint can't infringe - because we need militias for "security" (AKA suppressing slave revolts).

Moreover, what are "Arms"? Flintlocks? Full-automatic firearms? Rocket-propelled grenades? The ambiguity means "Arms" are anything we decide they are.

We already know the answer the SCOTUS will give r.e. "Assault Weapons" laws: guns must be free and omnipresent.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

19 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court will consider whether laws called assault weapons bans violate the Second Amendment [View all] BumRushDaShow Yesterday OP

Since the 6 fascist court majority are so afraid of their security, a problem they themselves created, I would be ImNotGod Yesterday #1

Or their fears could cause them to vote against the bans PatSeg Yesterday #2

If they do, well, then, it's machine guns for everyone ashredux Yesterday #3

Who said "small artillery"? And one boy's small is anothers ginormous. erronis Yesterday #7

If they do, well, then, it's machine guns for everyone ashredux Yesterday #4

how come they ignore the well-regulated part of the 2nd? pansypoo53219 Yesterday #5

You know, one of these years .. not in my lifetime ... the Court will finally take "well-regulated' into account. ificandream Yesterday #12

If you had participated in DU's long-ago Gungeon debates, you'd know maxsolomon Yesterday #14

language does change. pansypoo53219 21 hrs ago #15

Tell that to the "Originalists" maxsolomon 8 hrs ago #16

This was addressed in the Heller decision PCB66 7 hrs ago #17

It would seem to me Mr.Bee Yesterday #6

Ballistic missile? Bullets made with spent uranium? (Or not spent yet.) erronis Yesterday #8

It was written for muskets Bayard Yesterday #9

With so many Americans living in fear of someone lost knocking on their door, Torchlight Yesterday #10

"Supreme Court will consider" J_William_Ryan Yesterday #11

The only possible way and i mean only possible way THIS supreme court would ban assault weapons is bluestarone Yesterday #13

If they're so original purr-rat beauty 7 hrs ago #18

That's already been decided in Caetano v Massachusetts in 2016 which said the 2A is not limited to the tech at the time DetroitLegalBeagle 4 hrs ago #19