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.
People have argued over the exact meaning for years. Yes, the interpretation that has been accepted is that every US citizen can own and bear arms....but it's not exactly working out now is it?
To keep the status quo about a law that involves a technology that has change greatly over the last two hundred years is mind boggling.
Now I suggest you do a little research on the term " militia " See how many times that term has been modified since the 2nd Amendment was written. Also " arms ". If the 2nd Amendment was so unchangeable why are certain " arms " ILLEGAL for you to own?
You need to go to explain all this to the US Supreme Court which has ruled on this on numerous occasions over the last 250 or so years. They obviously are not as learned as you as to the meaning of the 2A.
People have argued over the exact meaning for years. Yes, the interpretation that has been accepted is that every US citizen can own and bear arms....but it's not exactly working out now is it?
To keep the status quo about a law that involves a technology that has change greatly over the last two hundred years is mind boggling.
Now I suggest you do a little research on the term " militia " See how many times that term has been modified since the 2nd Amendment was written. Also " arms ". If the 2nd Amendment was so unchangeable why are certain " arms " ILLEGAL for you to own?
"Research on the term "militia"?
That is so easy...
Go here:
Note that the quoted piece is UNITED STATES LAW!
IF the "unorganized militia" is not "well regulated", it is the fault of the United States for not enforcing THE LAW!
Also note that the "unorganized militia" is specifically NOT the National Guard!
It is also of interest to read Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, specifically the paragraphs regarding the Army and Navy.
In some states they require you to pass a safety course, or hunting safety test in order to purchase an firearm. I think California put this in place years ago, but maybe this should be required nationwide. There would be no registration just that one has passed a basic safety test. I'm a firearm owner I think most firearms should be legal, but having worked in a gun store a few folks that came in bought a firearm really had no idea how to safely handing it.
I don't know about other states, but in Montana the Hunter Safety Course is ONLY to get a hunting license, which one can do when one turns 12 years of age. It is illegal for a twelve year old to buy (or own) a gun. Age is the only requirement for gun purchases. No course or test is required.
By the same token, no course or test is required to buy a vehicle of any size. Of course, one can only drive the vehicle on private property. In order to drive it on the public roadways, one must have a driving license. No course is required to get that license, although a written and a practical test is required.
A motorcycle endorsement is required if it is desired to ride a motorcycle on public roads, but not on private property.
Any licensed driver can tow two trailers for non-commercial purposes without any additional training or endorsements.
Any licensed driver can drive a 40 foot motorhome without additional training or licensing.
No test or qualification is required to buy any type or size of knives.
The courts have classified many things, from hammers to sports equipment, as "deadly weapons" over the years. Should a safety course be required for all those things?
Regulated in the language of the times meant 'regularized,' 'dispersed,' 'everywhere,' 'common.'
The militia is not the Nat. Guard, is not government. For the 2nd's author, George Mason, plainly declared that the militia is the people:
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
— Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
— Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
I've thought this over. If the gun haters agreed to remove any and all other restrictions including registration and CC, I would consent to a basic safety test or training course.
Are tests required to exercise our other Constitutional rights?
A test could have prevented this:
Quote:
A Rochester, Minn. pastor is charged with a felony for shooting and wounding his granddaughter after mistaking her for an intruder last month.
Stanley Wilkinson, 61, is charged with intentional discharge of a firearm that endangered safety.
Wilkinson grabbed his pistol and told his wife to call police after hearing a noise outside his house on the evening of Dec. 10. He said he turned the lights on and off to signal that someone was home, and didn't fire a shot until he saw someone trying to open the patio door.
Wilkinson fired two shots, at which point he heard his 16-year-old granddaughter yell, "Poppa!"
the revived gun debate played no part in the decision to prosecute. Instead, he says it's a case of a legal gun owner who admitted pulling the trigger without knowing his target.
I've thought this over. If the gun haters agreed to remove any and all other restrictions including registration and CC, I would consent to a basic safety test or training course.
I thought it over as well. Since Free States don't require citizens to show competency in firearms use or any other Right, I see no reason to continue the debate.
Competency in who's eyes? A leftist government employee or a disgrace like the Washington DC police chief Cathy Lanier?
What we should have is a basic civics and knowledge of representative government quiz before voting.
No actually a test wouldn't have prevented that any more than a test would prevent many other errors in judgement of varying significance encountered in the routine of humanity at large. His error was in perceiving threat, not in how to use a weapon (which he deployed to effect); do you understand the difference?
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.
