2nd Amendment bump.
Lets see. If it said:
“a free and truthful press, being required for a functioning state, the peoples right to speak and publish freely shall not be infringed”.
Even old lib dinosaurs like Laurence Tribe and Alan Dershowitz understand it is an individual right.
Liberals are looking for an emanation of a penumbra.
own all the guns you want - just dont stop paying your property taxes
2nd Amendment bump.
That means that arms can be available in order to form a militia should it be needed. The right to bear arms insures that ability. It has nothing to do with sports. It has to do with domestic security. I've heard the argument that the idea was fine with muskets. But today the enemy would be armed with modern weapons and the people would have muzzle loaders. That wouldn't be a well regulated militia.
In Maryland, under its Constitution, there are 2 militias. The “organized” and the “unorganized” militias. The “organized” are under control of the state government in times of need only. No “standing” militia. The “unorganized” militia is EVERYONE ELSE.
This ruling came from a longtime gun grabber MD.AG Joe Curran.
VERY nice !!!!
Another school of thought is that it was commonly known and accepted that the people already had the RKBA, but 2A was simply written to guarantee those same people that right also extended to forming militias.
I always remember Granny Clampett grabbing her gun and wanting to “call out the state malitia” fondly. She knew what it was all about even if she did have a hair trigger.
Those who are members of the militia are currently defined in Title 10, section 311. All men from 17 to 45, and with prior service to age 65, and women who are members of the National Guard.
A better consitutional definition would be in the Militia act of 1792. That is even broader.
But it is important to note that the founding fathers distinguished between the Militia and the People.
Still, I would like it if the definition of Militia was expanded to include, as a minimum, all married women 17 to 65, or mothers of a minor child. If they are not suitable for deployment to further public safety (offensive or defensive operations, or rescue work, they can at least defend themselves and their families so their husbands/sons can be available for deployment.
Nice work!!!
People need to understand this version of the 2nd Amendment was a rough draft/unratified version. The ratified version has only one comma. If this were understood a lot of confusion would be avoided.
Discussed here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39388c210c1b.htm
Best regards,
Unfortunately, such logic and historical reference is totally irrelevant to the "Brady Bunch" and their various cohorts.
Regards
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
“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.
no matter how people try to mangle this, no matter how they try to say the comma are to allow you to inhale (gasp!), the above statement means...you can own a gun and NO ONE can take that right from you.
people have the right to bear arms. you may not like it. you can cross reference as many statements as you like from the forefathers..the CONSTITUTION SAYS, you have the right to bear arms and IT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
read it and buy a gun, or read it and weep...either way, you have a choice.
oh and by the way, i live in a country where they are banned..and if you think for ONE MINUTE that banning guns will stop gun crime...you have an incredibly childlike and simplistic view of criminality...the only people until recently who were unarmed here were honest citizens...something i would like to change. if someone breaks into my house now...i have no ability to defend my family and even the law provides limited protection for any action i can take. the burgular has more rights! that is the slippery slope you are on, my friend...
bearing arms has a cost, but so does loosing the right to have them. stop trying to paint a gunless nirvana ...it doesnt exist...
The answer is that it wouldn't. I'm sure the founders would fall down laughing at the libs who insist that all guns should be held in some sort of contained facility. Given what the fathers knew about tyranny and how we became independent, I doubt they would endorse some plan to take away the firearms of it's citizens...many of whom used firearms to secure food and for protection. The idea of a central holding tank for the guns of the country's citizens is ludicrous on the surface.
It amazes (amuses?) me when the gun grabbers try to convince us that the government needed an amendment to the constitution to guarantee itself the right to keep and bear arms.