Agnostic.com

12 7

The 2nd Amendment: The right to bear arms. 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.

It seems like anti gun control people have mistaken this constitutional right. Basically it means that we have the right as Americans to have an army. The American army. It doesn't mean you have the right to have 15 semiautomatic rifles for a trip to Walmart.

They also seem to forget the part where it says "WELL REGULATED".

LadyAlyxandrea 8 Feb 28
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

12 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Remember Justice Scalia? He made clear that we have the right to bear arms, but they COULD BE REGULATED! I am for regulating the hell out of them!

0

In the UK the ownership of handguns was banned after the school massacre at Dunblane.

You can still own a rifle or shotgun but subject to very strict conditions.

Now just let that sink in. One school shooting and a gun ban. No one protested, we simply accepted it as the right thing to do.

I used to do a lot of shooting. Small bore rifle target shooting. I gave it up after Dunblane.

Now I do archery instead.

I like archery, and have even made my own long bow. What if someone uses archery to kill people? Will you get rid of your bow?

@Leutrelle "false equivalency" I could say the same thing about pocket knives, but you KNOW there's a big difference!

3

How is the right to bear arms infringed by regulation? I have the right to have a car. I also have the responsibility to maintain it, provide insurance, be licensed as a car driver and pass a competency test. the same should happen with guns.

2

I am a responsible gun owner but agree the line needs to be drawn somewhere.

And no one suggests an all out total gun ban. I just think they protest too much

@LadyAlyxandrea
Doth

0

I agree completely.

1

What part of "well regulated" negates "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms"?

What part? Militia! The militia you ain't!

@AgnoBill I will assume that you mean to say that the 2nd Amendment is not meant as an individual right but somehow a right of the "militia" to possess arms. If that is what you mean, you are wrong on two counts relative to the Constitution. Firstly, only three entities are recognized in the Constitution for having "rights", the Federal Government, the state governments, and the PEOPLE. Nowhere in the Constitution is an entity of the "militia" recognized to have any rights.

Secondly, if you had read and understood the Constitution, you would possibly have noticed that in Article one, Section 8, the Constitution makes it incumbent upon the Federal Government to provide arms to the the militia.

Therefore, inasmuch as Amendments change the Constitution, the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.", for the purposes of arming the militia, the responsibility is shifted to the people themselves (their own guns).

If you wish to discuss/debate this issue further, please no more simple, "bumper sticker" retorts...they make you sound like a simpleton.

1

They also seem to forget the law was written long before semiautomatic rifles back in the days of muskets. I can't walk through town with a machete, but with proper paperwork I can carry America's murder weapon of choice concealed from the view of others.

I would like to point out that the long bow was a more effective close quarter weapon than a musket, just because of rate of fire. The war with the native Americans was not won until the repeating fire arm was developed. I Have a conceal carry permit, and I carry a 45. I don't know if that is America's murder weapon of choice?

@Leutrelle Any hunk of metal that spits out smaller hunks of metal would classify as a gun or the murder weapon utilized by most American's. I would probably only consider a bow more effective in an open field as they're more impacted on traveling through brush and tree limbs. Automatic firearms were developed long before Columbus met the first native in his abject failure to reach China, the first known maker of these killers.

@mt49er For most of History people believed in an equalizer. I still do😉

@Leutrelle
re the penultimate sentence in your post:
hmmm... I dunno about that... do you have proof!

0

The fight over the Second Amendment didn't actually even become an issue until the 70s or 80s. Before that, some people owned guns, but even the NRA wasn't getting super militant over government regulation on guns. It wasn't until the 70s or 80s that they adopted their current militant stance and persecution complex on anti-gun regulation.

1

There are actually militias that some people are members of. Maybe we should require that gun owners join a militia and that they get training as part of that membership. If the militias noticed a problem with a potential gun owner they could report them. I'm sure the NRA would not like this idea at all.

Yeah.... but don't you think "well regulated milita" would be adjudged to mean a government authorized militia?

0

During the Civil War we had two American armies.

I wouldn't consider the south to be American at that time.

0

Good luck with that one.... 🙂

1
Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:30272
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.