Just WHAT is in the water in Connecticut?
You're right, Ted, it's hard to do this issue justice on twitter, but I commend you for trying. Here's my side of the argument, on why the 2nd Amendment is about collective, not personal defense, and allows the government to reasonably condition firearms ownership. 1/x https://t.co/r3g42QnPGV— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) September 2, 2019
— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) September 2, 20192/x First, you selectively quoted the Amendment. It actually reads: "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." It references militias - not personal defense - for a reason.— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) September 2, 2019
4/x Nowhere in Madison's copious notes from the Constitutional Convention does he mention the 2nd Amendment being about the private right of gun ownership. And the term "bear arms", which today is connected with private gun ownership, back then was connected to militias.— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) September 2, 2019
5/x So I don't think the 2nd Amendment is about protecting the right to defend your personal rights with a gun, but I DO believe that the founders did likely believe in a sort of common law right of gun ownership. That's also pretty clear from the history of the time.— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) September 2, 2019
6/x But they also believed that government should be able to regulate that right. And it wasn't just about denying African-Americans the right to own guns. There were revolutionary era laws to register guns, control gun powder storage, prohibit concealed weapons, etc.— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) September 2, 2019
7/x The founding fathers probably believed in a right for citizens to own guns (though not necessarily for the reasons you articulate). But they also definitely believed in the right of government to restrict the ability to own and operate weapons.— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) September 2, 2019
8/x And that's where we are today. No Democrat is arguing to outlaw private gun ownership. But we do believe, as the founders did, that there should be reasonable limits on gun ownership. Like, some people are too dangerous to own guns, and a few guns are to dangerous to own.— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) September 2, 2019
Nowhere in Madison's copious notes from the Constitutional Convention does he mention the 2nd Amendment being about the private right of gun ownership. And the term "bear arms", which today is connected with private gun ownership, back then was connected to militias.—
LG~~If I remember my history correctly there would be no mention in Madison's notes because the "Bill of Rights" wouldn't be added to the Constitution for another few years.
Duh Murphy, you relying on the stupidity of the masses?
And we did not have a standing Army back then.
The “Army” was the militia, men between the ages of 18-45, who would be called upon to bring their arms and defend the nation if need be.
Chris Murphy is just another example why we have to show people that Democrats are not fit to govern a free people.
A well regulated militia does not mean regulated by the government. The last thing on the founder’s minds was big federal government regulating anything.
Cant wait to see Ted’s response!
Huawei Says To Spend More Than $300 Million A Year In Funding For Universities
https://www.oann.com/huawei-says-to-spend-more-than-300-million-a-year-in-funding-for-universities/
Maybe universities should be barred from accepting foreign contributions like politicians are? They can be as dangerous to our society as some politicians.
7/x The founding fathers probably believed in a right for citizens to own guns (though not necessarily for the reasons you articulate). But they also definitely believed in the right of government to restrict the ability to own and operate weapons.— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) September 2, 2019
Also, first I’ve heard of that ‘restriction’, Chris.
What a dunce.