imperatrixx
Posts: 903
Joined: 3/29/2011 Status: offline
|
-FR- This is the Second Amendment of the US Constitution: "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 actually specifies regulation. And it gives the reason for the right to bear arms as the need for a militia. Now, at the time, they needed that to fight against Native Americans in the West, as well as potential threats by British, Spanish, and French armies against our land...and even to fight slave rebellions. Now...we own the whole country. The "militia" idea makes me think of civilians going to the Mexican border to shoot and patrol. I think that Americans should have the right to keep guns (definitely hunting rifles and shotguns, handguns should be legal but regulated...personally I'd ban most gangsta rappers from owning guns just from their irresponsible gun lyrics) but I don't think that should be based in the Second Amendment because that ties gun ownership to civilian militias and I am not too keen on civilian militias taking the law into their own hands. I wonder if "a well regulated militia" could be compared to something like the National Guard. If so...then wouldn't the modern interpretation be something like "if you want a gun, join the National Guard"?
< Message edited by imperatrixx -- 7/4/2011 1:37:52 PM >
|