A well regulated militia is what is specifically enumerated as necessary to the security of a free State.
The Civil War changed much of what the 2nd means, bringing the more modern interpretation. You had the westward movement of the country and the recently freed slaves, so every white person who could afford a gun wanted one. The activists and the NRA don't want to address that. Also this hyped gun control hysteria only is making gun and ammo makers wealthy. Heck I sold my AR for way more then I paid for it. I am down to three firearms, I think I can hold the bad guys and the government at bay
Only gun lovers seem to have a problem with it since well regulated militias are routinely exempted from State laws regarding gun control.
If you believe certain parts of the constitution are outdated which may be a case that you can get supported then get a constitutional amendment passed. It may take a while but you could always actually get more involved in local elections and actually try to work through the political process we have in place.
Why should any citizen of our republic have any problem with being necessary to the security of a free State (in which they reside)?
Why should anyone believe that gun lovers who are not well regulated would be necessary to the security of a free State? You can't simply ignore the context within which the second clause is framed.
Why do you keep repeating the same line on all gun rights threads? The Bill of Rights pertains to individual rights.
Because, our Second Amendment specifically enumerates not just any Individuals, but a well regulated militia of Individuals as being necessary to the security of a free State.
It could be, but individuals also have the right to keep and bear arms. Do you have a problem with law-abiding citizens, as individuals, defending themselves with firearms?
Only a well regulated militia of Individuals of the People who may keep and bear Arms, is specifically enumerated as necessary to the security of a free State; Individuals of the People already have recourse to State laws regarding acquiring and possessing forms of private property which includes the class called Arms.
Thank you for not wasting the Peoples' tax monies litigating the Second Amendment if you are not connected with militia service.
In my opinion, short barreled Arms may be more necessary and more proper for defense of self and property in urban settings than long barreled Arms. Let's assume that sporting equipment is a form of private property secured by State Constitutions and usually declared, inalienable or indefeasible, with some exceptions for persons specifically unconnected with militia service.
Thanks for your input. Why are we wasting Tax dollars on a War on Crime, and claiming what we really need to do, is reduce social spending, but only for the least wealthy in our republic.
A well regulated militia of Individuals of the People, needs those Arms which may be useful in suppressing insurrections of Persons specifically unconnected with militia service; that may have the effect of infringing on the Individual right to keep and bear Arms for persons specifically unconnected with militia service, but have no effect on acquisition and possession of such forms of private property.
slavery was not prohibited in the original document. Since you want us to practice the "old" ways, that means you're gonna go buy ya some slaves.......
