Posted on 11/03/2013 8:14:32 AM PST by Red in Blue PA
An alternate valid interpretation of the Second Amendment construes the first clause as meaning “we realize that a country does need a standing army and expect one will be created with strict order and regulation”, and the second clause meaning “the existence of that standing army notwithstanding, all citizens STILL have a right to keep and carry weapons.” This eviscerates the argument “military & police are enough, so it’s reasonable to disarm citizens at large”.
And yes, you CAN with all justification yell “fire” in a crowded theater. You’re free to be prepared to, and welcome to do so if there IS a fire.
Actually, back then “well-regulated” meant “well-functioning,” similar to its application to a watch (in which case a well-regulated watch was one that, because of its design and construction and maintenance operated or functioned properly.
Thus, a well-regulated militia was a well-trained and efficient body of armed citizens.
What is interesting to me is his arguments were simply not very good. That is especially bad since his audience typically would not have cared for his tripe anyway.
It shocked me when I read it. And the more I thought about it, I thought why do they deserve my money?
They don’t.
When free speech is restricted that way, we call it prior restraint. There are some extremely limited situations where prior restraint might apply, but the presumption is against it. We do not, as has been said, muzzle everyone who enters the theater. But if the theater is not on fire, and someone abuses their freedom by shouting “fire,” they will not be able to use freedom of speech as a defense for their irresponsible act. That is exactly how it ought to be with guns. No prior restraint. But come down like a ton of bricks on those who use them to harm the innocent, whether by recklessness or criminality.
I subscribe to ‘Guns’ and enjoy columnist Dan Codrea’s cogent, spirited articles defending the 2nd. Check it out.
“Gun control? I’m gonna have to take the 2nd ....”
I have a Cabela’s T-shirt which says on the back “When it comes to gun rights, I plead the 2nd”
The Founders had just defeated an overbearing military government with the force of private arms and some regular troops, and sought to keep any standing army from becoming too big for freedom to survive.
It is discussed in Federalist 46.
Hence, Without controlling the Army, a free state cannot be secure (in its freedom).
That the Right to keep and bear arms NOT be infringed is necessary to maintain the balance of power between the whole of the people and their military.
Listening to gun talk radio host and callers say we shouldn’t go after this “Dick” and tell him he’s wrong till we find out if he really did write such an editorial rant....... .
I vote with my dollars between elections. Yes some of my cash has to go for utilities, clothing, food from sources that give cash to the clintonista socialists like Obama yet I HAVE to pay taxes and purchase certain goods.
That said I do not have to buy media, reference material or non essitential products from a so called pro 2nd amendment source that parrots a liberal unconstitutional lie on the matter.
That said...if this turns out to be true. I will vote with my dollars and give up all intermedia products as well as guns and ammo magazine.
Metcalf gone Zumbo ..... Damn.
You don't even have to get into that.
This idiot at G&A is assuming that the 2nd Amendment grants a right. It does not. It assumes we already have that right - that it is "God-given". So, the entire preliminary clause has nothing to do with our right to bear arms - it is the reason why government should not infringe on the right.
http://gunsmagazine.com/
http://www.recoilweb.com/
http://www.sofmag.com/
http://www.shootingsportsman.com/
http://home.nra.org/
http://www.saf.org/
gun magazines (the other kind)
http://www.cabelas.com/category/Magazines-Clips/104442480.uts
http://www.brownells.com/magazines/rifle-magazines/index.htm
Yeah, it is incremental. Only the mentally competent? Great idea, but who gets to determine mental competence? A psychologist, or an admitting nurse that makes a notation on a chart and costs you your rights? Dont allow anyone involved in a domestic altercation firearms? Great! But what if you were the victim and fought back? Now you have a police record, no rights. Minimum training stamdards? Great, keep people from shooting bystanders with stray rounds. (Like LEOs do so often) But who gets to set the training standards? Doesnt that discriminate against the economically disadvantaged? Who regulates and taxes the training industry, eventually pricing it out of everyone’s reach?
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.