Blaming guns for the increasing violence in our country, is like blaming matches for the arson we are seeing (controversial, statistics)
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.
Even though the U.S. Constitution says, essentially, that there's no such thing as an illegal sale of a gun?
So if someone was selling known stolen guns, you're saying that 2A protects the seller (or even the buyer if the buyer also knows the gun is stolen) and they are not committing crimes?
As clear and ingenious as the constitution is, it's a baffling mystery to me why the Second Amendment was actually not written grammatically. That is the ONLY sentence in the constitution that's simply not clear what they're talking about. The clause doesn't connect to the rest of the statement correctly.
Reminds me of the way the Texas Pledge of Allegiance is written. Like someone was using copy and paste and accidentally messed up their phrasing.
"Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible."
SOMEBODY on the Constitutional Committee (maybe a clerk?) should have taken a glance at the 2nd Amendment and said um, can we clean up the language on this one?
The 2nd Amendment couldn't be more clear. What are you talking about?
The 2nd Amendment couldn't be more clear. What are you talking about?
THIS is clear to you?
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.
That's not even grammatical. The clauses don't align.
I'll rewrite it grammatically, but it still won't be clear:
Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
But that's STILL not clear in intent.
What would be clear is if they had said this:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
OR
"The right of members of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Either of the two statements I bolded would have been crystal clear. A mishmash of them, which is what we have in the 2nd amendment, is not only ungrammatical but also unclear as to intent.
Maybe part of the gun problem is that the courts let habitual criminals out time and time again. Even if that person has a record of using a gun. Nobody, and I mean Nobody should be allowed to mingle with society when they have 5-10-20+ pages of arrests. Yet this liberal society thinks they should. What do they think this person is going to do when you let them 'get out of jail free' every time the commit another crime.
This article was taken from the Chicago Tribune about a month ago:
there are 94 (that's right, 94) people charged with MURDER who are walking the streets with a monitor instead of being in jail. And 261 charged as armed habitual criminals with a monitor walking the streets. And 534 individuals charged as felons in possession of a weapon walking the streets.
These are the people that shouldn't have guns, but they do and the courts don't care.
In modern language, it means: Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted..
If people no longer have guns, that doesn't remove the risk of violence, but it does reduce it, just like people not having matches reduces the risk of arson.
The second amendment was written for the purpose of a standing militia, because we cannot have freedom without a military to defend ourselves. Given a national military, the need to individual citizens to own guns does not carry the same meaning.
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.
That's not even grammatical. The clauses don't align.
I'll rewrite it grammatically, but it still won't be clear:
Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
But that's STILL not clear in intent.
What would be clear is if they had said this:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
OR
"The right of members of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Either of the two statements I bolded would have been crystal clear. A mishmash of them, which is what we have in the 2nd amendment, is not only ungrammatical but also unclear as to intent.
Your second example (bolded above) is nowhere close to what the 2nd amendment plainly means.
The framers probably wanted to point out a reason for everyone to have the right to own and carry, so that the duplicitous (and the fearful ignorant) among us wouldn't be tempted to change or repeal the amendment. Unfortunately, they misunderestimated the degree of fear and ignorance that the duplicitous would work to generate among the American populace.
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.
