Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I always thought the answer was because it's the only amendment the subject of which can be used to massacre people. Then again, all those drive-by killings with free speech … mowing down of small children with the separation of church and state …perhaps we should rethink the matter after all.
If you want a similar definition, look up the discussion of "regulate interstate commerce" in Federalist 42. Basically, when the states put up barriers to interstate commerce, only then can the feds step in and "regulate" it. By regulate, they mean bring down the impediments to commerce or make it regular.
The Fifteenth Amendment lays out areas where the right to vote will not be infringed (ridding society of poll taxes, literacy tests and the like). The Twenty-Sixth Amendment deals with the voting age. And yet, you still need to register to vote, which acts as a "de-facto voting license". Not sure how the title of this thread is correct.
If you want a similar definition, look up the discussion of "regulate interstate commerce" in Federalist 42. Basically, when the states put up barriers to interstate commerce, only then can the feds step in and "regulate" it. By regulate, they mean bring down the impediments to commerce or make it regular.
Back then, regulate did not mean "control".
The patronage of our commerce, of our merchants and sea men, has called for the appointment of consuls in foreign countries. It seems expedient to regulate by law the exercise of that jurisdiction and those functions which are permitted them, either by express convention or by a friendly indulgence, in the places of their residence
With all the bleating about 'states rights' by conservatives, this is what they get.
It's a two-edged sword.
No it isn't. States' rights are always a good thing. There are no exceptions. It's like innocent until proven guilty is a good thing. The fact that it means some guilty people get off doesn't make innocent until proven guilty a bad thing. There will always be bad laws passed. That doesn't change the fact that having government control be closer to the people being governed is a good thing.
Not what you think it means apparently. It means well practiced, well
disciplined, and well armed.
I think it means subject to oversight by elected officials, just like 18th
century militias were.
The 2nd was placed there as a protection against a standing army and the centralized federal gov't. That is why the founders put the 2A in the Bill of Rights..... Keeping that purpose in mind, does it make sense to say that the founders wanted centralized gov't officials to regulate the militias with they'd be at odds with?
Furthermore, does it make sense to theorize that the founders intended for the citizenry to be regulated in to having inferior weapons compared to those of the Federal Government?
The 2nd was placed there as a protection against a standing army and the centralized federal gov't. That is why the founders put the 2A in the Bill of Rights..... Keeping that purpose in mind, does it make sense to say that the founders wanted centralized gov't officials to regulate the militias with they'd be at odds with?
Furthermore, does it make sense to theorize that the founders intended for the citizenry to be regulated in to having inferior weapons compared to those of the Federal Government?
There was no intention of the Founders of having a standing federal army. The intention was that if necessary, state militias would be called up. "Well regulated" in that context did, indeed, infer an actual state militia organization. The amendment was to prevent the federal government from interfering with the state's power to create and manage its own militia...but there was definitely an expectation that the state was managing its own militia.
Why is the second amendment the only amendment that you need to get a license for?
Because it's the one that deals with weapons that can be used to kill other human beings. Do you really need people to do this much thinking for you?
Anyone can kill with anything.
Everyone has a birthright to bear arms.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
