Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I see nothing in here about non-militia civilians having the right to bear arms. I read this as saying that a well regulated militia has a right to arm itself. I can think of one well regulated militia in the US: the National Guard. I agree that the National Guard has the right to bear arms in order to protect our country. I do not agree that every Tom, Dick, and Harry has the right to walk down the street packing. That's where gun related fatalities come from. That's where involuntary manslaughter comes from. Not only that, but the escalation means that when the populace is armed, the criminal must arm better. Call it mutually assured destruction.
|
Now WHY on earth would the framers of the constitution specifically denote a RIGHT, to an organization that didn't exist at the time of its writing, the RIGHT to bear arms, as if they were afraid we wouldn't arm a military branch? Do you realize how non-sensical that sounds? The PEOPLE are us...you, me, and your neighbor. The PEOPLE are the well-regulated militia. It makes zero sense to interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean that the military had a uninfringable right to be armed when the framers were VERY SPECIFIC about ensuring a military was completely subservient to the people.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
|