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.
As you know, the 2nd amendment doesn't call out any exceptions to its ban on government interference with people's right to keep and bear arms. Not felons, not for multi-barrel multi-shot weapons, not cannons, not big gunpowder bombs, not nuthin. It simply says that for such-and-such reasons, the right cannot be taken away or restricted. PERIOD. You may not like what it says, and may disagree with it, but that's what it says.
In other parts of the Constitution, you can find phrases such as "except by due process of law", or "against unreasonable searches and seizures", etc. But for some reason, this was not done in the 2nd amendment.
Could it be that the Framers thought that the risk of government having ANY power to decide what weapons we could and couldn't own, was GREATER even than the risks of criminals getting hold of those weapons while all law-abiding people could have them too?
Could that be why no exceptions were made in the law?
As you know, the 2nd amendment doesn't call out any exceptions to its ban on government interference with people's right to keep and bear arms. Not felons, not for multi-barrel multi-shot weapons, not cannons, not big gunpowder bombs, not nuthin. It simply says that for such-and-such reasons, the right cannot be taken away or restricted. PERIOD. You may not like what it says, and may disagree with it, but that's what it says.
In other parts of the Constitution, you can find phrases such as "except by due process of law". But for some reason, this was not done in the 2nd amendment.
Could it be that the Framers thought that the risk of government having ANY power to decide what weapons we could and couldn't own, was GREATER even than the risks of criminals getting hold of those weapons while all law-abiding people could have them too?
Could that be why no exceptions were made in the law?
Exactly right. The "heavy weapons" of the day were cannon. There were no restrictions in the consitution regarding "heavy weapons". The idea is to keep the population on par with regard to armaments relative to the government, which may at some point decide to use those weapons on the population.
I don't think we are well enough armed, relative to the military.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, however only Federal institutions may possess flintlock arms and rifled barrels, while free men must only acquire matchlock smoothbore firearms and bladed weapons"
As if the Founding Fathers knew where technology would go in 200 years?
Exactly right. The "heavy weapons" of the day were cannon. There were no restrictions in the consitution regarding "heavy weapons". The idea is to keep the population on par with regard to armaments relative to the government, which may at some point decide to use those weapons on the population.
I don't think we are well enough armed, relative to the military.
I would love a live nuclear warhead as a coffee table or a tank for my daily commute.
As you know, the 2nd amendment doesn't call out any exceptions to its ban on government interference with people's right to keep and bear arms. Not felons, not for multi-barrel multi-shot weapons, not cannons, not big gunpowder bombs, not nuthin. It simply says that for such-and-such reasons, the right cannot be taken away or restricted. PERIOD. You may not like what it says, and may disagree with it, but that's what it says.
In other parts of the Constitution, you can find phrases such as "except by due process of law", or "against unreasonable searches and seizures", etc. But for some reason, this was not done in the 2nd amendment.
Could it be that the Framers thought that the risk of government having ANY power to decide what weapons we could and couldn't own, was GREATER even than the risks of criminals getting hold of those weapons while all law-abiding people could have them too?
Could that be why no exceptions were made in the law?
So then what is the definition of a "Well regulated militia?
As you know, the 2nd amendment doesn't call out any exceptions to its ban on government interference with people's right to keep and bear arms. Not felons, not for multi-barrel multi-shot weapons, not cannons, not big gunpowder bombs, not nuthin. It simply says that for such-and-such reasons, the right cannot be taken away or restricted. PERIOD. You may not like what it says, and may disagree with it, but that's what it says.
In other parts of the Constitution, you can find phrases such as "except by due process of law", or "against unreasonable searches and seizures", etc. But for some reason, this was not done in the 2nd amendment.
Could it be that the Framers thought that the risk of government having ANY power to decide what weapons we could and couldn't own, was GREATER even than the risks of criminals getting hold of those weapons while all law-abiding people could have them too?
Could that be why no exceptions were made in the law?
It ain't the law. We should be discussing, why the word "regulated" was incorporated, much less emphasized further as "well regulated".
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Back to the subject:
Why did the Founding Fathers refuse to insert the word "unreasonably" before the word "infringed", as so many of our posters here seem to think they "actually meant"?
Could it be that the Framers thought that the risk of government having ANY power to decide what weapons we could and couldn't own, was GREATER even than the risks of criminals getting hold of those weapons while all law-abiding people could have them too?
Could that be why no exceptions were made in the law?
the founding fathers did a good job. btw they tried to get it passed w/o the bill of rights and could not. there is a reason.
bear in mind the mentality u deal with today. if the founding fathers were alive they would be jeered and mocked and voted out of office immediately.
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.
