Your responded by my comment about reducing the number of bullets by claiming it can't be done. Be an adult, and stand behind your words or else renounce them.
Gun Control
- Thread starter larryselbows
- Start date
Your responded by my comment about reducing the number of bullets by claiming it can't be done. Be an adult, and stand behind your words or else renounce them.
Since I referred to a very specific class of criminals in my post, I obviously did not mean to imply every criminal.
Owning and carrying a gun doesn't significantly reduce your chances of being raped. Most home invasions occur when the homeowner is absent. So, adding them in the discussion about guns doesn't produce equality.
Specifically, the remarkably high number of gun deaths, compared to other developed nations.
I agree. The civilian militia, organized at a state and local level, lives on today in the National Guard. If you interpret the Second Amendment in this way, we are in complete accord. The right of the people to serve in the National Guard should not be infringed.
I recently read that the idiom "bear arms", pre-Civil War, meant actual military service. It would not have been said that a man our shooting buffalo had borne arms.
The problem with the National Guard is that it has fallen under presidential jurisdiction and can be deployed by the Commander in Chief. It no longer serves the purpose that it once did. It is simply another branch of the federal military.
Then the Second Amendme nt solution would be to restore the National Guard control tothe states, right?
The Supreme Court disagrees with you. They state that we have the right to have and bear arms, unconnected to military service.
Yep. Just a bunch of activist judges perverting the original meaning of the Constitution.
Haha.
The 2nd Amendment makes a statement, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." which essentially expresses why there is a need for the right, which is "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So the right doesn't hinge on being a member of a government-run militia. Not at all. Not even a little bit. Beyond that, the phrase "well regulated" does not mean "subject to strict regulation" it means "well trained and equipped." Professional soldiers at the time were referred to as "regulars" implying that they were not just bands of peasants sent fourth by their masters to fight their enemies, they were fully trained, equipped and disciplined soldiers.
There is no possible way to twist the statement "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." using the first clause to mean that "the people" is limited to members of a government-run militia. Not only that but it is abundantly clear that the 2nd Amendment was intended as a safe-guard against a tyrannical government. How could it possibly protect "the people" if the only people the right applied to were members of a government militia? How?
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, it was. Not really persuasive, but interesting. For example, he quoted two examples of supposed clear references to an individual right that did not strike me that way. Also, his claim of circular logic was unfounded.
I am not saying there is definitive proof for the Linguist position, though. Of course, even if there were, the gunlobby would find some true believers with enough knowledge and skill to make a superficially convincing case.