Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckNaked
Is that what they are saying?
You do realize that there were no "regulated militias" when that statement was made!
How do you know that, that was their interpretation if they all knew there were no "regulated militias"?
Surely you are not suggesting they didn’t know?
The statement means, pretty clearly I might add, that "the people" are their own regulated militia! And as the militia, it is their right to bear arms, and that right "shall not be infringed upon" by you or any pencil necked geek who wants to manipulate the language to suit their own agenda!
We are freer (on paper in most cases) than any other nation in the world, and the only reason we are, and are allowed to appear so, is because of the rights we the people have to carry, own, use, and protect our rights if necessary with, guns!
|
We didn't have a military - so we must have had militias when the amendment was written. Each state had their own. Personally, I have nothing against people owning guns - but there's no reason for people to have semi-automatics, sniper rifles (unless of the hunting variety), or any other high-powered rifle, automatic or not. The problem is that our Democracy does not work because the government is afraid of our guns, they're afraid of our vote. Guns don't help us keep our freedom, voting does.
The language of the second amendment is not as clear as you make it out to be. Moreover, that is complicated by the fact that the context changes over time. What does it mean by the people? Citizens? Non-citizens? Etc. This is for the courts to decide, not you or me. This may be your interpretation, but you offer no facts, no precedents, and no reasonable justification for it.