Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
I guess you've never bothered to study and understand any US history because those 'nutjobs' defined it as exactly that..meaning that everyone and his brother, father, cousins, and sons. It goes back to before the country was even formed.
|
The key phrase here is *well regulated.* Why would they put *well regulated* in there if they really meant *no regulation?*\
Quote:
|
You are sorely mistaken. The intent of the framers in guaranteeing the natural right of all free men to keep and bear arms was so that they COULD be an impromptu standing force which means that they could indeed have uzi's IF the standing armies used them. Since the current standing army does NOT use uzi's, this is irrelevant,
|
What in hell are you talking about? Even if we interpret the second incorrectly and use it to say anyone can have a gun, it doesn't say ANYTHING about "but you can only have whatever the army uses." IF the second really meant anyone can have "arms" then it does not specify what "arms" you can or cannot have. If your interpretation of the 2nd was correct, I should be able to have a sword, an uzi, a rocket launcher, a tank, a trunk monkey. . whatever I want.
Quote:
|
well regulated was not defined as all the people getting out and marching or practicing close combat drills. All it meant was that the people would have their readily maintained arms and know how to use them properly when necessary, being able to gather together and freely elect their officers and when done, go back home to the farm.
|
I'm sorry, but the framers had better grammar skills than that. If that's truly what they meant, then they woudl have said "an IMPROMTU militia being necessary. . . " NOT "well regulated."
Quote:
|
As far as your statement about the 'urban gangs', this is your strawman. The framers wrote the bill of rights for free law abiding citizens, not criminals.
|
OK, remove the gang reference and replace it with "untrained guy who never held a gun before but who thinks it'll keep him safe no matter what." He's still obeying the law, but he's certainly not someone that anyone, including gun advocates, would want posessing a gun.
Quote:
|
Would you not agree that when individual states are in violation of the constitution by denying constitutional rights to its citizens, that it would be the responsibility of the federal government to step in and restore those constitutional rights according to the 14th amendment?
|
Even if we interpret the 2nd incorrectly as you do, it doesn't say anything about the government not being allowed to regulate HOW you keep those arms. It doesn't give you the right to hide your gun when you're walking around. CCW permits are not constitutionally protected no matter how you interpret the 2nd.