Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
The key phrase here is *well regulated.* Why would they put *well regulated* in there if they really meant *no regulation?*
|
In order for YOU to interpret the constitution correctly, YOU must use the same definitions that THEY used. "WELL REGULATED" meant well prepared. If you wish, I'll be happy to throw up about a dozen different quotations by those very founding fathers in order to show you what they meant by 'well regulated' and 'militia'.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
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.
|
But if you interpret the amendment correctly, going by the definitions and intent by logical reasonings as afforded by the written arguments of the founders, you SHOULD be able to come to the conclusion that the 'militia' and 'arms' meant that, if necessary, the PEOPLE can protect themselves from militaristic oppression like they had experienced in the past at the hands of King George. You again grab at a strawman argument with the tanks and rocket launcher argument. Nobody with common sense is going to logically feel that we should have tanks, nukes, and B2 bombers but anybody with a shred of intelligence SHOULD know that in order to preserve our rights and protect them from a government, we would need weaponry equal to the standing army, i.e. automatic weapons. We, with intelligence, realize that this has to be the case because society would rapidly decay should the criminal element obtain tanks and rocket launchers easily. Please stop trying to use such a ridiculous point as nobody is seriously advocating that people should be able to buy heavy military weaponry at a gun shop.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
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."
|
once again, in order to understand what the framers meant, use their own arguments and definitions of that period, not yours in this day and age.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
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.
|
which is why almost every state that has a concealed license law REQUIRES a training class and background check to obtain one. I'll go one further on you and state that at least half of all licensed carriers are better able to handle a handgun than most cops are simply because the licensed carrier is more likely to be enthusiastic about knowing how to use the gun and will hit the range alot more than most officers who are only required to qualify once a year.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
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.
|
It is YOU that are misinterpreting the 2nd simply by you IGNORING the 'shall not be infringed' part. As far as concealing the weapon not being constitutional, how would you feel about everybody open carrying the weapon? Your answer alone will tell whether or not CCWs are constitutional.