Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Speaking to the Bill of Rights, specifically the Second Amendment:
Some people prefer to interpret this as meaning that everyone in the US has the right to own a gun. I don't. I see this as a clear indication as to how the founding fathers say the US needs a militia force, like the National Guard, that can be well armed and trained for times of need. I agree that the military should be armed, and that taking those arms is a clear indication that something is wrong, so they should be Constitutionally protected.
|
I can't get around the very circular thinking you have. Please explain your logic with this interpretation considering that the founders and framers, having a very healthy fear of a central government and standing army, would bother to declare the RIGHT for standing armies to keep and bear arms and put that right in the bill of rights, a very specific set of rights that was a concession to the anti-federalists to ensure that those rights could not be infringed upon by the government. Once you can clearly postulate that the Second Amendment only guarantees the right of the military, or national guard, to keep and bear arms I'd request that you show some historical proof that the militia that is referred to in the Second Amendment was clearly NOT supposed to be the citizenry at large, but instead was to ensure that the citizens would not disarm their military. Thanks in advance
__________________
"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."
|