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.
The 2nd amendment 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 taken away or restricted.
This is clearly a flat ban on any govt in the country making any law restricting our ability to purchase, own, and carry a gun. Yet a number of governments (Federal, State, local) have made laws restricting exactly those things.
What should we obey? The 2nd amendment? Or the government officials making the "gun control" laws?
Thanks, not sure how I confused the author since I've studied the document thoroughly. Interesting factoids, but it doesn't counteract that they're talking about a well-regulated militia. Of course it's composed of the body of the people, but a select corps of them.
"Minutemen were civilian colonists who independently formed militia companies self-trained in weaponry, tactics, and military strategies, comprising the American colonial partisan militia during the American Revolutionary War...
In the colony of Massachusetts Bay, all able-bodied men between the ages of 16 and 60 were required to participate in their local militia. The militia typically assembled as an entire unit in each town two to four times a year for training during peacetime but, as the inevitability of war became apparent, the militia trained three to four times a week.
Most Colonial militia units were provided neither arms nor uniforms and were required to equip themselves. Many simply wore their own farmers' or workmen's clothes and, in some cases, they wore cloth hunting frocks."
A regulated militia just means a militia that follows rules and exercises laid out by the state. It does not mean the National Guard. Many/most militias were volunteer forces.
But let's pretend that the purpose of the Second Amendment was only in regards to well-regulated militias, it was still created as an individual right of "the people", not of the militias or of the states.
Point is, if you don't like the Second Amendment, change it, or stack the court with left-wing judges and see if you start a Civil War.
As it stands the Second Amendment says, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That isn't vague or confusing language, and no one in 1789 thought it was vague or confusing language. The only people who pretend it is vague and confusing are the people who want gun-control.
As it stands the Second Amendment says, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
It also offers an explanation: "Since a militia is necessary". But even if it left off that explanation, its command would be unchanged, as you pointed out
"Minutemen were civilian colonists who independently formed militia companies self-trained in weaponry, tactics, and military strategies, comprising the American colonial partisan militia during the American Revolutionary War...
In the colony of Massachusetts Bay, all able-bodied men between the ages of 16 and 60 were required to participate in their local militia. The militia typically assembled as an entire unit in each town two to four times a year for training during peacetime but, as the inevitability of war became apparent, the militia trained three to four times a week.
Most Colonial militia units were provided neither arms nor uniforms and were required to equip themselves. Many simply wore their own farmers' or workmen's clothes and, in some cases, they wore cloth hunting frocks."
A regulated militia just means a militia that follows rules and exercises laid out by the state. It does not mean the National Guard. Many/most militias were volunteer forces.
But let's pretend that the purpose of the Second Amendment was only in regards to well-regulated militias, it was still created as an individual right of "the people", not of the militias or of the states.
Point is, if you don't like the Second Amendment, change it, or stack the court with left-wing judges and see if you start a Civil War.
As it stands the Second Amendment says, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That isn't vague or confusing language, and no one in 1789 thought it was vague or confusing language. The only people who pretend it is vague and confusing are the people who want gun-control.
You still haven't read Federalist 29 I see and choose to make up your own definitions instead. OK, I'm done.
The 2nd amendment says that since an armed, disciplined population is necessary for security in a free country, the right of normal people to KBA cannot be restricted.
This is clearly a flat ban on any govt in the country making any law restricting our ability to purchase, own, and carry a gun. Yet a number of governments (Federal, State, local) have made laws restricting exactly those things.
What should we obey? The 2nd amendment? Or the government officials making the "gun control" laws?
Well. it doesn't say "normal people" it says "the people", weirdos included (lucky for me ).
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.
).
