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.
Plenty of other amendments, do they have exceptions. This is why we have a supreme court, to interpret the constitution, 2nd amendment proponents seem to think there are no restrictions but even conservative justices have held that is not the case. The world has evolved in 250 years, guns have evolved.
We have been through it. You have yet to explain why the 2nd amendment should be expanded to be beyond a militia.
This thread was started with a false premise. There ARE qualifications in the 2nd amendment. For a 'well regulated militia'. If some wish to own guns outside of that qualifier, I understand, but that doesn't change the wording of the text.
If it's your assertion that service in a militia was an intended qualification for the second amendment......
Then why are there absolutely no historical accounts of the government enforcing that interpretation?
Why would the founders go to all that trouble to write the second amendment, quantifying ONLY the Militia's right to keep and bear arms....
And then not enforce it by forbidding or confiscating arms from the general public?
Plenty of other amendments, do they have exceptions. This is why we have a supreme court, to interpret the constitution, 2nd amendment proponents seem to think there are no restrictions but even conservative justices have held that is not the case. The world has evolved in 250 years, guns have evolved.
Agreed, there's no evidence to support the idea that the 2nd amendment has no restrictions. Not only are there restrictions in the text of the 2nd amendment, but our court system has agreed that restrictions are logical as well.
It is written with qualifications. A well regulated militia.
and regulated means TRAINED... not regulations
anyone who owns a weapon, SHOULD be trained on it...and training doesn't mean some "official" school... your father/mother can train you as good or better than any school
Plenty of other amendments, do they have exceptions. This is why we have a supreme court, to interpret the constitution, 2nd amendment proponents seem to think there are no restrictions but even conservative justices have held that is not the case. The world has evolved in 250 years, guns have evolved.
shall not be infringed has a meaning.... it means NO EXCEPTIONS to that persons right to carry and own
I think the 18th century line sums it up nicely " The need for a well regulated militia", seeing it was the militias who were the first ones to respond to the threat from the British in the absence of a standing armed forces.
If only you understood what that meant in "18th century" America language especially the "weel regu;lated part.
It does have a qualification. For the purpose of a 'well regulated militia'. Outside of 'well regulated' or 'militia' the 2nd amendment has no bearing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC
It is written with qualifications. A well regulated militia.
Ah so if we had an amendment that stated:
Quote:
"A healthy workforce, being necessary for the thriving economy of a free state, the right of the people to acquire and consume food shall not be infringed"
then your claim is that only people who actually work would be afforded that right?
Because they knew that an un-armed population could not defend themselves vs. oppression and tyranny. The only way for the people to check the “rulers” was to guarantee the right to arm the population. It’s true even today, the world is governed by force, eventually parties that cannot agree fight it out. If we’re not careful, we could get there again...
I also think it was a statement about self defense. The gov’t can’t protect me in my home, but I can....
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." -George Mason
We are the militia, the government isn't. The Second Amendment is here for one reason, to fight the government and win, if the government refuses to recognize its limitations. Not for sports or hunting. Whatever the troops are carrying, we need to be able to own and bear in public. And yes that might include things like RPGs, which in Switzerland for example are owned by county/municipality equivalents and are essentially in private hands.
As for people who blather on 'they have missiles, they have Apache helicopters, you'd never win.' Well, those weapons didn't keep them from taking an L against ragtag troops with old AKs and beat-up pickup trucks in Afghanistan and Vietnam, multiple decades and trillions of dollars later.
That's why they're so obsessed with banning AR-15s (and using them in staged school shootings) when the entire category of semi-auto rifles (let alone AR-15s specifically) is only responsible for 4% of US gun deaths annually. Because they and like rifles are roughly equal or superior to police / military weaponry and present a potential obstacle to government overreach.
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.
