Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnyside
Ok that's what I was talking about earlier. Nobody is abusing the amendment. It clearly states the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. You're just arguing the rational. Which, again, even if they said the reason we needed guns was to make swiss cheese, you'd need an amendment to change it.
Frankly I think this is a case where people should just be concise. They should have just left out the militia bit. I don't know, but I'd bet most of them owned guns personally and I am quite confident they wouldn't have approved of having the government disarm everyone.
|
It's true that it does clearly state that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but you are taking it out of context. "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." You just can't leave out part of it and state the second part favorable to you. By "paraphrasing", you are changing the meaning of the text.