you realize they had other armaments besides flintlocks back then?
/want
See my post above. Do you think the last clause stands on its own?It's right there in the wording that they wanted people to have access to arms because there was no standing army at the time. "A well regulated militia..." Well we have an army now and most of the people who own guns would piss their pants if they actually had to use them to face a well-armed invader. The founding fathers clearly meant guns to defend the country, not the right for pencil-dicks to buy themselves semi-automatic phallic symbols.
It is based upon the philosophical thoughts of Aristotle, Cicero, Machiavelli, and John Locke. I also agree with how it is said and I am definitely not against this right. However, the instances I have seen recently makes me believe in the authenticity of this in the contemporary times.Thanks a lot for proving my point that you're an idiot. Just because you want it to be A does not make it so, when the writings of the founders and current judiciary opinion clearly indicate that it's B.
"Reality is that, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Learn ^^^^^ that lesson well, young man. It will serve you well in life.
Sure they did. There are provisions today for owning them, but it's very expensive as they are highly regulated.Civilians didn't own them though.
I guess it would depend if 'bearing' implies 'operating'. Would firing a shotgun in a city be 'operating' it? Would the fact that it is prohibited to fire it violate the 2nd amendment?Driving on the public roadways is a privilege, true. However, would the exercise of a 2nd Amendment right to operate a tank raise that privilege to a right or would there be a compelling state interest in abridging that right in the interest of road preservation. Much like zoning restrictions must yield to religious expression in some cases.
See my post above. Do you think the last clause stands on its own?
I think that no clause stands on its own and that you can't read only bits and pieces to get an answer you like. Every word needs to be read in its entirely to get the real meaning. What it *might* say about books or how it words something about books is irrelevant because it doesn't discuss books. If the founding fathers meant for everyone to own stockpiles of guns for whatever reason they would not have qualified the wording that way. It would have said "We're Americans dammit and love to shoot stuff, so guns fer everybody, yeehah!!!" They didn't phrase it that way for a reason, the "well regulated militia" part is integral to the meaning. They meant for civilians to own guns to protect the country or even protect their village against invaders since there was no standing army and the borders were not secure.
so says the little known but eminently intellectual 10th member of our Supreme Court. So says he that knows more than 200 years of Supreme Court jurispreudence and the combined writings of our founding fathers.
Do yourself a favor and get the penile lengthening you so desperately need. Buying firepower is not a substitute for what you were not born with. Your guns don't make you a man. The framers didn't toss empty superfluous phrases into the Constitution and Bill of Rights for no reason. "A well regulated militia" is there because that's what they meant. Guns for national defense, a militia. If they didn't mean militia they would not have said militia.
And that should be the mandatory requirement for owning a military rifle. If you want one, you're de facto in the militia. You will be trained in its use and subject to call up in the event of national emergency. See if the rednecks so desperate to own assault rifles are really committed to what the Constitution says. I'm guessing that if you needed to join a militia to be allowed to own an AR-15 then the people most vocal about gun rights would not go near one with a 10 foot pole.
This is how I view it. Equal fire power required to stop government if needed. Pretty sure the revolutionaries are glad they weren't throwing rocks at the British.I'm pretty sure they meant all weapons. I doubt they though about weapons like we have to day being possible. The whole point of the second amendment was to prevent the government from overpowering its citizens. (if citizens can't form their own militia to fight the government, freedom can be taken away if the government becomes corrupt)
Do yourself a favor and get the penile lengthening you so desperately need. Buying firepower is not a substitute for what you were not born with. Your guns don't make you a man. The framers didn't toss empty superfluous phrases into the Constitution and Bill of Rights for no reason. "A well regulated militia" is there because that's what they meant. Guns for national defense, a militia. If they didn't mean militia they would not have said militia.
And that should be the mandatory requirement for owning a military rifle. If you want one, you're de facto in the militia. You will be trained in its use and subject to call up in the event of national emergency. See if the rednecks so desperate to own assault rifles are really committed to what the Constitution says. I'm guessing that if you needed to join a militia to be allowed to own an AR-15 then the people most vocal about gun rights would not go near one with a 10 foot pole.
Why are you differentiating military rifles? How are you differentiating?And that should be the mandatory requirement for owning a military rifle. If you want one, you're de facto in the militia.
You're in the militia anyway according to current legal theory, hence the purported constitutionality of the draft.. If you want one, you're de facto in the militia.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You're in the militia anyway according to current legal theory, hence the purported constitutionality of the draft.
In my reading, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is an explanatory clause while the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is the declaration of the right.
On a side note, I do disagree with the recent court decision claiming that the authors meant persons when they wrote people. The authors tended to be precise in their word choice and persons is used very differently in the Constitution than people is.
It means you can own a gun.
It doesn't mean you can drive around town with a GAU-2B mounted to a SUV.