Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: i_robot73

[[Come now, Bob, the 2nd DOES indeed mention militia,]]

You’re right, i spaced out on my statement-

[[but it is subordinate to the last 1/2 of the text; merely reaffirms the militia IS The People.]]

it does make mention of ‘well regulated’ however- but the second amendment does not grant people inalienable rights- all people are given the right to defend themselves by God- not by order-


105 posted on 04/07/2018 9:27:36 AM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies ]


To: Bob434
it does make mention of ‘well regulated’

This unfortunate wording is what the gun-grabbers focus on intently. To them; the term "regulated" only means 'government regulation'. When asked though; none of them can point to where the framers laid out the specifics of this so-called regulation and by whom the militia would be regulated.

The term "well regulated" in the parlance of the time meant well functioning, coordinated, etc. There was no such concept of government regulation as we know it today. When you think about it; the idea of a 'government regulated' freedom in the Bill of Rights of all places is completely antithetical to the whole purpose of the BOR and the Constitution so the very idea that the founders would have introduced some form of government regulation over scope of the 2nd Amendment is completely contradictory.

107 posted on 04/07/2018 11:53:11 AM PDT by American Infidel (Instead of vilifying success, try to emulate it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

To: Bob434; All

>
it does make mention of ‘well regulated’ however- but the second amendment does not grant people inalienable rights- all people are given the right to defend themselves by God- not by order-
>

I compare it to the Commerce Clause. Both say ‘regulate’, but if the 2nd is ‘shall not be infringed’, those using the same definition in both lose the logical battle (as if there ever WAS one w/ the Left).

Too concur w/ your assessment, but have a hard time noodling how to jive ‘inalienable Rights’ w/ a lawful, Constitutional ‘Amendment process’.

The Founders were great students of History; I cannot fathom that they would *ever* believe govt could be so benevolent/true as to allow the 2nd to be ‘voted out’ of the Bill of Rights.

On the other hand, true that too much has been battled on the INCORRECT front. IMO, much should be done vs. A1S8 (and the CC, as stated above).

The whole PREMISE of our Federalism system is the brevity of govt authority/power


108 posted on 04/08/2018 7:37:35 AM PDT by i_robot73 (One could not count the number of *solutions*, if only govt followed\enforced the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson