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.
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.
One could also argue that since the amendment is so specific, the wording is "The People" and not "A person"
To make your argument foolproof, it would have had to say, "The right of a person to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Since at that time the individual states were considered 'the people" and the federal government was considered an entity, the 2nd, as written could have very well meant that the militias in the individual states were the rightful bearer of arms.
If the founders had actually meant an individual had a right, then the wording would have explicitly stated that The right of a person(individual), rather than the right of the people(collective).
I believe in the individual right of the second but just playing devil's advocate here. I find it wearisome that the "Shall not be infringed" crowd keep isolating that phrase from the complete text as if that's the only words that matter. All the words matter in the 2nd. And the true meaning is not as clear as many would try and peddle to the public.
I just gave you a very reasonable alternate meaning of the exact same wording.
The meaning of the word "militia" is actually well defined in law. Go to Title 10, United States Code and look it up.
Then, just for fun, go to the Constitution of each State or Commonwealth and look up the Right To Keep And Bear Arms. Here in Montana, it is in Article II, Section 12. It says nothing abut the "militia".
What does YOUR State or Commonwealth Constitution say about it? If you have never read it, perhaps you should!
It occurs to me that mireing ourselves in the past in this debate is counterproductive. We all know, full well, what the framers intended in the right to personal arms, and why. In context to our lives today, is where we need to look. Some argue we ha e processed beyond the need for personal arms and they have no place in our "modern and enlightened" society. Wishful thinking. The things we must defend against have changed, the need for arms has not.
Instead of fighting wars against foreign troops on our soil, or against native tribes, we now have a criminal element that makes the frontier look tame. Drug cartels, street gangs funded and armed by these, individual a d smaller groups of predators, strung out on the product these vermin peddle and all armed and vicious. They have taken over huge tracts of our cities and countryside. They prowl about in decked out SUVs armed to the teeth with heavy hitting stuff. Oh, there IS a need for arms. As much now as ever.
But the focus is on the people. Not the enemy. Laws bind us and restrict our access to arms, or even punish us for having them. Common sense? I don't think so.
My argument was that true conservatives who believe in originalism and State's Rights should find "incorporation" repugnant and illegal and should therefore support California's right to legislate firearms as it sees fit.
Why should I find my individual rights which trump any form of government repugnant? Your argument is lame, this isn't a federal vs. state issue. It's an individual issue and it doesn't get any more local than that.
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.
