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.
Can someone explain to me what do they think was implied by inclusion of "well regulated militia" in the second amendment?
It was the most compelling reason for private firearms ownership at the time. If you recall we had just won a war with the only global superpower only because we had large supplies of private arms.
I think its more telling that they included no wording to suggest that arms be limited to the militia. Course they were more down to earth & understood the difference between giving a compelling reason for something & documenting limitations. There is nothing in the second amendment that limits the people, only the gov't. As such it should come as no surprise that the gov't would confuse the issue.
The surprise should be that so many of us are willing to let a clear abuse of civil rights go unchallenged because the body abusing it says we dont understand it. But there has never been a shortage of people who cannot think for themselves.
IF it was never intended to be a living document WHY are there provisions for amending it?
It can be amended. But thats not what we see regarding the 2nd. What we see is ignoring it.
I'v long said that what the anti gun movement should be focused on is repeal or amendment of it. That will never happen & they know it. So they go about as if it does not limit legislation in the same way that the rest of the rights in the Bill of Rights do.
It really is nothing short of criminal deprivation of civil rights on a grand scale. Would be nice if our Gov't & judicial system went after elected officials who break federal law but I guess its too much to ask for Congressmen/women to actually abide by the oath they swear to uphold the constitution. Might be just me but I view their attempts to subvert our Constitution as treason.
Wow. This is a terrible choice in my opinion if she can truly believe this garbage.
If this is what she truly believes, then I can only conclude that she thought the founding fathers wanted the government to have complete control over the population, because they would be the only ones with the guns. Why would the founders include a right to bear arms on the one hand and then authorize the establishment of an army on the other, if they were not two separate thoughts?
I have to doubt her entire interpretation of the Constitution, if that is what she got out of the Bill of Rights.
The title of this tread is an outright lie (either that or the OP is dumb). She does not believe individual gun ownership is (or should be) "unconstitutional" - in other words illegal. She believes that the 2nd Amendment protects a collective, not and individual right. That's the way the Amendment has been interpreted for all but 1 year of our country's existence.
There's a difference between something being unconstitutional and something not being protected by the constitution.
Well, the second amendment does start with "well regulated militia". Why do you consider it garbage?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
-- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."
-- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789
the first amendment never supported hate speech.
Of course what Rush Limbaugh spews on radio isn't free speech but hate speech and therefore not protected. Time to jail the hate monger.
Q: Why does the Constitution have a Second Amendment?
A: In case the government doesn't obey the first one.
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.
