joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
"The Second Amendment reads, “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.”
Perhaps this is a naive question but does any one know what proportion of current legal gun owners are members of a "well regulated militia"?
how many leftists know what the right of the people shall not be infringed means
Lets start with reality....
...Most gun nuts dont have a clue what the 2nd means. Most gun owners have never stopped to realize what the amendment means in its correct form. All the others? Should really sit down with some of those old books in the thirteen colonizes on each of the amendments. That said...
"The right to bear arms..."
Does not mean an individual right to have a firearm for any purpose and held to no accountability with it. A mistake many gun owners and every gun nut makes. The original meaning had to do with the idea that firearms were to be placed with individual members of a well regulated militia and in good standing with said militia. The belief was that if the firearms were kept in a centralized area, an enemy force (be it brigands, indians, or a foreign power) could simply blow it up and place the citizens of the town/city at their mercy. Decentralizing the force of arms was the central point of this (the 3rd part) of the amendment.
"...shall not be infringed."
This part (the 4th part of the 2nd amendment) has nothing to do with the individuals legal right(s) to one or more firearms. It was the belief that if a government could become tyrannical, could it force all the militias opposing its rule to lay their arms down or be against 'the law of the land'. The answer was 'no'. If a order came from a superior officer or a citizen body (be it a major, selectmen, council, etc.) to 'lay down the arms', the militia would take a democratic vote. If the vote succeeded, the arms would be surrendered.
Neither part of the 2nd amendment, addresses the individual directly. The third part explains the individual's role as part of the whole. The forth part explains the individuals role as part of the well regulated militia on a specific vote.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
at the time everyone was part of the militia
Actually at the time of the Revolutionary War and up to the American Civil War, only those 16-76 years of age, male, and in good health, would be part of the militia. As a member of the militia, one had specific duties and requirements to meet. Granted the rules and regulations (not to mention the penalties) would be extremely basic by our standards of law today; they were enforced.
In every conflict, women have played a role as much as their male counterparts. Were they required to? No. So why did they fight?
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
by Federal law every male between 18 and 50 is part of the militia so while this sounds good it is BS
It wasn't federal law; but state laws. The 2nd amendment doesn't define "A well regulated militia...." in its exact form; that was for the individual states to decide upon (under the 10th amendment). But it did require the states to have a specific structure to those militias. Who regulates the local police department these days? Generally its the state in most cases.
|
RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendmen... - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread