View Single Post
  #100 (permalink)  
Old 05-13-2008, 07:09 AM
C-D-P C-D-P is offline
Analyst
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,704
usa
C-D-P has much to be proud ofC-D-P has much to be proud ofC-D-P has much to be proud ofC-D-P has much to be proud ofC-D-P has much to be proud ofC-D-P has much to be proud ofC-D-P has much to be proud ofC-D-P has much to be proud ofC-D-P has much to be proud of
Credits: 12,683
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bugalugs View Post
Your Second Ammendment does not say you "have the right to guns period."

It says that the people have a right to keep and bear Arms because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state
It does not say because a well regulated Militia is necessary. The wording of the text is as such.

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.

The commas tell all here. They are clearly talking about two separate issues. To fully understand who they were saying should have arms. You have to look at what the founding fathers said about them. They all agreed that the people need them.

Red is actually right here.

Quote:
It doesn't specify what those arms were. It certainly doesn't say you have any right to own rocket launchers, or nuclear missiles, or automatic or semi-automatic weapons. Or a gun or any sort. Considering when the Bill of Rights were written - they were probably referring to some flintlock muzzle-loading jobbie. And are you a member of any well regulated Militia? That appears to be the main pre-requisite for this right to bear "arms"
As has already been said, it does not specify, so they meant all arms.
__________________
Someone hijacked my sig again.
Reply With Quote