The phrase "well regulated" pertains to being adequately armed and skilled in the use of available arms. Being "well regulated" in this context would mean a private citizen being trained for the purpose of killing when necessary.
If you are suggesting that the Fifth Amendment can be used to take away rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment then you are interpreting both Amendments incorrectly.
AMENDMENT V "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." ************************** If you are put on trial, and convicted of Felonies, it is determined that various Rights such as The Right to keep and bear Arms is lost. There is percedent law on that issue, even after prison time and release, the convicted felon is, until relief from disability, unable to legally obtain and possess or borrow or use firearms in any way. There is therefore no, He "paid his debt to society" life as it was before, the conviction.
hmm...let me think..I would ban murder,ADW, armed robbery, home invasions, car jackings, drive by shootings..things like that..I support all those laws
Wel wait a minute. We're not ''a democracy'' I'll borrow a great snip from one of my favorite books on the topic "The American Ideal of 1776 The Twelve Basic American Principles by Hamilton Abert Long, ©1976" A Democracy: The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man. This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. A Republic: A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate. Anyway. I see a lot of people throw terms around like 'our democracy' or 'a democracy' These are weasel words and they make me cringeevery time a readthem. Although we do partake in democracy, we are not ''a democracy'' therefore there is no ''our democracy." Our Republic, on the other hand, is the correct language. Any time anyone hears someone say or write 'our democracy' or that we are 'a democracy' they need to be immediately corrected because it rubs off. That's why they choose that language in the first place.
Well, actually it does wield the power that we think it does. However, the source of that power is not what liberals assume. The source of the power is the people who support it and their passion for gun rights, not the money that they donate to campaigns.
