The 2nd amendment isn’t confusing at all. I don’t think there’s another law in the history of the country that’s as well documented to have meant one thing. People only pretend not to understand, consciously or not, for ulterior ends. Or maybe they’re grossly ignorant and can’t read, aren’t familiar with how constitutional language works, or haven’t bothered to consult the vast literature on the subject.
Here’s a cheat code: whenever the Constitution says “the right of the people,” it means the same thing.
Wow. I’ve never read a poorer interpretation of what the Second Amendment is in my life.
It’s almost if people want to redefine what the Second Amendment is, rather than attempt to actually amend it. To render its contents so different from intent to make it actually meaningless.
The Swiss way is the way to go.
The reality is, our forefathers intended for the militia to be separate from the government. They absolutely, unequivocally, inarguably intended for the militia to be a counter balance to government power in order to prevent the kind of government oppression and abuses that led to the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. A select militia actually promotes oppression and abuse. A well armed loosely organized civilian militia prevents it and that's why liberals oppose the Jeffersonian Republican ideal of the militia.
Volumes of evidence exist which support this reality which forces the leftists to perform all manner of political trickery to obfuscate the issue. They lie, cheat, manipulate and coerce. they argue that the constitution guarantees them the right to slaughter unborn children in their mother's womb but does not guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. They represent everything our forefathers despised and, as such, it is little wonder that they hold our forefathers in such low regard. Their attempt to disarm us belies their cowardice and the recognition that their day of reckoning is coming.
I wonder why nobody has ever thought about calling it The Tea Party Army or something to that effect.
I wonder why people who believe in the Tea Party have not voiced a desire to have state funding, donations, site areas for training and above all a plan of action, to be prepared to at the very least to defend the state capitols from enemies from within.
"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."
Of course, the Left's meme of the week is that the 2nd Amendment's purpose was to simply control slaves, and is therefore moot and obsolete.
The Supreme Court ruled it was an individual right. It is a moot point for what reason the federal government is forbidden from infringing upon the right. It just is. I lacks the delegated authority to regulate or infringe upon the right. It is retained by the People from federal government.
For Obama or the Congress to act otherwise makes us all subjects without the consent of the governed.
PFL
“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
Well, Watson, “keep and bear arms” does NOT mean “store them with the Tyrants”!!!
The second sentence is not true. The phrase a well regulated militia does not qualify/restrict anything. In the parlance of the day it is what is known as a present participle and that does not restrict the meaning of the latter phrase the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Idiotic. The first part of the Amendment (the militia bit) is stating *why* the Amendment is important. It doesn't tell anyone to do anything, it's just stating a fact. It's the second part that actually places a requirement, and it acknowledged "the right of the people," not "the right of the militia" or "the right of the states." The authors of the Bill of Rights clearly knew the difference between "people" and "states" -- they go out of their way to explicitly address both in the Tenth Amendment.
Bruce go back to feeling bad about having a gay name and shut up.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,...
Mr. Watson, please listen carefully. The above sentence is in plain English. It simply means, a well equipped and trained people are necessary to keep your freedom. Nothing more, nothing less.
Bruce, your next class will be a week from today at 0840 hrs. Don't be tardy.
5.56mm
It is a “Bill of Rights” for PEOPLE — not militias, not governments. People.
It really is that simple.
ESAD Libtards!
After reading the article, all I can say is, um, Bruce is kind of a dope.
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.