Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by jwoodie, Feb 27, 2018.
Sure. Go ahead.
The Second Amendment stands as it did in 1791. Not one single word has been changed, even though liberal judges have repeatedly tried to interpret more or less into it, than it stated...
"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."
Many liberal judges have tried to change the meaning of the amendment by assuming that the writers' interpretation of "well regulated Militia" was to mean the military. Their mis-interpretation of the first part was incorrect because "well regulated" during those times did not mean "subject to extensive government regulations." What it referred to was the property of something being in proper working order. Nor was the term "Militia" intended to represent the government's standing army. The Militia was made up of citizens: Farmer, bankers, carpenters, teachers, etc. So basically the Second Amendment was referring to the necessity that the armed citizens having the level of equipment and training necessary to be both an effective addition, or a formidable check upon the national government’s standing army if need be.
They do. The left can't seem to differentiate between legal immigrants who have become American citizens, and illegal immigrants. They truly believe that illegals deserve constitutional rights.
Not sure where you got that. Alex Jones Perhaps?
The Supreme Court already said the right to own guns is not absolute. It's reasonable to limit the use of lots of different guns.
Could you clarify for me? Was it use, or OWNERSHIP? There is a very significant difference. Please cite the actual ruling. I would like to be able to verify with my own eyes. Thanks.
Thanks for catching my mistake. It was ownership.
In Heller, Scalia specifically said that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”
Your analysis seems nonsensical: If "well regulated" means "in proper working order" and "Militia" means "citizens," then does a "well regulated Militia" means citizens in good working order?
Furthermore, "armed citizens having the the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective addition to the national government's standing army" is the very definition of military regulation. (Besides, a standing army is the last thing the Founders wanted the national government to have.)
Your criticism of liberal judges creating new interpretation of plain language is well founded, but your own interpretation does no better.
The flaw in your logic is obvious.
Clearly the founding fathers intended for the 2nd Amendment to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government.
It is intended to serve as a deterrent.
What is it that you believe the 2nd Amendment was intended to do? And what is the basis for your belief?
Separate names with a comma.