Posted on 01/23/2013 1:25:02 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The one thing that President Obama and the National Rifle Association seem to agree on is that the U.S. needs to develop a more effective firearms policy. Over the past month, both sides have offered suggestions: Obama has proposed a four-part plan to ban assault weapons, protect schools, implement background checks, and screen out mentally ill potential gun purchasers. As for the NRA, spokesman Wayne LaPierre proposed the "National Model School Shield Program," a plan to train teachers in the use of firearms and enlist volunteers to patrol school grounds.
Both proposals have severe shortcomings: Obama's assumes the passage of extensive gun-control legislation -- wishful thinking, given Congress' severe disfunction and the lobbying power of the NRA. As for the NRA, its notion of elementary schools being patrolled by armed volunteers and militarized math teachers is harrowing at best.
To develop a third, better alternative, one might consider looking back to the specific wording of the Second Amendment.
Getting Back to Basics
The trouble is, the Second Amendment is notoriously confusing. Stating: "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 amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, but does so with a caveat, qualifying the right by couching it in terms of a military organization.
Today, activists on both sides of the gun divide argue about what the Founding Fathers meant by "well-regulated militias." Gun opponents claim that the Second Amendment's wording referenced a power struggle between state militias and a federal army -- the resolution of which renders much of the amendment moot. Meanwhile, gun proponents argue that "well-regulated" essentially meant "well-armed," suggesting that there should be few limits on gun ownership...
(Excerpt) Read more at dailyfinance.com ...
It is a “Bill of Rights” for PEOPLE — not militias, not governments. People.
It really is that simple.
ESAD Libtards!
See my post #21.
After reading the article, all I can say is, um, Bruce is kind of a dope.
Heck, IMHO, we ought to start drilling kids in elementary school.
Here’s a cheat code: whenever the Constitution says “the right of the people,” it means the same thing.
Exactly.
Funny. The author obviously considers himself to be an intellectual, possessed with great wisdom that must be shared with us who are less fortunate.
But never read or at least does not understand the writings of our founders.
George Mason, co-writer of the 2Nd Amendment, for one.
http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm
Moonbat Logic 101:
Not enforcing unconstitutional laws on gun restrictions put in place by executive order is bad.
Enforcing constitutional laws regarding illegal immigration put in order by the constitution, congress, and upheld in the supreme court is also bad.
Their hypocricy knows no bounds.
No. It isn't. It only gets confusing for anti-gun hacks trying to weasel their way around what it says.
The Tea Party is of the people and doesn’t need outside funding, just like the PTA. the Rotary, the Masons, the Lions, etc. don’t need it. Surely someone inside the Tea Party has land to train on, field manuals from Army surplus stores, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.