Posted on 02/13/2014 12:56:58 PM PST by crazylibertarian
The Second Amendment to The United States Constitution reads thus: “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.” A Jacksonville, Florida progressive has stated that this means the right belongs to the militia, not the people as stated in the second part of the sentence.
This has been an argument from Leftists for decades, including the American Civil Liberties Union, which has never given up its goal of placing this country under an economic dictatorship. ACLU sponsors leftist talk shows but has NEVER give a penny, that I know of, in sponsorship of any libertarian talk show despite their devotion, at least as strong, to The Constitution. You see, true libertarians are proponents of freedom, ACLUers and progressives are proponents of enslavement to the government which they think of as them.
A logically parallel statement to the Second Amendment would be: A good cake being necessary to a wedding celebration, the right to buy and have an oven, shall not be infringed. What is the goal and who would have the right, the people or just the wedding celebrants?
No progressive will address this because no progressive can.
If the liberals felt about gun rights the way they do abortion or obamacare, we’d be required to pay for other people’s guns whenever they wanted one, and we’d have to buy one ourselves or pay a fine (err tax).
Not a single one of the Bill of Rights refers to a group right. They are all rights of the individual.
Everyone is part of the militia whether you join one or not. It has been on the law books for well over two hundred years and was slightly modified to split the difference between the organized militia (National Guard) and the unorganized militia (everyone else).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Even so, if in fact it did mean militia, militia’s are not traditionally the equivalent of the countries army, standing or otherwise.
If true, we could actually form civilian militias and actually push the agenda towards allowing more powerful weapons to actually be a viable militia.
But I like the current interpretation better.
A well regulated Militia Internet, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms Modems, shall not be infringed.
...except that the militia is variantly either the whole of the people; or all male citizens from 17 and 45, or older if they previously served in the military.
Thanks for posting the text.
It’s a asinine argument, if the Second Amendment was solely direct to militias why would it even mention the right of the people to keep and bear arms? It would be the same as me arguing that the First Amendment was directed solely to the press and not ordinary citizens.
thanks for missing my point.
I didn’t miss your point. I missed post#1.
The argument you are making was the main thrust of the Heller decision. The first phrase (why they thought it was a good idea) CANNOT modify the protection laid out in the second phrase. It is simply no logical that it would.
There were several early laws which required just that: that the militia be fully armed, that they be regulated by minimum standards of personally owned firearms and sufficient personal ammunition on hand, and provision for the poor to have arms and ammunition purchased for them.
Progressives and The Second Amendment....
I am sick and tired of this “progressive” BS!!!!!!!!!!
Call ‘em what they are...Socialist liberals....
If liberals regarded the 2nd Amendment with the same regard they have for the 1st Amendment they would demand that everyone be armed … all the time.
The liberals view the ACLU's defense of the 1st Amendment as a good thing and at the same time they view the NRA's defense of the 2nd Amendment as a bad thing.
These people have nothing to promote “progress” in this country...NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!
They have actually done just the opposite....
Maybe we ought to refer to them as “regressives”.....
OK, I think I understand the whole progressive temptation a little better now, because I just flashed on Dianne Feinstein being made to buy me an AR...and the idea felt good...
I support 2A, but I think they could have worded it better.
The commas seem to be placed at random.
HA! Great thought. I hadn’t actually thought about how they’d feel having to do that. But in my scenario they’d enjoy it because they would feel just as strongly about 2A as they do about abortion/obamacare.
Progressivism is based on a circular argument.
Progress is defined as what progressives work for, and progressives as those who work for progress.
Always left out of the discussion is what direction society should move towards for it to be progress.
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.