In this short video the creator not only explains the historical origination of the Second, but goes on to explain how the anti-gunners distort truth by lack of knowledge, omission of truth, outright lies and goalpost moving. It's a good tutorial for anyone whoever has to deal with a mind numbed brainwashed anti-gunner.
Nice devoid of any intellect reply. I honestly though you could do better, but I was so wrong. Oh well.
A professor of American history explains, "Well, we've always had gun laws. There's nothing new about regulating firearms... there were not only gun laws at the time of Second Amendment America carried forward a number of traditions from England, a number of regulations.... So America's always had gun laws. In fact, they got more robust, stronger after the Second Amendment. But it's only within the last 25 to 30 years that we've had this radical gun rights ideology that has essentially hijacked the Second Amendment, weaponized it and turned it into a bumper sticker and a slogan so that you just hear people spout the words 'Second Amendment' and that's supposed to close down discussion. But the Second Amendment doesn't actually bar gun regulation. It actually compels it. We wouldn't have been able to have a militia unless government had passed a variety of laws that armed the militia, kept track of who was in the militia, required people to report to muster so the historical reality and the mythology around the Second Amendment are really quite at odds with one another.... If you're talking about commerce and the selling of guns that is really a federal area of concern.... if you're talking about how guns are used as a matter of day to day reality- things like whether you can carry one, whether or not you need to store it in a particular manner- those traditionally have been things we've left to the states."
The BBC really, that a joke right, your trying to be funny yes? You reply (source), like your tagline is totally false. Good try though, but baseless and not related to any real understanding of this country's history or founding.
The opinion of the professor is factually incorrect. Even if it were not, his presented opinion, and the position supported on the part of yourself, have been rendered completely moot by the united state supreme court in not only the Heller ruling, but also the McDonald and Caetano rulings. No amount of arguments, complaints, or stubborn refusals to accept that such is now the case, is going to change the established facts of the matter. Heller is now the only binding precedent that exists, and it is the only precedent that now matters. Work within its confines, not the confines of what is wanted to exist.
Oh, had they simply had the prescience to write the 2nd Amendment as "Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
For those who need further explanation: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Why? Had they omitted the muddled and confusing opening, and gone straight to the core definition, no one would be able to argue anything but what the statement says. That is that "the people" (us), have a right that the government cannot contain, alter, or remove.
To begin with states do not have Natural freedoms and there is nothing muddled about the wording of the Second once you understand the meaning of the prefatory and operative clauses' of the Second.
Perhaps it’s because I went through the UK education system, but the 2A was never confusing or ‘muddled’ in meaning to me as many here try to convey in the attempt to cast doubt on it’s meaning by antis. But then, there were other words and idioms that were redefined over the years like ‘common sense’, ‘reasonable’, ‘assault whatever’, etc. But then, slavery is freedom.
figures your authority is a foreigner with no legal training or scholarship to his name. A fitting representative of the gun banning movement
You cannot be suggesting that the use of the word "state" in the 2nd amendment connotes an actual state, as in California or New Mexico, can you?
Well, it certainly would have given them considerably less ammunition, so to speak, were the writers to have forgone the inclusion of "Militia".
No, it really doesn't. It is a simple matter-of-fact acknowledgement that "a free State" requires security. It has nothing to do with American "states", either individually or collectively.
