A childishly simplistic statement. What's next? "Knife free zones"? How about "fist free zones"? Each makes as much sense as the other, since there is no way to prevent a criminal from violating the law. The genie is out of the bottle; you can't uninvent the guns, nor prevent violent criminals from getting them. What you advocate for is nothing but a victim-rich free-fire zone for the violent. This is the regular argument of people like you, and it's utter bovine excrement. The "average citizen who carries a handgun" has to pass a qualification course that mandates their ability to shoot accurately at average gunfight distances. Private citizens have a better hit ratio in real-world gunbattles than cops do, which is pretty sad but nonetheless true. If "some armed citizen" had engaged the gunman in Aurora I suspect we'd have had a lot fewer bodybags filled. On the other hand, I grant you this: too few people who do choose to own guns fail in their responsibility to see themselves properly trained, and fail to engage in sufficient practice to be genuinely skilled. It is a failing attributable to today's society's failure to instill a proper sense of self-responsibility in our populace. Oh, please! Spare me the Brady Bunch rhetoric. Gun control advocates have had their heads handed to them again and again in recent years. Polls show support for gun rights and expansion of right to carry laws skyrocketing. Gun control has been proven to be the empty, amoral panacea it is, and the blind adherence to it people like you demonstrate is beyond laughable, and straight into the pathetic.
Stopping a convicted felon from having weapons period is the "well regulated" part, in my opinion. The Constitution has that covered.
I don't need to check. I already know you're talking out your ass on this one. Harris and Klebold, the two responsible for the Columbine shootings, purchased all their weapons illegally. Maybe you should do some actual research before making a complete fool of yourself like that.
Incorrect. It refers to any male of age. At the time of the Constitution, that's what the word meant.
Nope. I suggest reading the DC vs. Heller case and the book "Gun Fight". Congress was to supply the militia, hence the phrase "well regulated". "Well regulated" does not refer to gun control.
I'm sorry, but I believe you are incorrect. The term "well-regulated" was a term in use at the time of the signing of the Constitution. It meant "properly disciplined" and "functioning as expected". It did NOT mean regulated by Congress. Remember, Article 1 Sec. 8 was part of the Constitution itself, while the Second Amendment was just that: an AMENDMENT that mandated that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A "Well-regulated militia" is not some extension of the government, but an entity unto itself entrusted with protecting the "security of a Free State" through ensuring that the people themselves would always be armed and disciplined in readiness to respond to any threat to the Free State... even if that threat should come from within.
In spite of all you insults directed at me because you do not agree with my opinion, You and I will just have to agree to disagree on this thread.
In spite of all you insults directed at me because you do not agree with my opinion, You and I will just have to agree to disagree on this thread.
Your own insulting tone precipitated that which you bemoan so theatrically; so please spare me the histrionics.
The Supreme Court disagrees with a lot of things in the Constitution. In the time of the signing of the Constitution, a well-regulated militia was any person of age. I don't particularly care what the U.S. S.C. says.
If this were true, by the way, there would be an instant outlaw on all arms with the exception of our military.
The definition for militia even says it... "A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency." ~Merriam Webster
Then refer to Article 1 Section 8. The Militia is not quite as disconnected from the government as you think it is.
The militia by any definition used is immaterial to the second amendment other than as a reason behind the second amendment. It clearly states that it is the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. There are no other qualifications or strings attached. Of course, we all know there are always strings and strings aren't necessarily a bad thing. The SCOTUS has clarified that the rights of the people are separate from any militia, AND that the regulations and restrictions on firearms and firearm ownership are consistant with the second amendment.
I am not sure you can use the term "well regulated" in the reason behind the second amendment as a reasoning for regulations. Don't get me wrong. I am not one of those who says everyone, including felons and the mentally deranged, should be able to own a weapon regardless of type and circumstance. Regulations, when done with common sense instead of the agenda of eliminating guns, are necessary for gun ownership. I believe owning a weapon, especially if one is going to carry concealed, has responsibilities tied to it and consequences if those responsibilities aren't met. I believe in education not just for gun owners but for EVERYONE. It use to be marksmanship was taught in schools. I also believe that the key to reducing gun violence lies far more in fixing the social issues surrounding the REASONS behind the violence. You can take away the guns, but if you haven't fixed the underlying reasons why people were being violent with guns, you've only tried to fix a symptom without addressing the disease.
right on!!! I still stand by that old maxim...."A well armed society is a polite society." I have found in the past that the ones who desire gun control through elimination are generally the ones who want to be the rudest, most violent, or biggest thief.......
I reiterate an earlier point: Article 1 Section 8 is part of the original Constitution. The Second Amendment AMENDED the Constitution to protect the right of the people to be armed.
