If "shall not be infeinged" is not taken literally...

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by TOG 6, Jan 9, 2017.

  1. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ... then what did the people that wrote and ratified the amendment mean when the used the term?
    Did the founding fathers take it to mean the state could lay any restriction on ht e right to keep and bear arms it wanted, so long as a citizen was, eventually, able to buy a gun?
    Does the same argument apply to "abridged"? If not, why not?
     
  2. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Didn't they pass laws right away to restrict gun ownership?
     
  3. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not that I am aware of. Do you have an example?
     
  4. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That was my point. They were willing and able to pass laws to restrict the First Amendment but never chose to do the same for the Second.
     
  5. maat

    maat Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Messages:
    6,911
    Likes Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I thought the Constitution is the law of the land and that gun rights are off limits to both federal and state governments.

    When authorities regulate crowds practicing free speech, they are not regulating speech, they are regulating crowd issues for public safety. Carrying a gun for legal purposes does not include pointing it at people, so we have reasonable regulations, but this does not justify state issue of permits.
     

Share This Page