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 agree, but too many people are trying to change what the second amendment means but focusing on either the "Well Regulated" to think actual regulations; or "Militia membership" to now mean being part of a Militia or National Guard. And in both cases they are wrong. Many people try and indicate that the founding fathers did not mean what was written, but in-fact meant something else entirely.
Yeah, in the parlance of the day, "Well Regulated" meant "In good working order."
I have no problem with the Government upholding the law of the land.
That's good to hear. The Law of the Land says that since an armed, disciplined population is necessary for security in a free country, the right of normal people to keep and bear arms cannot be restricted.
In other words, so-called "gun control" laws are illegal.
Quote:
Only US Citizens are entitled to the protections afforded by the US Constitution.
If the state passed such a law, that would be "the people" from the federal point of view, because the Constitution was originally construed as being a constraint solely upon the federal government, not the states.
Sorry, but that's not so.
The Bill of Rights was written by mostly lawyers, who knew just how much difference the inclusion of a certain word could make... or the exclusion of that word.
The 1st amendment specifies which government it was restricting. "Congress shall make no law...". That amendment was intended to apply only to the Federal government, as its plain wording makes clear. In part because most of the states at the time, had official state religions, and the 1st was carefully designed no to interfere with that.
OTOH, the 2nd amendment just as carefully did NOT name any particular government it was restricting... which meant it was intended to restrict them all, Federal, state, and local.
There was nothing accidental about this difference between the two amendments (and many others). The Framers wrote exactly what they wanted each to mean. We don't have to rely on what mysterious thing they might have "intended". Their written word is that law, as it was ratified. And it is completely clear. No "intending" needed.
The Bill of Rights was written by mostly lawyers, who knew just how much difference the inclusion of a certain word could make... or the exclusion of that word.
The 1st amendment specifies which government it was restricting. "Congress shall make no law...". That amendment was intended to apply only to the Federal government, as its plain wording makes clear. In part because most of the states at the time, had official state religions, and the 1st was carefully designed no to interfere with that.
OTOH, the 2nd amendment just as carefully did NOT name any particular government it was restricting... which meant it was intended to restrict them all, Federal, state, and local.
There was nothing accidental about this difference between the two amendments (and many others). The Framers wrote exactly what they wanted each to mean. We don't have to rely on what mysterious thing they might have "intended". Their written word is that law, as it was ratified. And it is completely clear. No "intending" needed.
Except for the fact that the Supreme Court and the states said otherwise all the way up to the Civil War.
That's what the "state's rights" concept was all about.
I think we should have to get a license similar to a DL and have to reapply/re-certify every 5-10 years.
I think all gun owners should have to go through a training and safety course and be issued a license then they can buy whatever guns they would like, similar to a car, and that those weapons will be registered to the owner.
I think, like licenses, it should be done on a state by state basis though, again similar to DLs so that the unique circumstances on particular states can be taken under consideration prior to the establishment of rules, regulations, and procedures to obtain and maintain a gun license.
I think we should have to get a license similar to a DL and have to reapply/re-certify every 5-10 years.
So you are OK with government having the authority to decide which people can have guns and which can't?
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.
