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 dislike that green card holders can buy guns. Non-citizens should not have access to firearms.
So you are OK with government having the authority to decide which people can have guns and which can't?
Virtually every govt that has had that power, has abused it, some hugely. To the point that they disarmed their law-abiding citizens and left them unable to defend themselves, while criminals kept their guns (or stole others) and preyed upon the law-abiding ones.
That's your idea of a good thing?
Even our own govt is moving in that direction to some extent, now. And since they are already violating the Constitution by doing so, it is unlikely that changing our laws will bring them back into line.
Keep in mind that the people who wrote the Constitution, and particularly the 2nd amendment, thought that the U.S. populace would be better off, even with a few crazy cat ladies and noncitizens having guns, than with a government with the power to restrict or take away their personal weapons. That's why they wrote the 2nd with no exceptions. And a lot of states agreed, and ratified it. Not to make society perfect, but to make it as safe as they could, considering it's made up of imperfect humans.
Keep in mind that the people who wrote the Constitution, and particularly the 2nd amendment, thought that the U.S. populace would be better off, even with a few crazy cat ladies and noncitizens having guns, than with a government with the power to restrict or take away their personal weapons. That's why they wrote the 2nd with no exceptions. And a lot of states agreed, and ratified it. Not to make society perfect, but to make it as safe as they could, considering it's made up of imperfect humans.
I believe the intent is for all people, including foreigners, ex-cons and illegal immigrants to keep and bear arms.
Legal immigrants (non-citizens) can have guns legally.
At the time when the constitution was written, a well-regulated militia; The term Well Regulated quite literally meant in good working order. So a well regulated militia was a militia that was ready to go into action. A militia that could respond to a threat to the local community at the very least with little notice. It was expected that every able bodied person would be a part of the militia to help safe guard the community/county/state. It was also expected that as a person in the militia responding to a threat that person responding had to come with their own weapons.
So you are OK with government having the authority to decide which people can have guns and which can't?
Virtually every govt that has had that power, has abused it, some hugely. To the point that they disarmed their law-abiding citizens and left them unable to defend themselves, while criminals kept their guns (or stole others) and preyed upon the law-abiding ones.
That's your idea of a good thing?
Even our own govt is moving in that direction to some extent, now. And since they are already violating the Constitution by doing so, it is unlikely that changing our laws will bring them back into line.
I have no problem with the Government upholding the law of the land. Only US Citizens are entitled to the protections afforded by the US Constitution.
I believe the intent is for all people, including foreigners, ex-cons and illegal immigrants to keep and bear arms.
Legal immigrants (non-citizens) can have guns legally.
Wrong, the Constitutional protections are afforded only to US Citizens (naturalized or otherwise). The founders may well have believed that all people should be afforded the rights and protections afforded by the US Constitution, but that is not their intention when they ratified it for the US!
At the time when the constitution was written, a well-regulated militia; The term Well Regulated quite literally meant in good working order. So a well regulated militia was a militia that was ready to go into action. A militia that could respond to a threat to the local community at the very least with little notice. It was expected that every able bodied person would be a part of the militia to help safe guard the community/county/state. It was also expected that as a person in the militia responding to a threat that person responding had to come with their own weapons.
There's no point in worrying about "militia membership" or "well regulated" or any of those things, because they have no effect on the amendment's command that the right cannot be restricted for anybody, by any government in the U.S.
The people who wrote the 2nd amendment, wrote out the command ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"), and then put an explanatory phrase (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state") in front of it, as normal English suggests. That phrase means the same today as it meant in the late 1700's: An explanation only, having no effect on the command.
A few other parts of the Constitution have such explanatory phrases too. And they have the same effect: Zero.
There's no point in worrying about "militia membership" or "well regulated" or any of those things, because they have no effect on the amendment's command that the right cannot be restricted for anybody, by any government in the U.S.
The people who wrote the 2nd amendment, wrote out the command ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"), and then put an explanatory phrase (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state") in front of it, as normal English suggests. That phrase means the same today as it meant in the late 1700's: An explanation only, having no effect on the command.
A few other parts of the Constitution have such explanatory phrases too. And they have the same effect: Zero.
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.
I'm still not following. We're holding the Constitution's text as sacred, yet we're only focusing on one part of the sentence. A well regulated militia seems to be the entire premise of the entire amendment.
I like to refer people to the text of PA's Constitution in 1776 before the US Constitution. The intention and reasoning is unambiguously clear.
Quote:
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.
This was altered slightly in 1790, here is the current text:
Quote:
Right to Bear Arms
Section 21.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
Standing Army; Military Subordinate to Civil Power
Section 22.
No standing army shall, in time of peace, be kept up without the consent of the Legislature, and the military shall in all cases and at all times be in strict subordination to the civil power.
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.
