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.
The framers clearly associated bearing arms with the necessity of a well trained militia, the details of what they had in mind are about as clear as mud.
The grammar is clear. The opening is an absolute phrase that modifies the rest of the sentence. In other words, "the people" ARE the "well-regulated militia."
I'm not advocating the stripping of any rights, I'm just saying the association of arms with a militia in the Constitution makes it far from clear what the original intention was.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Taken literally and ignoring the association to a "well regulated militia" it would seem the Second Amendment gives any nut-job in the country the right to own a garage full of shoulder fired missiles. It's the inclusion of "well regulated militia" that muddies the water.
The First Amendment gives nutjobs the right to spew hate and filth, too. People go nuts, as they rightly should, when you suggest limitations on free speech. The Second Amendment is no different. You don't take rights away because a few people misuse them.
The water isn't muddied at all. In modern parlance, the amendment means: "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed." The people are the "well-regulated militia."
No, I mean leave. Why stay if you dont like the laws?
Montana is not talking of leaving because they dont like it here, only because of contract violations. You on the other hand dont believe in American law.
I like the laws. We have about the right balance in statutes in the District, but need to keep up our efforts at enforcement and in eliminating some of the crushing poverty, which leads to crime.
I like the laws. We have about the right balance in statutes in the District, but need to keep up our efforts at enforcement and in eliminating some of the crushing poverty, which leads to crime.
If you think you have the right ballance then why do you think you may have to change, even slightly, to conform to the constitution?
Poverty doesn't lead to crime. Easy targets do.
Fact is, if they obey orders against the nation they swear to defend, theyre the traitors. We had one revolution so far, if another ones in the future so be it. Kinda stupid to think it wont happen.
The military wants people that jusy obey orders. That works good over seas. I'd bet money it wont work right here against Americans on a big scale.
Waco & Ruby Ridge mightta been litmuses for it.
You forget Kent State.
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.
